Chemical constituents of Chinese herbs?

[Guest guest]

Hi Roger,

 

The basic reference text used for the western pharmacology part of my

masters in Chinese Herbal Medicine was:-

 

Chinese Materia Medica: Chemistry, Pharmacology and Applications by

Zhu, Youping.

 

It has just been reprinted but unfortunately, not a new edition. It is

a very hefty text (with a price tag to match) with the molecular

structures of most of the known chemical constituents. I believe it is

more detailed than The Pharmacology of Chinese Herbs (2nd Ed.) by Kee

C. Huang.

 

Another text that may be of interest to you is :-

 

Chinese drugs of plant origin : chemistry, pharmacology, and use in

traditional and modern medicine by Tang, Weici.

 

I hope this helps and I wish you all the best with your computer

project!! I have been working on one myself with the aim of developing

electronic resources for undergraduate studies.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

 

 

On 15 May 2004, at 5:56 AM, rw2 wrote:

 

>

> What are the best current text sources of chemical constituents of the

> most common herbs of the TCM materia medica?

>

> So far, I have the following references:

>

> Chinese Medical Herbology & Pharmacology

> by John K. Chen & Tina Chen

> Art of Medicine Press

> c2003

>

> http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke/

> Jim Duke's Phytochemical and Ethnobotanical Databases

> (Agricultural Research Service)

>

>

> Does anyone know how good the following is?

>

> The Pharmacology of Chinese Herbs

> 2nd Ed., by Kee C. Huang

>

>

>

> I need sources that have as complete a listing of known constituents

> as possible.

>

>

> ---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist

> contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/

> Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA

> Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On May 14, 2004, at 2:56 PM, Steven Slater wrote:

 

> It has just been reprinted but unfortunately, not a new edition. It is

> a very hefty text (with a price tag to match) with the molecular

> structures of most of the known chemical constituents. --

 

Can anybody tell me what benefit there is in visualizing the molecular

structure of a chemical constituent?

 

I'm not asking for a debate, I'm just curious as to what this tells the

chemist and how that might be of benefit to anybody. Always have

wondered this...

 

--

 

Red meat is not bad for you. Now blue-green meat, that's bad for you!

-Tom Smothers

[Guest guest]

I am no expert in this area........I was always more interested in the

practical applications of knowledge than the intricacies of body/drug

interaction at a molecular level.

 

However, from a pharmacological point of view; chemicals interact with

the body or they don't. To interact, they must attach to a receptor

site. To attach to a receptor site they must FIT. Much like the

principle of lock and key. This fit is 3D in nature and is dependent on

the molecular structure of the chemical.

 

Apparently, pharmacological chemists can get an idea of what chemicals

may interact with a particular receptor in the body via knowing the

structure of both the receptor and the chemical.

It is my understanding that much of the modern research for new drugs

is based on these structures. They are entered into computer programs

to produce the 3D model structures which then are mixed in cyberspace

with a particular receptor structure (of the body) to see if this

chemical has a potential KEY for the receptor LOCK.

 

Plants can be, and are, screened in this manner to look for " potential "

new active ingredients that drug companies may isolate and use as

future medications. I believe it saves a lot of the costs associated

with actually physical chemistry in the lab for this stage of R & D.

 

I hope this made some sense!

 

Fascinating stuff.........but I only have 1 lifetime (that I know of)

and don't have time to learn this side of things in detail personally.

 

 

On 15 May 2004, at 8:19 AM, Al Stone wrote:

 

>

> On May 14, 2004, at 2:56 PM, Steven Slater wrote:

>

>> It has just been reprinted but unfortunately, not a new edition. It is

>> a very hefty text (with a price tag to match) with the molecular

>> structures of most of the known chemical constituents. --

>

> Can anybody tell me what benefit there is in visualizing the molecular

> structure of a chemical constituent?

>

> I'm not asking for a debate, I'm just curious as to what this tells the

> chemist and how that might be of benefit to anybody. Always have

> wondered this...

>

> --

>

> Red meat is not bad for you. Now blue-green meat, that's bad for you!

> -Tom Smothers

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I should add that this approach is also used to find out how a

particular " active " actually causes its effect on the body. The

chemicals of a medicinal plant can be isolated and their structure

determined. Once the structure is known, it can be inferred via past

known structural interactions or computer modeling how this plant

chemical may interact, and thus cause physiological change in the body.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

 

 

On 15 May 2004, at 8:37 AM, Steven Slater wrote:

 

> I am no expert in this area........I was always more interested in the

> practical applications of knowledge than the intricacies of body/drug

> interaction at a molecular level.

>

> However, from a pharmacological point of view; chemicals interact with

> the body or they don't. To interact, they must attach to a receptor

> site. To attach to a receptor site they must FIT. Much like the

> principle of lock and key. This fit is 3D in nature and is dependent on

> the molecular structure of the chemical.

>

> Apparently, pharmacological chemists can get an idea of what chemicals

> may interact with a particular receptor in the body via knowing the

> structure of both the receptor and the chemical.

> It is my understanding that much of the modern research for new drugs

> is based on these structures. They are entered into computer programs

> to produce the 3D model structures which then are mixed in cyberspace

> with a particular receptor structure (of the body) to see if this

> chemical has a potential KEY for the receptor LOCK.

>

> Plants can be, and are, screened in this manner to look for " potential "

> new active ingredients that drug companies may isolate and use as

> future medications. I believe it saves a lot of the costs associated

> with actually physical chemistry in the lab for this stage of R & D.

>

> I hope this made some sense!

>

> Fascinating stuff.........but I only have 1 lifetime (that I know of)

> and don't have time to learn this side of things in detail personally.

>

>

> On 15 May 2004, at 8:19 AM, Al Stone wrote:

>

>>

>> On May 14, 2004, at 2:56 PM, Steven Slater wrote:

>>

>>> It has just been reprinted but unfortunately, not a new edition. It

>>> is

>>> a very hefty text (with a price tag to match) with the molecular

>>> structures of most of the known chemical constituents. --

>>

>> Can anybody tell me what benefit there is in visualizing the molecular

>> structure of a chemical constituent?

>>

>> I'm not asking for a debate, I'm just curious as to what this tells

>> the

>> chemist and how that might be of benefit to anybody. Always have

>> wondered this...

>>

>> --

>>

>> Red meat is not bad for you. Now blue-green meat, that's bad for you!

>> -Tom Smothers

>>

>>

>>

>>

[Guest guest]

It is actually a fairly accurate way to predict what will react with

what in what way. Unfortunately the human body is too complex for

currently used models, but pharm companies have much more advanced

models using the human genome that may result in surprising efficacy

and minimal side effects. However the molecular model is one of the

great advances of modern science. In the more controllable hard

sciences like organic chemistry, this model has proven predictable and

reproducible in 100s of 1000s of experiments. There is a very good

chance it will give a similar showing when applied to the human body

using models of sufficient complexity. This basically requires a

fusing of molecular and information and complexity models. New

advances always stand on the foundation of older proven concepts. that

is why I always insist that the molecular model will never disappear

from science, but more likely remain as an integral component of a more

encompassing model. And why I categorically dismiss the idea that

reductionism has no value and will someday be completely displaced by

holism.

 

On May 14, 2004, at 3:37 PM, Steven Slater wrote:

 

>

> Apparently, pharmacological chemists can get an idea of what

> chemicals 

> may interact with a particular receptor in the body via knowing the 

> structure of both the receptor and the chemical.

> It is my understanding that much of the modern research for new drugs 

> is based on these structures. They are entered into computer programs 

> to produce the 3D model structures which then are mixed in cyberspace 

> with a particular receptor structure (of the body)  to see if this 

> chemical has a potential KEY for the receptor LOCK.

>

>

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

FAX:

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I agree, especially when the reductionist path is taken inside each

atom. In all becomes electrical in natural. All molecular reactions are

facilitated energy interactions......complex balances between

attraction and repulsion. Dare I say Yin and Yang?

 

TCM has a far more holistic or perhaps " gross " view of these

interactions. Depending on how we choose to view or filter new

" scientific " discoveries and technology, they can help us understand

TCM or can be dismissed as " reductionist " and therefore lacking

practicality in real life.

 

I find it fascinating and educational to see the body from all views,

and exciting when it all comes down to energetic interaction, even from

what many believe are diametrically opposed approaches.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

 

On 16 May 2004, at 1:44 AM, wrote:

> New

> advances always stand on the foundation of older proven concepts. that

> is why I always insist that the molecular model will never disappear

> from science, but more likely remain as an integral component of a more

> encompassing model. And why I categorically dismiss the idea that

> reductionism has no value and will someday be completely displaced by

> holism.

>

> Chinese Herbs

>

>

> FAX:

[Guest guest]

I am not an expert at pharmacology or molecular biology by any means,

but from my studies it would seem that the 'key-lock-key' model of

cellular receptor sites for drug molecules is a representational one,

and doesn't completely reflect reality. The reality of a medicine's

interactions with cells is probably much more complex and sloppy than

represented. It is fine to use this model as a tool to understanding

how medicinal substances work, but we've got a long way to go before

this model is truly accurate.

 

I agree that genomics will be a great help in allowing more

sophistication in targeting and designing drugs, and perhaps in

describing effects of herbal medicines as well. However, the unfolding

of proteins, crucial in cellular metabolism, is still a great mystery

with a long way to go before leaving the realm of uncertainty.

 

 

On May 15, 2004, at 8:44 AM, wrote:

 

> It is actually a fairly accurate way to predict what will react with

> what in what way. Unfortunately the human body is too complex for

> currently used models, but pharm companies have much more advanced

> models using the human genome that may result in surprising efficacy

> and minimal side effects. However the molecular model is one of the

> great advances of modern science. In the more controllable hard

> sciences like organic chemistry, this model has proven predictable and

> reproducible in 100s of 1000s of experiments. There is a very good

> chance it will give a similar showing when applied to the human body

> using models of sufficient complexity. This basically requires a

> fusing of molecular and information and complexity models. New

> advances always stand on the foundation of older proven concepts. that

> is why I always insist that the molecular model will never disappear

> from science, but more likely remain as an integral component of a more

> encompassing model. And why I categorically dismiss the idea that

> reductionism has no value and will someday be completely displaced by

> holism.

[Guest guest]

I am not an expert at pharmacology or molecular biology by any means,

but from my studies it would seem that the 'key-lock-key' model of

cellular receptor sites for drug molecules is a representational one,

and doesn't completely reflect reality.

>>>>Actually Zev its looking like it is a great model that is now being

understood more and more. Because of genetic studies we are beginning to

discover were dysfunction or more often error in proteins occur in particular

diseases, and the hope is that designer drugs will be used to address the

failure site only. The problem with many of today's drugs is that they affect

large category of sites and therefore cause side-effects.While systems will

always be important to prevent many diseases, many diseases look to have more

genetic determinants than we ever thought. The promise of designer drugs or more

likely different type of proteins is looking very hopeful. But only the future

will tell

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, z'ev wrote:

 

> I am not an expert at pharmacology or molecular biology by any means,

> but from my studies it would seem that the 'key-lock-key' model of

> cellular receptor sites for drug molecules is a representational one,

> and doesn't completely reflect reality.

 

All models are representational. The importance of any model is its

reproducible

predictive value. Molecules definitely have 3 dimensional structure and their

interaction

depends on this structure. the classic example is enzymes, which fail to work

unless they

maintain their 3-d structure. so while lock and key may be a simplistic

analogy, the

predictive value of stereochemical interactions has been proven repeatedly in

many

different fields. The shape of a molecule typically determines it's activity.

Certainly no

other model of chemistry even remotely approaches the huge body of evidence

around

molecular modeling. All processes involve substances. All substances are in a

state of

flux. It is not one or the other. I think these bidirectional

interrelationships between

substances and processes are qi transformations.

 

[Guest guest]

I think the main problem with the key-lock-key model is that the

reality of drug reactions in the body is much more 'sloppy', not so

localized as the model seems to indicate. The number of physicians who

believe that drugs have no side effects in my experience are many, and

this model seems seamless. . . drug molecules combine with a specific

receptor site, and a clean interaction occurs. However, drugs clearly

have more global, general reactions, and therefore the model has

limited application.

 

The human being is always more complex than any representational model,

or laboratory/animal virtual system used to determine drug effects.

 

 

On May 18, 2004, at 10:29 AM, wrote:

 

> All models are representational. The importance of any model is its

> reproducible

> predictive value. Molecules definitely have 3 dimensional structure

> and their interaction

> depends on this structure. the classic example is enzymes, which fail

> to work unless they

> maintain their 3-d structure. so while lock and key may be a

> simplistic analogy, the

> predictive value of stereochemical interactions has been proven

> repeatedly in many

> different fields. The shape of a molecule typically determines it's

> activity. Certainly no

> other model of chemistry even remotely approaches the huge body of

> evidence around

> molecular modeling. All processes involve substances. All substances

> are in a state of

> flux. It is not one or the other. I think these bidirectional

> interrelationships between

> substances and processes are qi transformations.

>

 

[Guest guest]

I think the main problem with the key-lock-key model is that the

reality of drug reactions in the body is much more 'sloppy', not so

localized as the model seems to indicate. The number of physicians who

believe that drugs have no side effects in my experience are many, and

this model seems seamless. . . drug molecules combine with a specific

receptor site, and a clean interaction occurs. However, drugs clearly

have more global, general reactions, and therefore the model has

limited application.

>>>>Zev you are missing the entire point. There are almost no such drugs in the

market today. Your whole argument misses the point of the luck key concepts.

Most drugs today affect large systems, for example SSRIs are not specific to any

tissue or nerve you are trying to affect. They block reuptake at may sites. If

you had for example an SSRI that only binds the sites in a specific brain region

needed for therapeutic effects, you would not have any of the other effects that

are now causing sideeffects. That is were the new research is leading. This is

true for disease such as cancer.

Alon