Talk:Chaenomeles speciosa

Are they the same.....???

Fruit of Chaenomeles speciasa 木瓜 and fruit of Chaenomelis speciosa 海棠

See TCM Materia Medica (Fruit)--222.67.214.23 (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this

http://web.chemistrymag.org/cji/2007/095022nc.htm --222.67.214.23 (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this Papaya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.67.214.23 (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and

http://ethesys.lib.pu.edu.tw/ETD-db/ETD-search/view_etd?URN=etd-0731107-120448

Mediation of dopamine inhibition effect? Chemical/Molecule?

Dopamine transporter inhibitory and antiparkinsonian effect of common flowering quince extract

Gang Zhaoa, b, Zhi-Hua Jianga, b, Xiang-wei Zhenga, Shao-Yun Zanga and Li-He Guoa, b, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author

aCell Star Bio-Technologies Co., Limited, 898 Halei Road, Shanghai 201203, PR China

bInstitute of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 320 Yue Yang Road, Shanghai 200031, PR China

Received 18 December 2006; revised 14 March 2008; accepted 14 March 2008. Available online 30 March 2008.

Abstract

Common flowering quince (FQ) is the fruit of Chaenomeles speciosa (Sweet) Nakai. FQ-containing cocktails have been applied to the treatment of neuralgia, migraine, and depression in traditional Chinese medicine. The present study assessed whether FQ is effective in dopamine transporter (DAT) regulation and antiparkinsonism by utilizing in vitro and in vivo assays, respectively. FQ at concentrations of 1–1000 μg/ml concentration-dependently inhibited dopamine uptake by Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells stably expressing DAT (D8 cells) and by synaptosomes. FQ had a slight inhibitory action on norepinephrine uptake by CHO cells expressing the norepinephrine transporter and no inhibitory effect on γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) uptake by CHO cells expressing GABA transporter-1 or serotonin uptake by the serotonin transporter. A viability assay showed that FQ mitigated 1-methyl-4-phenylpyridinium-induced toxicity in D8 cells. Furthermore, in behavioral studies, FQ alleviated rotational behavior in 6-hydroxydopamine-treated rats and improved deficits in endurance performance in 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP)-treated mice. Furthermore, immunohistochemistry revealed that FQ markedly reduced the loss of tyrosine hydroxylase-positive neurons in the substantia nigra in MPTP-treated mice. In summary, FQ is a selective, potent DAT inhibitor and has antiparkinsonian-like effects that are mediated possibly by DAT suppression. FQ has the potential to be further developed for Parkinson's disease treatment.

...Strange that they do not try to isolate the cause, the molecule or chemical native to the plant behind the DA inhibition activity. Is Chinese medicine such an important matter that the "cocktail" itself is here being defended under traditional pretenses for use by science, as an agenda? That it is somehow an arrangement of this plant species prepared on this scale that is touted as being the most refined level of these effects? Nagelfar (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is not my specialty, I'm a botanist, but I did recently attend a conference on "natural products research". The message that I came away with is that looking for a single chemical that explains an effect is old-fashioned. There is a lot of evidence that multiple components are important, often overwhelmingly so. Single chemicals are often dangerous, or just don't do what is wanted. "FQ has the potential to be further developed for Parkinson's disease treatment." would mean that further experimentation and refinement would be a good idea. The authors (probably) don't have a hidden agenda, they just wrote up what they have so far and will probably continue work and report again in a year or two, If they can't continue because they don't have funding, then the world is a better place for seeing their results so far. Btw, the citation for the above is: Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, Volume 90, Issue 3, September 2008, Pages 363-371. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cite other examples where it has been deduced that multiple components have been found to create a single neurotransmitter reaction in the brain, such as dopamine transporter reuptake inhibition? I'm thinking, at least in this instance most definitely, being that it is on the chemical scale (DA inhibition), that it must be a chemical doing so. Maybe the specificity and my knowledge plays a part in my assumption. I am aware that, for instance, there are multiple chemicals (like Thebaine that creates opium's effects (in the instance of Thebaine convulsant effects) rather than simply the morphine involved)... Yet when a single neurotransmitter has been found to be related to in a way that previous knowledge knows must be blocked on the molecular scale, then a chemical, most logically, would be deduced to be the culprit. My apologies it is just that I would assume this would be assumed by the original authors in this instance having knowledge of DA inhibition and I couldn't see multiple effects coming into work unless it was interacting metabolites: but ultimately a metabolite, or a chemical resultant from the interaction therein, would be found and marked as the cause in the instance of DA inhibition. Nagelfar (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Again, this isn't my specialty, nor is any type of chemistry. What I meant was that a single chemical can have multiple effects in the body, and that in some cases traditional herbal remedies turn out to have components that counteract some bad reactions. In an imaginary example, a mood-altering drug could be dangerous unless paired with a diuretic, or it might even require multiple compensating components. Crude herbal preparations that are traditionally used (teas, tinctures, etc.) always contain many hundreds of chemicals, and studying them turns out to be extremely complex. Optimizing a preparation requires a lot of experimentation, and the research takes a long time to complete. Sorry that I don't know any more about this, but why would an effect be expected to depend on only one component? Chemical pathways have many steps and feedback conditions, and, like tuning a machine, the end result seems likely to depend on adjusting several of them, up or down, adjustments that could be made by different added chemicals. Nadiatalent (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Papaya

I've been unable to find a reputable source that lists "papaya" as a common name for this species. Some web pages are very confused, for example [1], which shows a picture of Carica papaya labelled as Chaenomeles sinensis. I would like to remove "papaya" from this page, and similarly clean up other related pages, if there are no objections. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion at Pawpaw talk page and detective work by User:Hamamelis resolves the problem. Both plants can be referred to as mugua. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mugua

The article on Pseudocydonia sinensis recounts chinese medicine calling this species Mugua. Either the mention on this page of Mugua is incorrect, or the chinese name the both Mugua. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:C192:8200:A89A:C638:C5A0:36B3 (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]