↓ Skip to main content

Toxic Constituents Index: A Toxicity-Calibrated Quantitative Evaluation Approach for the Precise Toxicity Prediction of the Hypertoxic Phytomedicine—Aconite

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Toxic Constituents Index: A Toxicity-Calibrated Quantitative Evaluation Approach for the Precise Toxicity Prediction of the Hypertoxic Phytomedicine—Aconite
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2016.00164
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ding-kun Zhang, Rui-sheng Li, Xue Han, Chun-yu Li, Zhi-hao Zhao, Hai-zhu Zhang, Ming Yang, Jia-bo Wang, Xiao-he Xiao

Abstract

Complex chemical composition is an important reason for restricting herbal quality evaluation. Despite the multi-components determination method significantly promoted the progress of herbal quality evaluation, however, which mainly concerned the total amount of multiple components and ignored the activity variation between each one, and did not accurately reflect the biological activity of botanical medicines. In this manuscript, we proposed a toxicity calibrated contents determination method for hyper toxic aconite, called toxic constituents index (TCI). Initially, we determined the minimum lethal dose value of mesaconitine (MA), aconitine (AC), and hypaconitine (HA), and established the equation TCI = 100 × (0.3387 ×X MA + 0.4778 ×X AC + 0.1835 ×X HA). Then, 10 batches of aconite were selected and their evaluation results of toxic potency (TP), diester diterpenoid alkaloids (DDAs), and TCI were compared. Linear regression analysis result suggested that the relevance between TCI and TP was the highest and the correlation coefficient R was 0.954. Prediction error values study also indicated that the evaluation results of TCI was highly consistent with that of TP. Moreover, TCI and DDAs were both applied to evaluate 14 batches of aconite samples oriented different origins; from the different evaluation results, we found when the proportion of HA was reached 25% in DDAs, the pharmacopeia method could generate false positive results. All these results testified the accuracy and universality of TCI method. We believe that this study method is rather accurate, simple, and easy operation and it will be of great utility in studies of other foods and herbs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 19%
Student > Bachelor 4 19%
Student > Master 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Researcher 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Chemistry 2 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 57%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,855,186
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#5,227
of 16,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,660
of 352,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#39
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,169 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 352,647 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.