ArticleBMC plant biology2023
Metabolomics analysis reveals the differences between Abrus cantoniensis Hance and Abrus mollis Hance.
Article in BMC plant biology, 2023. 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.
- Comparative Metabolomics and Transcriptomics Analysis ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Unveiling Adulteration in Herbal Markets: MassARRAY iPLEX Assay for Accurate Identification ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Qiancao (Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Bacteria from nodules ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAbrus cantoniensis Hance. (Ac) and Abrus mollis (Am), two edible and medicinal plants with economic value in southern China, belong to the Abrus genus. Due to its growth characteristics, Am often replaces Ac in folk medicine. However, the latest National Pharmacopeia of China only recommends Ac. The differences in the metabolite composition of the plants are directly related to the differences in their clinical efficacy.
resultsThe difference in metabolites were analyzed using an untargeted metabolomic approach based on ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC‒ESI‒MS/MS). The roots (R), stems (S) and leaves (L) of the two varieties were examined, and 635 metabolites belonging to 8 classes were detected. A comparative study revealed clear variations in the metabolic profiles of the two plants, and the AmR group had more active ingredients (flavonoids and terpenoids) than the AcR group. The metabolites classified as flavonoids and triterpene saponins showed considerable variations among the various samples. Both Ac and Am had unique metabolites. Two metabolites (isovitexin-2''-xyloside and soyasaponin V) specifically belong to Ac, and nine metabolites (vitexin-2"-O-galactoside, ethyl salicylate, 6-acetamidohexanoic acid, rhein-8-O-glucoside, hederagenin-3-O-glucuronide-28-O-glucosyl(1,2)-glucoside, methyl dioxindole-3-acetate, veratric acid, isorhamnetin-3-O-sophoroside-7-O-rhamnoside, and isorhamnetin-3-O-sophoroside) specifically belong to Am.
conclusionsThe metabolite differences between Ac and Am cause the differences in their clinical efficacy. Our findings serve as a foundation for further investigation of biosynthesis pathways and associated bioactivities and provide guidance for the clinical application of traditional Chinese medicine.
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.