Plant immunostimulants-Scientific paradigm or myth?

In traditional medicine, numerous plant preparations are used to treat inflammation both topically and systemically. Several anti-inflammatory plant extracts and a few natural product-based monosubstances have even found their way into the clinic. Unfortunately, a number of plant secondary metabolites have been shown to trigger detrimental pro-allergic immune reactions and are therefore considered to be toxic. In the phytotherapy research literature, numerous plants are also claimed to exert immunostimulatory effects. However, while the concepts of plant-derived anti-inflammatory agents and allergens are well established, the widespread notion of immunostimulatory plant natural products and their potential therapeutic use is rather obscure, often with the idea that the product is some sort of "tonic" for the immune system without actually specifying the mechanisms. In this commentary it is argued that the paradigm of oral plant immunostimulants lacks clinical evidence and may therefore be a myth, which has originated primarily from in vitro studies with plant extracts. The fact that no conclusive data on orally administered immunostimulants can be found in the scientific literature inevitably prompts us to challenge this paradigm.

Knowing the future: partial foreknowledge effects on the programming of prosaccades and antisaccades

Foreknowledge about the demands of an upcoming trial may be exploited to optimize behavioural responses. In the current study we systematically investigated the benefits of partial foreknowledge--that is, when some but not all aspects of a future trial are known in advance. For this we used an ocular motor paradigm with horizontal prosaccades and antisaccades. Predictable sequences were used to create three partial foreknowledge conditions: one with foreknowledge about the stimulus location only, one with foreknowledge about the task set only, and one with foreknowledge about the direction of the required response only. These were contrasted with a condition of no-foreknowledge and a condition of complete foreknowledge about all three parameters. The results showed that the three types of foreknowledge affected saccadic efficiency differently. While foreknowledge about stimulus-location had no effect on efficiency, task foreknowledge had some effect and response-foreknowledge was as effective as complete foreknowledge. Foreknowledge effects on switch costs followed a similar pattern in general, but were not specific for switching of the trial attribute for which foreknowledge was available. We conclude that partial foreknowledge has a differential effect on efficiency, most consistent with preparatory activation of a motor schema in advance of the stimulus, with consequent benefits for both switched and repeated trials.