Is it important to find out a novel marker, whether it be a phytochemical or a biological, from a herb while working on it? Or the concept of bioactive fraction is more precise in the present context.
In most of the cases, people isolate previously isolated markers from the plant and again report them as confirmation of previous findings. Is it not better to work on some new ideas like fractions rather than markers and relying on them?
As of now, which is more acceptable in scientific community considering the problems that accrue during isolation studies?
Actually working with standardized bioactive fraction is most appreciated, as it works by multifaceted of action. But many times in bio activity guided fractionation we get pure compound for which activity is governed. Although compound is knowing in other species also and used for some other function. But many times we get new molecule. As we all know just like animal, plant also synthesized basic metabolites of their own importance, which is varies chemotaxonomically between species to species and genus to genus. This creates ambiguity in production of novel marker.
- Badges
- Science topic