中文摘要：

背景中药雷公藤与金钱草配伍具有中医药理论依据、应用及现代研究基础,但迄今为止二者配伍在抗食管癌作用方面的研究鲜有报道。目的考察雷公藤与金钱草配伍抗食管癌增效作用的最佳质量配比及其剂量效应关系。方法 2013年12月选取人食管癌Eca9706细胞,分为对照组、雷公藤组、金钱草组、1∶4组、1∶2组、1∶1组、2∶1组、4∶1组,分别提取水提取物和醇提取物,采用MTT法测量各组人食管癌Eca9706细胞增殖抑制率,选取雷公藤与金钱草配伍抗食管癌增效作用的最佳质量配比,进一步分为对照组、5氟尿嘧啶（5-Fu）组、不同浓度醇提取物组（50、100、200、300、400μg/ml组）,测量人食管癌Eca9706细胞增殖抑制率。结果与对照组比较,雷公藤组、金钱草组、1∶4组、1∶2组、1∶1组、2∶1组、4∶1组水提取物人食管癌Eca9706细胞增殖抑制率升高（P〈0.05）;与雷公藤组比较,金钱草组、1∶4组、1∶2组、1∶1组、2∶1组、4∶1组水提取物人Eca9706细胞增殖抑制率升高（P〈0.05）;金钱草组、1∶4组、1∶2组、1∶1组、2∶1组、4∶1组水提取物人Eca9706细胞增殖抑制率比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。与对照组比较,雷公藤组、金钱草组、1∶4组、1∶2组、1∶1组、2∶1组、4∶1组醇提取物人食管癌Eca9706细胞增殖抑制率升高（P〈0.05）;与雷公藤组比较,金钱草组、1∶4组、1∶2组醇提取物人食管癌Eca9706细胞增殖抑制率降低,2∶1组、4∶1组醇提取物人食管癌Eca9706细胞增殖抑制率升高（P〈0.05）;与金钱草组比较,1∶1组、2∶1组、4∶1组醇提物人食管癌Eca9706细胞增殖抑制率升高（P〈0.05）;与2∶1组比较,4∶1组醇提取物人食管癌Eca9706细胞增殖抑制率降低（P〈0.05）。雷公藤与金钱草配伍抗食管癌增效作用的最佳质量配比为2∶1。与对照组比较,5-Fu组、50μg/ml组、100μg/ml组、200μg/ml组、3

英文摘要：

Background Tripterygium wilfordii（ LGT） /Lysimachia Christina（ JQC） compatibility has bases in the theory of traditional Chinese medicine（ TCM）,clinical application and modern research. However,until now,research on their anti- esophageal cancer efficiency has been rarely reported. Objective To investigate the of optimal component ratio and dose-response relationship of LGT combined with JQC in inhibiting esophageal cells. Methods In December 2013,human Eca9706 esophageal cancer cells were selected and were divided into eight groups including control,LGT,JQC,1 ∶ 4,1∶ 2,1∶ 1,2∶ 1and 4∶ 1 groups,and the water extracts and ethanol extracts were prepared. MTT assay was used to determine the inhibition rate of cell proliferation, and thus the optimal component ratio of LGT combined with JQC in inhibiting Eca9706 cells was determined. The group with the optimal ratio was further divided into control group,5- Fu group and groups with different concentrations of ethanol extracts（ 50,100,200,300 and 400 μg / ml group）. Results Compared with control group,LGT group,JQC group,1∶ 4 group,1∶ 2 group,1∶ 1 group,2∶ 1 group and 4∶ 1 group were higher in the Eca9706 cell inhibition rate of water extract（ P〈0. 05）; compared with LGT group,JQC group,1∶ 4 group,1∶ 2 group,1∶ 1 group,2∶ 1 group and 4 ∶ 1group were higher in the Eca9706 cell inhibition rate of water extract（ P〈0. 05）; JQC group,1 ∶ 4 group,1∶ 2 group,1∶ 1group,2∶ 1 group and 4∶ 1 group were not significantly different in Eca9706 cell inhibition rate of water extract（ P〈0. 05）.Compared with control group,LGT group,JQC group,1 ∶ 4 group,1∶ 2 group,1∶ 1 group,2∶ 1 group and 4 ∶ 1 group were higher in the Eca9706 cell inhibition rate of ethanol extract（ P〈0. 05）; compared with LGT group,JQC group,1∶ 4 group and1∶ 2 group were lower in Eca9706 cell inhibition rate of ethanol extract（ P〈0. 05）,and 2∶ 1 group and 4∶ 1 group were higher in the Eca9706 cell inhibition rate