ArticleScientific reports2020
A simple and effective method to discern the true commercial Chinese cordyceps from counterfeits.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects and safety ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2024Pooled it
- Visualized Nucleic Acid Hybridization Lateral Flow Strip Integrating with Microneedle for the Point-of-Care Authentication ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Systematic screening and structural characterization of dipeptides using offline 2D LC-LTQ-Orbitrap MS: A case study ofJournal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2022Article
- Trends in the Immunomodulatory Effects ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Chinese cordyceps, a complex of the fungus Ophiocordyceps sinensis and its species-specific host insects, is also called "DongChongXiaCao" in Chinese. Habitat degradation in recent decades and excessive harvesting by humans has intensified its scarcity and increased the prices of natural populations. Some counterfeits are traded as natural Chinese cordyceps for profit, causing confusion in the marketplace. To promote the safe use of Chinese cordyceps and related products, a duplex PCR method for specifically identifying raw Chinese cordyceps and its primary products was successfully established. Chinese cordyceps could be precisely identified by detecting an internal transcribed spacer amplicon from O. sinensis and a cytochrome oxidase c subunit 1 amplicon from the host species, at a limit of detection as low as 32 pg. Eleven commercial samples were purchased and successfully tested to further verify that the developed duplex PCR method could be reliably used to identify Chinese cordyceps. It provides a new simple way to discern true commercial Chinese cordyceps from counterfeits in the marketplace. This is an important step toward achieving an authentication method for this Chinese medicine. The methodology and the developmental strategy can be used to authenticate other traditional Chinese medicinal materials.
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.