Integration of network pharmacology and UHPLC-Q-TOF-MS/MS reveals unique mechanisms in allergic disease management.
Background/Objectives: Allergic diseases (e.g., asthma, chronic urticaria) are increasing globally, but current anti-allergic drugs exhibit limitations in efficacy and safety. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) emphasizes constitutional regulation for allergic diseases management. The allergic constitution prescription (ACP), a TCM formulation, lacks clear mechanistic insights. Methods: This study employs a novel network pharmacology approach integrating ultra-high performance liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-Q-TOF-MS/MS) to identify ACP’s chemical components and compare its mechanisms with anti-allergic drugs. Chemical components of ACP were analyzed via UHPLC-Q-TOF-MS/MS, and allergic disease-related targets were collected from public databases. Anti-allergic drug targets were intersected with ACP-disease targets to identify unique and common pathways. Molecular docking and dynamics simulations assessed binding affinity between key compounds and core targets. Results: We identified 126 compounds in ACP. Compared to anti-allergic drugs, ACP targeted 10 unique and five common key pathways (e.g., MAPK signaling), 10 unique and nine common core targets (e.g., Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF), IL-6), and 14 unique and 15 common key compounds. Simulations confirmed high binding affinity of ACP compounds to core targets. Conclusions: These findings highlight ACP’s potential multi-target mechanisms for allergic diseases treatment, identifying unique and shared pathways, targets, and compounds compared to anti-allergic drugs, offering new insights for further mechanistic studies. However, it is crucial to note that these mechanistic predictions and compound-target interactions are primarily derived from computational analyses, and experimental validation (e.g., in vitro or in vivo assays) is essential to confirm these computational findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: