Interactions of Bioactive Plant Metabolites: Synergism, Antagonism, and Additivity

  • John Boik
  • Ara Kirakosyan
  • Peter B. Kaufman
  • E. Mitchell Seymour
  • Kevin Spelman
Chapter

Abstract

Drugs are commonly used in mixtures, also called cocktails, to treat disease, particularly cancer and viral infections. Any two or more drugs, or for that matter, two or more bioactive plant compounds, will either interact in some way or fail to interact. If an interaction produces an effect greater than that expected for each individual drug, the interaction is termed synergistic. If the effect is less than expected, it is termed antagonistic. If the effect is equal to the expected effect (i.e., there is no interaction), the interaction is termed additive (see Greco et al., 1995; Spelman, 2007, in Cseke et al., 2006). In most therapeutic situations, the hope is that mixtures will produce a synergistic effect, but additivity can also be useful and should not be neglected.

Our focus in this chapter is on interactions between bioactive plant compounds used in food and medicine. In particular, we are interested in plant compounds that have potential therapeutic effects, but also exhibit low systemic toxicity, and thus do not pose a high risk of producing adverse effects. Thousands of such compounds are known to exist, and more are being discovered each year. Even a single plant can contain dozens of bioactive compounds. With such a large pool to draw from, there is nearly an unlimited number of ways in which compounds can be combined, either with each other or with market-approved drugs. Clearly many opportunities exist to find mixtures that exhibit synergism or additivity.

In the following sections we explore physical models of drug interaction, discuss a mathematical model that can be used to assess interactions, and provide a number of examples of plant compounds that have been shown to interact in a synergistic fashion. In particular, we look at ways by which mixtures of plant compounds may bind to proteins and affect signaling pathways, as well as ways by which plant compounds could alter receptors indirectly by affecting the plasma membrane. The mathematical model discussed provides an accurate method to estimate interaction indices as well as to construct confidence intervals of the indices. An interaction index is of little use if it is not accompanied by confidence intervals. Technical aspects of the model are presented in order to provide a full description, but publically available software for the model can be used without a complete understanding of the mathematics involved.

References

  1. Adachi, S., Nagao, T., Ingolfsson, H.I., Maxfield, F.R., Andersen, O.S., Kopelovich, L., Weinstein, I.B. 2007. The inhibitory effect of (–)-epigallocatechin gallate on activation of the epidermal growth factor receptor is associated with altered lipid order in HT29 colon cancer cells. Cancer Res. 67: 6493–6501.Google Scholar
  2. Aggarwal, B.B., Harikumar, K.B. 2009. Potential therapeutic effects of curcumin, the anti-inflammatory agent, against neurodegenerative, cardiovascular, pulmonary, metabolic, autoimmune and neoplastic diseases. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 41: 40–59.Google Scholar
  3. Ágoston, V., Csermely, P., Pongor, S. 2005. Multiple, weak hits confuse complex systems: A transcriptional regulatory network as an example. Phys Rev E 71: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aon, M.A., Caceres, A., Cortassa, S. 1996. Heterogeneous distribution and organization of cytoskeletal proteins drive differential modulation of metabolic fluxes. J Cell Biochem 60: 271–278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berenbaum, M.C. 1989. What is synergy? Pharmacol Rev 41: 93–141.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Boik, J.C., Narasimhan, B. 2008. An R package for Assessing Drug. Synergism/Antagonism (submitted).Google Scholar
  7. Boik, J.C., Newman, R.A., Boik, R.J. 2008. Quantifying synergism/antagonism using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling: A simulation study. Stat Med 27: 1040–1061.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boik, J.C., Newman, R.A. 2008. A classification model to predict synergism/antagonism of cytotoxic mixtures using protein–drug docking scores. BMC Pharmacol 8: 13–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butterweck, V., Liefländer-Wulf, U., Winterhoff, H., Nahrstedt, A. 2003. Plasma levels of hypericin in presence of procyanidin B2 and hyperoside: a pharmacokinetic study in rats. Planta Med 69: 189–192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chan, T.A., Glockner, S., Yi, J.M., Chen, W., Van Neste, L., Cope, L., Herman, J.G., Velculescu, V., Schuebel, K.E., Ahuja, N., Baylin, S.B. 2008. Convergence of mutation and epigenetic alterations identifies common genes in cancer that predict for poor prognosis. PLoS Med 5: e114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chandran, U.R., Ma, C., Dhir, R., Bisceglia, M., Lyons-Weiler, M., Liang, W., Michalopoulos, G., Becich, M., Monzon, F.A. 2007. Gene expression profiles of prostate cancer reveal involvement of multiple molecular pathways in the metastatic process. BMC Cancer 7: 64–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chou, T.C., Talalay, P. 1984. Quantitative analysis of dose-effect relationships: the combined effects of multiple drugs or enzyme inhibitors. Adv Enzyme Regul 22: 27–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cseke, L., Kirakosyan, A., Kaufman, P., Warber, S., Duke, J., Brielmann H. 2006. “Natural Products From Plants”. Second Edition, CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  14. Csermely, P., Agoston, V., Pongor, S. 2005. The efficiency of multi-target drugs: the network approach might help drug design. Trends Pharmacol Sci 26: 178–182.Google Scholar
  15. Duke, T.A., Bray, D. 1999. Heightened sensitivity of a lattice of membrane receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96: 10104–10108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fidler, M., Kern, S.E. 2006. Flexible interaction model for complex interactions of multiple anesthetics. Anesthesiology 105: 286–296.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frantz, S. 2005. Drug discovery: playing dirty. Nature 437: 942–943.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuxe, K., Marcellino, D., Rivera, A., Diaz-Cabiale, Z., Filip, M., Gago, B., Roberts, D.C., Langel, U., Genedani, S., Ferraro, L., de la Calle, A., Narvaez, J., Tanganelli, S., Woods, A., Agnati, L.F. 2008. Receptor–receptor interactions within receptor mosaics. Impact on neuropsychopharmacology. Brain Res Rev 58: 415–452.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gawande, S., Kale, A., Kotwal, S. 2008. Effect of nutrient mixture and black grapes on the pharmacokinetics of orally administered (-)epigallocatechin-3-gallate from green tea extract: a human study. Phytother Res 22: 802–808.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graham, I., Duke, T. 2005. The logical repertoire of ligand-binding proteins. Phys Biol 2: 159–165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greco, W.R., Bravo, G., Parsons, J.C. 1995. The search for synergy: a critical review from a response surface perspective. Pharmacol Rev 47: 331–385.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Greco, W.R., Unkelbach, H.D., Pöch, G., Sühnel, J., Kundi, M., Bödeker, W. 1992. Consensus on concepts and terminology for combined action assessment: The Saariselka Agreement. ACES 4: 65–69.Google Scholar
  23. Jürgenliemk, G., Nahrstedt, A. 2003. Dissolution, solubility and cooperativity of phenolic compounds from Hypericum perforatum L. in aqueous systems. Pharmazie 58: 200–203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kogiso, M., Sakai, T., Mitsuya, K., Komatsu, T., Yamamoto, S. 2006. Genistein suppresses antigen-specific immune responses through competition with 17beta-estradiol for estrogen receptors in ovalbumin-immunized BALB/c mice. Nutrition 22: 802–809.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levasseur, L.M., Slocum, H.K., Rustum,Y.M., Greco, W.R. 1998. Modeling of the time-dependency of in vitro drug cytotoxicity and resistance. Cancer Res 58: 5749–5761.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu, R.H. 2003. Health benefits of fruit and vegetables are from additive and synergistic combinations of phytochemicals. Am J Clin Nutr 78(3 Suppl): 517S–520S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Martinez-Irujo, J.J., Villahermosam M.L., Alberdi E., Santiago E. 1996. A checkerboard method to evaluate interactions between drugs. Biochem Pharmacol. 51: 635–644.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Merlin, J.L. 1994. Concepts of synergism and antagonism. Anticancer Res 14(6A): 2315–2319.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mertens-Talcott, S.U., Percival, S.S. 2005. Ellagic acid and quercetin interact synergistically with resveratrol in the induction of apoptosis. Cancer Lett 218: 141–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Minto, C.F., Schnider, T.W., Short, T.G., Gregg, K.M., Gentilini, A., Shafer, S.L. 2000. Response surface model for anesthetic drug interactions. Anesthesiology 92: 1603–1616.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Patra, S.K. 2008. Dissecting lipid raft facilitated cell signaling pathways in cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta 1785: 182–206.Google Scholar
  32. Perillo, M. 2002. The drug–membrane interaction: Its modulation at the supramolecular level. In Recent Research Developments in Biophysical Chemistry. (C.A. Condat, Baruzzi, A., editors). Research Signpost: Kerala, India. 2: 105–121.Google Scholar
  33. Poch, G., Reiffenstein, R.J., Unkelbach, H.D. 1990. Application of the isobologram technique for the analysis of combined effects with respect to additivity as well as independence. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 68: 682–688.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Psahoulia, F.H., Drosopoulos, K.G., Doubravska, L., Andera, L., Pintzas, A. 2007. Quercetin enhances TRAIL-mediated apoptosis in colon cancer cells by inducing the accumulation of death receptors in lipid rafts. Mol Cancer Ther 6: 2591–2599.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roth, B.L., Sheffler, D.J., Kroeze, W.K. 2004. Magic shotguns versus magic bullets: selectively non-selective drugs for mood disorders and schizophrenia. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3: 353–359.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schley, P.D., Brindley, D.N., Field, C.J. 2007. (n-3) PUFA alter raft lipid composition and decrease epidermal growth factor receptor levels in lipid rafts of human breast cancer cells. J Nutr. 137: 548–553.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Schreier, S., Malheiros, S.V., de Paula, E. 2000. Surface active drugs: self-association and interaction with membranes and surfactants. Physicochemical and biological aspects. Biochim Biophys Acta 1508(1–2): 210–234.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Simons, K., Vaz, W.L.C. 2004. Model systems, lipid rafts, and cell membranes. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 33: 269–295.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sourjik, V. 2004. Receptor clustering and signal processing in E. coli chemotaxis. Trends Microbiol 12: 569–576.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Spelman, K. 2007. Ecopharmacology: molecular details. Unified Energetics 3: 58–62.Google Scholar
  41. Spinella, M. 2002. The importance of pharmacological synergy in psychoactive herbal medicines. Alternative Medicine Review 7: 130–137.Google Scholar
  42. Tallarida, R.J. 2001. Drug synergism: its detection and applications. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 298: 865–872.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Tarahovsky, Y.S., Muzafarov, E.N., Kim, Y.A. 2008. Rafts making and rafts braking: how plant flavonoids may control membrane heterogeneity. Mol Cell Biochem 314(1–2): 65–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tortora, G., Bianco, R., Daniele, G. 2004. Strategies for multiple signalling inhibition. J Chemother 16 Suppl 4: 41–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. White, D., Faessel, H., Slocum, H. 2004. Nonlinear response surface and mixture experiment methodologies applied to the study of synergism. Biom J 46: 56–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. White, D.B., Slocum, H.K., Brun, Y., Wrzosek, C., Greco, W.R. 2003. A new nonlinear mixture response surface paradigm for the study of synergism: a three drug example. Curr Drug Metab 4: 399–409.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yeung, T.K., Germond, C., Chen, X., Wang, Z. 1999. The mode of action of taxol: apoptosis at low concentration and necrosis at high concentration. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 263: 398–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zimmermann, G.R., Lehár, J., Keith, C.T. 2007. Multi-target therapeutics: when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Drug Discovery Today 12(1–2): 34–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Boik
    • 1
  • Ara Kirakosyan
    • 2
  • Peter B. Kaufman
    • 2
  • E. Mitchell Seymour
    • 3
  • Kevin Spelman
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Statistics ClarkStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Department of Cardiac SurgeryUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  4. 4.Botanical Healing DepartmentTai Sophia InstituteUSA

Personalised recommendations