Investigation of arsenic-stressed yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) as a bioassay in homeopathic basic research.

This study investigated the response of arsenic-stressed yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) towards homeopathically potentized Arsenicum album, a duckweed nosode, and gibberellic acid. The three test substances were applied in five potency levels (17x, 18x, 24x, 28x, 30x) and compared to controls (unsuccussed and succussed water) with respect to influencing specific growth parameters. Five independent experiments were evaluated for each test substance. Additionally, five water control experiments were analyzed to investigate the stability of the experimental setup (systematic negative control experiments). All experiments were randomized and blinded. Yeast grew in microplates over a period of 38 h in either potentized substances or water controls with 250 mg/l arsenic(V) added over the entire cultivation period. Yeast's growth kinetics (slope, Et50, and yield) were measured photometrically. The test system exhibited a low coefficient of variation (slope 1.2%, Et50 0.3%, yield 2.7%). Succussed water did not induce any significant differences compared to unsuccussed water. Data from the control and treatment groups were both pooled to increase statistical power. In this study with yeast, no significant effects were found for any outcome parameter or any homeopathic treatment. Since in parallel experiments arsenic-stressed duckweed showed highly significant effects after application of potentized Arsenicum album and duckweed nosode preparations from the same batch as used in the present study, some specific properties of this experimental setup with yeast must be responsible for the lacking response.

Use of homeopathic preparations in experimental studies with abiotically stressed plants.

BACKGROUND: Experimental research on the effects of homeopathic treatments on impaired plants was last reviewed in 1990. OBJECTIVES: To compile a systematic review of the existing literature on basic research in homeopathy with abiotically stressed plants using predefined criteria. METHODS: The literature search was carried out on publications that reported experiments on homeopathy using abiotically stressed whole plants, seeds, plant parts and cells from 1920 to 2010. Outcomes had to be measured by established procedures and statistically evaluated. Using of a Manuscript Information Score (MIS) we identified those publications that provided sufficient information for proper interpretation (MIS≥5). A further evaluation was based on the use of adequate controls to investigate specific effects of homeopathic preparations and on the use of systematic negative control experiments. RESULTS: A total of 34 publications with abiotically stressed plants was identified, published between 1965 and 2010. The 34 publications described a total of 37 experimental studies. Twenty-two studies included statistics, 13 had a MIS≥5, 8 were identified with adequate controls and 4 with negative control experiments. Significant and reproducible effects with decimal and centesimal potencies were found, including dilution levels beyond Avogadro's number. One experimental model was independently assessed by another research team and yielded inverted results compared to the original trial. CONCLUSIONS: Abiotically stressed plant models seem to be a useful approach to investigate homeopathic basic research questions, but more experimentation and especially more independent replication trials are needed. Systematic negative control experiments should be implemented on a routine basis to exclude false-positive results.

Effects of homeopathic arsenicum album, nosode, and gibberellic acid preparations on the growth rate of arsenic-impaired duckweed (Lemna gibba L.).

This study evaluated the effects of homeopathically potentized Arsenicum album, nosode, and gibberellic acid in a bioassay with arsenic-stressed duckweed (Lemna gibba L.). The test substances were applied in nine potency levels (17x, 18x, 21x-24x, 28x, 30x, 33x) and compared with controls (unsuccussed and succussed water) regarding their influence on the plant's growth rate. Duckweed was stressed with arsenic(V) for 48 h. Afterwards, plants grew in either potentized substances or water controls for 6 days. Growth rates of frond (leaf) area and frond number were determined with a computerized image analysis system for different time intervals (days 0-2, 2-6, 0-6). Five independent experiments were evaluated for each test substance. Additionally, five water control experiments were analyzed to investigate the stability of the experimental setup (systematic negative control experiments). All experiments were randomized and blinded. The test system exhibited a low coefficient of variation (approximately equal to 1%). Unsuccussed and succussed water did not result in any significant differences in duckweed growth rate. Data from the control and treatment groups were pooled to increase statistical power. Growth rates for days 0-2 were not influenced by any homeopathic preparation. Growth rates for days 2-6 increased after application of potentized Arsenicum album regarding both frond area (p < 0.001) and frond number (p < 0.001), and by application of potentized nosode (frond area growth rate only, p < 0.01). Potencies of gibberellic acid did not influence duckweed growth rate. The systematic negative control experiments did not yield any significant effects. Thus, false-positive results can be excluded with high certainty. To conclude, the test system with L. gibba impaired by arsenic(V) was stable and reliable. It yielded evidence for specific effects of homeopathic Arsenicum album preparations and it will provide a valuable tool for future experiments that aim at revealing the mode of action of homeopathic preparations. It may also be useful to investigate the influence of external factors (e.g., heat, electromagnetic radiation) on the effects of homeopathic preparations.

Duckweed (Lemna gibba L.) as a test organism for homeopathic potencies.

OBJECTIVES: A bioassay with duckweed (Lemna gibba L.) was used to study the effects of homeopathic potencies on the plant's growth rate. Screening included 12 substances: argentum nitricum, copper sulfate, gibberellic acid, 3-indole acetic acid, kinetin, lactose, lemna minor, methyl jasmonate, metoxuron, phosphorus, potassium nitrate, and sulfur. Each substance was tested in the potency range 14x-30x. Controls were unsuccussed and succussed water. DESIGN: In randomized and blinded experiments, duckweed was grown in either potentized substances or water controls over 7 days. Frond (leaf) growth was measured regularly with a computerized image analysis system and growth rates were calculated for different time intervals (day 0-7, 0-3, 3-7). Additionally, a water control run with unsuccussed water as the only test substance was performed to determine the variability of the bioassay. RESULTS: For the water control run, the between-group coefficient of variance for groups of five replicates was 0.87% for the frond area-related average specific growth rate r(area) compared to 1.60% for the frond number-related average specific growth rate r(num). Thus, the former is the preferred parameter to be used. Of twelve tested substances, potentized argentum nitricum, phosphorus, and kinetin significantly (p<0.05, analysis of variance F-test) affected the main parameter: frond area-related average specific growth rate (day 0-7). Segmented area growth rates (day 0-3 or 3-7) were affected by potentized argentum nitricum, gibberellic acid, lactose, and phosphorus. CONCLUSIONS: The described experimental set-up with L. gibba as test organism appears to be a promising new model system to investigate effects of potentized substances. Yet larger sets of replication experiments with selected test substances and systematic negative controls are necessary to verify the effects found.

Development of a test system for homeopathic preparations using impaired duckweed (Lemna gibba L.).

OBJECTIVES: A bioassay with arsenic-stressed duckweed (Lemna gibba L.) was developed to study potentially regulative effects of homeopathic preparations. We compared potentized substances (nine different potency levels between 17 x and 33 x ) with two controls (unsuccussed and succussed water) regarding their influence on number- and area-related growth rate and color of fronds (leaves). Screening included 11 potentized substances: Arsenicum album, gibberellic acid, nosode, arsenic(V), phosphorus, Conchae, Acidum picrinicum, Argentum nitricum, Crotalus horridus, Hepar sulfuris, and Mercurius vivus naturalis. DESIGN: Duckweed was stressed with arsenic(V) for 48 hours. Afterwards, plants grew in either potentized substances or water controls for 6 days. Growth rate and color of fronds were determined with a computerized image analysis system for different time intervals (days 0-2, 2-6, 0-6). A systematic negative control experiment with unsuccussed water was used to investigate the stability of the bioassay. All experiments were randomized and blinded. RESULTS: Arsenicum album and nosode potencies increased frond number-related growth rate compared to controls (succussed water controls or pooled water controls [succussed and unsuccussed], p < 0.05, t test). Regarding color classification, no effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The experimental setup with L. gibba stressed by arsenic(V) provides a valuable tool to investigate regulative effects of potentized substances. In order to verify the effects of Arsenicum album and nosode potencies, further independent replication experiments are necessary.

Effects of potentised substances on growth rate of the water plant Lemna gibba L.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated, whether the growth rate of Lemna gibba L. (duckweed) can be influenced by the application of homeopathic potencies of gibberellic acid, kinetin, argentum nitricum, and lemna minor. METHODS: Duckweed was grown in either potencies (14x-30x, decimal steps) or water controls (unsuccussed and succussed) over seven days. Frond (leaf-like structure) growth was measured using a non-destructive image analysis system. Growth rates were calculated for three time intervals (0-7, 0-3, 3-7 days). Five to six independent, randomized and blinded experiments were analysed for each of the four tested substances. Water control experiments were performed repeatedly to test the reliability of the experimental set-up (systematic negative controls). RESULTS: The systematic negative control experiments did not yield any significant effects. Hence, false positive results could be excluded. The test system had a low coefficient of variation (1.5%). Out of the four tested substances gibberellic acid had the most pronounced effect (p=0.0002, F-test) on the main outcome parameter frond growth rate (r(area) day 0-7). Potency levels 15x, 17x, 18x, 23x and 24x reduced growth rate of Lemna gibba (p<0.05 against the pooled water control, LSD test). CONCLUSIONS: Lemna gibba may be considered as a suitable test organism for further studies on the efficacy of homeopathic potencies. Evidence accumulates, that adjacent potency levels may strongly differ in their biological activity. Potential consequences for therapeutical application might be worth investigating.

Effects of potentised substances on growth kinetics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pombe.

BACKGROUND: Homeopathic potencies are used as specific remedies in complementary medicine. Since the mode of action is unknown, the presumed specificity is discussed controversially. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the effects of potentised substances on two yeast species, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pombe, in a stable and reliable test system with systematic negative controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Yeast cells were cultivated in either potentised substances or water controls in microplates and their growth kinetics were measured photometrically. Water control runs were performed repeatedly to investigate the stability of the experimental set-up (systematic negative controls). RESULTS: 4 out of 14 screened substances seem to have affected the growth curve parameters slope or yield. Out of these substances, azoxystrobin and phosphorus were chosen for 8 further replication experiments, which partly confirmed the results of the screening. On the average of all experiments, azoxystrobin affected the slope of the growth curve of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (p < 0.05), and phosphorus affected the slope of the growth curve of Schizosaccharomyces pombe (p < 0.05). No effects were seen in the water control runs. In addition, significant interactions between treatment with potentised substances and experiment number were observed in all experiments with potentised substances (p < 0.01), but not in the water control runs. CONCLUSIONS: Both yeast species reacted to certain potentised substances by changing their growth kinetics. However, the interactions found point to additional factors of still unknown nature, that modulate the effects of potentised substances. This stable test system with yeasts may be suitable for further studies regarding the efficacy of homeopathic potencies.