The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Phylogenies reveal predictive power of traditional medicine in bioprospecting
Open accessAbstract
There is controversy about whether traditional medicine can guide drug discovery, and investment in bioprospecting informed by ethnobotanical data has fluctuated. One view is that traditionally used medicinal plants are not necessarily efficacious and there are no robust methods for distinguishing those which are most likely to be bioactive when selecting species for further testing. Here, we reconstruct a genus-level molecular phylogenetic tree representing the 20,000 species found in the floras of three disparate biodiversity hotspots: Nepal, New Zealand, and the Cape of South Africa. Borrowing phylogenetic methods from community ecology, we reveal significant clustering of the 1,500 traditionally used species, and provide a direct measure of the relatedness of the three medicinal floras. We demonstrate shared phylogenetic patterns across the floras: related plants from these regions are used to treat medical conditions in the same therapeutic areas. This finding strongly indicates independent discovery of plant efficacy, an interpretation corroborated by the presence of a significantly greater proportion of known bioactive species in these plant groups than in random samples. We conclude that phylogenetic cross-cultural comparisons can focus screening efforts on a subset of traditionally used plants that are richer in bioactive compounds, and could revitalize the use of traditional knowledge in bioprospecting.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Natural products as sources of new drugs over the last 25 years
Newman, D. J., & Cragg, G. M. (2007) · Journal of Natural Products · doi:10.1021/np068054v · Cited by 5,517
Natural products as sources of new drugs over the 30 years from 1981 to 2010
Newman, D. J., & Cragg, G. M. (2012) · Journal of Natural Products · doi:10.1021/np200906s · Cited by 4,687
Production of the antimalarial drug precursor artemisinic acid in engineered yeast
Ro, D.-K., Paradise, E. M., Ouellet, M., Fisher, K. J., Newman, K. L., Ndungu, J. M., Ho, K. A., Eachus, R. A., Ham, T. S., Kirby, J., et al. (2006) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature04640 · Cited by 2,805
Sehgal, N., Gupta, A., Valli, R. K., Joshi, S. D., Mills, J. T., Hamel, E., Khanna, P., Jain, S. C., Thakur, S. S., & Ravindranath, V. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1112209109 · Cited by 390
Cited by
Structure and dynamics of molecular networks: A novel paradigm of drug discovery
Csermely, P., Korcsmáros, T., Kiss, H. J. M., London, G., & Nussinov, R. (2013) · Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2013.01.016 · Cited by 892
Traditional medicines and globalization: current and future perspectives in ethnopharmacology
Leonti, M., & Casu, L. (2013) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2013.00092 · Cited by 272
Metadata
- Authors
- Saslis-Lagoudakis, C. H., Savolainen, V., Williamson, E. M., Forest, F., Wagstaff, S. J., Baral, S. R., Watson, M. F., Pendry, C. A., & Hawkins, J. A.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2012-09-10
- Volume
- 109
- Issue
- 39
- Pages
- 15835-15840
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2085319906
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 17.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Phylogenies reveal predictive power of traditional medicine in bioprospecting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1202242109
- The paper
- Saslis-Lagoudakis, C. H., Savolainen, V., Williamson, E. M., Forest, F., Wagstaff, S. J., Baral, S. R., Watson, M. F., Pendry, C. A., & Hawkins, J. A. (2012). Phylogenies reveal predictive power of traditional medicine in bioprospecting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1202242109
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.