Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 267

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 access
Saslis-Lagoudakis, C. Haris, Savolainen, Vincent, Williamson, Elizabeth M., Forest, Félix, Wagstaff, Steven J., Baral, Sushim R., Watson, Mark F., Pendry, Colin A., Hawkins, Julie A.·2012·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1202242109

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 267

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.