ArticleBotanical studies2022
Comparative morpho-anatomical standardization and chemical profiling of root drugs for distinction of fourteen species of family Apocynaceae.
Article in Botanical studies, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Provenance Variation in Morphology, Nutrient Status and Total Phytochemical Contents ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Rapid Authentication of Flowers ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Generalizability of Enzyme-Based Isolation Approach for Extracellular Vesicles From Traditional Medicinal Plants.Journal of extracellular biology · 2025Article
- Machine learning tools for the characterization of bioactive metabolites derived from different parts ofRSC advances · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe root drugs of the family Apocynaceae are medicinally important and used in Indian Systems of Medicine (ISM). There is often a problem of misidentification and adulteration of genuine samples with other samples in the market trade. Keeping in view the adulteration problem of raw drug material, comparative macroscopic and microscopic (qualitative and quantitative) characterisation and chemical analysis (TLC and LC-MS profiling) of a total of 14 economically important root drugs of family Apocynaceae were done for practical and rapid identification. A total of 33 qualitative botanical characteristics of root samples were subjected to Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Cluster analysis to identify taxonomically significant characteristics in the distinction of root drug samples at the species level.
resultsComparative qualitative and quantitative data on morphological, macroscopic, and microscopic characters were generated for the studied 14 species. Despite the similarity in some root characters, a combined study involving the surface, anatomical, and powder features helped distinguish root samples at the species level. The relative relationship between selected species was represented as clustering or grouping in the dendrogram. PCA analysis determined significant characters leading to species grouping and identification. Results showed that clustering of xylem vessels in cross-section, pore size, and distribution in the cut root, the shape of starch grains, the thickness of cork zone were among the most notable characters in species distinction. Chemical profiling revealed unique fingerprints and content of chemical compounds, which were significant in identification of root drug samples.
conclusionsThe comparative botanical standards and chemical profiles developed in the present study can be used as future reference standards for the quick, easy, and correct identification of root drug samples to be used in the herbal drug industry. Further, the identified significant microscopic characters have the potential for taxonomic studies in species delimitation.
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.