Efficacy of Spleen-and-Stomach-Tonifying, Yin-Fire-Purging, and Yang-Raising Decoction Derived from the Trimethylamine N-Oxide Metabolic Pathway of Intestinal Microbiota on Macrovascular Lesions Caused by Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Figures & data

Figure 1 Guinea pig aortic arch was examined using H&E-stained microscope slides in each group. (A) Blank group (400x magnification). (B) Model group (400x magnification). (C) Intervention group (400x magnification). (D) Blank group (20x magnification). (E) Model group (20x magnification). (F) Intervention group (20x magnification).

Figure 2 (A) Number of common and specific OTUs in the intestinal microbiota of Guinea pigs in each group (unit: pcs). (B) Histogram of species relative abundance of the intestinal microbiota of Guinea pigs in each group (phylum level).

Figure 3 (A) Species diversity dilution curve. (B) Species diversity hierarchy clustering curve.

Figure 4 (A) Box plot of between-group differences of observed_species indicator. (B) Box plot of between-group differences of Shannon indicator.

Table 1 Between-Group Difference Analysis Using ANOSIM and MRPP

Between-Group Comparison	Anosim		MRPP
	R-value	P-value	A	Observe Delta	Expect Delta	Significance
Model group and blank group	0.1032	0.077	0.04338	0.4185	0.4375	0.005
Intervention group and blank group	0.2886	0.056	0.04847	0.3823	0.4016	0.008
Intervention group and model group	0.1399	0.021	0.01489	0.4186	0.425	0.029

Notes: The smaller the Observe Delta value, the smaller the difference within the group. The greater the Expect Delta value, the greater the group difference. A value greater than 0 indicates that the difference between groups is larger than the difference within the group, while a value less than 0 indicates that the difference within the group is larger than the difference between groups.

Figure 5 Heatmap figure of species significance differences between groups.

Table 2 Comparison of Four Components of the Blood Lipids Test in the Guinea Pigs of Each Group (, mmol/L)

Group	n/Cases	TC	TG	HDL-C	LDL-C
Blank group	6	9.12±1.71	0.45±0.08	2.05±0.37	2.03±0.58
Model group	7	13.22±2.97^a	0.92±0.29^a	1.06±0.22^a	3.91±1.05^a
Intervention group	9	9.90±3.69^b	0.57±0.15^b	1.53±0.41^a,b	2.77±0.62^a,b

Notes: ^aIndicates that the data of this group were compared with those of the blank group P < 0.05; ^bIndicates that the data of this group were compared to those of the model group P < 0.05.

Table 3 Comparison of Serum TMAO Concentrations in Guinea Pigs in Each Group (, ng/mL)

Group	n/Cases	TMAO
Blank group	6	30.61±5.22
Model group	7	40.17±3.04^a
Intervention group	9	31.68±4.76^b

Notes: ^aIndicates that the data of this group were compared with those of the blank group P < 0.05; ^bIndicates that the data of this group were compared to those of the model group P < 0.05.

Table 4 Comparison of the Oxidative Stress Indicators SOD and MDA in the Guinea Pigs in Each Group ()

Group	n/Cases	SOD (U/mL)	MDA (nmol/mL)
Blank group	6	31.73±2.43	3.63±0.61
Model group	7	18.62±3.98^a	5.82±1.91^a
Intervention group	9	23.20±4.51^a,b	4.17±1.13^b

Notes: ^aIndicates that the data of this group were compared with those of the blank group P < 0.05; ^bIndicates that the data of this group were compared to those of the model group P < 0.05.

Table 5 Comparison of Serum Inflammatory Markers in Guinea Pigs in Each Group

Group	n/Cases	ICAM-1 (ng/mL)	VCAM-1 (ng/mL)	IL-6 (ng/L)	hs-CRP (mg/L)
Blank group	6	1.13±0.18	1.04±0.39	37.19±6.73	5.18±0.49
Model group	7	1.50±0.35^a	1.42±0.21^a	74.26±9.54^a	7.38±0.82^a
Intervention group	9	1.22±0.14^b	1.06±0.10^b	46.36±8.14^a,b	5.84±0.61^a,b

Notes: ^aIndicates that the data of this group were compared with those of the blank group P < 0.05; ^bIndicates that the data of this group were compared to those of the model group P < 0.05.