Background: Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is distinguished by Syndrome differentiation, which prescribes various formulae for different Syndromes of same disease. This study aims to investigate the underlying mechanism.Methods: Using a strategy which integrated proteomics, metabolomics study for clinic samples and network pharmacology for six classic TCM formulae, we systemically explored the biological basis of TCM Syndrome differentiation for two typical Syndromes of CHD: Cold Congealing and Qi Stagnation (CCQS), and Qi Stagnation and Blood Stasis (QSBS).Results: Our study revealed that CHD patients with CCQS Syndrome were characterized with alteration in pantothenate and CoA biosynthesis, while more extensively altered pathways including D-glutamine and D-glutamate metabolism; alanine, aspartate and glutamate metabolism, and glyoxylate and dicarboxylate metabolism, were present in QSBS patients. Furthermore, our results suggested that the down-expressed PON1 and ADIPOQ might be potential biomarkers for CCQS Syndrome, while the down-expressed APOE and APOA1 for QSBS Syndrome in CHD patients. In addition, network pharmacology and integrated analysis indicated possible comorbidity differences between the two Syndromes, that is, CCQS or QSBS Syndrome was strongly linked to diabetes or ischemic stroke, respectively, which is consistent with the complication disparity between the enrolled patients with two different Syndromes. These results confirmed our assumption that the molecules and biological processes regulated by the Syndrome-specific formulae could be associated with dysfunctional objects caused by the Syndrome of the disease.Conclusion: This study provided evidence-based strategy for exploring the biological basis of Syndrome differentiation in TCM, which sheds light on the translation of TCM theory in the practice of precision medicine.

Gut dysbiosis is heavily involved in the development of various human diseases. There are thousands of publications per year for investigating the role of gut microbiota in diseases. However, emerging evidence has indicated the frequent data inconsistency between different studies, which is largely overlooked. There are many factors that can cause data variation and inconsistency during the process of microbiota study, in particular, sample storage conditions and sequencing process. Here, we systemically evaluated the impacts of six fecal sample storage conditions (three non-commercial storage protocols, −80°C, −80°C with 70% ethanol (ET_−80°C), 4°C with 70% ethanol (ET_4°C), and three commercial storage reagents, OMNIgeneGUT OMR-200 (GT) and MGIEasy (MGIE) at room temperature, and Longsee at 4°C (LS) on gut microbiome profile based on 16S rRNA gene sequencing. In addition, we also investigated the impacts of storage periods (1 and 2 weeks, or 6 months) and sequencing platform on microbiome profile. The efficacy of storage conditions was evaluated by DNA yield and quality, α and β diversity, relative abundance of the dominant and functional bacteria associated with short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) production, and BAs metabolism. Our current study suggested that −80°C was acceptable for fecal sample storage, and the addition of 70% ethanol had some benefits in maintaining the microbial community structure. Meanwhile, we found that samples in ET_4°C and GT reagents were comparable, both of them introduced some biases in α or β diversity, and the relative abundance of functional bacteria. Samples stored in MGIE reagent resulted in the least variation, whereas the most obvious variations were introduced by LS reagents. In addition, our results indicated that variations caused by storage condition were larger than that of storage time and sequencing platform. Collectively, our study provided a multi-dimensional evaluation on the impacts of storage conditions, storage time periods, and sequencing platform on gut microbial profile.