Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33407662›Full record

ArticlePlant methods2021

Screening natural product extracts for potential enzyme inhibitors: protocols, and the standardisation of the usage of blanks in α-amylase, α-glucosidase and lipase assays.

Chintha Lankatillake, Shiqi Luo, Matthew Flavel, George Binh Lenon, Harsharn Gill, Tien Huynh, Daniel Anthony Dias

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Anti-Hyperglycemic and Antioxidant Effects ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. OptimizingPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Arazá:Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. A comprehensiveFrontiers in pharmacology · 2024
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chintha LankatillakeSchool of Health and Biomedical Sciences, Discipline of Laboratory Medicine, RMIT University, Bundoora, 3083, Australia.
Shiqi LuoSchool of Health and Biomedical Sciences, Discipline of Laboratory Medicine, RMIT University, Bundoora, 3083, Australia.
Matthew FlavelTPM Bioactives Division, The Product Makers Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia.
George Binh LenonSchool of Health and Biomedical Sciences, Discipline of Laboratory Medicine, RMIT University, Bundoora, 3083, Australia.
Harsharn GillSchool of Science, RMIT University, Bundoora, 3083, Australia.
Tien HuynhSchool of Science, RMIT University, Bundoora, 3083, Australia.
Daniel Anthony DiasSchool of Health and Biomedical Sciences, Discipline of Laboratory Medicine, RMIT University, Bundoora, 3083, Australia. daniel.dias@rmit.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0129-3178
RMIT University · AULa Trobe University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnzyme assays have widespread applications in drug discovery from plants to natural products. The appropriate use of blanks in enzyme assays is important for assay baseline-correction, and the correction of false signals associated with background matrix interferences. However, the blank-correction procedures reported in published literature are highly inconsistent. We investigated the influence of using different types of blanks on the final calculated activity/inhibition results for three enzymes of significance in diabetes and obesity; α-glucosidase, α-amylase, and lipase. This is the first study to examine how different blank-correcting methods affect enzyme assay results. Although assays targeting the above enzymes are common in the literature, there is a scarcity of detailed published protocols. Therefore, we have provided comprehensive, step-by-step protocols for α-glucosidase-, α-amylase- and lipase-inhibition assays that can be performed in 96-well format in a simple, fast, and resource-efficient manner with clear instructions for blank-correction and calculation of results.

resultsIn the three assays analysed here, using only a buffer blank underestimated the enzyme inhibitory potential of the test sample. In the absorbance-based α-glucosidase assay, enzyme inhibition was underestimated when a sample blank was omitted for the coloured plant extracts. Similarly, in the fluorescence-based α-amylase and lipase assays, enzyme inhibition was underestimated when a substrate blank was omitted. For all three assays, method six [Raw Data - (Substrate + Sample Blank)] enabled the correction of interferences due to the buffer, sample, and substrate without double-blanking, and eliminated the need to add substrate to each sample blank.

conclusionThe choice of blanks and blank-correction methods contribute to the variability of assay results and the likelihood of underestimating the enzyme inhibitory potential of a test sample. This highlights the importance of standardising the use of blanks and the reporting of blank-correction procedures in published studies in order to ensure the accuracy and reproducibility of results, and avoid overlooked opportunities in drug discovery research due to inadvertent underestimation of enzyme inhibitory potential of test samples resulting from unsuitable blank-correction. Based on our assessments, we recommend method six [RD - (Su + SaB)] as a suitable method for blank-correction of raw data in enzyme assays.

Indexed as

BlanksEnzyme inhibitionLipaseMethodologyNatural productsPlant extractsProtocolStandardisationα-amylaseα-glucosidase

Identifiers

PMID33407662
PMCPMC7789656
OpenAlexW3120064545

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.