ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Pharmacol.

Sec. Ethnopharmacology

Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1590929

This article is part of the Research TopicEvaluating Toxicological Risks of Traditional Medicines in Modern HealthcareView all 5 articles

Integrating Drosophila and Vibrio fischeri models for toxicity evaluation: uncovering detoxification trends in Psoralea Fructus-TCM formulations

Provisionally accepted
Cheng  ZhangCheng Zhang1Yina  LiYina Li2Fangyang  LiFangyang Li1Wanyun  DangWanyun Dang1Zhuo  ShiZhuo Shi3Chunqi  YangChunqi Yang4Chengrong  XiaoChengrong Xiao3Xianglin  TangXianglin Tang3Yuguang  WangYuguang Wang3*Yue  GaoYue Gao3*
  • 1Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou, China
  • 2Hebei University, Baoding, Hebei Province, China
  • 3Beijing Institute of Radiation Medicine, Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS), Beijing, Beijing, China
  • 4Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, Beijing Municipality, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

The toxicity of herbal medicine combinations is critical to the clinical safety of traditional Chinese medicine(TCM). Current assessment methods are often inefficient and costly, creating an urgent need for new strategies to evaluate herbal medicine toxicity. We conducted research based on the commonly used TCM, Psoraleae Fructus(PF), and its formulations, Er Shen Pills(ESP) and Si Shen Pills(SSP). Methods: We conducted a series of analyses on Drosophila, including survival analysis, enzyme assays, and quantitative PCR(qPCR) tests, to evaluate the effects of various TCM combinations on fruit fly health and viability. Transcriptome sequencing was utilized to investigate the detoxifying mechanisms of these combinations. Additionally, experiments with Vibrio fischeri assessed toxicity changes by calculating the luminescence inhibition rate. An innovative similarity model was developed to identify toxic components within the TCM formulations. Finally, molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulations explored the mechanisms of action of these toxic components on Vibrio fischeri, providing a comprehensive understanding at the molecular level. Results: In Drosophila experiments, ESP and SSP groups showed longer survival times, with male flies being more sensitive, making them more suitable for toxicity studies. Enzyme assays indicated a decreasing toxicity trend for ESP and SSP compared to PF, with significant changes observed in female flies. The qPCR analysis revealed that the upregulation of cpr and cyp6a8, along with the downregulation of keap1, hsp22, hsp68, gstD6, and hsp83, can assess the toxicity changes of PF, ESP, and SSP. The primary detoxification pathway involves the metabolism of xenobiotics by cytochrome P450. In the Vibrio fischeri assay, the IC50(50% inhibition) value of ESP was the highest, indicating reduced toxicity compared to PF. Screening for toxic components revealed that PF had 4, ESP had 16, and SSP had 22 components, primarily acting on LuxD, LuxE, and LuxG enzymes. Conclusions: A method for detecting the toxicity variation patterns of PF, ESP, and SSP can be established using Drosophila and Vibrio fischeri, and the mechanisms of toxic effects can be explored respectively through transcriptomics and virtual screening techniques.

Keywords: Psoraleae Fructus, Detoxification in combination with TCM, Toxicity detecting, Toxic components screening, Drosophila melanogaster, Vibrio fischeri

Received: 10 Mar 2025; Accepted: 23 May 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Zhang, Li, Li, Dang, Shi, Yang, Xiao, Tang, Wang and Gao. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence:
Yuguang Wang, Beijing Institute of Radiation Medicine, Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS), Beijing, Beijing, China
Yue Gao, Beijing Institute of Radiation Medicine, Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS), Beijing, Beijing, China

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.