Abstract

Cannabis sativa, known for its historical and contemporary significance, has garnered renewed interest due to its complex chemical composition and potential therapeutic benefits, particularly in cancer treatment. The plant contains over 500 chemical compounds, with cannabinoids, terpenes, and flavonoids being the most studied. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) are the primary cannabinoids, each offering unique effects—THC being psychoactive and CBD showing therapeutic potential without psychoactivity. Historically used across various cultures for medicinal and psychoactive purposes, Cannabis sativa's potential as an anticancer agent is an area of intense research. Cannabinoids have shown promise in preclinical studies for inducing apoptosis, inhibiting angiogenesis, and preventing metastasis in cancer cells. However, the clinical application of cannabis in oncology faces several challenges. Regulatory barriers, due to the plant's complex legal status, restrict research and access to cannabis-based therapies. Standardization and quality control issues further complicate clinical use, as the variability in cannabis strains, extraction methods, and dosage forms can impact efficacy and safety. Drug interactions with conventional cancer treatments present additional concerns, requiring careful consideration of how cannabinoids might affect chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and radiation therapy. Future research should focus on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics to understand cannabis absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. Exploring combination therapies with conventional treatments and personalized medicine approaches, such as genetic variability and biomarker identification, will be crucial for optimizing cannabis-based therapies. Addressing these research gaps and challenges will be essential for integrating Cannabis sativa into effective cancer treatment regimens and improving patient outcomes..

Keywords

Cannabinoids, Anticancer Properties, Regulatory Barriers, Pharmacokinetics, Personalized Medicine.

Introduction

Cannabis sativa, commonly known as cannabis, marijuana, or hemp, is a plant with a deep-rooted history that spans millennia. Originally cultivated in Central Asia, it spread across various cultures and continents, being utilized for its psychoactive effects, as well as its medicinal and industrial applications. The plant's multifaceted uses have made it a subject of interest and controversy throughout history, with its legal status fluctuating dramatically over time.[1] The resurgence of interest in Cannabis sativa in the modern era is largely attributed to advancements in chemical analysis and a better understanding of its pharmacological properties. The plant contains over 500 chemical compounds, with cannabinoids, terpenes, and flavonoids being the most studied. These compounds interact with the human endocannabinoid system, which plays a crucial role in regulating various physiological processes, including mood, appetite, pain, and immune response.[2-3] Among the most researched cannabinoids are delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). THC is primarily responsible for the psychoactive effects of cannabis, while CBD is non-psychoactive and has been associated with a range of therapeutic effects, including anti-inflammatory, anticonvulsant, and anticancer properties.[4]

Historical Context

The history of Cannabis sativa is rich and varied, with evidence of its use dating back to ancient China and India, where it was used in traditional medicine for its analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties. In ancient Egypt, cannabis was used in religious rituals and as a treatment for various ailments. The plant was also known in ancient Greece and Rome, where it was used for its psychoactive effects and in the treatment of conditions like earache and edema. In the Middle Ages, Cannabis sativa continued to be used across the Islamic world and Europe, primarily for medicinal purposes. However, its use began to decline in the 19th and 20th centuries due to increasing legal restrictions and the advent of synthetic drugs. It was not until the late 20th century, with the discovery of the endocannabinoid system and the identification of THC and CBD, that interest in Cannabis sativa was rekindled.[5-6]

Chemical Composition of Cannabis sativa

The chemical complexity of Cannabis sativa is one of the reasons for its wide range of effects and therapeutic potential. The plant produces a unique class of terpenophenolic compounds called cannabinoids, of which more than 100 have been identified. The two most prominent cannabinoids are THC and CBD, but other cannabinoids such as cannabigerol (CBG), cannabichromene (CBC), and cannabinol (CBN) also contribute to the plant's effects. Terpenes, the aromatic compounds found in Cannabis sativa, also play a significant role in its effects. They contribute to the plant's distinctive smell and have been shown to have therapeutic properties of their own, including anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and anticancer effects. The interplay between cannabinoids and terpenes, known as the entourage effect, is thought to enhance the therapeutic potential of Cannabis sativa.[7] Flavonoids, another class of compounds found in Cannabis sativa, have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. They are believed to contribute to the overall health benefits of the plant and may play a role in its anticancer effects.

Anticancer Properties of Cannabis sativa

One of the most promising areas of research into Cannabis sativa is its potential as an anticancer agent. Studies have shown that cannabinoids can exert antitumor effects through various mechanisms. These include inducing apoptosis (programmed cell death) in cancer cells, inhibiting angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels that supply tumors), and preventing metastasis (the spread of cancer to other parts of the body).

THC and CBD have been the focus of most research, but other cannabinoids and terpenes are also being studied for their anticancer properties. For example, CBD has been shown to inhibit the growth of certain types of cancer cells, including breast, lung, and glioblastoma. It is also being investigated for its ability to enhance the effectiveness of traditional chemotherapy and reduce the side effects of cancer treatment.[8]

However, the use of Cannabis sativa in cancer therapy is not without challenges. The variability in the chemical composition of the plant, due to differences in growing conditions, strain, and processing methods, makes it difficult to standardize treatments. Additionally, the legal status of Cannabis sativa in many parts of the world limits access to the plant and hampers research efforts. There is also a need for more rigorous clinical trials to fully understand the safety and efficacy of Cannabis sativa as a cancer treatment.

Challenges in Clinical Application of Cannabis sativa in Cancer Treatment

While preclinical studies on Cannabis sativa have demonstrated significant potential for cancer treatment, the transition from bench to bedside is fraught with challenges. These challenges encompass regulatory barriers, standardization and quality control issues, and potential drug interactions. Each of these factors plays a critical role in shaping the feasibility and safety of cannabis as a clinical treatment for cancer. This section provides a detailed review of these challenges and their implications for the clinical application of cannabis in oncology.

Regulatory Barriers

One of the most significant obstacles to the clinical application of Cannabis sativa in cancer treatment is its legal status. The regulatory landscape for cannabis is complex and varies widely across different countries and even within regions of the same country. In many parts of the world, cannabis remains a controlled substance, classified alongside other narcotics such as heroin and LSD, making its use highly restricted or illegal.

1. Impact on Research: The legal restrictions on cannabis have severely limited the scope and scale of research into its medicinal properties. Researchers often face difficulties obtaining the necessary permits to study cannabis, leading to a lack of large-scale, high-quality clinical trials. This paucity of rigorous scientific evidence hampers the ability of healthcare providers to make informed decisions about incorporating cannabis into cancer treatment regimens.
2. Clinical Use: The legal status of cannabis also directly affects its clinical use. In regions where cannabis is illegal or highly regulated, patients may not have access to cannabis-based therapies, even if they are deemed potentially beneficial by healthcare providers. This creates a disparity in treatment options available to patients based on their geographical location.
3. Regulatory Hurdles for Approval: The process of gaining regulatory approval for cannabis-based therapies is often more complex and time-consuming than for conventional drugs. Regulatory agencies require extensive clinical trial data to demonstrate safety and efficacy, which is challenging to obtain given the legal and logistical constraints surrounding cannabis research. As a result, even in jurisdictions where medicinal cannabis is legal, few cannabis-based treatments have received formal approval for cancer therapy.

Standardization and Quality Control

The standardization and quality control of Cannabis sativa-based products pose another significant challenge to their clinical application. The therapeutic efficacy and safety of cannabis are highly dependent on the specific chemical composition of the product used, which can vary widely due to several factors. [9-11]

1. Variability in Cannabis Strains: Cannabis sativa comprises numerous strains, each with a distinct profile of cannabinoids, terpenes, and other bioactive compounds. The therapeutic effects of a cannabis product can differ markedly depending on the strain used. For instance, some strains may be high in THC, offering potent psychoactive effects and potential antiemetic properties, while others may be rich in CBD, providing anti-inflammatory and anxiolytic benefits without psychoactivity. This variability complicates the standardization of cannabis-based therapies, making it difficult to predict the effects of a given product.
2. Extraction Methods: The method used to extract cannabinoids and other compounds from Cannabis sativa also affects the final product's chemical composition. Different extraction techniques, such as solvent extraction, CO2 extraction, and steam distillation, yield products with varying levels of cannabinoids, terpenes, and other constituents. Inconsistent extraction methods can lead to significant batch-to-batch variability, posing a challenge for the reproducibility of clinical outcomes.
3. Dosage Control: Another critical issue is the lack of standardized dosing guidelines for cannabis-based therapies. Unlike conventional pharmaceuticals, which are manufactured under strict controls to ensure consistent dosages, cannabis products often lack uniformity in their potency. This inconsistency can lead to under- or overdosing, potentially reducing therapeutic efficacy or increasing the risk of adverse effects. The variability in dosage forms, such as oils, tinctures, edibles, and inhalables, further complicates dosage control.
4. Quality Assurance: Ensuring the quality of cannabis products is essential for patient safety. Contaminants such as pesticides, heavy metals, and microbial pathogens can be present in cannabis products if proper cultivation, harvesting, and processing protocols are not followed. Inconsistent quality control standards across different producers and regions exacerbate this issue, making it difficult to ensure that all cannabis products meet the necessary safety standards for clinical use.

Drug Interactions

The potential for drug interactions between cannabis compounds and conventional cancer therapies is a critical consideration for the safe clinical application of Cannabis sativa in oncology. Both THC and CBD, the two most studied cannabinoids, can interact with other medications, potentially altering their pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

1. Interaction with Chemotherapy Agents: Some studies have suggested that cannabinoids may interact with chemotherapy drugs by affecting their metabolism. For example, CBD is known to inhibit certain cytochrome P450 enzymes, which are responsible for the metabolism of many chemotherapy agents. This inhibition could lead to increased levels of these drugs in the bloodstream, potentially enhancing their toxicity. Conversely, THC has been reported to induce certain liver enzymes, which could accelerate the metabolism of some chemotherapeutic agents, potentially reducing their efficacy.
2. Impact on Immune System: Cannabis has immunomodulatory effects, which could theoretically impact the efficacy of immunotherapies, a rapidly growing area in cancer treatment. While some studies suggest that cannabinoids may enhance certain immune responses, others indicate that they could suppress immune function, depending on the dosage and timing of administration. This duality presents a challenge in predicting how cannabis might influence the outcomes of immunotherapy in cancer patients.
3. Combination with Radiation Therapy: The combination of cannabis with radiation therapy is another area of concern. While some preclinical studies suggest that cannabinoids might sensitize cancer cells to radiation, thereby enhancing its effectiveness, others raise the possibility that cannabis could protect cancer cells from the damaging effects of radiation, potentially reducing treatment efficacy. The lack of comprehensive clinical data makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions.
4. Patient Safety Considerations: The potential for drug interactions necessitates careful consideration of patient safety. Oncologists and healthcare providers need to be aware of the possible interactions between cannabis and conventional cancer treatments to make informed decisions about incorporating cannabis into a patient’s treatment plan. This includes monitoring for potential side effects, adjusting dosages of conventional drugs as necessary, and providing patients with clear guidance on the safe use of cannabis alongside other therapies.

Future Research Directions for Cannabis sativa in Cancer Therapy

To fully unlock the potential of Cannabis sativa in cancer treatment, several key areas of research must be explored. This section outlines future research directions, focusing on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, combination therapies, and personalized medicine. Each of these areas is crucial for understanding how cannabis compounds can be optimally used in oncology and for addressing the gaps in current knowledge.[12]

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics

Understanding the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of cannabis compounds is fundamental to their effective clinical application in cancer therapy. Detailed studies in these areas will provide insights into how cannabis is processed in the body and how it exerts its effects.

1. Absorption and Bioavailability:
   • Formulation Differences: The absorption and bioavailability of cannabis compounds can vary significantly depending on the formulation. For instance, oral ingestion of cannabis results in first-pass metabolism in the liver, which can significantly alter the bioavailability of cannabinoids. Conversely, sublingual or inhaled routes bypass this first-pass effect, potentially leading to different therapeutic outcomes. Research is needed to compare the bioavailability of different cannabis formulations and their clinical implications.
   • Impact of Food and Drug Interactions: Studies should investigate how food and other medications influence the absorption of cannabis compounds. For example, fatty foods may enhance the absorption of cannabinoids, while certain medications could alter their metabolism. Understanding these interactions will help in designing effective dosing regimens.
2. Distribution and Metabolism:
   • Tissue Distribution: Research should focus on the distribution of cannabinoids in various tissues, including tumor and non-tumor tissues. Understanding the accumulation and retention of cannabinoids in cancerous tissues versus healthy tissues is crucial for optimizing their therapeutic efficacy and minimizing side effects.
   • Metabolism Pathways: Detailed studies on the metabolic pathways of cannabinoids are necessary to identify how they are broken down in the body and how their metabolites might influence therapeutic outcomes. This includes identifying the enzymes involved in cannabinoid metabolism and how genetic variations in these enzymes might affect individual responses.
3. Excretion:
   • Elimination Routes: The routes and rates of excretion of cannabinoids, including through urine, feces, and exhaled breath, need to be characterized. This information will help in understanding the duration of action of cannabinoids and the potential for accumulation and toxicity with long-term use.
4. Mechanisms of Action:
   • Cellular and Molecular Pathways: Further research is required to elucidate the cellular and molecular mechanisms through which cannabinoids exert their anticancer effects. This includes studying how cannabinoids interact with cancer cell receptors, modulate signaling pathways, and influence tumor microenvironment interactions.

Combination Therapies

Combining Cannabis sativa with conventional cancer treatments is an area of growing interest. Research in this domain could reveal synergistic effects that enhance the efficacy of existing therapies and provide new avenues for patient management. [13-16]

1. Synergistic Effects:
   • Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy: Studies should investigate how cannabinoids might enhance the effectiveness of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Research could focus on how cannabinoids impact cancer cell sensitivity to these treatments and whether they can reduce treatment-induced side effects, such as nausea and pain.
   • Immunotherapy: The potential for cannabinoids to modulate the immune response and improve the efficacy of immunotherapy should be explored. This includes studying how cannabinoids affect immune cell activation and tumor immune evasion mechanisms.
2. Sequential and Concurrent Administration:
   • Timing and Scheduling: Research should examine the optimal timing and scheduling of cannabis administration in relation to conventional treatments. This includes determining whether cannabinoids should be administered concurrently with or sequentially after standard therapies for maximal benefit.
   • Dosing Regimens: Establishing effective dosing regimens for combination therapies is crucial. Research should determine how the dose and frequency of cannabinoid administration influence the outcomes of combined treatments and whether dose adjustments are needed for different combinations.
3. Mechanisms of Interaction:
   • Pharmacokinetic Interactions: Studies should investigate how cannabinoids might alter the pharmacokinetics of conventional drugs, including potential changes in drug absorption, metabolism, and excretion when used in combination with other treatments.
   • Pharmacodynamic Interactions: Understanding how cannabinoids interact with the pharmacodynamic effects of other therapies is essential. Research should focus on whether cannabinoids influence the therapeutic targets of conventional treatments or contribute to unintended effects.

Personalized Medicine

Personalized medicine involves tailoring treatment to individual patient characteristics, including genetic factors that influence drug response. For Cannabis sativa in cancer therapy, personalized approaches could enhance treatment efficacy and safety.

1. Genetic Variability:
   • Cannabinoid Receptor Variants: Research should explore how genetic variations in cannabinoid receptors (e.g., CB1, CB2) affect individual responses to cannabis. Understanding these variations could lead to personalized dosing strategies and more effective treatment plans.
   • Metabolic Enzyme Variants: Variability in enzymes involved in cannabinoid metabolism (e.g., CYP450 enzymes) can impact how individuals process cannabinoids. Studies should examine how these genetic differences affect cannabinoid efficacy and safety, potentially leading to more individualized treatment approaches.
2. Biomarkers for Response:
   • Identification of Predictive Biomarkers: Identifying biomarkers that predict response to cannabis-based therapies could help tailor treatment to individuals more likely to benefit. This includes biomarkers related to tumor biology, patient genetics, and cannabinoid metabolism.
   • Monitoring and Adjustment: Research should focus on developing methods for monitoring patient responses to cannabis treatment in real-time. This includes using biomarkers or other indicators to adjust treatment regimens based on individual patient needs.
3. Patient-Centered Approaches:
   • Quality of Life Assessments: Personalized medicine should also consider the impact of cannabis-based therapies on patients' quality of life. Research should assess how different patients experience and tolerate cannabis treatment and how these experiences influence overall treatment satisfaction and outcomes.
   • Patient Preferences: Understanding patient preferences for different formulations and administration routes is essential. Personalized treatment plans should account for patients' preferences and experiences to improve adherence and therapeutic outcomes.

CONCLUSION:

The historical, chemical, and anticancer dimensions of Cannabis sativa reveal a plant with immense potential. Its rich history underscores its importance in various cultures and its longstanding use in medicine. The chemical complexity of Cannabis sativa opens the door to a wide range of therapeutic possibilities, particularly in the realm of cancer treatment. While there are challenges to be addressed, the future of Cannabis sativa in oncology looks promising, and continued research is essential to unlocking its full potential. Cannabis sativa, with its rich historical and pharmacological background, presents significant potential as an adjunctive therapy in cancer treatment. Its complex chemical profile, including cannabinoids like THC and CBD, as well as terpenes and flavonoids, contributes to a range of therapeutic effects, from anti-inflammatory to anticancer properties. Despite the promising preclinical findings, translating these into effective clinical treatments faces several hurdles. Regulatory barriers remain a major challenge, as cannabis's legal status restricts research opportunities and limits patient access in many regions. The variability in cannabis strains, extraction methods, and product quality complicates standardization and dosage control, affecting the reliability and safety of cannabis-based treatments. Furthermore, potential drug interactions, particularly with chemotherapy and other cancer therapies, necessitate careful management to avoid adverse effects and optimize therapeutic outcomes. Future research should focus on elucidating the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cannabinoids, exploring their synergistic effects with conventional cancer treatments, and developing personalized medicine approaches. This includes studying genetic variability in drug response and identifying biomarkers to predict patient outcomes. Ultimately, addressing these challenges and advancing research will be crucial for harnessing the full potential of Cannabis sativa in oncology. As the scientific community gains a deeper understanding of how cannabis compounds interact with cancer biology and conventional treatments, there is hope for integrating cannabis into comprehensive cancer care, offering new avenues for improving patient outcomes and quality of life.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

To my family, your constant belief in me and your patience have been my greatest source of strength. Your understanding and sacrifices have been instrumental in my achievements, and I am deeply grateful for your love and support.

Conflict Of Interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Availability Of Data and Materials

Not applicable

Funding:

None

REFERENCES

1. Stathers, T., Low, J., Mwanga, R., Carey, T., David, S., Gibson, R., Namanda, S., McEwan, M., Bechoff, A., Malinga, J., Benjamin, M., Katcher, H., Blakenship, J., Andrade, M., Agili, S., Njoku, J., Sindi, K., Mulongo, G., Tumwegamire, S., Njoku, A., Abidin, E., & Mbabu, A. (2013). Everything you ever wanted to know about sweetpotato. Reaching Agents of Change Training Manual (Vol. 1, pp. 29–30).
2. Milind, P., & Manjula, M. (2015). Sweet potato as a super-food. International Journal of Research in Ayurveda and Pharmacy, 6(4), 557–562.
3. Monostori, T., & Szarvas, A. (2015). A review on sweet potato with special focus on Hungarian production. Agronomy, 4(2), 82–99.
4. Ayeleso, T. B., Ramachela, K., & Mukwevho, E. (2016). A review of therapeutic potentials of sweet potato: Pharmacological activities and influence of the cultivar. Tropical Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, 15(12), 2751–2761.
5. Colato Antonio, G., Yoshie Takeiti, C., Augustus de Oliveira, R., & Jin Park, K. (2011). Sweet potato: Production, morphological and physicochemical characteristics, and technological process. Fruit, Vegetable and Cereal Science and Biotechnology, 5(1), 1–16.
6. Laveriano-Santos, E. P., López-Yerena, A., Jaime-Rodríguez, C., González-Coria, J., Lamuela-Raventós, R. M., Vallverdú-Queralt, A., Romanyà, J., & Pérez, M. (2022). Sweet potato is not simply an abundant food crop: A comprehensive review of its phytochemical constituents, biological activities, and the effects of processing. Molecules, 27(19), 6614.
7. Teow, C. C., Truong, V.-D., McFeeters, R. F., Thompson, R. L., Pecota, K. V., & Yencho, G. C. (2007). Antioxidant activities, phenolic and ?-carotene contents of sweet potato genotypes with varying flesh colours. Food Chemistry, 103(3), 829–838.
8. Alam, M., Rana, Z., & Islam, S. (2016). Comparison of the proximate composition, total carotenoids, and total polyphenol content of nine orange-fleshed sweet potato varieties grown in Bangladesh. Foods, 5(3), 64.
9. Kurata, R., Sun, H. N., Oki, T., Okuno, S., Ishiguro, K., & Sugawara, T. (2019). Sweet potato polyphenols. In Sweet potato chemistry, processing, and nutrition (pp. 177–222).
10. Luo, D., Mu, T., & Sun, H. (2021). Profiling of phenolic acids and flavonoids in sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) leaves and evaluation of their antioxidant and hypoglycemic activities. Food Bioscience, 39, 100801.
11. Sun, H., Mu, B., Song, Z., Ma, Z., & Mu, T. (2018). The in vitro antioxidant activity and inhibition of intracellular reactive oxygen species of sweet potato leaf polyphenols. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, 2018, 9017828.
12. Wang, S., Nie, S., & Zhu, F. (2016). Chemical constituents and health effects of sweet potato. Food Research International, 89, 90–116.
13. Park, S. Y., Lee, S. Y., Yang, J. W., Lee, J. S., Oh, S. D., Oh, S., Lee, S. M., Lim, M. H., Park, S. K., Jang, J. S., et al. (2016). Comparative analysis of phytochemicals and polar metabolites from colored sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) tubers. Food Science and Biotechnology, 25(1), 283–291.
14. Wang, S., Nie, S., & Zhu, F. (2016). Chemical constituents and health effects of sweet potato. Food Research International, 89, 90–116.
15. Mantilla, E. C., Hillebrand, S., Butschbach, D., Baldermann, S., Watanabe, N., & Winterhalter, P. (2010). Preparative isolation of anthocyanins from Japanese purple sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) varieties by high-speed countercurrent chromatography. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 58(17), 9899–9904.
16. Kim, H. W., Kim, J. B., Cho, S. M., Chung, M. N., Lee, Y. M., Chu, S. M., Che, J. H., Kim, S. N., Kim, S. Y., Cho, Y. S., et al. (2012). Anthocyanin changes in the Korean purple-fleshed sweet potato, Shinzami, as affected by steaming and baking. Food Chemistry, 130(4), 966–972.
17. Xu, J., Su, X., Lim, S., Griffin, J., Carey, E., Katz, B., Tomich, J., Smith, J. S., & Wang, W. (2015). Characterisation and stability of anthocyanins in purple-fleshed sweet potato P40. Food Chemistry, 186, 90–96.
18. Anbuselvi, S., & Balamurugan, T. (2014). Phytochemical and anti-nutrient constituents of cassava and sweet potato. World Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 3, 1440–1449.
19. Dutta, S. (2015). Sweet potatoes for diabetes mellitus: A systematic review. Pharmacophore, 6, 60–72.
20. Florence, T. M. (1995). The role of free radicals in disease. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry and Ophthalmology, 23, 3-7.
21. Nagai, M., Tani, M., Kishimoto, Y., Iizuka, M., Saita, E., Toyozaki, M., & Kondo, K. (2011). Sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) leaves suppressed oxidation of low density lipoprotein (LDL) in vitro and in human subjects. Journal of Clinical Biochemistry and Nutrition, 48(3), 203.
22. Tang, Y., Cai, W., & Xu, B. (2015). Profiles of phenolics, carotenoids and antioxidative capacities of thermal processed white, yellow, orange and purple sweet potatoes grown in Guilin, China. Food Science and Human Wellness, 4(3), 123-132.
23. Ji, H., Zhang, H., Li, H., & Li, Y. (2015). Analysis on the nutrition composition and antioxidant activity of different types of sweet potato cultivars. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 6(2), 161.
24. Salawu, S. O., Udi, E., Akindahunsi, A. A., Boligon, A. A., & Athayde, M. L. (2015). Antioxidant potential, phenolic profile and nutrient composition of flesh and peels from Nigerian white and purple skinned sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.). Asian Journal of Plant Science Research, 5(1), 14-23.
25. Ludvik, B., Neuffer, B., & Pacini, G. (2004). Efficacy of Ipomoea batatas (Caiapo) on diabetes control in type 2 diabetic subjects treated with diet. Diabetes Care, 27(2), 436-440.
26. Zakir, S., Sarwar, M., Allen, J., Butt, M. S., Arshad, U., & Javaid, A. (2008). Impact of sweet potato cultivars on blood glucose level in diabetic and healthy participants. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 10(3), 316–320.
27. Ogunrinola, O. O., Fajana, O. O., Olaitan, S. N., Adu, O. B., & Akinola, M. O. (2015). Anti-diabetic activity of Ipomoea batatas leaves extract: Effects on hepatic enzymes in alloxan-induced diabetic rats. Research Journal of Medicinal Plants, 9(5), 227–233.
28. Pal, S., Gautam, S., Mishra, A., Maurya, R., & Srivastava, A. K. (2015). Antihyperglycemic and antidyslipidemic potential of Ipomoea batatas leaves in validated diabetic animal models. International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 7(2), 176–186.
29. Ludvik, B., Hanefeld, M., & Pacini, G. (2008). Improved metabolic control by Ipomoea batatas (Caiapo) is associated with increased adiponectin and decreased fibrinogen levels in type 2 diabetic subjects. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 10(7), 586–592.
30. Lindsay, R. S., Funahashi, T., Hanson, R. L., Matsuzawa, Y., Tanaka, S., Tataranni, P. A., Knowler, W. C., & Krakoff, J. (2002). Adiponectin and development of type 2 diabetes in the Pima Indian population. The Lancet, 360(9326), 57–58.
31. Zhao, R., Li, Q., Long, L., Li, J., Yang, R., & Gao, D. (2007). Antidiabetic activity of flavone from Ipomoea batatas leaf in non-insulin-dependent diabetic rats. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 42(1), 80–85.
32. Karna, P., Gundala, S. R., Gupta, M. V., Shamsi, S. A., Pace, R. D., & Yates, C. (2011). Polyphenol-rich sweet potato greens extract inhibits proliferation and induces apoptosis in prostate cancer cells in vitro and in vivo. Carcinogenesis, 32(12), 1872–1880.
33. Sugata, M., Lin, C. Y., & Shih, Y. C. (2015). Anti-inflammatory and anticancer activities of Taiwanese purple-fleshed sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas L. Lam) extracts. BioMed Research International.
34. Wang, L. S., & Stoner, G. D. (2008). Anthocyanins and their role in cancer prevention. Cancer Letters, 269(2), 281–290.
35. Li, P. G., Mu, T. H., & Deng, L. (2013). Anticancer effects of sweet potato protein on human colorectal cancer cells. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 19(21), 3300–3308.
36. Hermes, D., Dudek, D. N., Maria, M. D., Horta, L. P., Lima, E. N., de Fátima, Â., Sanches, A. C., & Modolo, L. V. (2013). In vivo wound healing and antiulcer properties of white sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas). Journal of Advanced Research, 4, 411–415.
37. Panda, V., & Sonkamble, M. (2012). Anti-ulcer activity of Ipomoea batatas tubers (sweet potato). Functional Foods in Health and Disease, 2, 48–61.
38. Sathish, R., Rani, M., & Natarajan, K. (2012). Study of ulcer protective effect of Ipomoea batatas (L.) dietary tuberous roots (sweet potato). Iranian Journal of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 11, 36–39.
39. Steinberg, D. (2009). The LDL modification hypothesis of atherogenesis: An update. Journal of Lipid Research, 50(Suppl), S376–S381.
40. Mazza, G. (2007). Anthocyanins and heart health. Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 43(4), 369.
41. Chen, C. M., Li, S. C., Liao, Y. Y., Liu, J. F., Shyur, L. F., Chen, P. R., & Chen, C. Y. (2013). In vitro immunomodulatory effect of Ipomoea batatas L. tuber bioactives. The FASEB Journal, 27(1 Supplement), 862–869.
42. Hanieh, H., Gerile, C., Narabara, K., Gu, Z., Abe, A., & Kondo, Y. (2010). In vivo immunomodulatory effects of dietary purple sweet potato after immunization in chicken. Animal Science Journal, 81(2), 116–121.
43. Chen, Y. C., Chang, H. S., Lai, H. M., & Jeng, S. T. (2005). Characterization of the wound inducible protein IPOMOELIN from sweet potato. Plant, Cell & Environment, 28(2), 251–259.
44. Kim, O. K., Nam, D. E., Yoon, H. G., Baek, S. J., Jun, W., & Lee, J. (2015). Immunomodulatory and antioxidant effects of purple sweet potato extract in LP-BM5 murine leukemia virus-induced murine acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Journal of Medicinal Food, 18(8), 882–889.
45. Chang, W. H., Chen, C. M., Hu, S. P., Kan, N. W., Chiu, C. C., & Liu, J. F. (2007). Effect of purple sweet potato leaves consumption on the modulation of the immune response in basketball players during the training period. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 16(4), 609–615.
46. Adsul, V. B., Khatiwora, E., Torane, R., & Deshpande, N. R. (2012). Antimicrobial activities of Ipomoea carnea leaves. Journal of Natural Product and Plant Resources, 2(5), 597–600.
47. Mbaeyi-Nwaoha, I. E., & Emejulu, V. N. (2013). Evaluation of phytochemical composition and antimicrobial activity of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) leaf. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 12(7), 575