Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42048162›Full record

ReviewPharmaceutical biology2026

A screening strategy for identifying the developmental and reproductive toxicity potential of botanicals.

Catherine Mahony, Arianna Bartlett, Suzanne Fitzpatrick, Corrado Galli, Piper Hunt, Amy Inselman, Jessica Jimenez, Julie Krzykwa, Jacob Larson, Cynthia Rider and 4 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmaceutical biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Predicting the Toxicity In Silico of the Aqueous Extract ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
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

14 authors.

Catherine MahonyProcter & Gamble Technical Centre, Reading, UK.
Arianna BartlettResearch Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, USA.
Suzanne FitzpatrickUS FDA, Human Foods Program, Office of Chemistry & Toxicology, Laurel, MD, USA.
Corrado GalliSection of Toxicology and Risk Assessment, Department of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences (DISFeB), University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Piper HuntUS FDA, Human Foods Program, Office of Chemistry & Toxicology, Laurel, MD, USA.
Amy InselmanUS FDA, National Center of Toxicological Research, Jefferson, AR, USA.
Jessica JimenezProcter & Gamble Healthcare, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Julie KrzykwaHealth and Environmental Sciences Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Jacob LarsonHerbalife International of America Inc, Torrance, CA, USA.
Cynthia RiderDivision of Translational Toxicology, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Durham, NC, USA.
John RogersToxStrategies LLC, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Vicki SutherlandDivision of Translational Toxicology, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Durham, NC, USA.
Kevin WelchUSDA-ARS, Poisonous Plant Research Laboratory, Logan, UT, USA.
Constance A MitchellHerbalife International of America Inc, Torrance, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextBotanicals are widely consumed as dietary supplements and traditional medicines, yet their developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) potential is often inadequately characterized. Botanicals are chemically complex and variable, complicating traditional

objectiveThis review describes the Botanical Safety Consortium (BSC) DART Working Group strategy to evaluate a battery of NAMs for screening botanical extracts and outlines the botanicals selected as case studies to assess assay suitability for complex mixtures.

methodsAvailable NAMs relevant to DART were identified and reviewed, including human induced pluripotent stem cell assays (e.g., devTox Quick Predict), zebrafish embryos,

resultsThe selected NAM battery captures diverse mechanisms relevant to DART. The case study botanicals span clear positives (e.g., locoweed, poison hemlock, cottonseed), suspected positives based on limited data (e.g., bitter melon, goldenseal, rue), and low concern examples (e.g., Asian ginseng), enabling evaluation of assay performance for complex mixtures.

conclusionsThis strategy paper lays the groundwork to assess the suitability of integrated NAMs for screening botanical DART potential and establishes the foundation for subsequent testing and case study evaluation.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsPlant ExtractsReproductionToxicity TestsAnimalsHumansPlants, MedicinalRisk AssessmentZebrafishPlant ExtractsBotanicalsdevelopmentalNAMsnatural productsreproductionsupplements

Identifiers

PMID42048162
PMCPMC13126950

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.