ReviewPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Prospecting Pharmacologically Active Biocompounds from the Amazon Rainforest: In Vitro Approaches, Mechanisms of Action Based on Chemical Structure, and Perspectives on Human Therapeutic Use.
Review in Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Amazonian Nanobioeconomy 5.0: A Critical Integrative Review and Conceptual Framework Toward a Just Planetary Transition.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Amazonian Bioactives in Biopolymer-Based Systems for Biomedical Applications: Current Advances and Future Perspectives.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Exploring Copaiba and Andiroba Oils: A Comprehensive Review of Composition, Physicochemical Properties and Pharmacological Activities in Advanced Delivery Systems.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Physicochemical Characterization andACS omega · 2026Article
- Gamma-tocopherol vitamin E enhances the cytotoxicity of p-cresyl sulfate to renal tubular cells.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Amazon rainforest is an important reservoir of biodiversity, offering vast potential for the discovery of new bioactive compounds from plants. In vitro studies allow for the investigation of biological processes and interventions in a controlled manner, making them fundamental for pharmacological and biotechnological research. These approaches are faster and less costly than in vivo studies, providing standardized conditions that enhance the reproducibility and precision of data. However, in vitro methods have limitations, including the inability to fully replicate the complexity of a living organism and the absence of a complete physiological context. Translating results to in vivo models is not always straightforward, due to differences in pharmacokinetics and biological interactions. In this context, the aim of this literature review is to assess the advantages and disadvantages of in vitro approaches in the search for new drugs from the Amazon, identifying the challenges and limitations associated with these methods and comparing them with in vivo testing. Thus, bioprospecting in the Amazon involves evaluating plant extracts through bioassays to investigate pharmacological, antimicrobial, and anticancer activities. Phenolic compounds and terpenes are frequently identified as the main bioactive agents, exhibiting antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and antineoplastic activities. Chemical characterization, molecular modifications, and the development of delivery systems, such as nanoparticles, are highlighted to improve therapeutic efficacy. Therefore, the Amazon rainforest offers great potential for the discovery of new drugs; however, significant challenges, such as the standardization of extraction methods and the need for in vivo studies and clinical trials, must be overcome for these compounds to become viable medications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.