Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Identifies the active components of Ainsliaea fragrans that reduce cervicitis inflammation and injury, indicating therapeutic potential.
Background Cervicitis is a common gynecological disorder with high recurrence and poorly understood mechanisms. Ainsliaea fragrans Champ. (AF) is used in traditional medicine for treating cervicitis, yet its active components and mechanism remain unclear. Aim of the Study This study aims to identify the anti-cervicitis active components of AF, and to evaluate its possible mechanism of action. Methods The chemical constituents absorbed into serum were identified using UPLC-Q-Exactive-Orbitrap-MS. Network pharmacology was applied to predict targets and pathways, and a rat cervicitis model was established for pharmacological evaluation, including histopathological examination, inflammatory cytokine assays, and cervical transcriptome sequencing. Key signaling pathways were further validated by western blotting. Results 31 AF-derived components were detected in the serum. AF treatment ameliorated weight loss, reduced the vaginal index, decreased serum levels of IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α, and alleviated histopathological damage in cervicitis rats. Integrated analysis of network pharmacology and transcriptomics suggested the involvement of the AMPK-mTOR-HIF-1α signaling axis. Molecular docking indicated favorable binding affinities between key candidate components (e.g., glycyrrhizin, sanggenone H) and core targets (STAT3, MTOR, HIF-1α, AMPK). Western blot analysis confirmed that AF treatment upregulated p-AMPK expression while downregulating p-mTOR and HIF-1α protein levels. Conclusion The findings suggest that the improvement of cervicitis inflammation and injury by AF is associated with the modulation of the AMPK-mTOR-HIF-1α signaling axis, and this integrated strategy provides a mechanistic basis for the anti-cervicitis effect of AF, supporting its further investigation as a potential therapeutic agent.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: