The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Medicinal Plants and Phytomedicines. Linking Plant Biochemistry and Physiology to Human Health
Abstract
The past decade has witnessed a tremendous resurgence in the interest and use of medicinal plant products, especially in North America. Surveys of plant medicinal usage by the American public have shown an increase from just about 3% of the population in 1991 to over 37% in 1998 (Brevoort, 1998). The North American market for sales of plant medicinals has climbed to about $3 billion/year (Glaser, 1999). Once the domain of health-food and specialty stores, phytomedicines have clearly re-emerged into the mainstream as evidenced by their availability for sale at a wide range of retail outlets, the extent of their advertisement in the popular media, and the recent entrance of several major pharmaceutical companies into the business of producing phytomedicinal products (Brevoort, 1998; Glaser, 1999). No doubt a major contributing factor to this great increase in phytomedicinal use in the United States has been the passing of federal legislation in 1994 (Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act or “DSHEA”) that facilitated the production and marketing of phytomedicinal products (Brevoort, 1998). The past decade has also witnessed intense interest in “nutraceuticals” (or “functional foods”) in which phytochemical constituents can have long-term health promoting or medicinal qualities. Although the distinction between medicinal plants and nutraceuticals can sometimes be vague, a primary characteristic of the latter is that nutraceuticals have a nutritional role in the diet and the benefits to health may arise from long-term use as foods (i.e. chemoprevention) (Korver, 1998). In contrast, many medicinal plants exert specific medicinal actions without serving a nutritional role in the human diet and may be used in response to specific health problems over short- or long-term intervals. For many of the medicinal plants of current interest, a primary focus of research to date has been in the areas of phytochemistry, pharmacognosy, and horticulture. In the area of phytochemistry, medicinal plants have been characterized for their possible bioactive compounds, which have been separated and subjected to detailed structural analysis. Research in the pharmacognosy of medicinal plants has also involved assays of bio-activity, identification of potential modes of action, and target sites for active phytomedicinal compounds. Horticultural research on medicinal plants has focused on developing the capacity for optimal growth in cultivation. This has been especially pertinent as many medicinal plants are still harvested in the wild, and conditions for growth in cultivation have not been optimized. Wild harvesting of medicinal plants can be problematic in terms of biodiversity loss, potential variation in medicinal plant quality, and occasionally, improper plant identification with potential tragic consequences. From the perspective of plant physiology, extensive opportunities exist for basic research on medicinal plants and the study of their phytomedicinal chemical production. This review presents a discussion on some fundamental aspects of phytomedicinal chemical production by plant cells with an overview of several medicinal plants that have received considerable use and attention over the past decade. The beneficial medicinal effects of plant materials typically result from the combinations of secondary products present in the plant. That the medicinal actions of plants are unique to particular plant species or groups is consistent with this concept as the combinations of secondary products in a particular plant are often taxonomically distinct (Wink, 1999). This is in contrast to primary products, such as carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, heme, chlorophyll, and nucleic acids, which are common to all plants and are involved in the primary metabolic processes of building and maintaining plant cells (Kaufman et al., 1999; Wink, 1999). Although plant secondary products have historically been defined as chemicals that do not appear to have a vital biochemical role in the process of building and maintaining plant cells, recent research has shown a pivotal role of these chemicals in the ecophysiology of plants. Accordingly, secondary products have both a defensive role against herbivory, pathogen attack, and inter-plant competition and an attractant role toward beneficial organisms such as pollinators or symbionts (Kaufman et al., 1999; Wink and Schimmer, 1999). Plant secondary products also have protective actions in relation to abiotic stresses such as those associated with changes in temperature, water status, light levels, UV exposure, and mineral nutrients (Kaufman et al., 1999). Furthermore, recent work has indicated potential roles of secondary products at the cellular level as plant growth regulators, modulators of gene expression, and in signal transduction (Kaufman et al., 1999). Although secondary products can have a variety of functions in plants, it is likely that their ecological function may have some bearing on p
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
Cited by
Sun, C., Li, Y., Wu, Q., Luo, H., Sun, Y., Song, J., Lui, E. M., & Chen, S. (2010) · BMC Genomics · doi:10.1186/1471-2164-11-262 · Cited by 286
Pacifico, S., Galasso, S., Piccolella, S., Kretschmer, N., Pan, S.-P., Marciano, S., Bauer, R., & Monaco, P. (2015) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2014.12.019 · Cited by 86
Peiran, L., Ying, L., Mingzhuo, Z., Ye, Y., & Xiuming, C. (2017) · Food & Function · doi:10.1039/c7fo00880e · Cited by 27
Jurkštienė, V., Pavilonis, A., Garšvienė, D., Juozulynas, A., Samsonienė, L., Daukšienė, D., Jankauskienė, K., Šimonienė-Kazlauskienė, G., & Stankevičius, E. (2011) · Medicina · doi:10.3390/medicina47030024 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Briskin, D. P.
- Venue
- Plant Physiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-10-01
- Volume
- 124
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 507-514
- ISSN
- 0032-0889 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2548
- OpenAlex
- W2058463235
- Cited by
- 602
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.