ReviewJournal of pharmacopuncture2017
A Review on Venom Enzymes Neutralizing Ability of Secondary Metabolites from Medicinal Plants.
Review in Journal of pharmacopuncture, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- A review and in silico screening of plant-derived snake venom/toxin inhibitors: ADMET, drug-likeness, and medicinal chemistry profiling.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Exploiting exopolysaccharides from microalgae to block the toxic in vitro effects of Bothrops sp. venom.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Molecular docking analysis of bioactive molecules from herbs with snake venom phospholipase A2.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Unraveling snake venom phospholipase APharmacological reports : PR · 2023Review
- In Vitro Anti-Venom Potentials of Aqueous Extract and Oils ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles using Indian male fern (Toxicology research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMedicinal plants are vital sources of bioactive compounds that are useful for the treatment of patients with snake bites or are indirectly applicable for boosting the effects of conventional serum therapy. These plants are being used traditionally by local healers and tribes for the treatment of patients with snake bites and therefore can be used as an alternative against snake envenomation. Scientifically, using the secondary metabolites of plants to neutralize venom enzymes has an extra benefit of being based on traditional knowledge; also, the use of such metabolites for the treatment of patients with snake bites is cheaper and the treatment can be started sooner.
methodsAll the available information on various secondary metabolites exhibiting venom neutralizing ability were collected via electronic search (using Google books, Pubmed, SciFinder, Scirus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science) and articles of peer-reviewed journals.
resultsRecent interest in different plant has focused on isolating and identifying of different phytoconstituents that exhibit Phospholipase A2 activity and other venom enzyme neutralizing ability. In this support convincing evidence in experimental animal models are available.
conclusionSecondary metabolites are naturally present, have no side effect, are stable for a long time, can be easily stored, and can neutralize a wide range of snake enzymes, such as phospholipase A2, hyaluronidase, protease, L-amino acid oxidase, 5'nucleotidase, etc. The current review presents a compilation of important plant secondary metabolites that are effective against snake venom due to enzyme neutralization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.