Cited by 67Barrier Structure and Function StudiesComputational Drug Discovery MethodsDrug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms

Applicability of a Blood–Brain Barrier Specific Artificial Membrane Permeability Assay at the Early Stage of Natural Product-Based CNS Drug Discovery

Könczöl, Árpád, Müller, Judit, Földes, Emília, Béni, Zoltán, Végh, Krisztina, Kéry, Ágnes, Balogh, György T.·2013·Journal of Natural Products

Abstract

While numerous natural products (NPs) possess activity on central nervous system (CNS) targets, there has been no analytical approach to effectively identify compounds with high brain penetration potential in complex mixtures at the early stage of drug discovery. To overcome this issue, the performance of an in vitro parallel artificial membrane permeability assay for the blood-brain barrier (PAMPA-BBB) for natural products and for plant extracts has been validated and characterized. It was found that the PAMPA-BBB assay preserves its predictive power in the case of natural products and provides high phytochemical selectivity, which enables its use as a unique filtering tool in terms of selecting brain-penetrable compounds from plant extracts. Moreover, the present study has demonstrated that simple modifications in the assay design allow the direct use of PAMPA-BBB filtered samples in a dereplication process, as performed by NMR and LC-MS. The applicability of this procedure was demonstrated using extracts prepared from Tanacetum parthenium, Vinca major, Salvia officinalis, and Corydalis cava, representing different types of chemical diversity and complexity. Thus, the proposed protocol represents a potentially valuable strategy in the NP-based CNS drug discovery environment with a high-throughput screening platform.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/np300882f

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Könczöl, Á., Müller, J., Földes, E., Béni, Z., Végh, K., Kéry, Á., & Balogh, G. T.
Affiliations
  • Gedeon Richter (Hungary) (HU)
  • Budapest University of Technology and Economics (HU)
  • Semmelweis University (HU)
Corresponding author
Balogh, György T.
Venue
Journal of Natural Products
Published
2013-04-08
Volume
76
Issue
4
Pages
655-663
ISSN
  • 0163-3864 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6025
OpenAlex
W2086708877
Cited by
67
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2
FWCI
3.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Natural Products (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Barrier Structure and Function Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Drug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms
Keywords
blood-brain barrier, brain penetration, natural products, plant extracts, CNS drug discovery, dereplication, feverfew, Vinca major, Salvia officinalis, Corydalis cava, high-throughput screening
MeSH terms
Biological Products, Biological Transport, Blood-Brain Barrier, Brain, Cell Membrane Permeability, Central Nervous System Agents, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Plant Extracts, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Biomolecular, Tanacetum parthenium, Salvia officinalis, Vinca, Corydalis, Drug Discovery

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review