4.7 Article

Analysis on herbal medicines utilized for treatment of COVID-19

期刊

ACTA PHARMACEUTICA SINICA B
卷 10, 期 7, 页码 1192-1204

出版社

INST MATERIA MEDICA, CHINESE ACAD MEDICAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsb.2020.05.007

关键词

COVID-19; Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM); Herbal medicines; Clustering analysis; Scaffold analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses a substantial global public health threat, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) was used in 91.50% of the COVID-19 cases in China, showing encouraging results in improving symptom management and reducing the deterioration, mortality, and recurrence rates. A total of 166 modified herbal formulae consisting of 179 single herbal medicines were collected for treating COVID-19 in China. Glycyrrhizae Radix et Rhizome, Scutellariae Radix, and Armeniacae Semen Amarum are the most frequently utilized in clinics, most of which are antipyretic (47, 26.26%), expectorant and cough- suppressing (22, 12.29%), and dampness-resolving (21, 11.73%) from traditional descriptions. A total of 1212 chemical components containing beta-sitosterol, stigmasterol, and quercetin were primarily selected. Additionally, using complex system entropy and unsupervised hierarchical clustering, 8 core herbal combinations and 10 newformulae emerged as potentially useful candidates for COVID-19. Finally, following scaffold analysis, self-organizing mapping (SOM) and cluster analysis, 12 clusters of molecules yielded 8 pharmacophore families of structures that were further screened as pharmacological targets in human metabolic pathways for inhibiting coronavirus. This article aims to make more easily accessible and share historical herbal knowledge used in contemporary treatments in a modern manner to assist researchers contain the global spread of COVID-19. (C) 2020 Chinese Pharmaceutical Association and Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据