ReviewPlanta medica2024
Paclitaxel - a Product of Fungal Secondary Metabolism or an Artefact?
Review in Planta medica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anticancer Secondary Metabolites Produced by Fungi: Potential and Representative Compounds.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- IMA fungus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Taxol (common name: paclitaxel) is an extremely important component of drugs for the treatment of various cancers. Thirty years after the discovery of its effectiveness, a metabolic precursor of Taxol (10-deacetylbaccatin III) is still primarily extracted from needles of European yew trees. In order to meet the considerable demand, hopes were pinned on the possibilities of biotechnological production from the very beginning. In 1993, as if by chance, Taxol was supposedly discovered in fungi that grow endobiotically in yew trees. This finding aroused hopes of biotechnological use to produce fungal Taxol in large quantities in fermenters. It never came to that. Instead, a confusing flood of publications emerged that claimed to have detected Taxol in more and more eukaryotic and even prokaryotic species. However, researchers never reproduced these rather puzzling results, and they could certainly not be applied on an industrial scale. This paper will show that some of the misguided approaches were apparently based on a seemingly careless handling of sparse evidence and on at least questionable publications. Apparently, the desired gold rush of commercial exploitation was seductive. Scientific skepticism as an indispensable core of good scientific practice was often neglected, and the peer review process has not exerted its corrective effect. Self-critical reflection and more healthy skepticism could help to reduce the risk of such aberrations in drug development. This article uses this case study as a striking example to show what can be learned from the Taxol case in terms of research ethics and the avoidance of questionable research practices.
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.