|
In October of 2011, the Royal Botanic Gardens,
Kew, began a new project that seeks to create the first-ever comprehensive
reference of medicinal plant names. The Medicinal Plant Names Index (MPNI) will
map thousands of plants’ common and scientific names, including synonyms, which
Kew says will “raise the standard of medicinal plant research, management, and
use through enabling collation of relevant pharmacological, phytochemical, and
natural product data irrespective of the plant name or synonym used.”1
Basil (Ocimum
basilicum), for example, is a widely used medicinal plant that has at least
10 species names, said Alan Paton, PhD, Kew’s assistant herbarium keeper and a
member of the MPNI team at Kew (oral communication, October 26, 2011). Also,
just 19 species of the genus Mentha (Lamiaceae)
have more than 3,000 scientific names.2
As the American Botanical Council reported in 2010, the
existence of multiple names for one plant occurs when plant
systematists disagree with the original author’s naming, scientists are unaware
that a particular plant has already been named, or scientists intentionally
change plant names to reflect evolving knowledge of relationships among plant
species.2 Increasing the perplexity, these
various names are scattered about in different reference books, online
databases, and pharmacopeias.
“Black cohosh, some people call it Cimicifuga and some call it Actaea,” said Dr. Paton. “And actually
they’re the same thing, but some information is held under Cimicifuga and some is under Actaea.
As another example, in the genus Plectranthus—a
close relative of basil—only about 20% of information for the most used plants
is recorded under the commonly accepted name because people have been recording
information for a long time. That causes confusion, because if you want to find
information on one plant, you have to know and use all of its names.”
MPNI will connect each medicinal plant’s common
names, accepted scientific name(s), and synonyms—creating an interlinked, user
friendly, comprehensive map. So a user searching for Actaea racemosa (black cohosh) will see that A. racemosa is also referred to as the species Cimicifuga racemosa. If this user is a scientist, he or she will
now know to use both names when researching black cohosh.
While this naming problem exists for all
plants, it is especially important to ensure easy access to all names for commercially
used medicinal plants.2 Without this information, problems of
accuracy and inclusiveness can arise within the areas of medicinal plant
research, trade, conservation, regulations, and usage. With funding from the
global charitable foundation Wellcome Trust, Kew is partnering with a variety
of organizations that have an interest in the MPNI project, including the UK
National Poisons Agency, European Medicine Agency, Medicinal Plant Specialist
Group of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and World
Health Organization.1
“People have come to us asking for help with
clarification on medicinal plant names,” said Dr. Paton. The index will help
them “navigate the chaos.”
One of Kew’s partners on the MPNI, the
European Medicines Agency (EMA), noted that the list will aid the development of an international
standard for the identification of medicinal products, including those derived
from plants and herbal preparations, which is necessary to ensure the quality
and safety of medicines and their safety, as well as proper referencing of plant names in regulatory medicinal
product information.
“This is of
particular importance for the Agency in the context of the implementation of
the new pharmacovigilance legislation and the provisions set out in Regulation
(EC) 726/2004,” said Sabine Brosch, PhD, of EMA, noting that the regulation requires
pharmaceutical companies to provide defined information on medicines
electronically to the Agency by 2 July 2012. “This includes herbal medicinal
products, which require the unique identification of the plants from which
the medicinal products derive. Having a validated, well
maintained plant name reference built by Kew and its
partners with the relevant expertise and a global view will save efforts
and avoid errors and future incompatibilities in the unique identification of
plant names and plant derived medicinal products” (e-mail, November 1, 2011).
Brosch noted star
anise (Illicium verum) as an example. “[I. verum] shows
antimicrobial properties, whilst the botanical variety Japanese star anise (I.
anisatum, also known as I. religiosum, I. japonicum, shikimmi,
and skimmi) is scientifically recognized as highly poisonous.”
Debbie Shaw, PhD, head of Chinese and
traditional medicines at the Chinese Medicine Advisory Service (ChiMAS) in
London, said that the need for the MPNI was identified during the
organization’s ongoing collaborations with Kew. Staff members at ChiMAS, which
operates within the Medical Toxicology Information Services of Guy’s and St
Thomas’s NHS Foundation Trust, will act as expert advisors to the project and
will also be part of the user group.
“MPNI is significant as it will be an
authoritative list developed by botanical experts developed as a resource for
healthcare professionals and others involved in healthcare—not as an academic
exercise for use by other botanists,” said Dr. Shaw. “Reports of suspected
adverse reactions to herbal medicines are of no value if you cannot be certain
of the identity of the herb(s) that was used. The herbal medicines used in the
UK come from all countries around the world. Each has different naming systems
and methods of use. In any herbal enquiry we need a quick and reliable way of
checking on the names and synonyms that might have been used. Without this
information we can waste time looking for information on the incorrect plant,
or adverse events may be associated with an incorrect plant.
Dr. Shaw noted ginseng as an example,
explaining that “ginseng” may refer to American, Chinese, Indian, or Brazilian
ginseng, “all of which are different species and the latter 2 are completely different
genera. If ADRs are incorrectly reported, then ‘safe’ herbs may be labeled as
potentially toxic. Making correct links between plant names and identification
is the basis for scientific and clinical research; and in any assessment of
safety and efficacy.”
Expanding
Upon The Plant List
The MPNI comes about one year after Kew and
Missouri Botanical Garden unveiled The Plant List, which sought to be the
authoritative list of all plant names currently used.2 While The
Plant List will provide some of the data for the MPLI project, according to Dr.
Paton, “There’s room for improvement. It’s something to build on.” Dr. Paton
explained that The Plant List was completed quite quickly and left unresolved 25%
of plant names, including some medicinal plants. Also, it is very technical,
allowing users to search for a plant using only the scientific (Latin binomial)
name and not common names or synonyms.
The MPLI will finish many medicinal plant
entries left uncompleted in The Plant List, and will also allow users to search
for a plant using the scientific and common names. And though there are other
lists of medicinal plant names, such as the American Herbal Products
Association’s Herbs of Commerce 2nd
ed., Dr. Paton said that the MPLI will be more extensive. “There are lists
around,” he said. “But very often, they’re not fully comprehensive. So we have
some of the synonyms but not all of the synonyms. Or we have the common names
but not the Latin names. Regulation lists have the same plants under 2 Latin
names. There’s no central reference point.”
“It is essential for non-botanist researchers
to be able to find out under what other names their species of interest might
have been studied in the past,” said Wendy Applequist, PhD, assistant curator
at the Missouri Botanical Garden. “If the MPNI serves as a ‘one-stop shop’
for researchers, it will be very useful indeed. I would caution that no such
list can or should be treated as entirely authoritative. Definition of species,
for example, is much more complex in plants than in animals. There are numerous
cases in which one botanist would say that 2 names referred to [2] different
species, while another would say that one of those names was a synonym of the
other. I can't imagine how one could represent both views simultaneously in a
single cross-linked list, although it may be possible” (e-mail, October 31,
2011).
Project
Features
The MPNI project began by hiring an information
technology specialist, product development officer, and project manager, and by
creating a botanical data-gathering post. First, the team will assemble a user
group—one of the project’s most important components—to guide the index’s
direction, provide feedback, and ensure that the index is user friendly. This
group will be built over the next 6 months and will include an international
variety of pharmaceutical companies conducting medicinal plant research,
various herbal medicine and supplement regulators, and research institutions
like universities and nonprofits. To begin, the MPNI will focus on the herbal
medicine markets in Europe, the United States, Australia, China, Thailand, and
Japan. So far, about 11 institutions—including GlaxoSmithKline, the School of Chinese
Medicine in Hong Kong, Springer Publishing Company, and the World Health
Organization Uppsala International Drug Monitoring Centre—have sent Kew letters
of support, but the MPNI team has not yet decided on the members of its initial
user group.
“We’ll be building a wish list of what users
want,” said Dr. Paton. “We expect the sorts of things we’ll be asked for are
either common names in key languages, the pharmaceutical names, and the names
used in pharmacopeias.”
Team members have decided to begin mapping
plants contained in the European, US, and Chinese pharmacopeias because these
have significant supporting research and are of public interest, said Dr.
Paton. Throughout the project’s 3 1/2 years, they’ll expand the index based on
which plants and information the user group expresses is important. Dr. Paton
noted that the MPNI will probably end up containing names for about 5,000
plants, as well as links to other websites providing helpful and in-depth
resources.
Kew is hoping to have its first version of the
MPNI online by of the end of 2012. “It will be a little skeletal,” said Dr.
Paton, “but it will help to have feedback from users.”
—Lindsay Stafford
References
1. Medicinal Plant Name
Index (MPNI). Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew website. Available at: www.kew.org/science/directory/projects/MPNI.html.
Accessed October 26, 2011.
2. Stafford L. The Plant List: the first comprehensive inventory of most known
plant species. HerbalGram. 89:17-18.
Available at: http://cms.herbalgram.org/herbalgram/issue89/WN_PlantList.html.
|