| Title |
Genotoxicity evaluation of So-ochim-tang-gamibang (SOCG), a herbal medicine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12906-018-2111-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mi Young Lee, Yang-Chun Park, Mirim Jin, Eunseok Kim, Jeong June Choi, In Chul Jung |
| Abstract |
So-ochim-tang-gamibang (SOCG) is a traditional Korean medicine frequently used for depression in the clinical field. In this study, we evaluated the potential genotoxicity of SOCG using three standard batteries of tests as part of a safety evaluation. SOCG was evaluated for potential genotoxic effects using the standard three tests recommended by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) of Korea. These tests were the bacterial reverse mutation test (Ames test), in vitro mammalian chromosomal aberration test using Chinese hamster lung cells, and in vivo micronucleus test using ICR mice. The Ames test with Salmonella typhimurium strains TA98, TA100, TA1535 and TA1537 and the Escherichia coli strain WP2uvrA(pKM101) showed that SOCG did not induce gene mutations at any dose level in all of the strains. SOCG did not induce any chromosomal aberrations in the in vitro chromosomal aberration test (for both the 6 and 24 h test) and the in vivo micronucleus test. Based on the results of these tests, it was concluded that SOCG does not exhibit any genotoxic risk under the experimental conditions of this study. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philippines | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 15% |
| Researcher | 2 | 15% |
| Other | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 46% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 31% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 February 2018.
All research outputs
#17,929,042
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#2,363
of 3,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#309,119
of 439,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#65
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,643 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,370 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.