| Title |
Tumor specific cytotoxicity of arctigenin isolated from herbal plant Arctium lappa L.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Natural Medicines, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11418-012-0628-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Siti Susanti, Hironori Iwasaki, Yukiyoshi Itokazu, Mariko Nago, Naoyuki Taira, Seikoh Saitoh, Hirosuke Oku |
| Abstract |
The effectiveness of cancer chemotherapy is often limited by the toxicity to other tissues in the body. Therefore, the identification of non-toxic chemotherapeutics from herbal medicines remains to be an attractive goal to advance cancer treatments. This study evaluated the cytotoxicity profiles of 364 herbal plant extracts, using various cancer and normal cell lines. The screening found occurrence of A549 (human lung adenocarcinoma) specific cytotoxicity in nine species of herbal plants, especially in the extract of Arctium lappa L. Moreover, purification of the selective cytotoxicity in the extract of Arctium lappa L. resulted in the identification of arctigenin as tumor specific agent that showed cytotoxicity to lung cancer (A549), liver cancer (HepG2) and stomach cancer (KATO III) cells, while no cytotoxicity to several normal cell lines. Arctigenin specifically inhibited the proliferation of cancer cells, which might consequently lead to the induction of apoptosis. In conclusion, this study found that arctigenin was one of cancer specific phytochemicals, and in part responsible for the tumor selective cytotoxicity of the herbal medicine. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Taiwan | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 44 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 22% |
| Unknown | 11 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 20% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 13 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,444,134
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Natural Medicines
#16
of 529 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,201
of 155,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Natural Medicines
#1
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 529 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 155,000 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.