4.7 Review

Herb-Induced Liver Injury: Phylogenetic Relationship, Structure-Toxicity Relationship, and Herb-Ingredient Network Analysis

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms20153633

关键词

herb; hepatotoxicity; HILI; phylogenetic tree; structure-toxicity relationship; herb-ingredient network; mechanism

资金

  1. National Science and Technology Major Project [2015ZX09501004-001-003, 2017ZX09301069]
  2. Special Research Project for TCM [201507004]
  3. CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS) [2016-I2M-1-012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Currently, hundreds of herbal products with potential hepatotoxicity were available in the literature. A comprehensive summary and analysis focused on these potential hepatotoxic herbal products may assist in understanding herb-induced liver injury (HILI). In this work, we collected 335 hepatotoxic medicinal plants, 296 hepatotoxic ingredients, and 584 hepatoprotective ingredients through a systematic literature retrieval. Then we analyzed these data from the perspectives of phylogenetic relationship and structure-toxicity relationship. Phylogenetic analysis indicated that hepatotoxic medicinal plants tended to have a closer taxonomic relationship. By investigating the structures of the hepatotoxic ingredients, we found that alkaloids and terpenoids were the two major groups of hepatotoxicity. We also identified eight major skeletons of hepatotoxicity and reviewed their hepatotoxic mechanisms. Additionally, 15 structural alerts (SAs) for hepatotoxicity were identified based on SARpy software. These SAs will help to estimate the hepatotoxic risk of ingredients from herbs. Finally, a herb-ingredient network was constructed by integrating multiple datasets, which will assist to identify the hepatotoxic ingredients of herb/herb-formula quickly. In summary, a systemic analysis focused on HILI was conducted which will not only assist to identify the toxic molecular basis of hepatotoxic herbs but also contribute to decipher the mechanisms of HILI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据