4.7 Review

Selection and characterization of botanical natural products for research studies: a NaPDI center recommended approach

期刊

NATURAL PRODUCT REPORTS
卷 36, 期 8, 页码 1196-1221

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c8np00065d

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health via the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health [U54 AT008909]
  2. National Cancer Institute [R01 CA182963]
  3. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [R01 GM077482]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Covering: up to the end of 2018 Dietary supplements, which include botanical (plant-based) natural products, constitute a multi-billion-dollar industry in the US. Regulation and quality control for this industry is an ongoing challenge. While there is general agreement that rigorous scientific studies are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of botanical natural products used by consumers, researchers conducting such studies face a unique set of challenges. Botanical natural products are inherently complex mixtures, with composition that differs depending on myriad factors including variability in genetics, cultivation conditions, and processing methods. Unfortunately, many studies of botanical natural products are carried out with poorly characterized study material, such that the results are irreproducible and difficult to interpret. This review provides recommended approaches for addressing the critical questions that researchers must address prior to in vitro or in vivo (including clinical) evaluation of botanical natural products. We describe selection and authentication of botanical material and identification of key biologically active compounds, and compare state-of-the-art methodologies such as untargeted metabolomics with more traditional targeted methods of characterization. The topics are chosen to be of maximal relevance to researchers, and are reviewed critically with commentary as to which approaches are most practical and useful and what common pitfalls should be avoided.

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