Talk:Reverse pharmacology

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ckemet. Peer reviewers: Suthardr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Misuse of the term "reverse pharmacology"
The current contents of this article is really drug repositioning for which this is already a well developed article. Furthermore drug repositioning is actually "forward pharmacology" (using a compound to induce a phenotype and afterwards identifying the biological target), not "reverse pharmacology" (develop a hypothesis that modulating the activity a certain target will be disease modifying and then screen for compounds that bind to that target). The use of the term "reverse pharmacology" in this context is very confusing and contradicts the much more widely used definition of this term. Boghog (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Drug repositioning (also known as Drug repurposing, Drug re-profiling, Therapeutic Switching and Drug re-tasking) is the application of known drugs and compounds to new indications - But reverse pharmacology is not that. So I dont think that The current contents of this article is really drug repositioning. Thanks Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes this article even more confusing is that before my edits, it actually talked about two strategies. The first starts from known drugs and sounds very much like drug repositioning.  The second starts from "safe botanical materials".  In both strategies, compounds are tested in animals or humans to identify previously unanticipated therapeutic effects in existing drugs (drug repositioning) or desirable therapeutic effects in natural products.  Neither of these strategies is new and both are examples of "classical" or "forward" pharmacology.  It is quite unfortunate that Ashok Vaidya describes this method as "reverse pharmacology" when it has previously been called "forward pharmacology".  This conflicting nomenclature is going to cause a great deal of confusion. Boghog (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence "a drug which is already in use for many years is tested for its efficacy scientifically, which is generally not established" I find very confusing.  This description certainly sounds like drug repositioning to me.  Or by "drug", do you really mean "safe botanical materials" or folk medicines (e.g., Ayurveda) that have been consumed by humans for many years that are then tested in controlled clinical trials for efficacy?  If you replace "drug" by "folk medicines", then the sentence makes a lot more sense. Boghog (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, below is a proposed rewording of the text that describes the Ayurveda 'reverse pharmacology’ approach that hopefully removes some of the confusion:

In this approach, a folk medicines (e.g., Ayurveda) which has already been in use for many years and has anecdotal evidence of efficacy for the treatment of a disease (and is also presumed to be safe) is then tested for efficacy in a controlled clinical trial. This method is similar to a classical or forward pharmacologic approach where substances are first tested in animals or humans for a therapeutic effect. Only after a efficacious substance is identified in a phenotypic screen is an effort made to identify the mechanism of action and the biological target of that substance. This approach contrasts with how most modern drug discovery proceeds where compounds are first screened for binding to a purified protein target and then tested for efficacy in animal models of the disease. This later method is called reverse pharmacology or target based drug discovery (TDD).

It is asserted that Ayurveda knowledge allows drug researchers to start from time-tested and safe botanical material. The best example of bioprospecting using traditional knowledge is reserpine, the anti-hypertensive alkaloid from R. serpentina, which became available as a result of work carried out by CIBA in India in close collaboration with Ayurveda experts. The normal drug discovery course of ‘laboratory to clinics’ in this case actually becomes from ‘clinics to laboratories’. Hence this method has also been described as 'reverse pharmacology’ by Ashok Vaidya. However this comparison is to modern drug discovery which has also been described as 'reverse pharmacology’. Hence this 'reverse reverse pharmacology’ approach would be classified 'forward pharmacology’ according to this alternative nomenclature.

Comments? The main problem that I have run into is that I cannot find any sources that document this conflicting use of nomenclature and therefore the last sentence in the above rewrite borders on WP:SYNTHESIS. Boghog (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Article split
Because of conflicting nomenclature, this article is actually about two different topics: "classical pharmacology" and "reverse pharmacology". It would be less confusing if a new article named classical pharmacology according to the definition used by Takenaka is created and the section entitled Application to Ayurvedic drugs be moved to that article. Then this article could focus on "target based drug discovery" (TDD). Boghog (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It will be logical to split the article and I vote for it. I would like to mention that we should always give credit to the person who has created the article. The name of the person who has coined this term is Dr. Ashok D B Vaidya. And I sincerely feel that his name should be mentioned in the article of reverse pharmacology. Thanks. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have gone ahead and split the article and moved the section on Application to Ayurvedic drugs to the new classical pharmacology. Please note that Ashok Vaidya is now mentioned in both articles (in this article in a WP:HATNOTE), and in the classical pharmacology, in the body of the article).  I hope this is OK.  As always, please feel free to make further edits.  Cheers. Boghog (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes that is fair enough. And it seems that you know more about this field and it seems logical what you have done. Thanks. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Some Clarifications
Dear Boghog, Good Morning! I think I should clarify some things so that we will be able to view the clearer picture of the issue and hence can come to conclusion. Let me discuss the background of this issue. In allopathy / modern medicine - we come up with a molecule and then test its effects on animals including humans. That is termed as pharmacology. In this process we gain information about efficacy, effects and side effects of the drug. So when a drug is ready, we have all the information about the drug and we have data regarding safety and efficacy of the drug.

Now in case of Ayurveda, we have certain drugs and they are being used for years but unfortunately no one has tested these drugs scientifically and we dont have any documented proof regarding safety and efficacy of the drugs. Now these drugs are not single herbal compounds many a times. They are combinations of different herbs. SO if a particular combination is working, that means a particular molecule is working against a specific disease. This process of finding the active ingredient / molecule is termed as reverse pharmacology.

In normal pharmacology - from a molecule to drug and in reverse pharmacology - from drug to molecule.

Please let me know if I should clarify more or a particular aspect in more detail. Thanks. Have a nice day. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I think I now fully understand the method but please take a close look at my edits and correct any errors that I may have introduced. Boghog (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

? Disambiguation page?
I think a disambiguation page would serve the purpose. I strongly feel that the work done by Ashok D B Vaidya should be under the article of Reverse pharmacology. If there are two meanings of reverse pharmacology, we should state them clearly.

Here are some of the links which justify the title of reverse pharmacology. Thanks. 1) http://www.jaim.in/article.asp?issn=0975-9476;year=2011;volume=2;issue=4;spage=163;epage=164;aulast=Godse / http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3255444/ 2) http://pharma.financialexpress.com/20110531/market14.shtml -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The hatnote that is in the current version of this article serves essentially the same purpose as a disambiguation page. The central issue is that the definition of reverse pharmacology contained in the present version predates the definition used by Vaidya (compare  (2001) vs Vaidya ADB (2006)).  Both meanings are clearly stated in the two Wikipedia articles (classical pharmacology and reverse pharmacology) and both articles are cross referenced to each other. Boghog (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The abstract is not available to the link.--Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you intended to use [this |http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2001.00112.x/abstract;jsessionid=9DF54C3F143679AA814B6D977EABE63B.d02t04] link -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the link: (the article is open access). Boghog (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have given the same link. :) --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Found reference to an article which says that the term reverse pharmacology was coined by Dr. Ashok Vaidya
I was able to find a reference which mentions that the term reverse pharmacology was coined by him along with his brother Akhil. It reads "He along with his brother Akhil who is very distinguished scientist from Drexel University, conceived a pioneering and promising concept of reverse pharmacology. This has been greatly accepted globally and several articles have been published in national and international journals highlighting its importance in future drug discovery." -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just found another reference from Current Science. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue is who first coined the term.  mentioning Dr. Ashok Vaidya was published in 2011. The first mention that I could find by Vaidya of reverse pharmacology  was in 2007.  This is predated by Takenaka in 2001  .  An even earlier mention is by Howlett in 1990 (, quote: "the concept of 'reverse pharmacology', i.e. the cloning and expression of genes whose products remain to be matched with receptors for physiological responses.")  The meaning of by Howlett and Takenaka is exactly the opposite that of Vaidya.  Finally the statement conceived a pioneering and promising concept of reverse pharmacology. This statement if false. What Vaidya defines as reverse pharmacology is really forward or classical pharmacology.  Furthermore classical pharmacology has been used for thousands of years and has recently made a resurgence in the form of phenotypic drug discovery. Boghog (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I maybe wrong, but what I understand is this - Classical Pharmacology means from lab to bedside (clinical) and Reverse Pharmacology means from Clinical to lab. Because many drugs are already in use but are not tested, testing of the drugs which appear to be effective by scientific validity testing can be called as Reverse Pharmacology. As I said, I might be wrong but just wanted to share what I think. Thank you. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Reverse reverse pharmacognosy is forward pharmacology
the terms reverse pharmacology as used by Ashok Vaidya and reverse pharmacognosy as used by Greenpharma are backwards from the generally accepted defintion of "reverse" (see ). "Forward" is how drugs were traditionally discovered (phenotypic screening of natural products). I therefore have restored an earlier version of this article that is 100% focused on the generally accepted definition. The term Reverse vaccinology is properly used, but we already have an seperate article on this seperate subject, so I see no reason to include it here. The matieral on Greenpharma is overly promotional. I suggest that the material on Greenpharma be moved to Greenpharma written in a less promotional tone. Boghog (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I didn't notice these issues in the article before. Thank you for fixing them &mdash; CrafterNova [ TALK ]  [ CONT ] 03:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)