Mechanism of action of Orthosiphon stamineus against non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: Insights from systems pharmacology and molecular docking approaches

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is one of the most common complications of a metabolic syndrome caused by excessive accumulation of fat in the liver. Orthosiphon stamineus also known as Orthosiphon aristatus is a medicinal plant with possible potential beneficial effects on various metabolic disorders. This study aims to investigate the in vitro inhibitory effects of O. stamineus on hepatic fat accumulation and to further use the computational systems pharmacology approach to identify the pharmacokinetic properties of the bioactive compounds of O. stamineus and to predict their molecular mechanisms against NAFLD. Methods: The effects of an ethanolic extract of O. stamineus leaves on cytotoxicity, fat accumulation and antioxidant activity were assessed using HepG2 cells. The bioactive compounds of O. stamineus were identified using LC/MS and two bioinformatics databases, namely the Traditional Chinese Medicine Integrated Database (TCMID) and the Bioinformatics Analysis Tool for the Molecular Mechanism of Traditional Chinese Medicine (BATMAN-TCM). Pathway enrichment analysis was performed on the predicted targets of the bioactive compounds to provide a systematic overview of the molecular mechanism of action, while molecular docking was used to validate the predicted targets. Results: A total of 27 bioactive compounds corresponding to 50 potential NAFLD-related targets were identified. O. stamineus exerts its anti-NAFLD effects by modulating a variety of cellular processes, including oxidative stress, mitochondrial β-oxidation, inflammatory signalling pathways, insulin signalling, and fatty acid homeostasis pathways. O. stamineus is significantly targeting many oxidative stress regulators, including JNK, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), NFKB1, PPAR, and AKT1. Molecular docking analysis confirmed the expected high affinity for the potential targets, while the in vitro assay indicates the ability of O. stamineus to inhibit hepatic fat accumulation. Conclusion: Using the computational systems pharmacology approach, the potentially beneficial effect of O. stamineus in NAFLD was indicated through the combination of multiple compounds, multiple targets, and multicellular components.     

Clinical course of masticatory function recovery following arthrocentesis in patients with unilateral mandibular condyle head fracture

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical course of masticatory function recovery following arthrocentesis. Patients with a unilateral condylar head fracture who underwent arthrocentesis for therapeutic reasons were evaluated and compared with patients with a unilateral condylar head fracture who did not undergo arthrocentesis. At 3 months after treatment, the occlusal contact area and maximum bite force in patients with a fracture treated with arthrocentesis were greater than in those who did not receive arthrocentesis at the same time points, although the differences were not significant. Moreover, at 1 and 3 months following arthrocentesis, mean (±SD) occlusal contact area (1 month: 1.99 ± 0.55 mm², p = 0.01; 3 months: 2.90 ± 1.36 mm², p = 0.03) and maximum bite force (1 month: 82.45 ± 15.04 N, p = 0.01; 3 months: 101.11 ± 14.53 N, p = 0.01) on the fractured side in patients who underwent that treatment were significantly reduced when compared with those on the non-fractured side. The authors conclude that if the priority is to avoid open reduction and internal fixation, then the arthrocentesis approach might be a less invasive alternative, albeit with the price of a prolonged healing interval.     

中医舌诊术语英译国际标准探究＊

本文通过对《中医基本名词术语中英对照国际标准》和《WHO西太平洋地区传统医学名词术语国际标准》舌诊术语进行比较，分析两部标准中舌诊术语英译的优缺点，提出更适宜优先选择作为中医舌诊术语英译标准的方案，以期为中医名词术语标准化工作提供参考。     

Le traumatisme psychique constitue une blessure du langage par atteinte des réseaux de significations

ObjectivesTrauma appears within the discourse of mentally injured people, materializing what we have recently defined as “post traumatic psycholinguistic syndrome” (SPLIT). Translating unspeakability, revival, and dissociation, this clinical entity associates three significant disturbances : traumatic anomia (missing words, reduction of the elocutionary flow, deictic gestures, etc.); linguistic repetitions (of words and phrases, verbal intrusions, echophrasias, etc.); and phrasal and discursive disorganization (incomplete sentences, tense discordance, dysfluence, lack of logical connectors, etc.). What are the causes of these semiological and psycholinguistic expressions? What are their psychological and/or neuropsychological processes? It is time to come up with a new concept intended to go beyond the previous models in order to better identify people suffering from post-traumatic mental disorders, to better organize and evaluate psychotherapeutic care, and also to help practitioners collaborate more effectively on these first two goals. But how to evoke, affirm, or speak out about the consequences of unspeakability? Nothing is more apparently contradictory than wanting to define the language void. How to account for the fractures of psychic trauma in discourse? Nothing is more uncertain than to try to organize the upheavals, the disorders caused by dissociation in language. Finally, how to specify the reiteration of the trauma using words and sentences without this modeling being dissociative or repetitive? Today, thanks to a psycholinguistic reading, essential dimensions of post-traumatic suffering, hitherto hidden, can be clarified. Why exactly does an event cause trauma in the life of a subject at a given moment in her/his existence? Why is a latency phase structured between the traumatic event and the return of reviviscences under the influence of a re-triggering factor? How to differentiate the notion of dissociation as a normal phenomenon from the so-called traumatic dissociation? How to explain the multiple clinical forms of post-traumatic psychological disorders?MethodsFrom Pierre's clinical history, we chronologically detail the structuring and the consequences of the signified reflection that are constitutive of the psychic trauma: the psycholinguistic tools here help to formulate a new etiopathogenic conception of trauma and its psychological consequences. Then, thanks to Jean's testimony, taking up the retrospective meaning of the clinical analysis from chronic repetition syndrome, we discover the phases of tension regarding signified knowledge, up to the network prior to the traumatic confrontation. Finally, illustrated by Karima's disorder, beyond depersonalization, we explain that the analysis of the disturbances of a singular signified network, and also of an attack on its familial and societal bases, testifies to individual and collective subjectivities.ResultsComing from the real world, and therefore also from the body, the stimuli made up of signals picked up by our senses combine to compose an event that can be objectified by its temporal, spatial, biological, and physico-chemical coordinates. These elements combine into a unit, which is then interpreted by the mind, which attributes meaning to this event, which has become subjective reality. But when the subject is not sufficiently prepared to be confronted with this meaning that appears to be in extreme contradiction with her/his previous cardinal networks of significations, it makes “too much sense:” this irreconcilable hyper-signified (that we call the traumatic signified) results in post-traumatic dissociation. In other words, it is an impossibility of concordance of a signified with certain systems of prior significations that constitutes the pathogenesis of the trauma; and a situation runs a greater risk of being traumatic when it contradicts, or, moreso, endangers some or all of the subject's cardinal meanings. This unbearable signified reflexively blocks the capacities of significations immediately pre- and post-trauma, then dissociates the psychic functions to varying degrees and intensities. The traumatic signified, rejected, becomes unattainable: the stimuli that led to its formation find themselves confined to the state of reviviscences, each replication of which attempts to cross the barrier of inconceivability. Limiting sensory compounds to their raw states without the possibility of representational integration, associative pathways remain blocked. The signifier is referred to a hypo-signifier confined to the infra-linguistic by its confusion with the referent, the “objective and material” components of the traumatic event. Dissociation is therefore only a symptomatic reaction, secondary to the trauma, which it reinforces once again by limiting any possibility of representing the trauma. This dissociation does not involve forgetting the traumatic signified but “protects” the adjacent networks of meanings from it as much as it “keeps” this hypersignified intact, therefore ultimately “protecting” it as well. The traumatic signified persists somewhere, and even ends up being found everywhere: when the networks of meanings turn out to be globally disturbed, the tightest links remain those of the traumatic hypersignified that ultimately governs all the networks of meanings.DiscussionOur insufficient knowledge prevents us from precisely qualifying the architecture of the signified idiosyncratic networks and their evolutionary capacities; we cannot predict, beforehand, the reaction of an individual confronted with a potentially psychotraumatic situation. For most clinical situations, we affirm that the psychological trauma occurs in a psychically healthy subject, that is, not suffering from any psychiatric illness or any obvious psychopathological conflict. Psychotherapy will make it possible to discover the signified, sometimes ancient, origins of a trauma occurring in a singular subject. How was this subjectivity constructed? Beyond individual subjectivity, the intensity of certain confrontations such as serious attacks or macrosocial catastrophes such as genocide, would seem to lead to psychological wounds in any individual, even at the scale of a population. While, throughout existence, each subject produces a system of significations in connection with a unique psychic construction, the latter persists – resulting from, and often remaining overseen by, the community essence of a base of signifying networks, which we call “societal subjectivity.” Here, the psychological trauma can correspond to an individual and “common” injury as a failure of a sharing, or of ancestral beliefs anchored in the collective memory, defining the culture. By the collapse of acquired certainties, the cognitive patterns transmitted by education, language, and everything that establishes one's belonging to a society, trauma shakes the networks of individual and group meanings. Horror has a higher traumatogenic risk, because it defeats the fundamentals of humankind, the foundations of a signified network common to a culture, or even to all cultures, to the human condition. This is the case with murder, rape, torture, wars, genocides. Testifying to an instinct for survival stemming from the biological foundations of every living being, the impossibility of “living death” appears to be anchored in our networks of meanings and is manifested by indescribability, traumatic as such: being deserted by the language collides with the condition of speaking. And yet, it remains possible to say something about it... As a path of progressive desocialization, the occasional loss of the community of language, followed by its lasting traumatic ravages, can be appeased by the reestablishment of a speech link, either within the mind of the subject alone, or promoted by the exchange with others, in a psychotherapeutic setting, for example.ConclusionWhere theoretical discourses have sometimes proved divisive, going beyond the symptoms of indescribability and dissociation, psychodynamic practice today offers to unite. Thanks to psycholinguistic listening, phenomena that have never been explained take on meaning: the singularity of traumatic perception, the chronology of disorders including the latency phase, factors that trigger reviviscences, and the diversity of chronic clinical forms. All these post-traumatic symptoms are consequential to a linguistic wound, a difficulty in accessing meaning, the undermining of two dimensions characterizing and constructing the human being. As much as it integrates extralinguistic determinants, if the traumatic signified is undoubtedly not only speech, language appears the optimal way to identify it as such, while in the same movement appeasing it. The traumatic hypersignified is discovered through clinical analysis and psychotherapy, through deferred action, through the attribution of meaning, through the retrospective reconstruction of an unstable “real,” through a changing narration eternally distancing itself from reviviscences. But what precisely are the mechanisms of effective therapies ? What are the intersubjective links called for in the discussion between patient and practitioner? Could the operations that we call “psychotherapy” be made up of mobilizations of the networks of meanings by speech acts?