Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37553481›Full record

ReviewNatural products and bioprospecting2023

Terpenes extracted from marine sponges with antioxidant activity: a systematic review.

Cintia Cristina Santi Martignago, Beatriz Soares-Silva, Julia Risso Parisi, Lais Caroline Souza E Silva, Renata Neves Granito, Alessandra Mussi Ribeiro, Ana Cláudia Muniz Renno, Lorena Ramos Freitas de Sousa, Anna Caroline Campos Aguiar

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Natural products and bioprospecting, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Cintia Cristina Santi MartignagoDepartamento de Biociências, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Rua Silva Jardim 136, Edifício Central, Santos, SP, 11015-020, Brazil.
Beatriz Soares-SilvaDepartamento de Biociências, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Rua Silva Jardim 136, Edifício Central, Santos, SP, 11015-020, Brazil.
Julia Risso ParisiDepartamento de Biociências, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Rua Silva Jardim 136, Edifício Central, Santos, SP, 11015-020, Brazil.
Lais Caroline Souza E SilvaDepartamento de Biociências, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Rua Silva Jardim 136, Edifício Central, Santos, SP, 11015-020, Brazil.
Renata Neves GranitoDepartamento de Biociências, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Rua Silva Jardim 136, Edifício Central, Santos, SP, 11015-020, Brazil.
Alessandra Mussi RibeiroDepartamento de Biociências, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Rua Silva Jardim 136, Edifício Central, Santos, SP, 11015-020, Brazil.
Ana Cláudia Muniz RennoDepartamento de Biociências, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Rua Silva Jardim 136, Edifício Central, Santos, SP, 11015-020, Brazil.
Lorena Ramos Freitas de SousaInstitute of Chemistry, Federal University of Catalão (UFCAT), Av. Dr. Lamartine Pinto de Avelar, 1120 Vila Chaud, Catalão, GO, 75704-020, Brazil. lorennarf@ufcat.edu.br.
Anna Caroline Campos AguiarDepartamento de Biociências, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Rua Silva Jardim 136, Edifício Central, Santos, SP, 11015-020, Brazil. annaccaguiar@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0139-8279
Universidade Federal de São Paulo · BRUniversitat Oberta de Catalunya · ES

Funding

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2019/10228-5Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2019/19708-0
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Marine biodiversity has emerged as a very promising resource of bioactive compounds and secondary metabolites from different sea organisms. The sponge's secondary metabolites demonstrated various bioactivities and potential pharmacological properties. This systematic review of the literature focuses on the advances achieved in the antioxidant potential of marine sponges in vitro. The review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The main inclusion criterion for analysis was articles with identification of compounds from terpene classes that demonstrate antioxidant activity in vitro. Searching in three different databases, two hundred articles were selected. After screening abstracts, titles and evaluating for eligibility of manuscripts 14 articles were included. The most performed analyzes to detect antioxidant activity were scavenging activity 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) and measurement of intracellular reactive oxygen species (ROS). It was possible to identify 17 compounds of the terpene class with pronounced antioxidant activity in vitro. Scientific evidence of the studies included in this review was accessed by the GRADE analysis. Terpenes play an important ecological role, moreover these molecules have a pharmaceutical and industrial application.

Indexed as

AntioxidantFree radicalMarine drugsSponge

Identifiers

PMID37553481
PMCPMC10409963
OpenAlexW4385683718

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.