Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
Research article

Relationship between farmers’ perception of sustainability and future farming strategies: A commodity-level comparison

  • Received: 30 April 2019 Accepted: 16 July 2019 Published: 02 August 2019
  • The environmental challenges have become increasingly integrated into the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The Europe 2020 CAP Framework defines new rules for farmers and targets on innovation, resource efficiency, economic viability, and environmental sustainability. Given the continual evolution of the CAP, it is relevant to focus on sustainable agriculture and which indicators can be employed to aid our understanding of the future farming strategies. This study examines the relationship between perceived sustainability and future farming strategies for three different commodities: sugar beet, dairy, and feta cheese. Survey data collected between 2017–2018 from 191 Belgian sugar beet farmers, 524 dairy farmers (from UK, Denmark, France, and Latvia), and 150 Greek sheep and goat farmers producing milk for feta cheese were analysed using multinomial logistic regressions. Our results show that the farmers’ attitude towards sustainability affects intentions to implement specific farming strategies. Belgian sugar beet farmers who perceive their supply chain arrangements (SCAs) environmentally sustainable are less likely to reduce the scale of their farms’ operations rather than to maintain them. Dairy farmers are more likely to change the existing scale than to maintain scale if they perceive that production choices affect environmental sustainability to a higher extent. Dairy farmers who perceive their SCAs economically sustainable are less likely to abandon farming. Greek sheep and goat farmers who perceive their SCAs economically sustainable are more likely to expand the existing scale. The observed differences at commodity-level show the importance of well targeted policy measures towards more sustainable farming systems in the European Union.

    Citation: Sarah Creemers, Steven Van Passel, Mauro Vigani, George Vlahos. Relationship between farmers’ perception of sustainability and future farming strategies: A commodity-level comparison[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(3): 613-642. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.3.613

    Related Papers:

    [1] Omar El Deeb, Joseph El Khoury Edde . COVID19 vaccines as boosters or first doses: simulating scenarios to minimize infections and deaths. AIMS Biophysics, 2024, 11(2): 239-254. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2024014
    [2] Dinesh Bhatia, Tania Acharjee, Shruti Shukla, Monika Bhatia . Nano-technological advancements in multimodal diagnosis and treatment. AIMS Biophysics, 2024, 11(4): 464-507. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2024026
    [3] Zaynah Sheeraz, James C.L. Chow . Evaluation of dose enhancement with gold nanoparticles in kilovoltage radiotherapy using the new EGS geometry library in Monte Carlo simulation. AIMS Biophysics, 2021, 8(4): 337-345. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2021027
    [4] Shen Helvig, Intan D. M. Azmi, Seyed M. Moghimi, Anan Yaghmur . Recent Advances in Cryo-TEM Imaging of Soft Lipid Nanoparticles. AIMS Biophysics, 2015, 2(2): 116-130. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2015.2.116
    [5] Gayane Semerjyan, Inesa Semerjyan, Mikayel Ginovyan, Nikolay Avtandilyan . Characterization and antibacterial/cytotoxic activity of silver nanoparticles synthesized from Dicranum scoparium moss extracts growing in Armenia. AIMS Biophysics, 2025, 12(1): 29-42. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2025003
    [6] Takayuki Yoshida, Hiroyuki Kojima . Subcutaneous sustained-release drug delivery system for antibodies and proteins. AIMS Biophysics, 2025, 12(1): 69-100. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2025006
    [7] Mati ur Rahman, Mehmet Yavuz, Muhammad Arfan, Adnan Sami . Theoretical and numerical investigation of a modified ABC fractional operator for the spread of polio under the effect of vaccination. AIMS Biophysics, 2024, 11(1): 97-120. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2024007
    [8] Zubaidah Ningsih, James W.M. Chon, Andrew H.A. Clayton . A Microfluidic Device for Spatiotemporal Delivery of Stimuli to Cells. AIMS Biophysics, 2015, 2(2): 58-72. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2015.2.58
    [9] Sweta Raikundalia, Ling Ling Few, Siti Asma' Hassan, Get Bee Yvonne-Τee, Wei Cun See Too . Choline kinase and miR-32-5p: A crucial interaction promoting apoptosis and delaying wound repair in cervical cancer cells. AIMS Biophysics, 2024, 11(3): 281-295. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2024016
    [10] Christophe A. Monnier, David C. Thévenaz, Sandor Balog, Gina L. Fiore, Dimitri Vanhecke, Barbara Rothen-Rutishauser, Alke Petri-Fink . A guide to investigating colloidal nanoparticles by cryogenic transmission electron microscopy: pitfalls and benefits. AIMS Biophysics, 2015, 2(3): 245-258. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2015.3.245
  • The environmental challenges have become increasingly integrated into the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The Europe 2020 CAP Framework defines new rules for farmers and targets on innovation, resource efficiency, economic viability, and environmental sustainability. Given the continual evolution of the CAP, it is relevant to focus on sustainable agriculture and which indicators can be employed to aid our understanding of the future farming strategies. This study examines the relationship between perceived sustainability and future farming strategies for three different commodities: sugar beet, dairy, and feta cheese. Survey data collected between 2017–2018 from 191 Belgian sugar beet farmers, 524 dairy farmers (from UK, Denmark, France, and Latvia), and 150 Greek sheep and goat farmers producing milk for feta cheese were analysed using multinomial logistic regressions. Our results show that the farmers’ attitude towards sustainability affects intentions to implement specific farming strategies. Belgian sugar beet farmers who perceive their supply chain arrangements (SCAs) environmentally sustainable are less likely to reduce the scale of their farms’ operations rather than to maintain them. Dairy farmers are more likely to change the existing scale than to maintain scale if they perceive that production choices affect environmental sustainability to a higher extent. Dairy farmers who perceive their SCAs economically sustainable are less likely to abandon farming. Greek sheep and goat farmers who perceive their SCAs economically sustainable are more likely to expand the existing scale. The observed differences at commodity-level show the importance of well targeted policy measures towards more sustainable farming systems in the European Union.


    Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are one of the most frequently prescribed medicinal classes in old people and children [1],[2]. These medications are typically used to treat inflammatory illnesses and to reduce pain associated with a variety of medical ailments or surgeries [3]. They are used to treat chronic inflammatory disorders such as arthritis, gout, and rheumatoid. NSAIDs work by inhibiting the cyclooxygenase (COX) enzymes, which decrease the production of prostaglandins (PGs), which are believed to be involved in the complicated process of inflammation [4].

    Inflammatory responses caused by the production of histamine, bradykinin, and prostaglandins are part of the host's defense systems. COX are important enzymes in the biosynthesis of prostaglandins, which are the primary mediators of the inflammatory response, pain, and elevated body temperature (hyperpyrexia). The body generates two major isoforms of COX enzymes, namely cyclooxygenases-1 (COX-1) and cyclooxygenases-2 (COX-2). It has been reported that COX-1 is responsible for the production of important biological messengers such as prostaglandins and thromboxanes and is implicated in blood coagulation, pain-causing, and stomach protection, whereas COX-2 is implicated in pain triggered by inflammation and plays a key role in prostaglandin synthesis pathway in inflammatory cells and the nervous system [5],[6]. When COX-1 is blocked, the inflammatory response is decreased, but gastrointestinal lining defense is also reduced. This might result in stomach distress, ulcers, and hemorrhage from the gastrointestinal tract. Whereas COX-2 is normally restricted to inflamed tissue, COX-2 inhibition causes significantly reduced stomach irritation as well as a lower risk of gastric hemorrhage [7]. As a result, selective COX-2 inhibitors such as rofecoxib (Vioxx®) and celecoxib drugs have been designed to alleviate COX-related inflammation [8]. However, Coxib medications have been removed due to an enhanced danger of long-term heart attacks and strokes [9].

    Furthermore, NSAIDs are one of the most popular treatments in the world, however, they are not generally accepted by users, and hence their long-term usage in chronic medical conditions is accompanied with significant undesirable consequences. Long-term NSAIDS medication may cause stomach epithelial injury marked by localized necrosis, bleeding, and in some cases, severe ulceration [10],[11]. The NSAID-induced gastropathy issues that limit the effectiveness of this class of medications are due mainly to the nonselective inhibitory activity of both constitutive (COX-1) and inducible (COX-2) homologs of cyclooxygenase, as well as the existence of corrosive carboxylic acid features and functions in their structure [12].

    As a result, developing effective COX inhibitors from biological compounds is necessary. Medicinal plants, aromatic herbs, and their essential oils (EOs) have lately been recognized to have curative effects and also to have many health benefits. They have been shown to offer a wide range of medicinal benefits, including antibacterial, antifungal, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and anticancer properties [13][15]. Lavender (Lavandula officinalis (Lamiaceae family)) is a popular aromatic plant in the Mediterranean region, including Algeria. Lavender has mostly been employed in medicinal and domestic culinary applications over the world. The EO extracted from lavender aerial parts is the primary contributor to its distinctive perfume and medicinal function [16],[17]. In ethnomedicine, lavender is used as an anti-inflammatory medication [18],[19]. As a result, it is important to describe the molecular docking study of lavender metabolites with COX-1 and COX-2.

    The current study focuses on identifying potential treatment options that will be regarded as successful anti-inflammatory medication therapy. Molecular docking is a vital computational method in drug design and development projects, and it was used to match a small ligand as a guest with a variety of receptor molecules as hosts. This docking-based technology is often used to estimate a compound's attraction for a target protein. In this paper, molecular docking of various potential anti-inflammatory medicines and numerous terpenes discovered in LEO was done in this research to investigate the inhibition likelihood against COX-1 and COX-2 receptors using the DockThor server and BIOVIA Discovery Studio visualizer software. A total of 29 LEO terpene compounds were virtually screened on the COX-1 (PDB ID 3N8Y) and COX-2 (PDB ID 3LN1) enzymes. The binding affinities were compared to those of other anti-inflammatory medications. The docked compounds with the highest binding affinities were also screened for drug-likeness utilizing the SwissADME and PASS platforms, based on physicochemical, pharmacological, and toxicological features.

    From the protein data bank, the X-ray crystal structures of COX-1 and COX-2 (PDB codes 3N8Y and 3LN1, respectively) were retrieved (Table 1 and Figure 1). The deletion of ligands, water molecules, as well as other heteroatoms was done using the software BIOVIA Discovery Studio visualizer (Dassault Systèmes Corp., Version 2020). The protein's crystal structure was furthered by the addition of hydrogen after missing and incomplete residues were filled in. The PDB file of the improved receptor was then utilized to simulate docking.

    Table 1.  Protein target data.
    PDB ID COX 1 (PDB ID: 3N8Y) COX-2 (PDB ID: 3LN1)
    Title Structure of aspirin acetylated COX-1 in complex with Diclofenac Structure of celecoxib bound at the COX-2 active site
    DOI 10.2210/pdb3N8Y/pdb 10.2210/pdb3LN1/pdb
    Author(s) Sidhu RS, Lee J, Yuan C, et al. Kiefer JR, Kurumbail RG, Stallings WC, et al.
    Deposited 28-05-2010 01-02-2010
    Resolution 2.60 Å 2.40 Å
    Classification Oxidoreductase Oxidoreductase
    Organism Ovis aries Mus musculus
    Expression system Spodoptera frugiperda Spodoptera frugiperda
    Method X-ray diffraction X-ray diffraction
    Molecule Prostaglandin G/H synthase 1 Prostaglandin G/H synthase 2
    Chains A A, B, C, D
    Sequence length 553 amino acids 587 amino acids
    Total structure weight 134.2 kDa 278.19 kDa

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 1.  Three-dimensional crystal structure of the molecular target, COX-1 enzyme (3N8Y) was represented in (a) solid ribbon (b) without hetatoms (c) chaine A.

    LEO's total medicinal effect is provided by a diverse array of bioactive terpenes. Based on the percentage concentration in the LEO fraction, a study of the literature was conducted to identify the most important of these bioactive compounds. A literature search was carried out to obtain information about the LEO and its bioactive compounds from electronic databases such as Google scholar, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Wiley, MDPI, Springer, and other online journal publications and dissertations. There has been a lot of difference in the LEO chemical composition among different Lavandula species. We focused our chemical composition analysis on 29 terpenes that make up the bulk of lavender volatile oil. The compounds focused on in this study include limonene, α-terpineol, p-cymene, β-phellandrene, β-ocimene, myrcene, α-bisabolol, geraniol, germacrene D, β-caryophyllene, linalyl acetate, caryophyllene oxide, lavandulol, lavandulyl acetate, bornyl acetate, neryl acetate, cis-linalool oxide, terpinen-4-ol, linalool, eucalyptol, α-pinene, trans-linalool oxide, geranyl acetate, fenchone, β-pinene, camphene, camphor, borneol, β-farnesene. From the PubChem (pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) database, the small molecular structures of the significant bioactive LEO constituents were obtained in sdf format. The application BIOVIA Discovery Studio visualizer was used to compute bond lengths, display receptors, ligand structures, and hydrogen bonding connections. After a comprehensive study of the literature, 34 structures of ligand molecules (Figures 2 and 3) were found and obtained from the PubChem database.

    Figure 2.  Chemical structure of selected anti-inflammatory drugs.
    Figure 3.  Chemical structure of all selected ligand terpenes in docking studies.

    In this research, we used the free DockThor Portal (www.dockthor.lncc.br) created by the Grupo de Modelagem Molecular de Sistemas Biológicos (GMMSB) (www.gmmsb.lncc.br) located at the Laboratório Nacional de Computaço Cientfica (LNCC) in Petrópolis, Brazil, for receptor-ligand dock. The DockThor Portal received the files of the retrieved ligands and receptors for docking simulation. The COX protein's active site with the biggest surface area was chosen for docking when all optimal ligands were applied. The following parameters were included in the docking process: Number of evaluations: 1000000; population size: 750; initial seed: −1985; number of runs: 24; docking: soft; spatial discretization of the energy grid: 0.25 Å; grid points: <1000000. All conformers with the best placements and dock scores for each ligand will be stored in the output folder. The technique additionally emphasizes the ideal conformer positioning for a certain ligand that has the best (minimum) score. The lowest interaction energy for each ligand and COX proteins for the ideal ligand position inside the binding site cavity was discovered once the docking procedure was complete. With the aid of the Discovery Studio visualizer, the interactions of intricate protein-ligand conformations were examined.

    Through examination of pharmacokinetic characteristics, a few molecules from the molecular docking analysis were assessed for their drug-like activity. The admetSAR program (http://lmmd.ecust.edu.cn) was used to estimate the pharmacokinetic profile (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET)), of the LEO terpenes [20]. The topological polar surface area (TPSA), clog P, fragment-based drug-likeness, and drug score values were determined using the OSIRIS property explorer (www.organic-chemistry.org/prog/peo/). By using criteria such as molecular weight ≤ 500, logP ≤ 5, hydrogen bond donor ≤ 5, hydrogen bond acceptor ≤ 10, and TPSA ≤ 500, the ligands were further tested for the Lipinski rule of five. By inputting SMILES structures from PubChem notations or uploading SDF files, the molecules may be evaluated to determine their toxicological qualities. Toxicological modeling can then be used to generate a plethora of data regarding the effects associated with the structure.

    PASS version, an online system that predicts possible pharmacological effects of a chemical based on its structural information, was used to obtain the biological activity spectra of previously reported LEO phytoconstituents. PASS is a computer-based tool used to predict several types of physiological responses for numerous substances including phytoconstituents. This program compares over 300 pharmacological effects and biochemical pathways of substances and provides probabilities of activity (Pa) and inactivity (Pi). The only constituents deemed to be viable for a certain medical activity are those with Pa greater than Pi [21].

    The project that was submitted to the DockThor Portal makes use of the computing resources offered by the Brazilian SINAPAD (Sistema Nacional de Alto Desempenho) system, which has a high-performance platform. The top models were chosen after the DockThor Portal developed a variety of models for each docking operation between the COX receptor site and phytoconstituents. This computational process begins by docking each ligand molecule, followed by scoring. Using the DockThor server and the Discovery Studio software, docking experiments were conducted to examine the molecular interactions between the available active sites of target enzymes and LEO terpenes in order to determine the affinity of the compounds for COX-1 and COX-2. Based on their minimum binding energies associated with the complex formation at the catalytic activity, limonene, α-terpineol, p-cymene, β-phellandrene, β-ocimene, and terpinen-4-ol were rated in terms of their COX inhibitory activity. The docked chemicals' binding energies on COX-1 were determined to be between −8.536 and −8.438 kcal/mol (Table 2). Celecoxib and diclofenac sodium, two common anti-inflammatory medicines, had noticeably greater binding energies for the COX-2 target, showing that all of the chosen chemicals need less energy to block the protein.

    Table 2.  Docking data generated by DockThor server between various ligands molecules of the reference and LEO compounds with COX-1 & COX-2 enzymes.
    Compound name COX-1 binding affinity (kcal/mol) Compound name COX-2 binding affinity (kcal/mol)
    Limonene −8.536 Celecoxib −8.673
    α-Terpineol −8.535 Myrcene −8.495
    p-Cymene −8.515 α-Bisabolol −8.458
    β-Phellandrene −8.486 β-Caryophyllene −8.400
    β-Ocimene −8.463 β-Ocimene −8.353
    Terpinen-4-ol −8.438 Diclofenac sodium −8.313
    Germacrene D −8.413 Geraniol −8.303
    α-Pinene −8.334 Germacrene D −8.271
    Myrcene −8.332 β-Farnesene −8.257
    β-Pinene −8.274 β-Phellandrene −8.179
    Camphene −8.266 p-Cymene −8.018
    Fenchone −8.265 Betamethasone −7.990
    Celecoxib −8.191 Linalyl acetate −7.979
    Betamethasone −8.041 Caryophyllene oxide −7.893
    β-Farnesene −7.894 α-Terpineol −7.868
    Lavandulol −7.888 Lavandulol −7.731
    Diclofenac sodium −7.792 Lavandulyl acetate −7.586
    Caryophyllene oxide −7.760 Bornyl acetate −7.561
    β-Caryophyllene −7.696 Neryl acetate −7.537
    Geranyl acetate −7.661 cis-Linalool oxide −7.522
    Linalool −7.591 Ketoprofen −7.478
    α-Bisabolol −7.427 Terpinen-4-ol −7.228
    Ibuprofen −7.385 Geranyl acetate −7.211
    Bornyl acetate −7.349 Linalool −7.073
    Neryl acetate −7.329 Eucalyptol −6.999
    Lavandulyl acetate −7.224 trans-Linalool oxide −6.992
    Linalyl acetate −7.208 α-Pinene −6.980
    trans-Linalool oxide −7.133 Borneol −6.945
    cis-Linalool oxide −7.018 β-Pinene −6.929
    Ketoprofen −6.878 Ibuprofen −6.929
    Eucalyptol −6.761 Fenchone −6.917
    Borneol −6.727 Camphene −6.913
    Camphor −6.690 Limonene −6.904
    Geraniol −6.575 Camphor −6.835

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The best predicted binding energies for COX-1 and COX-2 were found to be for β-ocimene (Figure 4), with values of −8.463 and −8.353 kcal/mol, respectively, according to the molecular docking data shown in Table 3. Homnan et al. [22] looked at β-ocimene's ability to reduce inflammation. This hydrocarbon monoterpene strongly suppressed COX-2 activity and reduced prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) amounts in a dose-dependent way, with IC50 of 75.64 and much less than 20 g/mL, respectively. Kim et al. [23] studied the anti-inflammatory efficacy of EOs extracted from the Hallabong flower, which contained 11% β-ocimene. The hydro-distilled natural oils from the Hallabong flower (Citrus medica L. var. sarcodactylis) inhibited the lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced production of COX-2 enzyme on LPS-stimulated RAW 264.7 cells. Furthermore, it suppressed PGE2 production in a dose-dependent way, with an IC50 value of less than 0.01%. It is clear that the interaction energy of the limonene compound is lower in COX-2 (−6.904) than in COX-1 (−8.536), indicating that it is a selective COX-1 inhibitor. Nevertheless, only hydrophobic linkages between limonene and COX-1 could be seen, even though many amino acid residues are implicated in a specific binding mechanism.

    Table 3.  Summary of binding interactions and top-ranked LEO phytochemicals screened against COX-1 receptor (PDB ID: 3N8Y) binding site.
    PubChem ID Compound name Binding affinity (kcal/mol) Active amino acids residues Distance (Å) Category Type
    22311 Limonene −8.536 LEU353 5.20786 Hydrophobic Alkyl
    VAL318 4.48233
    LEU321 4.09047
    ILE492 4.95029
    VAL318 4.93115
    ILE492 4.84844
    ALA496 3.85553
    LEU321 5.04185
    ALA496 4.71957
    PHE350 5.39045 Hydrophobic Pi-alkyl
    TYR354 4.42773
    TRP356 4.93007

    17100 α-Terpineol −8.535 VAL318 4.16085 Hydrophobic Alkyl
    LEU321 4.26425
    ILE492 5.17717
    VAL318 4.00893
    ALA496 3.92114
    LEU353 4.90529
    LEU321 5.24608
    ALA496 4.62466
    PHE350 5.37118 Hydrophobic Pi-alkyl
    TYR354 4.48363
    TRP356 4.93781

    7463 p-Cymene −8.515 GLY495 4.23719 Hydrophobic Amide-Pi stacked
    VAL318 4.34579 Hydrophobic Alkyl
    LEU353 4.55204
    LEU321 5.16326 Hydrophobic Pi-alkyl
    ALA496 4.90846
    PHE350 5.35724
    TYR354 4.5216
    TRP356 4.93121

    11142 β-Phellandrene −8.486 VAL318 5.09711 Hydrophobic Alkyl
    ILE492 4.24168
    ALA496 4.4928
    LEU353 5.4746
    LEU321 5.43761
    ILE492 5.36154
    ALA496 4.34849
    TYR354 4.54422 Hydrophobic Pi-alkyl
    TRP356 4.96094

    5281553 β-Ocimene −8.463 ALA171 4.33901 Hydrophobic Alkyl
    LEU359 5.24116
    HIS176 4.48699 Hydrophobic Pi-alkyl
    HIS176 4.8897
    HIS176 4.64473
    PHE179 4.52532
    TYR354 5.19321
    HIS355 4.96911
    HIS355 4.2718
    HIS355 4.50183
    HIS357 4.60123

    11230 Terpinen-4-ol −8.438 VAL318 4.4207 Hydrophobic Alkyl
    ALA496 3.96373
    VAL318 4.88286
    ILE492 5.48398
    ALA496 3.53657

    2662 Celecoxib −8.191 GLU316 1.52341 H bond Conventional H bond
    PHE549 2.06864
    SER548 3.10647 H bond Carbon H bond
    GLN319 3.36899 Halogen Halogen (fluorine)
    GLN327 3.53859
    GLU316 4.45539 Electrostatic Pi-Anion
    HIS550 5.08501 Hydrophobic Pi-Pi stacked
    HIS550 4.31237 Hydrophobic Pi-alkyl

    9782 Betamethasone −8.041 HIS355 1.8315 H bond Conventional H bond
    GLU423 1.68056
    HIS357 3.63158 Halogen Halogen (fluorine)
    HIS355 5.48416 Hydrophobic Pi-alkyl

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 4.  Snapshot represents the interaction between some selected ligands and COX-1.

    By inhibiting the production of the inflammatory genes matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2 and -9, limonene significantly reduced clinical symptoms and intestinal mucosa destruction in rats with ulcerative colitis (UC). In addition, limonene treatment increased the expression of the proteins COX-2 and inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) as well as antioxidants in UC rats [24]. In order to comprehend the biological and pharmacological effects of limonene on the production of pro-inflammatory mediators and cytokines in macrophage cells, Yoon et al. [25] performed an in vitro study and revealed that limonene prevents LPS from inducing PGE2 and nitric oxide (NO) production in RAW 264.7 cells. The synthesis of the iNOS and COX-2 enzymes was inhibited by limonene in a dose-dependent way. In addition, limonene dose-dependently reduced the production of TNF-α, IL-1β, and IL-6. These findings lead us to suggest that limonene could be a promising anti-inflammatory component.

    Table 4.  Summary of binding interactions and top-ranked LEO phytochemicals screened against COX-2 receptor (PDB ID: 3LN1) binding site.
    PubChem ID Compound name Binding affinity (kcal/mol) Active amino acids residues Distance (Å) Category Type
    2662 Celecoxib −8.673 GLU257 2.19857 Hydrogen bond Conventional H bond
    GLN256 2.02558
    THR179 3.05721
    ASN189 2.64444
    HIS181 3.09038 Pi-donor H bond
    HIS181 4.93934 Hydrophobic Pi-Pi T-shaped
    ILE241 4.7911 Alkyl
    LYS178 5.34418 Pi-alkyl
    VAL258 4.60764
    VAL258 4.75717
    HIS353 5.2587

    31253 Myrcene −8.495 ALA169 4.05042 Hydrophobic Alkyl
    LEU357 5.31713
    LEU358 4.81577
    HIS174 5.05216 Pi-alkyl
    HIS355 4.8889
    HIS174 5.01
    PHE177 4.71421
    HIS353 4.63097
    HIS174 4.97848
    HIS353 4.03611
    HIS355 4.48883
    TRP354 4.65567
    TRP354 4.85802

    10586 α-Bisabolol −8.458 THR179 2.30299 Hydrogen bond Conventional H bond
    HIS181 2.22428
    VAL258 5.14002 Hydrophobic Alkyl
    LYS178 4.15079
    VAL258 5.05092
    VAL258 5.27629
    HIS174 4.48034 Pi-alkyl
    HIS353 4.90952
    HIS181 5.06576
    HIS174 5.19112
    HIS353 3.61505

    5281515 β-Caryophyllene −8.400 VAL258 3.86278 Hydrophobic Alkyl
    HIS174 5.46788 Pi-alkyl
    HIS174 4.71157
    HIS181 4.93027
    HIS174 5.2873
    HIS174 4.58658
    HIS353 4.28092

    5281553 β-Ocimene −8.353 LEU358 4.86083 Hydrophobic Alkyl
    ALA169 4.49891
    LEU357 5.33171
    HIS174 5.05417 Pi-alkyl
    HIS355 4.23129
    HIS174 4.94839
    PHE177 4.929
    HIS353 4.4817
    HIS174 4.89993
    HIS353 4.2914

    5018304 Diclofenac Na −8.313 GLN170 2.90417 Hydrogen bond Conventional H bond
    HIS174 1.4732
    HIS353 4.37635 Hydrophobic Pi-Pi stacked
    HIS355 5.5618 Pi-Pi T-shaped
    HIS174 5.29974 Pi-alkyl
    HIS353 4.33105
    HIS355 3.98766
    VAL414 4.0637

    637566 Geraniol −8.303 TRP354 1.82951 Hydrogen bond Conventional H bond
    HIS355 2.93434 Hydrophobic Pi-sigma
    ALA169 4.25559 Alkyl
    HIS174 4.49101 Pi-alkyl
    HIS174 4.86783
    PHE177 4.76602
    HIS353 4.24043

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Myrcene exhibits the greatest binding affinity for COX-2 (−8.495 kcal/mol) when compared to standard medications and other investigated substances (Table 3), despite binding to COX-2 residues ALA169, LEU357, LEU358, HIS174, HIS353, HIS355, PHE177, and TRP354 (Table 4 and Figure 5). Its lower binding affinity to COX-1 (−8.332 kcal/mol) than that of limonene, α-terpineol, and p-cymene, however, suggests that it is more competitive for the COX-2 enzyme. It interacts with hydrophobic residues of amino acids on COX-2 via associations with alkyl and pi-alkyl groups.

    Figure 5.  Snapshot represents the interaction between some selected ligands and COX-2.

    Additionally, EOs extracted from aromatic herbs and medicinal plants that contain 10% or less of myrcene have been found to have anti-inflammatory benefits. There is evidence that the oil of Eremanthus erythropappus reduces edema and leukocyte extravasation in several organs, including the hind paw and lung [26],[27]. Another myrcene-rich EO reduced the levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines and COX-2 within eight hours in a rat model of severe synovitis [28]. In arthritic human chondrocytes, pure myrcene reduced the expression of iNOS and interfered with the IL-1 signaling pathway [29]. These data demonstrate that myrcene and myrcene-containing EOs have potent anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties.

    Drug-likeness characteristics are important in determining the quality of emerging anti-inflammatory compounds. Based on their structure, early predictions of the pharmacokinetic behavior of prospective plant-derived EO compounds should aid in the identification of more safe and more efficient leads for further preclinical studies. In this research, we examined five of the most relevant pharmacokinetic and ADME indicators for LEO compounds to see if they may be used as drugs. These anticipated results would demonstrate the compounds' potential as drugs and point to the likelihood of them serving as an oral anti-inflammatory substitute.

    Table 5 shows the outcomes of using Osiris Property Explorer to estimate the drug-likeness of compounds based on several chemical descriptors. The majority of substances have partition coefficients (clog P) values less than 5, although others (such as β-caryophyllene) defy the Lipinski rule of five for lipophilicity and may have low oral bioavailability and penetration. The Lipinski rule of five is clearly broken by the most powerful molecule (β-caryophyllene), which has a log P value of 5.49. In contrast, the other five compounds are predicted to be orally active and have log P values ranging from 4.47 to 1.81. Additionally, compounds are attractive drug candidates for additional study and development because of their lower TPSA score (zero), which indicates favorable drug-like properties, and their high drug-likeness score. The ADME properties and toxicological profile of the LEO molecules were also investigated using an online admetSAR cheminformatic system to detect prospective and secure drug candidate(s) and to screen out substances that are most likely to fail in successive stages of the development process due to unfavorable ADMET properties.

    Table 5.  Drug-likeness prediction through OSIRIS property explorer.
    Mutagenic Tumorigenic Irritant Reproductive effect clog P TPSA Solubility Drug likeness Drug score
    Celecoxib - - - - 2.59 86.36 −4.17 −8.11 0.37
    Myrcene - + + + 4.29 0 −2.5 −7.82 0.09
    α-Bisabolol - - + - 4.47 20.23 −3.16 −1.47 0.27
    β-Caryophyllene - - - - 5.49 0 −3.66 −6.48 0.31
    β-Ocimene - - + - 4.23 0 −2.33 −5.46 0.24
    Diclofenac Na - - - - 1.81 52.16 −4.64 2.3 0.71
    Geraniol - - + - 3.49 20.23 −1.89 −3.57 0.27

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Drugs' destiny in vivo, or ADME, has a complete or partial impact on how they behave pharmacologically. The blood/brain partition coefficient (Plog BB), Caco-2 cell permeability (PCaco), human intestinal absorption (log HIA), P glycoprotein nonsubstrate and non-inhibitor (log pGI), and probability of Caco-2 cell permeability (log Papp) are among the in silico projected pharmacokinetic (ADME) attributes of all studied ligands and are shown in Table 6.

    According to the findings in Table 6, the chemical β-caryophyllene is not carcinogenic, whereas myrcene and β-ocimene failed the AMES toxicity test and were therefore found to be carcinogenic. The calculated LD50 dosage (1.4040–1.6722 mol/kg) for the selected terpenes in a rat acute toxicity model appears to be secure enough for research on in vivo anti-inflammatory efficacy. A molecule's degree of intestinal absorption after oral delivery is measured by the HIA score. If the score is below one, the absorption can be quite high. All terpenes in the current investigation had HIA scores that range from 0.9538 to 0.9926, indicating that they will be well assimilated from the gastrointestinal tract [30]. The estimated cell permeability (PCaco-2) of selected terpenes, which ranges from 0.7228 to 0.6327, is also reported to be within the acceptable range (−1 to +1), aiding in the transit of the bioactive compounds to the gut and, thus, improving absorption. It may be deduced from the anticipated log BB score (0.9536–0.9312) that these terpenes have the highest likelihood of crossing the blood-brain barrier and having an effect on the function of the central nervous system.

    Table 6.  ADME prediction for the top-ranked compounds using the admetSAR toolbox.
    Blood-brain barrier Human intestinal absorption Caco-2 permeability P-glycoprotein substrate P-glycoprotein inhibitor Renal organic cation transporter AMES toxicity Carcinogens Caco-2 permeability (LogPapp, cm/s) Rat acute toxicity (LD50, mol/kg)
    Celecoxib BBB+ HIA+ Caco2+ - - - - - 1.0149 2.3719
    0.9713 1 0.8866 0.9287 0.8619 0.8582 0.7185 0.7905
    Myrcene BBB+ HIA+ Caco2+ - - - - + 1.5571 1.404
    0.9478 0.9538 0.7228 0.6521 0.701 0.8183 0.9227 0.5684
    β-Caryophyllene BBB+ HIA+ Caco2+ + - - - - 1.5225 1.4345
    0.9536 0.9926 0.6327 0.5779 0.5989 0.8269 0.9167 0.6863
    β-Ocimene BBB+ HIA+ Caco2+ - - - - + 1.5641 1.6722
    0.9312 0.9764 0.6913 0.6792 0.7425 0.8829 0.8917 0.7261
    Diclofenac Na BBB+ HIA+ Caco2+ - - - - - 1.8481 2.855
    0.9827 0.8998 0.8196 0.8827 0.8557 0.8776 0.8443 0.6747
    Geraniol BBB+ HIA+ Caco2+ - - - - - 1.2481 1.6146
    0.9375 0.9846 0.6445 0.5851 0.8865 0.8179 0.9132 0.5055

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The biological activity spectra of previously known phytochemical compounds were obtained using the online PASS version. These predictions were assessed and made available in Table 7 for flexible usage. The range of biological activities that a chemical substance exhibits when it interacts with different types of biological entities is known as its biological activity spectrum. It allows us to combine information from several sources in the same training set, which is required since no one publication covers all of the diverse aspects of a compound's biological action.

    Table 7.  The PASS prediction findings reveal the biological activity spectrum and toxicity of the top-ranked LEO terpenes.
    Compound name Pa Pi Biological activity spectrum predicted by PASS Pa Pi Possible adverse & toxic effects
    Celecoxib 0.955 0.002 Cyclooxygenase 1 inhibitor 0.671 0.016 Pseudoporphyria
    0.859 0.003 Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agent 0.569 0.013 Ulcer, peptic
    0.809 0.007 Antiarthritic 0.571 0.02 Methemoglobinemia
    Myrcene 0.941 0.004 Mucomembranous protector 0.829 0.004 Skin irritation, high
    0.896 0.005 Antineoplastic 0.786 0.01 Hyperglycemic
    0.836 0.012 Antieczematic 0.791 0.026 Toxic, respiration
    α-Bisabolol 0.847 0.005 Apoptosis agonist 0.862 0.016 Behavioral disturbance
    0.83 0.013 Antieczematic 0.843 0.003 Skin irritation, moderate
    0.727 0.006 Antithrombotic 0.822 0.02 Conjunctivitis
    β-Caryophyllene 0.915 0.005 Antineoplastic 0.836 0.004 Sensitization
    0.897 0.005 Antieczematic 0.788 0.005 Irritation
    0.745 0.011 Antiinflammatory 0.545 0.062 Nephrotoxic
    β-Ocimene 0.928 0.004 Antieczematic 0.82 0.004 Skin irritative effect
    0.806 0.004 Carminative 0.777 0.004 Lacrimal secretion stimulant
    0.91 0.004 Mucomembranous protector 0.816 0.004 Skin irritation, high
    Geraniol 0.953 0.003 Mucomembranous protector 0.951 0.002 Skin irritation, moderate
    0.77 0.004 Antiulcerative 0.925 0.005 Anemia
    0.766 0.001 Antiviral (rhinovirus) 0.878 0.004 Hyperglycemic
    Limonene 0.961 0.001 Carminative 0.856 0.005 Gastrointestinal disturbance
    0.896 0.005 Antieczematic 0.811 0.015 Respiratory failure
    0.812 0.01 Antineoplastic 0.675 0.005 Sedative
    α-Terpineol 0.862 0.005 Respiratory analeptic 0.887 0.011 Euphoria
    0.837 0.003 Carminative 0.839 0.015 Ocular toxicity
    0.825 0.014 Antieczematic 0.838 0.019 Behavioral disturbance
    p-Cymene 0.919 0.004 Mucomembranous protector 0.961 0.009 Toxic, respiration
    0.881 0.002 Carminative 0.928 0.003 Hematemesis
    0.884 0.006 Antieczematic 0.878 0.004 Gastrointestinal hemorrhage
    β-Phellandrene 0.916 0.004 Antieczematic 0.827 0.012 Ulcer, aphthous
    0.883 0.002 Carminative 0.799 0.005 Irritation
    0.83 0.009 Antineoplastic 0.725 0.032 Conjunctivitis
    β-Ocimene 0.928 0.004 Antieczematic 0.82 0.004 Skin irritative effect
    0.91 0.004 Mucomembranous protector 0.777 0.004 Lacrimal secretion stimulant
    0.858 0.005 Apoptosis agonist 0.754 0.01 Hypomagnesemia
    Terpinen-4-ol 0.838 0.011 Antieczematic 0.852 0.007 Hematemesis
    0.829 0.003 Carminative 0.779 0.023 Ulcer, aphthous
    0.796 0.02 Antiseborrheic 0.702 0.015 Optic neuritis

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Pa (probability “to be active”) estimates the chance that the studied compound is belonging to the sub-class of active compounds. Pi (probability “to be inactive”) estimates the chance that the studied compound is belonging to the sub-class of inactive compounds.

    The probable activity (Pa) values were higher than Pa > 0.5, and the probable inactivity (Pi) scores were extremely near to 0, demonstrating that the compound is highly expected to demonstrate these activities. It is also notable that the selected terpenes have very suitable molecular properties and predictable pharmacological activities against COX-1 and COX-2 enzymes.

    A literature survey corroborates the docking finding, revealing that LEO compounds have antibacterial properties [31] and function as antioxidants by reducing lipid peroxidation [32],[33]. As a result, we believe that the chosen phytoconstituents will boost immunity while inhibiting COX enzymes [34]. Anti-inflammatory phytochemical constituents with stronger docking scores, higher binding energies, and better interaction with conserved catalytic residues that may induce inhibition/blockade of the COX protein pathways might be viable preventive and curative options [35],[36].

    There is a pressing need to create new substances with therapeutic action in order to develop drugs with fewer negative effects. The current work assesses the potential for binding interactions between phytocompounds from LEO and COX enzymes by molecular docking. Molecular docking revealed that limonene has the highest negative binding affinity in complex with COX-1, followed by α-terpineol and p-cymene. Myrcene exhibits the greatest binding affinity for COX-2 when compared to standard medications, followed by α-bisabolol and β-caryophyllene. The LEO's chosen phytochemicals were found to be highly selective, have substantial binding potential, and react strongly with COX-1 and COX-2 receptors by computational screening. Best docking scores, ligand placement at the region of inhibition, interaction profiles with catalytic residues, and appropriate ADMET values all point to the likelihood that myrcene and β-ocimene may be effective COX inhibitors. Based on satisfying Lipinski's rule five, these terpenes can also be identified as prospective therapeutic candidates.



    [1] Brklacich M, Bryant C, Smit B (1990) Review and appraisal of concepts of sustainable food production. Environ Manage 15: 1–14.
    [2] Cobb D, Dolan P, O'Riordan T (1999) Interpretations of sustainable agriculture in the UK. Prog Hum Geogr 23: 209–235. doi: 10.1177/030913259902300204
    [3] Fish R, Seymour S, Watkins C (2003) Conserving English landscapes: Land managers and agri-environmental policy. Environ Plann A 35: 19–41. doi: 10.1068/a3531
    [4] Ilbery B, Maye D (2005) Food supply chains and sustainability: Evidence from specialist food producers in the Scottish/English borders. Land Use Policy 22: 331–344. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.06.002
    [5] Vigani M, Maye D, Kirwan J (2018) Producer Survey Report, SUFISA.
    [6] Menard C, Valceschini E (2005) New institutions for governing the agri-food industry. European Review Agric Econ 32: 421–440. doi: 10.1093/eurrag/jbi013
    [7] Markets Task Force Report (2016) Improving market outcomes-enhancing the position of farmers in the supply chain. In: Report of the Agricultural Markets Task Force, Brussels.
    [8] Menozzi D, Fioravanzi M, Donati M (2015) Farmer's motivation to adopt sustainable agricultural practices. Bio-based Appl Econ 4: 125–147.
    [9] Falconer K, Saunders C (2002) Transaction costs for SSSIs and policy design. Land Use Policy 19: 157–166. doi: 10.1016/S0264-8377(02)00007-8
    [10] Falconer K (2000) Far-level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: A transactional perspective. J Rural Stud 16: 379–394. doi: 10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00066-2
    [11] Renting H, Marsden TK, Banks J (2003) Understanding alternative food networks: Exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environ Plann A 35: 393–412. doi: 10.1068/a3510
    [12] Diazabakana A, Latruffe L, Bockstaller C, et al. (2014) A review of farm level indicators of sustainability with a focus on CAP and FADN. Eur Comm.
    [13] Methorst RG, Roep D, Verhees F, et al. (2016) Drivers for differences in dairy farmers' preceptions of farm development strategies in an area with nature and landscape as protected public goods. Local Econ 31: 554–571. doi: 10.1177/0269094216655520
    [14] Kielbasa B, Pietrzak S, Ulén B (2018) Sustainable agriculture: The study on farmers' perception and practices regarind nutrient management and limiting losses. J Water Land Dev 36: 67–75. doi: 10.2478/jwld-2018-0007
    [15] Van Passel S (2013) Food miles to assess sustainability: A revision. Sustainable Dev 21: 1–17. doi: 10.1002/sd.485
    [16] Giddings B, Hopwood B, O'Brien G (2002) Environment, economy and society: Fitting together into sustainable development. Sustainable Dev 10: 187–196. doi: 10.1002/sd.199
    [17] Solazzo R, Donati M, Arfini F, et al. (2014) A PMP model for the impact assessment of the Common Agricultural Policy reform 2014–2020 on the Italian tomato sector. New Medit 13: 9–19.
    [18] Roling N, Pretty JN (1997) Extension's role in sustainable agricultural development. In: Swanson BE, Bentz RP, Sufranko AJ, Improving Agricultural Extension, A Reference Manual, Rome, Italy, FAO.
    [19] Alonge AJ, Martin R (1995) Assessment of the adoption of sustainable agriculture practices: Implications for agricultural education. J Agric Educ 36: 34–42. doi: 10.5032/jae.1995.03034
    [20] WCED (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future.
    [21] Latruffe L, Diazabakana A, Bockstaller C, et al. (2016) Measurement of sustainability in agriculture: A review of indicators. Stud Agric Econ 118: 123–130. doi: 10.7896/j.1624
    [22] Eckert H, Breitschuh (1994) Kritische Umweltbelastungen Landwirtschaft (KUL)-Eine Methode zur Analyse und Bewertung der ökologischen Situation von Landwirtschaftsbetrieben. In Thüringer Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft. EULANU. Schriftenreihe 10: 30–46.
    [23] Lewandowski I, Härdtlein M, Martin K (1999) Sustainable crop production: Definition and methodological approach for assessing and implementing sustainability, 39.
    [24] Van Cauwenbergh N, Biala K, Bielders C, et al. (2007) SAFE-A hierarchical framework for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 120: 229–242. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2006.09.006
    [25] Hayati D, Ranjbar Z, Karami E (2011) Measuring agricultural sustainability. In: Lichtfouse E. Biodiversity, Biofuels, Agroforestry and Conservation Agriculture, Sustainable Agriculture Reviews 5, Dordrecht, Springer Science Business Media B.V.
    [26] Zhen L, Routray JK (2003) Operational indicators for measuring agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Environ Manage 32: 34–46. doi: 10.1007/s00267-003-2881-1
    [27] Meul M, Van Passel S, Nevens F, et al. (2008) MOTIFS: A monitoring tool for integrated farm sustainability. Agron Sustainable Dev 28: 321–332. doi: 10.1051/agro:2008001
    [28] Zervas G (2018) The role of feta for the sustainability of Greek sheep and goat sector. Epi Gis 12: 6–7.
    [29] European Commission (2001) A framework for indicators for the economic and social dimensions of sustainable agriculture and rural development.
    [30] Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1972) Attitudes and opinions. Annu Rev Psychol 23: 487–544. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.23.020172.002415
    [31] Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. New York, US: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
    [32] Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behaviour. Organ Behav Hum Decis Processes 50: 179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
    [33] Lebacq T, Baret PV, Stilmant D (2013) Sustainability indicators for livestock farming, a review. Agron Sustainable Dev 33: 311c327.
    [34] Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis: A global perspective. Upper Sadle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    [35] Negatu W, Parikh A (1999) The impact of perception and other factors on the adoption of agricultural technology in the Moret and Jiru Woreda (District) of Ethiopia 21: 205–216.
    [36] Bagheri A (2010) Potato farmers' perceptions of sustainable agriculture: The case of Ardabil province of Iran. Proc Soc Behav Sci 5: 1977–1981. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.399
    [37] Maye D, Kirwan J, Chiswell H, et al. (2018) Comparative report. SUFISA Deliverable 2.3 WP 2.
    [38] Field A (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS, 3Eds. London, SAGE Publications Ltd.
    [39] Bergen D, Tacquenier B, Van der Straeten B (2015) Suikerbieten-Rentabiliteits-en kostprijsanalyse op basis van het Landbouwmonitoringsnetwerk. Departement Landbouw en Visserij, Brussel. Depotnummer: D/2015/3241/237.
    [40] Biely K, Creemers S, Van Passel S (2018) The future of sugar beet cultivation in Belgium-Market and structural challenges, SUFISA Policy Brief.
    [41] Aubert PM, Treyer S, Tayeb Cherif O, et al. (2019) The future of dairy farming in Finistère, SUFISA Policy Brief.
    [42] Maye D, Kirwan J, Vigani M, et al. (2018) Milk price volatility and dairy contracts in Somerset: Some key messages, SUFISA Policy Brief.
    [43] Hvarregaard Thorsoe M, Bjornshave Noe E (2018) Danish dairy report, SUFISA Extended Summary.
    [44] Grivins M, Tisenkopfs T (2018) The future of the dairy sector in Latvia, SUFISA Policy Brief.
    [45] Vlahos G, Tsakalou E (2018) Outlook on sheep and goats breeding in Greece: Restrained optimism, SUFISA Policy Brief.
    [46] Unfair trading practices in the food chain. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/marke t-measures/unfair-trading-practices_en.
    [47] Byrne BM (2005) Factor analytic models: Viewing the structure of an assessment instrument from three perspectives. J Pers Assess 85: 17–32. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8501_02
    [48] Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, et al. (2006) Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. J Educ Res 99: 323–337. doi: 10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Dmitrii S. Linnik, Yana V. Tarakanchikova, Mikhail V. Zyuzin, Kirill V. Lepik, Joeri L. Aerts, Gleb Sukhorukov, Alexander S. Timin, Layer-by-Layer technique as a versatile tool for gene delivery applications, 2021, 1742-5247, 1, 10.1080/17425247.2021.1879790
    2. M. Emad Al Madadha, Rama Rayyan, Khalid E. Ahmed, Nancy Al-Sanouri, Saddam Al Demour, Muayyad Ahmad, Attitude and knowledge towards the effectiveness of nucleic acid-based vaccines among healthcare workers and medical students in the Jordanian population, 2022, 9, 2770-7571, 10.1080/27707571.2022.2145756
    3. Alexander Avdoshin, Vladimir Naumov, Lucio Colombi Ciacchi, Stanislav Ignatov, Susan Köppen, Atomistic simulations of chitosan as a possible carrier system for miRNA transport, 2023, 4, 2633-5409, 1113, 10.1039/D2MA00830K
    4. Shalmali Shirish Cholkar, Ashwini Ramkrishana Gawade, Ashwin Bhanudas Kuchekar, Lipid Nanoparticles: Key Facilitators of mRNA Vaccine Development, 2022, 19, 24562602, 199, 10.13005/bbra/2979
    5. Yinghan Chan, Sin Wi Ng, Sachin Kumar Singh, Monica Gulati, Gaurav Gupta, Sushil Kumar Chaudhary, Goh Bey Hing, Trudi Collet, Ronan MacLoughlin, Raimar Löbenberg, Brian G. Oliver, Dinesh Kumar Chellappan, Kamal Dua, Revolutionizing polymer-based nanoparticle-linked vaccines for targeting respiratory viruses: A perspective, 2021, 280, 00243205, 119744, 10.1016/j.lfs.2021.119744
    6. Yeon Jeong Yoo, Chang Hoon Lee, Sei Hyun Park, Yong Taik Lim, Nanoparticle-based delivery strategies of multifaceted immunomodulatory RNA for cancer immunotherapy, 2022, 343, 01683659, 564, 10.1016/j.jconrel.2022.01.047
    7. Shalmali Shirish Cholkar, Ashwini Ramkrishana Gawade, Ashwin Bhanudas Kuchekar, The Use of Medicinal Plant Extract in Hand Sanitizer and Spray to Combat Against Covid-19, 2022, 19, 24562602, 183, 10.13005/bbra/2977
    8. Azam Bolhassani, Lipid-Based Delivery Systems in Development of Genetic and Subunit Vaccines, 2022, 1073-6085, 10.1007/s12033-022-00624-8
    9. K. Aikawa, T. Okazoe, 2022, 978-1-83916-568-9, 477, 10.1039/9781839167591-00477
    10. Olga V. Zhukova, Evgenia V. Arkhipova, Tatyana F. Kovaleva, Sergey A. Ryabov, Irina. P. Ivanova, Anna A. Golovacheva, Daria A. Zykova, Sergey D. Zaitsev, Immunopharmacological Properties of Methacrylic Acid Polymers as Potential Polymeric Carrier Constituents of Anticancer Drugs, 2021, 26, 1420-3049, 4855, 10.3390/molecules26164855
    11. Rodica Elena Ionescu, Updates on the Biofunctionalization of Gold Nanoparticles for the Rapid and Sensitive Multiplatform Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Virus and Its Proteins: From Computational Models to Validation in Human Samples, 2023, 24, 1422-0067, 9249, 10.3390/ijms24119249
    12. Amol D. Gholap, Juhi Gupta, Pallavi Kamandar, Deblina D. Bhowmik, Satish Rojekar, Md. Faiyazuddin, Navnath T. Hatvate, Sourav Mohanto, Mohammed Gulzar Ahmed, Vetriselvan Subramaniyan, Vinoth Kumarasamy, Harnessing Nanovaccines for Effective Immunization─A Special Concern on COVID-19: Facts, Fidelity, and Future Prospective, 2024, 10, 2373-9878, 271, 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c01247
    13. Tingmei Zhao, Yulong Cai, Yujie Jiang, Xuemei He, Yuquan Wei, Yifan Yu, Xiaohe Tian, Vaccine adjuvants: mechanisms and platforms, 2023, 8, 2059-3635, 10.1038/s41392-023-01557-7
    14. FREDMOORE L. OROSCO, LLEWELYN M. ESPIRITU, NAVIGATING THE LANDSCAPE OF ADJUVANTS FOR SUBUNIT VACCINES: RECENT ADVANCES AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES, 2024, 0975-7058, 18, 10.22159/ijap.2024v16i1.49563
    15. Samaneh Yousefi Adlsadabad, John W. Hanrahan, Ashok Kakkar, mRNA Delivery: Challenges and Advances through Polymeric Soft Nanoparticles, 2024, 25, 1422-0067, 1739, 10.3390/ijms25031739
    16. Priyanka Yadav, Sudhir G. Warkar, Anil Kumar, 2024, 9789815256772, 254, 10.2174/9789815256772124010011
    17. Larissa Henke, Ali Ghorbani, Sara E. Mole, The use of nanocarriers in treating Batten disease: A systematic review, 2024, 03785173, 125094, 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2024.125094
    18. Amol D. Gholap, Pankaj R. Khuspe, Md Faiyazuddin, Md Jasim Uddin, Deblina D. Bhowmik, Rushikesh P. Said, Kalyani S. Sonawane, Swapnali Parit, Navnath T. Hatvate, 2025, 9780443223747, 409, 10.1016/B978-0-443-22374-7.00019-0
    19. Dariush Haghmorad, Majid Eslami, Niloufar Orooji, Iryna Halabitska, Iryna Kamyshna, Oleksandr Kamyshnyi, Valentyn Oksenych, mRNA vaccine platforms: linking infectious disease prevention and cancer immunotherapy, 2025, 13, 2296-4185, 10.3389/fbioe.2025.1547025
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(6254) PDF downloads(777) Cited by(11)

Figures and Tables

Figures(3)  /  Tables(19)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog