Evidence Hub

Integrated Mechanism Study of Rehmanniae Radix–Sophorae Flos for Psoriasis Treatment Based on UPLC-Q-TOF/MS, Network Pharmacology, Mendelian Randomization, and Molecular Docking

Fan X, Wang Y, Zhang R, Wang S, Wang M, Yu J, Yan H, Zuo Y et al.

2026

Abstract

Background: : and Objectives: To elucidate the material basis and molecular mechanisms of the Rehmanniae Radix–Sophorae Flos (RR-SF) herb pair for psoriasis treatment, and to verify causal effects of core targets from a genetic perspective, constructing an integrated “component–target–pathway–causality” evidence chain.

Materials and Methods:: A four-level strategy was employed: (1) UPLC-Q-TOF/MS identified chemical constituents of the RR-SF co-decoction; (2) network pharmacology screened active compounds (OB ≥ 30%, DL ≥ 0.10), predicted targets, constructed drug–compound–target–pathway and PPI networks, and performed GO/KEGG enrichment; (3) drug-target Mendelian randomization (MR) used eQTLs of 7 core targets as exposure and psoriasis GWAS as outcome, with IVW as primary method and MR-Egger, Cochran’s Q, leave-one-out, and Steiger tests for sensitivity analysis; (4) AutoDock Vina molecular docking verified binding between active compounds and core targets.

Results:: 109 constituents were identified, dominated by flavonoids (32), iridoids (26), and phenylethanoid glycosides (12). Network pharmacology yielded 14 active compounds and 159 shared targets, with SRC, MAPK3, RXRA, HSP90AA1, CTNNB1, AKT1, and MAPK1 as core hubs. Key pathways included IL-17, MAPK, Th17 differentiation, VEGF, PI3K-Akt, and NF-κB. MR confirmed causal associations: MAPK1 (OR = 2.58, 95% CI 1.49–4.46, P = 7.5 × 10⁻⁴, risk), HSP90AA1 (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.24–0.74, P = 2.6 × 10⁻³, protective), and SRC (OR =…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a preprint, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free