| Literature DB >> 27464466 |
Madeleine Ernst1, C Haris Saslis-Lagoudakis1, Olwen M Grace2, Niclas Nilsson3, Henrik Toft Simonsen4, James W Horn5, Nina Rønsted1.
Abstract
The current decrease of new drugs brought to the market has fostered renewed interest in plant-based drug discovery. Given the alarming rate of biodiversity loss, systematic methodologies in finding new plant-derived drugs are urgently needed. Medicinal uses of plants were proposed as proxy for bioactivity, and phylogenetic patterns in medicinal plant uses have suggested that phylogeny can be used as predictive tool. However, the common practice of grouping medicinal plant uses into standardised categories may restrict the relevance of phylogenetic predictions. Standardised categories are mostly associated to systems of the human body and only poorly reflect biological responses to the treatment. Here we show that medicinal plant uses interpreted from a perspective of a biological response can reveal different phylogenetic patterns of presumed underlying bioactivity compared to standardised methods of medicinal plant use classification. In the cosmopolitan and pharmaceutically highly relevant genus Euphorbia L., identifying plant uses modulating the inflammatory response highlighted a greater phylogenetic diversity and number of potentially promising species than standardised categories. Our interpretation of medicinal plant uses may therefore allow for a more targeted approach for future phylogeny-guided drug discovery at an early screening stage, which will likely result in higher discovery rates of novel chemistry with functional biological activity.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27464466 PMCID: PMC4964329 DOI: 10.1038/srep30531
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Hypothetical distribution of medicinal plant uses across a phylogeny.
(a) Plant medicinal uses as classified by the Economic Botany Data Collection Standard based on systems of the body (b) Same plant medicinal uses classified based on a biological response. When seeking lineages with potential agents modulating an inflammatory response, the classification in (a) is not informative. Instead, the classification in (b) allows us to identify clades (marked in red in (b)) that are overrepresented in species potentially modulating an inflammatory response. Icons: thenounproject.com.
Phylogenetic signal per EBDCS level 1 state categories.
| N | Prevalence | D-statistic | Phylogenetic signal | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Range | p(D < 1) | strength | |||
| Animal food | 12 | 0.02 | 0.98 | 0.55–1.47 | ns | weak |
| Environmental uses | 18 | 0.03 | 0.90 | 0.56–1.27 | ns | weak |
| Materials | 15 | 0.03 | 0.88 | 0.61–1.21 | ns | weak |
| Non-Vertebrate poisons | 9 | 0.02 | 0.85 | 0.39–1.57 | ns | weak |
| Social uses | 8 | 0.01 | 0.82 | 0.15–1.51 | ns | weak |
| Vertebrate poisons | 46 | 0.08 | 1.06 | 0.90–1.26 | ns | weak |
Phylogenetic signal (D-statistic) on a randomly selected subset of 1,000 Bayesian trees within the 95% credible set of uses of Euphorbia31 classified into level 1 state categories according to the Economic Botany Data Collection Standard (EBDCS). Out of all level 1 state categories only medicines shows phylogenetic signal (in bold). N: Number of species.
a* 95% p < 0.05; *** all p < 0.005.
bweak: <90% p(D > 0) > 0.05; moderate: 90% p(D > 0) > 0.05; strong: 95% p(D > 0) > 0.05; very strong: all p(D > 0) > 0.05.
Phylogenetic signal per EBDCS level 2 state categories medicines and the category inflammatory response.
| N | Prevalence | D-statistic | Phylogenetic signal | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Range | p(D < 1) | strength | |||
| Abnormalities | 12 | 0.02 | 0.83 | 0.48–1.20 | ns | weak |
| Digestive system disorders | 26 | 0.05 | 0.78 | 0.51–1.04 | ns | weak |
| Infections/infestations | 21 | 0.04 | 0.82 | 0.50–1.15 | ns | weak |
| Inflammation | 11 | 0.02 | 0.54 | 0.09–1.27 | ns | weak |
| Injuries | 16 | 0.03 | 0.88 | 0.52–1.25 | ns | weak |
| Pain | 15 | 0.03 | 0.78 | 0.43–1.19 | ns | weak |
| Respiratory system disorders | 10 | 0.02 | 0.89 | 0.39–1.38 | ns | weak |
| Skin-/subcutaneous cellular tissue disorders | 27 | 0.05 | 0.73 | 0.50–0.95 | ns | weak |
| Inflammatory response | 44 | 0.08 | 0.88 | 0.68–1.03 | ns | weak |
| No inflammatory response | 12 | 0.02 | 0.85 | 0.49–1.29 | ns | weak |
| Unknown | 23 | 0.04 | 1.05 | 0.77–1.37 | ns | weak |
Phylogenetic signal (D-statistic) on a randomly selected subset of 1,000 Bayesian trees within the 95% credible set of uses of Euphorbia31 classified into level 2 state categories of medicines according to the Economic Botany Data Collection Standard (EBDCS) and the category inflammatory response. EBDCS categories genitourinary system disorders and unspecified medicinal disorders show phylogenetic signal (in bold), while the EBDCS category inflammation and the category inflammatory response don’t. N: Number of species.
a* 95% p < 0.05; *** all p < 0.005.
bweak: <90% p(D > 0) > 0.05; moderate: 90% p(D > 0) > 0.05; strong: 95% p(D > 0) > 0.05; very strong: all p(D > 0) > 0.05.
Figure 2Phylogenetic distribution of species for (a) the Economic Botany Data Collection Standard (EBDCS) category inflammation and (b) the category inflammatory response. Red dots indicate species with documented use described in the category.
Phylogenetic similarity between the category inflammatory response and the EBDCS level 2 state categories medicines.
| N | Prevalence | MNTD | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Range | p-value | |||
| Abnormalities | 12 | 0.02 | 0.35 | 0.29–0.42 | ns |
| Digestive system disorders | 26 | 0.05 | 0.19 | 0.16–0.22 | ns |
| Genitourinary system disorders | 9 | 0.02 | 0.59 | 0.46–0.71 | ns |
| Infections/infestations | 21 | 0.04 | 0.14 | 0.12–0.18 | ns |
| Inflammation | 11 | 0.02 | 0.40 | 0.33–0.49 | ns |
| Injuries | 16 | 0.03 | 0.25 | 0.21–0.30 | ns |
| Pain | 15 | 0.03 | 0.29 | 0.24–0.34 | ns |
| Respiratory system disorders | 10 | 0.02 | 0.40 | 0.34–0.47 | ns |
| Skin-/subcutaneous cellular tissue disorders | 27 | 0.05 | 0.15 | 0.13–0.19 | ns |
| Unspecified medicinal disorders | 27 | 0.05 | 0.18 | 0.16–0.21 | ns |
Mean nearest taxon distance (MNTD) between species in the Economic Botany Data Collection Standard (EBDCS) level 2 state medicines categories and the category inflammatory response. The category inflammatory response does not show significant phylogenetic similarity with any of the EBDCS categories and thus is sufficiently sensitive to highlight a different group of species, eventually reflecting unexplored medicinal potential not recovered by the EBDCS.
Figure 3Hot nodes and corresponding clades of the category inflammatory response.
Hot nodes (red dots) were identified by the nodesigl command in PHYLOCOM v4.2 on the majority consensus tree. Hot nodes indicate that the observed number of species in the category in that node is higher than expected by chance. Black dots indicate species with documented uses in the category inflammatory response. Photo: Mogens Trolle and Madeleine Ernst (Euphorbia pulcherrima).