Effect of oral epidermal growth factor on mucosal healing in rats with duodenal ulcer

Table 1 Body weight of sham operation and duodenal ulcer rats with or without oral EGF before operation and sacrifice

Group	Sham operation		Duodenal ulcer
	-EGF	+EGF	-EGF	+EGF
	Body weight before operation (g)2
Day 5	192.0 ± 3.9	199.8 ± 3.8	200.6 ± 5.0	195.2 ± 5.0
Day 15	192.4 ± 4.8	198.9 ± 4.2	194.9 ± 4.7	195.9 ± 6.0
	Body weight before sacrifice (g)2
Day 5	203.6 ± 4.0*	209.9 ± 3.6*	208.1 ± 4.7*	200.5 ± 4.9
Day 15	271.4 ± 5.5*†	279.8 ± 7.7*†	267.1 ± 7.7*†	278.8 ± 5.3*†

¹Data are mean ± SE (n = 10).

²Values were not significantly different (P > 0.05) among different groups in each row by Fisher’s least significant difference test.

^*Body weight was sig-nificantly different (P < 0.05) from that in the control group (189.0 ± 4.5 g, n = 10) on day 0 by Dunnett’s test. ^†P < 0.05 com-pared with day 5 within the same group by Fisher’s least sig-nificant difference test.

Table 2 EGF and food intake of sham operation and duodenal ulcer rats with or without oral EGF¹

Group	Sham operation		Duodenal ulcer
	-EGF	+EGF	-EGF	+EGF
	EGF intake (μg/kg/day)2
Day 5	-3	59.9 ± 3.8	-	57.8 ± 0.4
Day 15	-	57.3 ± 0.6	-	58.1 ± 0.3
	Food intake before operation (g/day)2
Day 5	24.5 ± 1.1	25.2 ± 0.8	26.5 ± 0.5	25.4 ± 0.9
Day 15	25.1 ± 0.5	25.3 ± 0.4	26.6 ± 0.8	24.8 ± 0.6
	Food intake before sacrifice (g/day)
Day 5	27.9 ± 4.3a	27.4 ± 6.4a	24.2 ± 3.6a	25.6 ± 5.4a
Day 15	27.2 ± 1.8b	26.7 ± 1.0b	25.1 ± 1.4a	25.2 ± 1.8ab

¹Data are mean ± SE (n = 10). Values in a row not sharing a superscript letter were significantly different (P < 0.05) by Fisher’s least significant difference test.

²Values were not sig-nificantly different (P > 0.05) among different groups in each row and column by Fisher’s least significant difference test.

³Data were not measured.

Table 3 Duodenal mucosal DNA, RNA, and protein contents in sham operation and duodenal ulcer rats with or without oral EGF¹

Group	Sham operation		Duodenal ulcer
	-EGF	+EGF	-EGF	+EGF
	Duodenal mucosal DNA (mg/g mucosa)
Day 5	1.06 ± 0.20a	1.51 ± 0.57a	1.31 ± 0.45a	0.70 ± 0.25a
Day 15	2.96 ± 1.27a*†	1.77 ± 0.64a	1.45 ± 0.52a	6.44 ± 0.54b*†
	Duodenal mucosal RNA (mg/g mucosa)
Day 5	4.89 ± 0.42a	7.10 ± 0.20b	4.71 ± 0.35a*	3.32 ± 0.82a*
Day 15	5.24 ± 1.60a	6.00 ± 0.30a	5.38 ± 0.44a	4.79 ± 0.91a
	Duodenal mucosal protein (mg/g mucosa)
Day 5	49.8 ± 2.9a*	20.5 ± 5.4b	22.7 ± 2.8b	25.5 ± 3.3b
Day 15	25.2 ± 2.8a†	19.3 ± 2.7a	24.3 ± 1.6a	26.2 ± 1.3a

¹Data are mean ± SE (n = 6). Values in a row not sharing a su-perscript letter were significantly different (P < 0.05) by Fisher’s least significant difference test. ^*The contents of DNA, RNA, and protein in duodenal mucosa were significantly different (P < 0.05) from those in the control group (0.86 ± 0.06 mg/g, 6.57 ± 0.40 mg/g, 25.1 ± 1.4 mg/g mucosa, n = 6) on day 0 by Dunnett’s test. ^†P < 0.05 compared with day 5 within the same group by Fisher’s least significant difference test.

Table 4 Duodenal mucosal EGF content in sham operation and duodenal ulcer rats with or without oral EGF¹

Group	Sham operation		Duodenal ulcer
	-EGF	+EGF	-EGF	+EGF
	Duodenal mucosal EGF (ng/g mucosa)
Day 5	35.7 ± 12.9ab	76.0 ± 13.7c	28.3 ± 9.2a	68.3 ± 10.9bc
Day 15	84.8 ± 22.8a†	47.5 ± 19.3ab	12.9 ± 3.9b*	28.3 ± 10.5b†

¹Data are mean ± SE (n = 6). Values in a row not sharing a su-perscript letter were significantly different (P < 0.05) by Fisher’s least significant difference test. ^*The content of EGF in duode-nal mucosa was significantly different (P < 0.05) from that in the control group (61.1 ± 5.4 ng/g mucosa, n = 6) on day 0 by Dunnett’s test. ^†P < 0.05 compared with day 5 within the same group by Fisher’s least significant difference test.