- Email: [email protected]
Cross-cultural comparisons of medicinal floras and bioprospecting revisited
Journal of Ethnopharmacology 139 (2012) 688–690
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Ethnopharmacology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jethpharm
Editorial
Cross-cultural comparisons of medicinal floras and bioprospecting revisited
Professor Gertsch raises interesting points in his wide-ranging commentary on our recent publication (Saslis-Lagoudakis et al., 2011a). We welcome the opportunity to explore the points he raises. Specifically, we address the question he poses, “what exactly are the implications for bioprospecting strategies suggested by this study?” As we noted, and Gertsch further emphasises, ethnomedicinal information has performed poorly as a criterion to increase the hit-rate of screening programmes. Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies have cut back on their use of natural products in drug discovery (Harvey, 2008). From this perspective, it is unrealistic to expect that any studies of traditional medicine, cross-cultural or otherwise, will play a significant and immediate role in the development of modern pharmaceuticals. However, though “big-pharma” has stepped back from natural product research there is still a role for natural products in traditional approaches to drug discovery. Harvey describes traditional approaches as those “making use of material that has been found by trial and error over many years in different cultures and systems of medicine” (Harvey, 1999). This kind of exploitation of traditionally used plants continues apace in many countries with limited access to modern pharmaceuticals. The examples of ongoing programmes of screening plants for biological activity based on traditional knowledge of use are far too numerous to list. On Professor Gertsch’s own website there is a post from the Director of an Indian phyto-pharmaceutical company which describes a research strategy for product development based on ethnopharmacological data and in vitro screening (http://gertschgroup.com/forum/topic/7571?page=1#message 25541; accessed 07/08/11). So, whilst they may not be included in strategies of big pharmaceutical companies, plants that have been “found by trial and error over many years in different cultures and systems of medicine” (Harvey, 1999) remain a source of novel products. This research is stimulated, no doubt, by the fact that up to 80% of compounds obtained from plants and used as drugs are used in agreement with the ethnomedicinal use of the plant they were isolated from (Fabricant and Farnsworth, 2001). It is in this context that we argue our study has implications for bioprospecting. Our study provides some indirect measure of the efficacy of traditional medicines that can assist prioritise plant taxa for bio efficacy screening. Acceptance of plant medicine, whether through novel product development or the promotion of local health traditions, hinges on efficacy. Yet efficacy has been demonstrated for less than 15% of plant species that have to date been subjected to clinical trials (Soejarto et al., 2005). We argue that cross-cultural studies can provide indirect evidence of efficacy without the clinical trials, which are unlikely to be possible on a large scale.
0378-8741/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2011.09.015
Screening for bioactivity identifies plants with a biological basis for their efficacy, but plant medicines used traditionally may be efficacious for contextual reasons. Cross-cultural studies can tease apart the set of plants used because of their “meaning response”, but without biological efficacy, from the set with biological efficacy. In our study we minimise the likelihood that cultural transfer (i.e. the horizontal transmission of “meaning” between cultures) and the independent derivation of meaning (e.g. independent “discovery” of the “contextual value” of “showy and fragrant” plants), by sampling three extremely different floras, geographically distant from each other, and exploited in widely contrasting systems of traditional medicine by distantly related peoples. In this way our study forms part of a literature, which seeks to explain why ethnomedicinal information has performed poorly in high-throughput screens. In other words, we make some steps to understand how the “overestimation of the predictive value of ethnopharmacopoeias in bioprospecting”, referred to by Gertsch, can be overcome. Like other studies (Bletter, 2007), we argue that cross-cultural comparison can provide evidence of independent discovery. The hot groups discovered through cross-cultural comparison are indeed the plants that have been “found by trial and error over many years in different cultures and systems of medicine”. There is evidence that prioritisation of plant species based on the criterion of cross-cultural use is an effective bioscreening strategy (Li et al., 2003). Ventures that identify ethnopharmacologically promising plant subjects based on their prominence in different ethnopharmacopoeias are underway (Molander et al., submitted for publication). Additionally, similar approaches are likely to highlight taxa that produce a wide variety of pharmacologically active compounds (Douwes et al., 2008) hence likely to indirectly bring to surface previously overlooked taxa with complex phytochemistry. Our study highlights the present limitations of cultural comparisons, which might be overcome using novel approaches, to increase the value of ethnomedicinal information. We have already developed new tools that use plant phylogenetic information to interpret cross-cultural plant use (Saslis-Lagoudakis et al., 2011b) and we have applied this approach to the same floras (SaslisLagoudakis et al., in prep.), allowing the identification of lineages that show cross-cultural agreement in use, thus addressing other concerns raised by Gertsch with regards to the ideal taxonomic level at which a study like this should be carried out. Gertsch notes that the logical implication of our findings is that bioprospectors should focus on screening the medicinal plants in hot families. Although he makes fun of this strategy, we argue that it is a good one for the rational prioritisation of plant taxa for local ethnopharmacological studies and bioprospecting schemes,
Editorial / Journal of Ethnopharmacology 139 (2012) 688–690
and one we would recommend. He notes that the analyses conducted in our study are biased towards large families. This might be true for regression analyses (Bennett and Husby, 2008; Weckerle et al., 2011), but Gertsch overlooks that we also performed the binomial analysis approach proposed by Bennett and Husby (2008) that overcomes this problem. Indeed, several smaller families, such as Anacardiaceae, Clusiaceae, Convolvulaceae and Sapotaceae appear in our list of hot families. Gertsch also overlooks that in the analyses performed for specific categories of use – the type of analyses that could be the most informative for bioprospecting – several small families were recovered: Argophyllaceae, Ephedraceae, Pittosporaceae, Podocarpaceae, just to name a few. We agree that highlighting large families such as Asteraceae and Rubiaceae may not, on the face of it, speed screening. Gertsch picks Asteraceae as an example of a “hot” family we identify, and states “we already know Asteraceae are important”. Yes, we agree that Asteraceae are known to be important, but what is “known” and what is proven are not always coincident. For example, it is easy to find statements such as “The Fabaceae had the highest number (20) of species with alkaloids. . .As this would lead one to expect, this family contains many medicinals that are highly regarded by Garifuna healers” (Coe and Anderson, 1996); the same publication refers to the family Fabaceae as one of “the most important families”. On the surface of it, this might lead an uncritical reader to consider the Fabaceae to be a “hot” family – perhaps a reader might consider that “we already know” Fabaceae are important. In fact our study, and other studies of cross-cultural use, show that this family very seldom appears as a “hot” family given its species richness, and should not be prioritised. Other equally large families, such as Orchidaceae, are indicated as of significantly lower traditional use, so discounting them will speed screening. Finally, we refer to a very interesting issue that Gertsch raises when stating “it is possible that the authors understand something else by bioprospecting than I do”. Definitions for bioprospecting are numerous in the literature. Gertsch provides one from the molecular scientist’s perspective, as “the process of discovery of bioactive principles or biogenetic materials from natural sources” and other authors have given similar definitions. For example, the objective of bioprospecting has been defined as “searching for new biologically active chemicals in organisms” (Firn, 2003), or as “the systematic search for, and the development of, new sources of chemical compounds, genes, micro- and macroorganisms, and other economically valuable biological products” (Makhubu, 1998). The latter definition allows for a broader end product for bioprospecting than molecular advances only, a view that has been supported by other authors that define bioprospecting as “the search for value in the biological world” (McClatchey, 2005) or “any of several efforts supporting new potential lead identification from natural sources” (Buenz et al., 2004). There are also several studies that refer to bioprospecting as the added value for humanity from biological conservation. For example, bioprospecting as “the systematic search for new commercial applications for biota” (Barrett and Lybbert, 2000) makes special reference to biota. It becomes clear form these few examples that the end product of bioprospecting is different for different groups of researchers. For some it is molecular advances that can be used commercially and for others it is the better understanding of the value of the natural world. On no account do we discount the important research conducted by Professor Gertsch and numerous colleagues around the globe. In fact, we support it and believe it can potentially lead to groundbreaking pharmacological innovations. However, we believe that the end product of such research has a different target group than that of studies similar to ours. As the WHO reports, 80% of the population in developing countries depend on traditional medicine for healthcare (WHO, 2008). For this majority of the
689
world’s population it will take years before “molecular” innovations and patents permeate their healthcare. On the contrary, developing better understandings of the patterns of successful traditional medicines and promoting their uses as traditional medicines can improve local community healthcare and thus have a more immediate end product for those that are most in need for it. Hence, bioprospecting can serve different purposes – that are complementary rather than conflicting – for different parts of the world’s population. Our intention was to contribute to the debate on the relation between ethnobotanical knowledge and drug discovery. We carried out an experiment using carefully selected, specific floras for the reasons stated above. We welcome more similar studies using the tools we have applied, as well as novel ones that appear in the literature (Saslis-Lagoudakis et al., 2011b; Weckerle et al., 2011) and we encourage such comparisons to be made between areas that have had minimal cultural exchange. We strongly believe that such comparisons will inform bioprospecting strategies and, most importantly, will contribute to the understanding of traditional medicine itself.
References Barrett, C.B., Lybbert, T.J., 2000. Is bioprospecting a viable strategy for conserving tropical ecosystems? Ecological Economics 34, 293–300. Bennett, B.C., Husby, C.E., 2008. Patterns of medicinal plant use: an examination of the Ecuadorian Shuar medicinal flora using contingency table and binomial analyses. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 116, 422–430. Bletter, N., 2007. A quantitative synthesis of the medicinal ethnobotany of the Malinke of Mali and the Ashaninka of Peru, with a new theoretical framework. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 3, 36. Buenz, E.J, Schnepple, D.J., Bauer, B.A., Elkin, P.L., Riddle, J.M., Motley, T.J., 2004. Techniques: bioprospecting historical herbal texts by hunting for new leads in old tomes. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 25, 494–498. Coe, F.G., Anderson, G.J., 1996. Screening of medicinal plants used by the Garifuna of Eastern Nicaragua for bioactive compounds. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 53, 29–50. Douwes, E., Crouch, N.R., Edwards, T.J., Mulholland, D.A., 2008. Regression analyses of southern African ethnomedicinal plants: informing the targeted selection of bioprospecting and pharmacological screening subjects. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 119, 356–364. Fabricant, D.S., Farnsworth, N.R., 2001. The value of plants used in traditional medicine for drug discovery. Environmental Health Perspectives 109, 69–75. Firn, R.D., 2003. Bioprospecting – why is it so unrewarding? Biodiversity and Conservation 12, 207–216. Harvey, A.L., 1999. Medicines from nature: are natural products still relevant to drug discovery? Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 20, 196–198. Harvey, A.L., 2008. Natural products in drug discovery. Drug Discovery Today 13, 894–901. Li, R.W., Myers, S.P., Leach, D.N., Lin, G.D., Leach, G., 2003. A cross-cultural study: anti-inflammatory activity of Australian and Chinese plants. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 85, 25–32. Makhubu, L., 1998. Bioprospecting in an African context. Science 282, 41–42. McClatchey, W., 2005. Medicinal bioprospecting and ethnobotany research. Ethnobotany Research & Applications 3, 189–190. Molander, M., Saslis-Lagoudakis, C.H., Jäger A.K., Ronsted N., submitted for publication. Cross-cultural comparison of medicinal floras used against snakebites. Journal of Ethnopharmacology. Saslis-Lagoudakis, C.H., Williamson, E.M., Savolainen, V., Hawkins, J.A., 2011a. Cross-cultural comparison of three medicinal floras and implications for bioprospecting strategies. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 135, 476–487. Saslis-Lagoudakis, C.H., Klitgaard, B.B., Forest, F., Francis, L., Savolainen, V., Williamson, E.M., Hawkins, J.A., 2011b. The use of phylogeny to interpret crosscultural patterns in plant use and guide medicinal plant discovery: an example from Pterocarpus (Leguminosae). PLoS ONE 6, e22275. Soejarto, D.D., Fong, H.H.S., Tan, G.T., Zhang, H.J., Ma, C.Y., Franzblau, S.G., Gyllenhaal, C., Riley, M.C., Kadushin, M.R., Pezzuto, J.M., Xuan, L.T., Hiep, N.T., Hung, N.V., Vu, B.M., Loc, P.K., Dac, L.X., Binh, L.T., Chien, N.Q., Hai, N.V., Bich, T.Q., Cuong, N.M., Southavong, B., Sydara, K., Bouamanivong, S., Ly, H.M., Thuy, T.V., Rose, W.C., Dietzman, G.R., 2005. Ethnobotany/ethnopharmacology and mass bioprospecting: Issues on intellectual property and benefit-sharing. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 100, 15–22. Weckerle, C.S., Cabras, S., Castellanos, M.E., Leonti, M., 2011. Quantitative methods in ethnobotany and ethnopharmacology: considering the overall flora – hypothesis testing for over- and underused plant families with the Bayesian approach. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 137, 837–843. WHO, 2008. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs134/en/.
690
Editorial / Journal of Ethnopharmacology 139 (2012) 688–690
C. Haris Saslis-Lagoudakis ∗ School of Biological Sciences, Whiteknights, University of Reading, UK Division of Biology, Silwood Park Campus, Imperial College London, UK Elizabeth M. Williamson School of Pharmacy, Whiteknights, University of Reading, UK Vincent Savolainen Division of Biology, Silwood Park Campus, Imperial College London, UK Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, UK
Julie A. Hawkins School of Biological Sciences, Whiteknights, University of Reading, UK ∗ Corresponding author at: School of Biological Sciences, Whiteknights, Reading, Berkshire RG6 6BX, United Kingdom. Tel.: +44 1183784405. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.H. Saslis-Lagoudakis)
17 August 2011 Available online 22 September 2011
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Ethnopharmacology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jethpharm
Editorial
Cross-cultural comparisons of medicinal floras and bioprospecting revisited
Professor Gertsch raises interesting points in his wide-ranging commentary on our recent publication (Saslis-Lagoudakis et al., 2011a). We welcome the opportunity to explore the points he raises. Specifically, we address the question he poses, “what exactly are the implications for bioprospecting strategies suggested by this study?” As we noted, and Gertsch further emphasises, ethnomedicinal information has performed poorly as a criterion to increase the hit-rate of screening programmes. Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies have cut back on their use of natural products in drug discovery (Harvey, 2008). From this perspective, it is unrealistic to expect that any studies of traditional medicine, cross-cultural or otherwise, will play a significant and immediate role in the development of modern pharmaceuticals. However, though “big-pharma” has stepped back from natural product research there is still a role for natural products in traditional approaches to drug discovery. Harvey describes traditional approaches as those “making use of material that has been found by trial and error over many years in different cultures and systems of medicine” (Harvey, 1999). This kind of exploitation of traditionally used plants continues apace in many countries with limited access to modern pharmaceuticals. The examples of ongoing programmes of screening plants for biological activity based on traditional knowledge of use are far too numerous to list. On Professor Gertsch’s own website there is a post from the Director of an Indian phyto-pharmaceutical company which describes a research strategy for product development based on ethnopharmacological data and in vitro screening (http://gertschgroup.com/forum/topic/7571?page=1#message 25541; accessed 07/08/11). So, whilst they may not be included in strategies of big pharmaceutical companies, plants that have been “found by trial and error over many years in different cultures and systems of medicine” (Harvey, 1999) remain a source of novel products. This research is stimulated, no doubt, by the fact that up to 80% of compounds obtained from plants and used as drugs are used in agreement with the ethnomedicinal use of the plant they were isolated from (Fabricant and Farnsworth, 2001). It is in this context that we argue our study has implications for bioprospecting. Our study provides some indirect measure of the efficacy of traditional medicines that can assist prioritise plant taxa for bio efficacy screening. Acceptance of plant medicine, whether through novel product development or the promotion of local health traditions, hinges on efficacy. Yet efficacy has been demonstrated for less than 15% of plant species that have to date been subjected to clinical trials (Soejarto et al., 2005). We argue that cross-cultural studies can provide indirect evidence of efficacy without the clinical trials, which are unlikely to be possible on a large scale.
0378-8741/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2011.09.015
Screening for bioactivity identifies plants with a biological basis for their efficacy, but plant medicines used traditionally may be efficacious for contextual reasons. Cross-cultural studies can tease apart the set of plants used because of their “meaning response”, but without biological efficacy, from the set with biological efficacy. In our study we minimise the likelihood that cultural transfer (i.e. the horizontal transmission of “meaning” between cultures) and the independent derivation of meaning (e.g. independent “discovery” of the “contextual value” of “showy and fragrant” plants), by sampling three extremely different floras, geographically distant from each other, and exploited in widely contrasting systems of traditional medicine by distantly related peoples. In this way our study forms part of a literature, which seeks to explain why ethnomedicinal information has performed poorly in high-throughput screens. In other words, we make some steps to understand how the “overestimation of the predictive value of ethnopharmacopoeias in bioprospecting”, referred to by Gertsch, can be overcome. Like other studies (Bletter, 2007), we argue that cross-cultural comparison can provide evidence of independent discovery. The hot groups discovered through cross-cultural comparison are indeed the plants that have been “found by trial and error over many years in different cultures and systems of medicine”. There is evidence that prioritisation of plant species based on the criterion of cross-cultural use is an effective bioscreening strategy (Li et al., 2003). Ventures that identify ethnopharmacologically promising plant subjects based on their prominence in different ethnopharmacopoeias are underway (Molander et al., submitted for publication). Additionally, similar approaches are likely to highlight taxa that produce a wide variety of pharmacologically active compounds (Douwes et al., 2008) hence likely to indirectly bring to surface previously overlooked taxa with complex phytochemistry. Our study highlights the present limitations of cultural comparisons, which might be overcome using novel approaches, to increase the value of ethnomedicinal information. We have already developed new tools that use plant phylogenetic information to interpret cross-cultural plant use (Saslis-Lagoudakis et al., 2011b) and we have applied this approach to the same floras (SaslisLagoudakis et al., in prep.), allowing the identification of lineages that show cross-cultural agreement in use, thus addressing other concerns raised by Gertsch with regards to the ideal taxonomic level at which a study like this should be carried out. Gertsch notes that the logical implication of our findings is that bioprospectors should focus on screening the medicinal plants in hot families. Although he makes fun of this strategy, we argue that it is a good one for the rational prioritisation of plant taxa for local ethnopharmacological studies and bioprospecting schemes,
Editorial / Journal of Ethnopharmacology 139 (2012) 688–690
and one we would recommend. He notes that the analyses conducted in our study are biased towards large families. This might be true for regression analyses (Bennett and Husby, 2008; Weckerle et al., 2011), but Gertsch overlooks that we also performed the binomial analysis approach proposed by Bennett and Husby (2008) that overcomes this problem. Indeed, several smaller families, such as Anacardiaceae, Clusiaceae, Convolvulaceae and Sapotaceae appear in our list of hot families. Gertsch also overlooks that in the analyses performed for specific categories of use – the type of analyses that could be the most informative for bioprospecting – several small families were recovered: Argophyllaceae, Ephedraceae, Pittosporaceae, Podocarpaceae, just to name a few. We agree that highlighting large families such as Asteraceae and Rubiaceae may not, on the face of it, speed screening. Gertsch picks Asteraceae as an example of a “hot” family we identify, and states “we already know Asteraceae are important”. Yes, we agree that Asteraceae are known to be important, but what is “known” and what is proven are not always coincident. For example, it is easy to find statements such as “The Fabaceae had the highest number (20) of species with alkaloids. . .As this would lead one to expect, this family contains many medicinals that are highly regarded by Garifuna healers” (Coe and Anderson, 1996); the same publication refers to the family Fabaceae as one of “the most important families”. On the surface of it, this might lead an uncritical reader to consider the Fabaceae to be a “hot” family – perhaps a reader might consider that “we already know” Fabaceae are important. In fact our study, and other studies of cross-cultural use, show that this family very seldom appears as a “hot” family given its species richness, and should not be prioritised. Other equally large families, such as Orchidaceae, are indicated as of significantly lower traditional use, so discounting them will speed screening. Finally, we refer to a very interesting issue that Gertsch raises when stating “it is possible that the authors understand something else by bioprospecting than I do”. Definitions for bioprospecting are numerous in the literature. Gertsch provides one from the molecular scientist’s perspective, as “the process of discovery of bioactive principles or biogenetic materials from natural sources” and other authors have given similar definitions. For example, the objective of bioprospecting has been defined as “searching for new biologically active chemicals in organisms” (Firn, 2003), or as “the systematic search for, and the development of, new sources of chemical compounds, genes, micro- and macroorganisms, and other economically valuable biological products” (Makhubu, 1998). The latter definition allows for a broader end product for bioprospecting than molecular advances only, a view that has been supported by other authors that define bioprospecting as “the search for value in the biological world” (McClatchey, 2005) or “any of several efforts supporting new potential lead identification from natural sources” (Buenz et al., 2004). There are also several studies that refer to bioprospecting as the added value for humanity from biological conservation. For example, bioprospecting as “the systematic search for new commercial applications for biota” (Barrett and Lybbert, 2000) makes special reference to biota. It becomes clear form these few examples that the end product of bioprospecting is different for different groups of researchers. For some it is molecular advances that can be used commercially and for others it is the better understanding of the value of the natural world. On no account do we discount the important research conducted by Professor Gertsch and numerous colleagues around the globe. In fact, we support it and believe it can potentially lead to groundbreaking pharmacological innovations. However, we believe that the end product of such research has a different target group than that of studies similar to ours. As the WHO reports, 80% of the population in developing countries depend on traditional medicine for healthcare (WHO, 2008). For this majority of the
689
world’s population it will take years before “molecular” innovations and patents permeate their healthcare. On the contrary, developing better understandings of the patterns of successful traditional medicines and promoting their uses as traditional medicines can improve local community healthcare and thus have a more immediate end product for those that are most in need for it. Hence, bioprospecting can serve different purposes – that are complementary rather than conflicting – for different parts of the world’s population. Our intention was to contribute to the debate on the relation between ethnobotanical knowledge and drug discovery. We carried out an experiment using carefully selected, specific floras for the reasons stated above. We welcome more similar studies using the tools we have applied, as well as novel ones that appear in the literature (Saslis-Lagoudakis et al., 2011b; Weckerle et al., 2011) and we encourage such comparisons to be made between areas that have had minimal cultural exchange. We strongly believe that such comparisons will inform bioprospecting strategies and, most importantly, will contribute to the understanding of traditional medicine itself.
References Barrett, C.B., Lybbert, T.J., 2000. Is bioprospecting a viable strategy for conserving tropical ecosystems? Ecological Economics 34, 293–300. Bennett, B.C., Husby, C.E., 2008. Patterns of medicinal plant use: an examination of the Ecuadorian Shuar medicinal flora using contingency table and binomial analyses. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 116, 422–430. Bletter, N., 2007. A quantitative synthesis of the medicinal ethnobotany of the Malinke of Mali and the Ashaninka of Peru, with a new theoretical framework. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 3, 36. Buenz, E.J, Schnepple, D.J., Bauer, B.A., Elkin, P.L., Riddle, J.M., Motley, T.J., 2004. Techniques: bioprospecting historical herbal texts by hunting for new leads in old tomes. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 25, 494–498. Coe, F.G., Anderson, G.J., 1996. Screening of medicinal plants used by the Garifuna of Eastern Nicaragua for bioactive compounds. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 53, 29–50. Douwes, E., Crouch, N.R., Edwards, T.J., Mulholland, D.A., 2008. Regression analyses of southern African ethnomedicinal plants: informing the targeted selection of bioprospecting and pharmacological screening subjects. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 119, 356–364. Fabricant, D.S., Farnsworth, N.R., 2001. The value of plants used in traditional medicine for drug discovery. Environmental Health Perspectives 109, 69–75. Firn, R.D., 2003. Bioprospecting – why is it so unrewarding? Biodiversity and Conservation 12, 207–216. Harvey, A.L., 1999. Medicines from nature: are natural products still relevant to drug discovery? Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 20, 196–198. Harvey, A.L., 2008. Natural products in drug discovery. Drug Discovery Today 13, 894–901. Li, R.W., Myers, S.P., Leach, D.N., Lin, G.D., Leach, G., 2003. A cross-cultural study: anti-inflammatory activity of Australian and Chinese plants. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 85, 25–32. Makhubu, L., 1998. Bioprospecting in an African context. Science 282, 41–42. McClatchey, W., 2005. Medicinal bioprospecting and ethnobotany research. Ethnobotany Research & Applications 3, 189–190. Molander, M., Saslis-Lagoudakis, C.H., Jäger A.K., Ronsted N., submitted for publication. Cross-cultural comparison of medicinal floras used against snakebites. Journal of Ethnopharmacology. Saslis-Lagoudakis, C.H., Williamson, E.M., Savolainen, V., Hawkins, J.A., 2011a. Cross-cultural comparison of three medicinal floras and implications for bioprospecting strategies. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 135, 476–487. Saslis-Lagoudakis, C.H., Klitgaard, B.B., Forest, F., Francis, L., Savolainen, V., Williamson, E.M., Hawkins, J.A., 2011b. The use of phylogeny to interpret crosscultural patterns in plant use and guide medicinal plant discovery: an example from Pterocarpus (Leguminosae). PLoS ONE 6, e22275. Soejarto, D.D., Fong, H.H.S., Tan, G.T., Zhang, H.J., Ma, C.Y., Franzblau, S.G., Gyllenhaal, C., Riley, M.C., Kadushin, M.R., Pezzuto, J.M., Xuan, L.T., Hiep, N.T., Hung, N.V., Vu, B.M., Loc, P.K., Dac, L.X., Binh, L.T., Chien, N.Q., Hai, N.V., Bich, T.Q., Cuong, N.M., Southavong, B., Sydara, K., Bouamanivong, S., Ly, H.M., Thuy, T.V., Rose, W.C., Dietzman, G.R., 2005. Ethnobotany/ethnopharmacology and mass bioprospecting: Issues on intellectual property and benefit-sharing. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 100, 15–22. Weckerle, C.S., Cabras, S., Castellanos, M.E., Leonti, M., 2011. Quantitative methods in ethnobotany and ethnopharmacology: considering the overall flora – hypothesis testing for over- and underused plant families with the Bayesian approach. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 137, 837–843. WHO, 2008. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs134/en/.
690
Editorial / Journal of Ethnopharmacology 139 (2012) 688–690
C. Haris Saslis-Lagoudakis ∗ School of Biological Sciences, Whiteknights, University of Reading, UK Division of Biology, Silwood Park Campus, Imperial College London, UK Elizabeth M. Williamson School of Pharmacy, Whiteknights, University of Reading, UK Vincent Savolainen Division of Biology, Silwood Park Campus, Imperial College London, UK Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, UK
Julie A. Hawkins School of Biological Sciences, Whiteknights, University of Reading, UK ∗ Corresponding author at: School of Biological Sciences, Whiteknights, Reading, Berkshire RG6 6BX, United Kingdom. Tel.: +44 1183784405. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.H. Saslis-Lagoudakis)
17 August 2011 Available online 22 September 2011