Component

Rat DRG GABA-activated current in anisatin assays

1 recorded relationships. Experimental role, claim status and evidence remain attached to each record.

How nutrients influence it

Every nutrient with a recorded effect on this component, credited to the nutrient that acted rather than the chapter that recorded it. Open a nutrient to see the findings and the conditions they were measured under.

How nutrients reach it in more than one step

Chains of two or more recorded steps that end here, grouped by the nutrient they start from. Each step is a separate finding, so a chain is a route a mechanism could take, not proof that it does.

Tracing routes…

What it does

Every recorded relationship this component is part of, grouped by its role. Plain wording comes first; the technical statement follows.

Recorded relationships

What acts on it

  1. Anisatin inhibited GABA-activated current in a use-dependent manner, estimated EC50 1.10 µM.

    Experimental context and source evidence
    evidence_access
    Primary indexed abstract reviewed; full results, tables and supplements not independently extracted.
    experimental_contrast
    {"intervention": "Anisatin during GABA activation", "comparator": "GABA activation without anisatin", "endpoint": "Anisatin inhibited GABA-activated current in a use-dependent manner, estimated EC50 1.10 µM.", "effect_direction": "decrease", "combination": "single", "conditions": []} Explicit extracted experimental comparison; source-derived draft.
    experimental_model
    Rat dorsal-root-ganglion electrophysiology.
    interpretation_status
    Source-derived extraction of a fact-checked reference; access is explicit, not independent raw-data verification.
    limitations
    Different molecule from shikimic acid; not proof of parent-compound toxicity.
    plain_language
    Anisatin inhibited GABA-activated current in a use-dependent manner, estimated EC50 1.10 µM.
    primary_references
    Anisatin modulation of the gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor-channel in rat dorsal root ganglion neurons. | 1999 | DOI 10.1038/sj.bjp.0702700 | PMID 10455311 | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10455311/ | https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjp.0702700 | https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1566146/
    primary_references
    Neurotoxicities in infants seen with the consumption of star anise tea. | 2004 | DOI 10.1542/peds.2004-0058 | PMID 15492355 | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15492355/ | https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-0058
    source_locator
    Reviewed reference lines 89-89; exact primary location described in quoted passage where extracted.

    Shikimic acid: detailed mechanisms of action (reviewed 5 October 2026) · lines 89–89

    Original AI-assisted review of primary studies and, where relevant, official regulatory records. Access level is retained per claim. Corrections, null results and unresolved questions remain explicit. Not publisher full text or independent replication. · supports · Rat dorsal-root-ganglion electrophysiology. · source_derived_draft · unverified_draft

    **Star-anise toxicity is a preparation-identity issue.** Anisatin inhibited GABA-activated currents in rat dorsal-root-ganglion neurons in a use-dependent fashion; an estimated EC50 was 1.10 µM. It is a different molecule from shikimic acid. Seven infant neurological cases associated with star-anise tea and evidence of toxic species contamination demonstrate preparation risk, not toxicity attributable specifically to purified shikimic acid. Botanical identity, plant part, contamination, extraction and measured composition cannot be inferred from the name star anise. [Anisatin modulation of the gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor-channel in rat dorsal root ganglion neurons.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10455311/) [Neurotoxicities in infants seen with the consumption of star anise tea.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15492355/)
    Complete structured claim and evidence

In the sources

Preserved passages that mention this component, quoted exactly. Open one to read it in context.

    This is a research prototype built from draft material. It is not medical advice, and its statements still await verification against the original studies.