The traditional model of herbal synergy identifies cases where whole preparations behave differently from isolated constituents, while the mechanistic model acts as causal probe, testing whether specific interactions at receptors, enzymes, transporters, or metabolic processes can explain observed effects. An emergent model in this post serves as a governing framework, defining synergy as a state-dependent property that produces a system behavior not reducible to individual components (Caesar & Cech, 2019; Ma et al., 2009). Finally, not all beneficial co-actions reflect pharmacodynamic synergy. Synergy in botanical preparations may improve stability, reduce oxidation, enhance preservation, or improve adherence. These represent product-level effects that influence outcomes but operate at a different causal layer than receptor or pathway interactions. They will not be covered in this post.
The emergent framing of synergy is consistent with complex systems behavior in which system-level outputs cannot be inferred from isolated components but arise from interacting elements under constraint (Niemeyer & Brodbelt, 2013). In this context, synergy is not an intrinsic property of individual compounds but a conditionally dependent on arises only when composition, ratio, dose, timing, dosage form, physiological context and biological network engagement align (Ma et al., 2009). This interpretation aligns with systems pharmacology approaches that emphasize coordinated multi-target interactions and reject single-target sufficiency as an explanatory model (Wagner & Ulrich-Merzenich, 2009).
When these three models are placed in hierarchy rather than treated as coequal explanations, their tensions become productive. Apparent inconsistencies between whole-preparation effects, mechanistic findings, and variable outcomes define investigative directions. These include testing whether observed effects exceed additive expectations, whether ratios preserve system behavior, whether pharmacokinetic alignment occurs in vivo, and whether network-level interactions are engaged under realistic exposure conditions (Huang e al., 2019; Li et al., 2022).
Within this structure, differences between observational and mechanistic interpretations define investigable directions. Empirical observations of whole-preparation effects require validation against additive expectations, while mechanistic findings must be tested under realistic mixture conditions that preserve compositional relationships (Zhou et al., 2016). Variability across preparations further requires evaluation of pharmacokinetic exposure and system constraints that determine whether interactions occur under physiological conditions (Li et al., 2022).
Traditional model
The traditional model captures the empirical observation that whole extracts or multi-herb formulations often outperform isolated compounds. It detects irreducibility but does not explain it. Structured systems such as role-based formulation strategies in traditional practices illustrate patterned co-use of herbs, but these patterns function as empirical heuristics rather than mechanistic validation (Williamson, 2001; Yarnell, 2015). Whole-preparation superiority therefore identifies a system effect without specifying its cause.
For the purposes of this conversation, the focus will be on Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) compatibility frameworks that classify herb–herb interactions into defined categories including reinforcement, potentiation, restraint, detoxification, and antagonism, providing a structured system for combination design (Che et al., 2013). These interaction types reflect consistent patterns seen in traditional formulas and are described in compatibility theory, a framework from TCM often translated as Emperor–Minister–Assistant–Envoy, with roles that guide how herbs are combined (Wang et al., 2012). Methodological analyses confirm that these frameworks define structured interaction patterns but do not specify causal mechanisms, requiring integration with pharmacological and pharmacokinetic validation (Zhou, et al., 2016).
Mechanistic model
The mechanistic model examines interactions at defined biological levels, including receptor modulation, enzyme inhibition, transporter activity, and metabolic alteration. It is strongest when supported by quantitative methods such as isobolograms or combination-index analysis, which explicitly compare observed effects to additive expectations (Huang et al., 2019). Mechanistic investigations identify specific interaction pathways such as enzyme inhibition, transporter modulation, and metabolic transformation. However, these approaches often rely on pairwise or simplified systems and may not scale to higher-order mixtures where interaction structure becomes multidimensional (Yang et al., 2014).
Integration with pharmacokinetic data constrains these findings by requiring that interacting compounds achieve sufficient concentration at target sites under physiological conditions (Li et al., 2022). Systems integrating network pharmacology with pharmacokinetics further demonstrate that many predicted interactions are not biologically realizable due to exposure limitations (Chen et al., 2016).
Network constraint on synergy
Large-scale analyses of herbal ingredients show that many constituents interact with multiple protein targets across biological networks. These interactions provide the substrate for coordinated effects that cannot be attributed to single compounds (Ma et al., 2009). This multi-target engagement alone does not establish synergy. Network pharmacology maps how compounds link to biological targets and pathways. This helps identify where combined effects might occur (Zhang et al., 2013). Both define the possibility space within which synergistic interactions may occur. Demonstration requires evidence that combined effects exceed additive expectations under defined conditions.
Systems biology expands this view by capturing broader patterns across cells or pathways, but it remains descriptive. Without controlled experiments that test combinations directly, these approaches cannot confirm interaction effects (Cai et al., 2018). For this reason, predicted interactions must be tested against a defined additive baseline. Only then can a combination be shown to produce an effect that exceeds what each component would achieve independently (Zhou et al., 2016).
Interaction types are formally classified as complementary pathway effects, inhibition of compensatory responses, pharmacokinetic enhancement, and toxicity modulation, providing a functional taxonomy for interpreting multi-component interactions (Ma et al., 2009). These mechanisms operate at different causal levels and must be distinguished to avoid conflating pharmacodynamic synergy with pharmacokinetic or tolerability effects (Yang et al., 2014).
Ratio as a control parameter
Phytochemical ratio of medicinally active compounds influences the interaction regime a system occupies, such that the same constituents can produce additive, synergistic, or antagonistic outcomes depending on their relative proportions (Junio et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2019). In goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis), synergy-directed fractionation showed that the antimicrobial activity of the isoquinoline alkaloid berberine is enhanced by co-occurring constituents such as hydrastine and related minor alkaloids and flavonoids, but only when recombined in specific proportions; altering these ratios reduced or eliminated activity (Junio et al., 2011). Quantitative interaction models further demonstrate that these outcomes are defined relative to specific dose combinations and effect levels, placing mixtures into additive, synergistic, or antagonistic regimes depending on their position within combination space (Huang et al., 2019).
More recent work extends this foundation by examining how activity changes across compositional space rather than within fixed mixtures. Studies using synergy-directed fractionation and related approaches continue to show that interaction outcomes shift as fractions of botanical extracts are recombined in different proportions, reinforcing that activity depends on mixture structure rather than the presence of individual compounds alone (Dettweiler et al., 2020). In traditional formulations such as Triphala, composed of Emblica officinalis, Terminalia chebula, and Terminalia bellirica, varying the ratios of constituent fruits alters antioxidant and cytotoxic activity, indicating that phenolic compounds including gallic acid, ellagic acid, and related tannins contribute differently depending on proportion (Khanal et al., 2022).
At the methodological level, interaction metabolomics and related analytical frameworks model how chemical features co-vary with biological response, allowing identification of synergistic contributors within complex mixtures and linking activity to specific compound classes such as flavonoids, alkaloids, and phenolic acids (Vidar et al., 2023). This approach reinforces that ratio functions as a control factor by determining which subsets of compounds interact under defined conditions.
Dose–response and hormesis
Nonlinear dose–response patterns place limits on when synergy can occur. Many plant-derived compounds, including polyphenols such as resveratrol, quercetin, and catechins, as well as alkaloids and terpenoids, show biphasic or hormetic behavior, meaning low and high doses can produce different or even opposing effects (Martel et al., 2019; Jodynis-Liebert & Kujawska, 2020). Quantitative interaction models place this constraint in practical terms: synergy is not a fixed property of a combination, but a result that appears only within specific dose ranges where the response curves of the components overlap in a favorable way (Huang et al., 2019).
More recent studies strengthen this point by showing that the same phytochemical pairs can move between synergistic, additive, and antagonistic behavior as concentration changes. In prostate cancer cell models, combinations of dietary phytochemicals such as curcumin (from Curcuma longa), epigallocatechin gallate (from green tea, Camellia sinensis), and other polyphenols produced maximal synergy at certain concentration ranges, while other dose regions showed antagonism or simple additivity within the same system (Gano et al., 2023).
A comparable pattern has been reported for plant-derived antimicrobials, including combinations of phenolic compounds such as thymol and carvacrol from Thymus and Origanum species, where interaction outcomes shifted across concentration ranges rather than remaining constant (Liu et al., 2022). On the methodological side, analysis of dietary phytochemical mixtures has shown that antioxidant and bioactive interactions depend strongly on concentration and assay conditions, reinforcing the need to evaluate response surfaces rather than assign a single interaction label to a mixture (Chen et al., 2022). Together, these findings support a stricter interpretation: synergy emerges only within defined dose windows and can disappear, weaken, or reverse outside them.
Pharmacokinetic alignment
Extraction methods and dosage forms alter phytochemical composition, stability, and bioavailability. These changes affect not only concentration but also interaction potential by shifting ratios and exposure dynamics. A preparation may therefore enter or exit a synergistic state depending on processing conditions (Sun et al., 2025; Mondal et al., 2024). This will be material for a future post.
Synergy requires that interacting constituents reach relevant biological compartments at overlapping times and sufficient concentrations to contribute to interaction effects, making pharmacokinetic exposure a necessary condition for synergy. Those interactions often depend on modulation of absorption, metabolism, or transport (Li et al., 2022; Bhattaram et al., 2002). Temporal and spatial alignment are therefore necessary conditions for interaction. Integration of pharmacokinetics with network models further constrains predicted interactions to those that are biologically plausible under in vivo conditions (Chen et al., 2016).
There is growing reason to treat timing, not just composition and dose, as a control variable in herbal activity. Recent pharmacokinetic work shows that only a subset of compounds in complex herbal preparations reach biologically meaningful exposure, and that these exposures are shaped by absorption, transport, metabolism, and elimination processes that unfold over time (Li et al., 2022). More broadly, chronopharmacology studies in combination drug therapy show that changing the time of administration can alter pharmacodynamic outcome even when the components and nominal doses remain unchanged, indicating that temporal organization can influence efficacy at the systems level (Hermida-Ayala et al., 2021; Hermida-Ayala et al., 2022). On that basis, it is reasonable to propose that phytochemical combinations may also depend on when active constituents appear in circulation and tissues, not only on how much is present.
Recent hormesis research gives this idea a stronger biological footing. Many phytochemicals show biphasic dose–response behavior, and hormetic effects are increasingly understood as adaptive responses that occur within defined temporal windows rather than as static low-dose benefits (Jodynis-Liebert & Kujawska, 2020; Calabrese, 2021). This does not yet prove that pulsed herbal exposure is superior, but it does suggest a plausible mechanism using time-structured delivery to better engage transient stress-response pathways and acquired resilience than constant exposure at the same average dose. If so, the relevant design problem is no longer only which compounds are combined, but whether their pharmacokinetic profiles are aligned with the time window in which adaptive signaling can occur.
Allostatic load may help explain why this question matters clinically. Current reviews define allostatic load as multisystem physiological wear involving neuroendocrine, immune, metabolic, and cardiovascular dysregulation under chronic stress (Guidi et al., 2021; Doan, 2021). That framework suggests that the same phytochemical pattern may not encounter the same biological thresholds in all individuals. A host under high allostatic load may have altered stress signaling, inflammatory tone, and metabolic responsiveness, which could shift the dose and timing range in which hormetic or synergistic effects are possible. This makes temporal coordination a testable extension of the broader thesis: synergy may depend not only on ratio and dose, but also on matching exposure dynamics to both adaptive response windows and the physiological state of the organism.
Additionally, some constituents act as precursors, metabolites, or modulators whose activity depends on transformation in vivo or interaction with other components. In these cases, activity is not intrinsic to the administered compound but emerges through metabolic or combinatorial processes. This supports the interpretation of synergy as a system-dependent phenomenon (Yang et al., 2014).
Limits of network pharmacology
Network pharmacology maps relationships between compounds, targets, and pathways and remains useful for hypothesis generation. More recent analyses confirm, however, that network connectivity alone does not establish functional interaction or therapeutic relevance. Expanded databases and multi-omics integration have increased the scale of predicted interactions, but validation studies show that many predicted compound–target links do not translate into measurable biological effects under physiological conditions (Zhou et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021). This gap reflects the absence of pharmacokinetic constraints, dose–response structure, and temporal dynamics in most network models. As a result, empirical testing remains necessary to determine whether predicted combinations produce effects beyond additivity.
Omics-based and systems biology approaches extend descriptive capacity by capturing global response patterns, but they remain correlational without targeted validation. Recent work integrating transcriptomics, metabolomics, and proteomics with experimental assays shows that coordinated pathway changes can be identified, yet causal attribution to specific compound interactions requires controlled perturbation and quantitative comparison frameworks (Wang et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021). These findings reinforce that omics data can prioritize candidates but cannot independently confirm synergistic mechanisms.
Reliable identification of synergy continues to require quantitative comparison to additive expectations, defined composition, and reproducible endpoints. Recent methodological work emphasizes response surface modeling and combination index approaches to map interaction effects across dose space, demonstrating that increased activity alone does not distinguish synergy from additive or concentration-driven effects (Foucquier & Guedj, 2015; Tang et al., 2021). These approaches remain necessary to resolve whether observed effects exceed what would be predicted from individual components.
Clinical and in vitro evidence further shows that botanical preparations can produce measurable effects while exhibiting variability across experimental and clinical conditions. More recent studies attribute this variability to differences in composition, ratio, pharmacokinetics, host state, and experimental design, indicating that interaction outcomes are conditional rather than intrinsic properties of fixed formulations (Li et al., 2022; Caesar & Cech, 2019). Together, these findings place clear limits on network-based inference: predicted interactions define a possibility space, but functional synergy emerges only when compositional, pharmacokinetic, and biological constraints are satisfied and experimentally verified.
Network pharmacology maps relationships between compounds, targets, and pathways, providing a framework for hypothesis generation. However, network connectivity does not demonstrate functional interaction. Empirical validation remains necessary to establish whether predicted interactions produce measurable effects beyond additivity (Zhang et al., 2013). Omics-based and systems biology approaches describe global response patterns but do not establish causal mechanisms of interaction, requiring integration with targeted experimental validation to confirm synergy (Ulrich-Merzenich et al., 2009). Reliable identification of synergy requires quantitative comparison to additive expectations, defined composition, and reproducible endpoints (Ma et al., 2009; Huang et al., 2019). Increased activity alone does not distinguish synergy from additive effects.
Clinical Limits
Clinical and in vitro evidence indicates that botanical preparations can produce measurable effects while showing variability across conditions. This variability reflects differences in composition, ratio, pharmacokinetics, and biological context, indicating that synergy is conditional rather than intrinsic to specific compounds or formulations (Ma et al., 2009).
Conditions commonly targeted with herbal supplements are often defined at the population level using broad symptom clusters rather than precise, individual diagnostics. Recent clinical and epidemiological work shows that many of these conditions, such as metabolic syndrome, functional gastrointestinal disorders, and stress-related syndromes, are heterogeneous in underlying biology despite similar outward presentation (Aguilar et al., 2020; Chey et al., 2015).
At the same time, biomarker-based frameworks emphasize that variability in inflammatory tone, metabolic state, and neuroendocrine signaling can meaningfully alter treatment response, even when individuals meet the same diagnostic criteria (Johnson, 2020; Zmora et al., 2019). This creates a constraint for interpreting synergy. A combination that appears synergistic in a defined population may reflect averaged effects across subgroups with different underlying response thresholds.
More recent systems-level analyses reinforce that variability in host state influences how combinations perform. Precision nutrition and microbiome research show that individual responses to the same dietary or phytochemical inputs can diverge widely due to differences in metabolism, microbial composition, and baseline physiology (Zmora et al., 2019; Zeevi et al., 2015).
In parallel, clinical frameworks incorporating allostatic load describe how cumulative physiological stress alters regulatory set points across immune, metabolic, and neuroendocrine systems, shifting responsiveness to external inputs (Guidi et al., 2021). Together, these findings suggest that synergy cannot be treated as a fixed property of a formulation. Instead, it depends on how a given compositional and dosing pattern interacts with the biological variability present within a target population, which may broaden or narrow the conditions under which synergistic effects can be observed.
References
1. Aguilar, Mario, Bhuket, Tarang, Torres, Samuel, Liu, Bao, & Wong, Rishi J. (2020). Prevalence of the metabolic syndrome in the United States, 2003–2012. JAMA, 313(19), 1973–1974. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.4260
2. Behar, Marcelo, Barken, David, Werner, Sarah L., & Hoffmann, Alexander. (2013). The dynamics of signaling as a pharmacological target. Cell, 155(2), 448–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.09.018
3. Bhattaram, V. A., Graefe, U., Kohlert, C., Veit, M., & Derendorf, H. (2002). Pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of herbal medicinal products. Phytomedicine, 9(Supplement 3), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1078/1433-187X-00210
4. Caesar, Lindsay K., & Cech, Nadja B. (2019). Synergy and antagonism in natural product extracts: When 1 + 1 does not equal 2. Natural Product Reports, 36(6), 869–888. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9NP00011A
5. Cai, Fang-Fang, Zhou, Wen, Wu, Rui, Chen, Lei, & Chen, Yong. (2018). Systems biology approaches in herbal medicine research: A review. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 9, 788. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.00788
6. Calabrese, Edward J. (2021). Hormesis mediates acquired resilience: Using plant-derived chemicals to enhance health. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology, 12, 355–381. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-062420-124437
7. Che, Chun-Tao, Wang, Zhong-Jian, Chow, Moses S. S., & Lam, Carmen W. K. (2013). Herb-herb combination for therapeutic enhancement and advancement: Theory, practice and future perspectives. Molecules, 18(5), 5125–5141. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules18055125
8. Chen, Xiaoyan, Zhou, Hui, Liu, Ying, & Wang, Jian. (2016). Integrating network pharmacology and pharmacokinetics for herbal medicine research. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 7, 122. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2016.00122
9. Chen, Xuan, Li, Hongyan, Zhang, Bing, & Deng, Zeyuan. (2022). The synergistic and antagonistic antioxidant interactions of dietary phytochemical combinations. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 62(20), 5658–5677. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2021.1888693
10. Chey, William D., Kurlander, Jonathan, & Eswaran, Shanti. (2015). Irritable bowel syndrome: A clinical review. JAMA, 313(9), 949–958. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.0954
11. Dettweiler, Markus, Lyles, Jeffrey T., Nelson, Katherine, Bisson, Jonathan, Pauli, Guido F., & Cech, Nadja B. (2020). Rapid identification of synergistic interactions in natural product mixtures using synergy-directed fractionation. Journal of Natural Products, 83(5), 1530–1539. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jnatprod.9b01234
12. Doan, Stacey N. (2021). Allostatic load: Developmental and conceptual considerations in a multi-system physiological indicator of chronic stress exposure. Developmental Psychobiology, 63(5), 825–836. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.22107
13. Foucquier, Julien, & Guedj, Mickaël. (2015). Analysis of drug combinations: Current methodological landscape. Pharmacology Research & Perspectives, 3(3), e00149. https://doi.org/10.1002/prp2.149
14. Gano, Carol A., Fatima, Shadma, Failes, Timothy W., Arndt, Gregory M., Sajinovic, Mila, Mahns, David, Saedisomeolia, Ahmad, Coorssen, Jens R., Bucci, Joseph, de Souza, Paul, Vafaee, Fatemeh, & Scott, Kieran F. (2023). Anti-cancer potential of synergistic phytochemical combinations is influenced by the genetic profile of prostate cancer cell lines. Frontiers in Nutrition, 10, 1119274. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2023.1119274
15. Guidi, Jenny, Lucente, Marcella, Sonino, Nicoletta, & Fava, Giovanni A. (2021). Allostatic load and its impact on health: A systematic review. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 90(1), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1159/000510696
16. Hao, Nan, & O’Shea, Erin K. (2012). Signal-dependent dynamics of transcription factor translocation controls gene expression. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, 19(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.2192
17. Hermida, Ramón C., Hermida-Ayala, Ramón G., Smolensky, Michael H., Mojón, Artemio, & Fernández, José R. (2021). Ingestion-time differences in the pharmacodynamics of hypertension medications: Systematic review of human chronopharmacology trials. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 170, 200–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2021.01.013
18. Hermida-Ayala, Ramón G., Mojón, Artemio, Fernández, José R., Smolensky, Michael H., & Hermida, Ramón C. (2022). Ingestion-time differences in the pharmacodynamics of dual-combination hypertension therapies: Systematic review and meta-analysis of published human trials. Chronobiology International, 39(4), 493–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/07420528.2021.2005084
19. Huang, Ruyi, Pei, Liang, Liu, Qian, Chen, Shuang, Dou, Huan, Shu, Guang, Yuan, Zhixun, Lin, Jian, Peng, Guang, Zhang, Wei, & Fu, Hong. (2019). Isobologram analysis: A comprehensive review of methodology and current research. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 10, 1222. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2019.01222
20. Jodynis-Liebert, Jadwiga, & Kujawska, Małgorzata. (2020). Biphasic dose-response induced by phytochemicals: Experimental evidence. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(3), 718. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030718
21. Johnson, Brian T. (2020). Toward a more inclusive understanding of biomarkers and variability in clinical populations. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 16, 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-071119-115523
22. Khanal, Prakash, Patil, Bhagyashri M., Mandar, Bhuvan K., Dey, Yadu Nandan, Duyu, Tangjang S., & Patil, Chetan R. (2022). Evaluation of antioxidant and cytotoxic activity of Triphala prepared in different ratios. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 282, 114612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2021.114612
23. Li, Chen, Jia, Weiwei, Yang, Junli, Cheng, Chao, & Olaleye, Oluwafemi E. (2022). Multi-compound and drug-combination pharmacokinetic research on Chinese herbal medicines. Acta Pharmacologica Sinica, 43, 3080–3095. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41401-022-00983-7
24. Li, Shilin, Zhang, Bo, Jiang, Dongmei, Wei, Yan, & Zhang, Ning. (2021). Herb network construction and co-module analysis for uncovering the combination rule of traditional Chinese herbal formulae. BMC Bioinformatics, 22, 142. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-021-04063-0
25. Liu, Xiaoxia, Liu, Rui, Zhao, Ruting, Wang, Jishi, Cheng, Yongyou, Liu, Qian, Wang, Yanyun, & Yang, Shuming. (2022). Synergistic interaction between paired combinations of natural antimicrobials against poultry-borne pathogens. Frontiers in Microbiology, 13, 811784. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.811784
26. Ma, Xin-Hong, Zheng, Cheng-Jian, Han, Liang-Yao, Xie, Bo, Jia, Jie, Cao, Zhi-Wei, Li, Yu-Xia, & Chen, Yu-Zhong. (2009). Synergistic therapeutic actions of herbal ingredients and their mechanisms from molecular interaction and network perspectives. Drug Discovery Today, 14(11–12), 579–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2009.03.012
27. Martel, Jacques, Ojcius, David M., Ko, Yu-Fen, Ke, Po-Yuan, Wu, Chun-Yu, Peng, Hsin-Hui, & Young, John D. (2019). Hormetic effects of phytochemicals on health and longevity. Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism, 30(6), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tem.2019.04.001
28. Niemeyer, Emily D., & Brodbelt, Jennifer S. (2013). Complex systems approaches to natural products. Journal of Natural Products, 76(10), 1925–1934. https://doi.org/10.1021/np4003996
29. Purvis, Jeremy E., & Lahav, Galit. (2013). Encoding and decoding cellular information through signaling dynamics. Cell, 152(5), 945–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.005
30. Tang, Jinfeng, Wennerberg, Krister, Aittokallio, Tero, & Tang, Jing. (2021). What is synergy? The Saariselkä agreement revisited. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 12, 651–664. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.647928
31. Ulrich-Merzenich, Gudrun, Panek, Daniela, Zeitler, Herbert, Vetter, Hans, & Wagner, Hildebert. (2009). Drug development from natural products: Exploiting synergy. Planta Medica, 75(2), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1088306
32. Vidar, William S., Baumeister, Tobias U. H., Caesar, Lindsay K., Kellogg, Jessica J., Todd, David A., Linington, Roger G., Kvalheim, Olav M., & Cech, Nadja B. (2023). Interaction metabolomics to discover synergists in natural product mixtures. Journal of Natural Products, 86(4), 655–671. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jnatprod.2c00518
33. Wagner, Hildebert, & Ulrich-Merzenich, Gudrun. (2009). Synergy research: Approaching a new generation of phytopharmaceuticals. Phytomedicine, 16(2–3), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phymed.2008.12.018
34. Wang, Xia, Zhang, Aiping, Sun, Hui, & Wang, Ping. (2012). Systems biology technologies and traditional Chinese medicine: A review. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2012, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/231243
35. Wang, Xia, Shen, Yu, Wang, Shengnan, Li, Shuang, Zhang, Wei, Liu, Xiaoyan, Lai, Linfeng, Pei, Jie, & Li, Hong. (2021). PharmMapper 2017 update: A web server for potential drug target identification with a comprehensive target pharmacophore database. Nucleic Acids Research, 45(W1), W356–W360. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx374
36. Williamson, Elizabeth M. (2001). Synergy and other interactions in phytomedicines. Phytomedicine, 8(5), 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1078/0944-7113-00060
37. Yang, Yong, Zhang, Zaiqi, Li, Shuping, Ye, Xiaoli, Li, Xuegang, & He, Kai. (2014). Synergy effects of herb extracts: Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic basis. Fitoterapia, 92, 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fitote.2013.10.010
38. Yarnell, Eric. (2015). Synergy in herbal medicine. Journal of Restorative Medicine, 4(1), 60–63. https://doi.org/10.14200/jrm.2015.4.0104
39. Zeevi, David, Korem, Tal, Zmora, Niv, Israeli, David, Rothschild, Dan, Weinberger, Adina, Ben-Yacov, Ofir, Lador, Doron, Avnit-Sagi, Tali, Lotan-Pompan, Maayan, Suez, Jotham, Mahdi, Joseph A., Matot, Eran, Malka, Gal, Kosower, Noam, Rein, Moshe, Zilberman-Schapira, Gili, Dohnalová, Lenka, Pevsner-Fischer, Maya, Bikovsky, Rona, Halpern, Ziv, Elinav, Eran, & Segal, Eran. (2015). Personalized nutrition by prediction of glycemic responses. Cell, 163(5), 1079–1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.11.001
40. Zhang, Ruichao, Zhu, Xia, Bai, Hailiang, & Ning, Kang. (2013). Network pharmacology databases for traditional Chinese medicine: Review and assessment. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 4, 153. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2013.00153
41. Zhang, Ruichao, Zhu, Xia, Bai, Hailiang, & Ning, Kang. (2021). Network pharmacology databases for traditional Chinese medicine: Review and assessment. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 12, 689–702. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.689702
42. Zhou, Xian, Wang, Sai, Chang, Dennis, Kiat, Hosen, Razmovski-Naumovski, Valentina, Chan, Kelvin, & Bensoussan, Alan. (2016). Synergistic effects of Chinese herbal medicine: A comprehensive review of methodology and current research. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 7, 201. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2016.00201
43. Zhou, Wei, Wang, Yong, Lu, Aiping, & Zhang, Ge. (2020). Systems pharmacology in small molecular drug discovery. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 21(15), 5700. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21155700
44. Zmora, Niv, Suez, Jotham, & Elinav, Eran. (2019). You are what you eat: Diet, health and the gut microbiota. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 16(1), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-018-0061-2