Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40646165›Full record

ReviewArchives of toxicology2025

Environmental and internal drivers of genotoxic carcinogens accumulation in botanicals and their preparations.

Gerhard Prinsloo, Olusesan Ojo, Ivonne M C M Rietjens

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Gerhard PrinslooDepartment of Agriculture and Animal Health, University of South Africa, Florida, South Africa. prinsg@unisa.ac.za.
Olusesan OjoDepartment of Agriculture and Animal Health, University of South Africa, Florida, South Africa. Ojoolusesan33@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5898-8459
Ivonne M C M RietjensDivision of Toxicology, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of botanicals and herbal products is increasing globally, especially in developed countries, but their active ingredients are often poorly defined and inconsistently regulated. Moreover, the chemical composition of plants is usually influenced by internal factors (such as genetics, phenology, and age) and external influences (such as environmental conditions). These influences can significantly alter chemical profiles, which is critical for plants used in food, cosmetics, and medicine. Growing concern over harmful compounds in these products highlights the variability in their levels. Specifically, some compounds in plants are known to have genotoxic or carcinogenic effects, and their concentrations can vary greatly depending on these factors. This paper reviews how factors like water stress, soil nutrients, geographic location, and plant development affect the presence of hazardous substances in plants. While genetic factors like chemotypes and cultivars are well-studied, less is known about how environmental and developmental conditions affect chemically uniform plants. Overall, the current work emphasizes the unpredictability of these effects and underscores the need for further research to compare the levels of hazardous compounds in plants against established human safety thresholds, to better assess exposure risks in food, cosmetic and herbal products.

Indexed as

CarcinogensMutagensPlant PreparationsAnimalsHumansRisk AssessmentCarcinogensMutagensPlant PreparationsChemotypesCultivation methodsGenotoxic carcinogensHerbal productsMedicinal plantsPhenology

Identifiers

PMID40646165
PMCPMC12454579

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.