MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present review collected the literatures published prior to 2020 on the traditional medicinal uses, phytochemistry, and pharmacology of the genus Amomum. The available literatures were extracted from scientific databases, such as Sci-finder, PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Baidu Scholar, and CNKI, books, and others.
RESULTS: Herein, we summarize all 166 naturally occurring non-volatile compounds from 16 plants of the genus Amomum reported in 171 references, including flavonoids, terpenoids, diarylheptanoids, coumarins, etc. Triterpenes and flavonoids are the main constituents among these compounds and maybe play an important role in the activities directly or indirectly. As traditional medicine, the plants from the genus Amomum have been usually used in some traditional herbal prescriptions, and pharmacological researches in vitro and in vivo revealed that the extracts possessed significant antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-allergic activities, etc. CONCLUSION: The review systematically summarizes current studies on traditional medicinal uses, phytochemistry, pharmacological activity on the plants from the genus Amomum. To date, the majority of publications still focused on the research of volatile constituents. However, the promising preliminary data of non-volatile constituents indicated the research potential of this genus in phytochemical and pharmacological aspects. Furthermore, the further in-depth investigations on the safety, efficacy, as well as the stereo-chemistry and structure-activity relationships of pure compounds from this genus are essential in the future.
METHODS: We carried out a systematic search of all available RCTs up to June 2019 in the following electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Pooled weight mean difference (WMD) of the included studies was estimated using random-effects model.
RESULTS: A total of 27 articles were included in this meta-analysis, with walnuts dosage ranging from 15 to 108 g/d for 2 wk to 2 y. Overall, interventions with walnut intake did not alter waist circumference (WC) (WMD: -0.193 cm, 95 % CI: -1.03, 0.64, p = 0.651), body weight (BW) (0.083 kg, 95 % CI: -0.032, 0.198, p = 0.159), body mass index (BMI) (WMD: -0.40 kg/m,295 % CI: -0.244, 0.164, p = 0.703), and fat mass (FM) (WMD: 0.28 %, 95 % CI: -0.49, 1.06, p = 0.476). Following dose-response evaluation, reduced BW (Coef.= -1.62, p = 0.001), BMI (Coef.= -1.24, p = 0.041) and WC (Coef.= -5.39, p = 0.038) were significantly observed through walnut intake up to 35 g/day. However, the number of studies can be limited as to the individual analysis of the measures through the dose-response fashion.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, results from this meta-analysis suggest that interventions with walnut intake does not alter BW, BMI, FM, and WC. To date, there is no discernible evidence to support walnut intake for improving anthropometric indicators of weight loss.
METHODS: We utilized data from genome-wide association studies within the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium and Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium, involving approximately 9,269 cases and 12,530 controls of European descent, to evaluate associations between pancreatic cancer risk and genetically predicted plasma n-6 PUFA levels. Conventional MR analyses were performed using individual-level and summary-level data.
RESULTS: Using genetic instruments, we did not find evidence of associations between genetically predicted plasma n-6 PUFA levels and pancreatic cancer risk [estimates per one SD increase in each PUFA-specific weighted genetic score using summary statistics: linoleic acid odds ratio (OR) = 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.98-1.02; arachidonic acid OR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.99-1.01; and dihomo-gamma-linolenic acid OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.87-1.02]. The OR estimates remained virtually unchanged after adjustment for covariates, using individual-level data or summary statistics, or stratification by age and sex.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that variations of genetically determined plasma n-6 PUFA levels are not associated with pancreatic cancer risk.
IMPACT: These results suggest that modifying n-6 PUFA levels through food sources or supplementation may not influence risk of pancreatic cancer.