Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30290800›Full record

ArticleBMC complementary and alternative medicine2018

Comparative cardio and developmental toxicity induced by the popular medicinal extract of Sutherlandia frutescens (L.) R.Br. detected using a zebrafish Tuebingen embryo model.

Longsheng Chen, Minjie Xu, Zhunan Gong, Samkele Zonyane, Shuwen Xu, Nokwanda P Makunga

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Toxicity Assessment of Herbal Medicine Using Zebrafish Embryos: A Systematic Review.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2019
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Longsheng ChenAnhui Academy of Applied Technology, Suixi Road 312, 230031, Hefei, Anhui, People's Republic of China.
Minjie XuCenter for New Drug Research and Development, College of Life Science, Nanjing Normal University, No 1 Wenyuan Road, Nanjing, 210046, China.
Zhunan GongCenter for New Drug Research and Development, College of Life Science, Nanjing Normal University, No 1 Wenyuan Road, Nanjing, 210046, China.
Samkele ZonyaneDepartment of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7600, South Africa.
Shuwen XuAnhui Academy of Applied Technology, Suixi Road 312, 230031, Hefei, Anhui, People's Republic of China. shuwen_xu@sina.com.
Nokwanda P MakungaDepartment of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7600, South Africa. makunga@sun.ac.za.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1507-251X
Nanjing Normal University · CNStellenbosch University · ZAAnhui Academy of Agricultural Sciences · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China CS08-L08National Research Foundation 95442Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province 1403062019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSutherlandia frutescens is one of the most promising commercialized, indigenous and medicinal plants of South Africa that is used as an immune-booster, and a traditional treatment for cancer. However, few studies report on its toxicology and dosage in vivo. There is still room to better understand its cytotoxicity effects in animal systems.

methodsWe prepared two extracts, one with 80% (v/v) ethanol, and the other, with water. Both were studied to determine the maximum tolerable concentration when extracts were applied at 0 to 200 μg/ml to a Tuebingen zebrafish embryo line. The development of zebrafish embryos after 24 h post fertilization (hpf) was studied. A concentration range of 5 μg/ml to 50 μg/ml was then chosen to monitor the ontological development of cultured embryos. A liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method was used to study the differences of the two experimental extracts. Chemical variation between the extracts was illustrated using chemometrics.

resultsBoth extracts led to bleeding and pericardial cyst formation when applied at high concentrations to the zebrafish embryo culture. Chronic teratogenic toxicities, leading to pericardial edema, yolk sac swelling, and other abnormal developmental characteristics, were detected. The aqueous extracts of S. frutescens were less toxic to the larvae than the ethanol extracts, validating preference for aqueous preparations when used in traditional medicine. Chemical differences between the water extracts and alcoholic extracts were analysed using LC-MS/MS. A supervised metabolomics approach, targeting the sutherlandiosides and sutherlandins using orthogonal partial least squares-discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA), illustrated that sutherlandiosides were the main chemical features that can be used to distinguish between the two extracts, despite the extracts being highly similar in their chemical constituents.

conclusionThe water extract caused less cytotoxic and abnormal developmental effects compared to the ethanolic extract, and, this is likely due to differences in concentrations of extracted chemicals rather than the chemical profile per se. This study provides more evidence of cytotoxicity effects linked to S. frutescens using the zebrafish embryo bioassay as a study tool.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiological AssayFabaceaeHeartLarvaModels, AnimalPlant ExtractsPlants, MedicinalSouth AfricaZebrafishPlant ExtractsAqueous and ethanol extractCardiotoxicityCycloartane glycosidesCytotoxicityIn vivo modelLessertiaMedicinal plantsPlant metabolomicsTeratogenicityTerpenoids

Identifiers

PMID30290800
PMCPMC6173916
OpenAlexW2895132185

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.