4.7 Article

Toona sinensis Roem tender leaf extract inhibits SARS coronavirus replication

Journal

JOURNAL OF ETHNOPHARMACOLOGY
Volume 120, Issue 1, Pages 108-111

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2008.07.048

Keywords

SARS; Herb; Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM); Toona sinensis Roem

Funding

  1. National Science Council of Taiwan [NSC 92-2751-B-182A-006-Y]
  2. Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan [BMRP743]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim of the study: Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a life-threatening disease caused by the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV). The development of new antiviral agents for SARS-CoV is an important issue. We tried to find potential resource from Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for development of new drugs against SARS-CoV. Materials and Methods: Our team recruited the potential TCM formulae (also known as Kampo) from two TCM books, Shang-Han Lun (Discussion of Cold-Induced Disorders) and Wen-Bing Tiau-Bein (Differential Management of Febrile Diseases). Several herbs, which were believed to be beneficial for SARS by experienced TCM doctors were also recruited. In addition, a vegetable polular in Taiwan, China and Malaysia, the tender leaf of Toona sinensis Roem (also known as Cedrela sinensis, belongs to the family Meliacceae) was also recruited under the suggestion of botanic experts. These TCM products and plant extrats were then tested for the effectiveness against SARS-CoV in vitro. Results: Only TSL-1, the extract from tender leaf of Toona sinensis Roem was found to have an evident effect against SARS-CoV with selectivity index 12 similar to 17. Conclusion: This paper reports for the first time that extract from a vegetable, the tender leaf of Toona sinensis Roem, can inhibit SARS-CoV in vitro. Thererfore, the tender leaf of Toona sinensis Roem may be an important resource agninst SARS-CoV. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available