# Talk:Hypericum perforatum

In Sweden, and I presume other countries, St John's Wroth is used to flavor "Brännvin", i.e. har liquor, to make a blood-red colored snaps. This page does only discuss it's medicinal use, and it's effect on the ecology of various places. There's a lot of "rules" as how to pick the buds (as, according to the enthusiast only the bugs are good for flavoring), e.g. they shall be picked on a warm dry day, after 6 pm o' clock, one mustn't touch the buds with one's fingers as that will release hypericin (it's supposed to be saved for the liquor), etc. etc. While it may be a niche field, it's certainly the most common use for St John's worth by ordinary people (whom rarely make herbal supplements at home, I guess).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.4.129.166 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC) 

The article says nothing (unless I've missed it) about recommended dosage. Given that the recommended dosage differs markedly from brand to brand, some info on this would be appreciated.
Peterdwise (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:PHARMMOS we usually don't give dosing information due to the fact it can be construed as personal medical advice. I think we should remove dosing information completely due to a number of reasons:
1. It can, as I previously mentioned, be construed as personal medical advice. And quite honestly, what other value could it serve?
2. It can be seen as giving undue weight to certain products, due to the fact it's impossible to generalise dosing to every product due to the high degree of variability in the chemical composition of products.
3. Because as I previously mentioned there's a high degree of variability in available products.
Fuse809 (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi @Seppi333:,
We've worked together on a lot of articles and I have tremendous respect for your judgement.  But its hard for me to understand your restoration of "anti-inflammatory" as a property of this herb.  Yes, the references you added are secondary, and they do state that, but if you read the article the evidence they quote all seems to be in vitro, which you of all people understand is a far cry from supporting a medical claim.
Could you elaborate on your reasoning here?  Many thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

We do not use in vitro data or animal studies to make any medical claims per WP:MEDRS, specifically WP:MEDANIMAL; however, this applies directly to the source in question.  If a review or professional med/pharm web/book source indicates that something holds for animals or in vitro, article text must reflect this as such.  If the webpage or review indicates that this is for humans or merely implies this as is often the case (e.g., claims made without indicating a species in any paper with "Human" in the mesh terms but no other animal species or "animals" listed there), then we don't go through and examine the primary sources they cited; the statement made in the secondary source is all that matters (even if it's completely wrong), not the cited primary source.  This is reflected in the cautionary note at the bottom paragraph of WP:MEDASSESS.
If we excluded animal and in vitro evidence from all reviews in writing medical articles, we wouldn't have much, if any, cell signaling content in probably most of our articles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue with you too much about this, we've done too many good things together.  But I'd say that we do include animal and in vitro data when it has been cited in a review, but we make it very clear that it is in vitro or animal data only.  The word "anti-inflammatory" implies medical use in people to my mind. Certainly I do not think the average reader will finish that paragraph and come away with the message "it inhibits certain enzymes involved in the inflammatory cascade in vitro but god knows if the active principle is orally available or has any effect at all in people".
I realize that the review said "anti-inflammatory", but I think we have a responsibility to our readers in spite of whatever poor choice of language or ignorance is expressed by a reviewer.  And I shudder to think what the EBM people here would say if we tried to call sitagliptin an anti-inflammatory based on a review that cited in vitro enzyme inhibition data. 
I've said my piece, please take it into consideration.  I won't pursue this further. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
There's ;itt;e mention except in passing of the main use of this herb for me, which is it's healing stimulation, using oil made from soaking the flowers in olive oil for a few weeks until it is bright pink. Wounds heal in hour instead of days, burns and scalds stop huring within minutes and don't blister. Yeah, all non scientific blah blah, except that humans have been using it for millenia for healing wounds, only recently have I see tablets containing it for depression. Are any qualified herbalists editing this page? As unless you are part of the herbalist world your knowledge won't be up to much. PetePassword (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

What you mean by unless you are part of the herbalist world your knowledge won't be up to much seems to be that scientific medical evidence doesn't matter for you. However, here it does, and all medical claims must be sourced to the standards of WP:MEDRS. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Page Owners/Experts,
As a common reader to this page, I wish to highlight some text that appeared to me to be in contradiction with the pages on 3A4/2C9. 
First the quote:

Pharmacokinetic interactions

St John's wort has been shown to cause multiple drug interactions through induction of the cytochrome P450 enzymes CYP3A4 and CYP2C9, and CYP1A2 (females only). This drug-metabolizing enzyme induction results in the increased metabolism of certain drugs, leading to decreased plasma concentration and potential clinical effect.
So, here is my concern:
If I read this quote on its own, my conclusion would be that SJW induces CYP3A4 and CYP2C9. i.e. Both. However, if I read on the pages for CYP3A4 and CYP2C9, it appears to me that SJW induces 3A4 but inhibits 2C9. i.e. I have noticed an apparent contradiction.
Please take a look, and fix or clarify as appropriate.
Thanks!

Simple in ca (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the source given says nothing about CYP2C9, so I removed the reference to this in the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I feel that the page needs some reorganization of the interactions section. It's a bit scattered, but I'm not sure how to approach the clean-up. If there are any users that especially agree with me and can take it upon themselves to clean up the page, please do. JCoppess18 (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hypericum perforatum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150226011121/http://www.northwestweeds.com.au:80/st_johns_wort.htm to http://www.northwestweeds.com.au/st_johns_wort.htm#effect_on_animals
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140921033429/http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/summary/summary.cgi? to http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
http://web.archive.org/web/20150226011121/http://www.northwestweeds.com.au:80/st_johns_wort.htm
N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere.  Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
http://web.archive.org/web/20140921033429/http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/summary/summary.cgi?

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I refer to my undo earlier today. My reading of the intent of the sentence was that the problem occurred above 24 degrees at a particular time during the plants annual cycle, ie mid-summer, due to certain biological conditions. The problems would not occur in, say, autumn (even though that would presumably be not relevant because the mid summer temp would presumably also be above 24 degrees if the autumn temp was too. It seemed to me the reference to the southern hempishere was clumsy and the then editor had just copied a reference from a book published in the southern hemisphere. But, i'm no plant expert. I'm better with grammar and sentences. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Hypericum perforatum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bsbi.org.uk/BSBIList2007.xls
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005011912/http://www.benthamscience.com/cpd/sample/cpd11-2/0007B.pdf to http://www.benthamscience.com/cpd/sample/cpd11-2/0007B.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131216111409/http://lib.kums.ac.ir/documents/10129/71808/334.pdf to http://lib.kums.ac.ir/documents/10129/71808/334.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140611050347/http://sites.duke.edu/greesonlab/files/2011/07/Greeson_etal_2001_Psychopharm-St.-Johns-Wort.pdf to http://sites.duke.edu/greesonlab/files/2011/07/Greeson_etal_2001_Psychopharm-St.-Johns-Wort.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed this mess as primary, mostly outdated, in vitro research as WP:PRIMARY, leading to a host of unwarranted speculation about what effects may exist in vivo. Needs WP:MEDRS reviews, which evidently do not exist. --Zefr (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed your similar changeset in Hyperforin and thought it was perhaps a bit overzealous (see the talk page). Any chance some of it could stay? I think it'd be a terrible shame if all of it would have to stay removed. – Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Jokefish added this content which I moved here per WP:BRD:

Its therapeutic values have been recognized since antiquity and extracts of the flower have been used to treat a range of symptoms for over 2000 years.  St John's wort is a popular herbal remedy used in the treatment of depression.  While high-quality clinical evidence for its antidepressive effects remain limited, a number of studies have shown the remedy to be superior to placebo and as effective as SSRIs.

Addressing the points: 1) the Gupta article is not a systematic review of high-quality clinical trials, is 16 years out of date (see WP:MEDDATE, advising reviews of 5 years or less), and in 2003, the journal had a relatively poor reputation and low impact factor, shown here; i.e., it is not a good WP:MEDSCI source. 2) The statement "extracts of the flower have been used to treat a range of symptoms for over 2000 years" is really a perpetuation of folklore, is unverifiable exaggeration (WP:V), and has no place in the article. 3) While the 2009 Rahimi article provides a meta-analysis indicating equivalence to SSRIs, a 2017 meta-analysis and review concluded the studies were of too short duration to be conclusive of effect. Bottom line: the literature is inconclusive, does not meet WP:MEDRS, and should not be highlighted in the lede. --Zefr (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

a 2017 meta-analysis and review concluded the studies were of too short duration to be conclusive of effect - Did it REALLY? Lets look at what the actual review's summary of their conclusion says:
For patients with mild-to-moderate depression, St John's wort has comparable efficacy and safety when compared to SSRIs. Follow-up studies carried out over a longer duration should be planned to ascertain its benefits.
(They also mention elsewhere in the abstract that dropout & discontinuance rates are significantly lower than with SSRIs). 

So, they recommend for the future that follow up studies for longer durations should be conducted. That's perfectly prudent and sensible advice. It also says in its conclusion the very same thing that you seem to seek to suppress. It does NOT say, as you appear to strongly suggest in your comments, that those studies ought not be considered of any value due to their "too short duration", and that the baby should be therefore be thrown out with the bathwater. Firejuggler86 (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The answer depends on WP:Engvar. St is correct in British English usage and St. is correct in American English usage. The article adopted St right from the start. Plantsurfer 19:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

There has been a couple of recent reverts of an edit to replace a small number, and hence inconsistent, uses of ‘St.’ with ‘St’. Reasons the latter should be used:

’St’ is the recognised abbreviated form, although arguable a contraction. (See [1])
‘St’ has always been the dominant usage in the article.
‘St’ was used in the earliest version of the article (see [2]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:8EC:49AE:48DC:741F (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Distribution of Hypericum perforatum.png
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

This article gives two very different accounts of where the name came from.  It would be nice to settle on one before this goes to DYK. Primergrey (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I may have missed something, but under Description we say
The dots are conspicuous when held up to the light, giving the leaves the "perforated" appearance to which the plant's Latin name refers.
And in Etymology we say
The specific epithet perforatum is Latin, referring to the perforated appearance of the plant's leaves.
The common name "St John's wort" may refer to any species of the genus Hypericum. Therefore, Hypericum perforatum is sometimes called "common St John's wort" or "perforate St John's wort" to differentiate it.
St John's wort is named as such because it commonly flowers, blossoms and is harvested at the time of the summer solstice in late June, around St John's Feast Day on 24 June. The herb would be hung on house and stall doors on St John's Feast day to ward off evil spirits and to safeguard against harm and sickness to people and live-stock. The genus name Hypericum is possibly derived from the Greek words hyper (above) and eikon (picture), in reference to the tradition of hanging plants over religious icons in the home during St John's Day.
It all looks perfectly consistent to me?--Nø (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
In the traditional medicine section; The red, oily extract of H. perforatum has been used in the treatment of wounds, including by the Knights Hospitaller, the Order of St John, after battles in the Crusades, which is most likely where the name derived. Primergrey (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm going remove the account that is kind of buried in the article.  Primergrey (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002 and @MtBotany are working on improving the article. Fritzmann2002 is starting with Taxonomy and MtBotany is looking for some additional plant description references and possible improvements. 
Some sources MtBotany found while searching
https://archive.org/details/biostor-62076/page/83  Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 1976 some information about chemistry.
https://archive.org/details/practicalhintsre00shie/page/6/mode/2up?q=%22Hypericum+perforatum%22 Rather lyrical description of Euspilapteryx auroguttella (as Gracilaria auroguttella) eating leaves.
https://archive.org/details/medicinal-plants/who-monographs-on-selected-medicinal-plants-vol-2/page/149 WHO monographs on selected medicinal plants, contains excellent description and information about odor, flavor, how dried material can be tested. Also information on medical use to 1999.
MtBotany (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Going to look for more sources on exact leaf size today. I'm seeing different numbers so far. MtBotany (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
@Fritzmann2002 There is a list of common names in the source I named "WHO". I don't want to step on any edits you're making to Etymology, but if you're busy with other edits I'll add in these English names leaving out all the names from other languages. devil's scourge, hardhay, klamath weed, Lord God's wonder plant, perforate St John's wort, and witches's herb.
MtBotany (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

https://archive.org/details/medicinal-plants/who-monographs-on-selected-medicinal-plants-vol-2/page/150/mode/1up WHO monograph on the aerial parts of the plant - great descriptions on the flowers and adjacent parts Fritzmann (message me) 15:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Just as an idea, a section for "similar species" under the description that tell the differences between H. perforatum and closely related plants could be very useful. Robson gives a good diagnosis of this in the 2002 reference Fritzmann (message me) 19:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I think that is a good idea. So far the only specific information I have found about telling one species from another seemed possibly unreliable due to focusing on Great Britain and being published by a religious society, but I'm continuing to look.
I got in with more detail distribution information today. Mostly POWO information, but I checked some with GBIF.
I also think we need more information about the beetles and moths that rely upon Hypericum perforatum as a food source. Most of the information I've found on that relates to biocontrol, but it seems reliable for their native habitat as well. MtBotany (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/forb/hypper/all.html Great dataset for invasiveness, habitats, and species it grows with in the United States Fritzmann (message me) 20:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I think we're getting close:
The toxicity section needs some work and a decent overhaul
The phytochemistry section needs a major expansion
The history section could use some post-Linnean info
The description section would benefit from looking at similar/related species
Other than that I'm not sure if there's anything else, I think after those are done we could probably submit for a peer review or just go straight to GAN. There's a contest going on right now so we may stand a better chance of getting a review before too long. Fritzmann (message me) 13:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to put in some more herbivores today. I also want to read over what I've done with description very closely and make sure it is both correct and flows well. I'm not a great copy editor, I'm much better at the basic research and translating from "botanese" to English, but I can at least try to improve the readability of my text. MtBotany (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Anything else you think I can do? I've pretty much wrapped up the sections I was hoping to get done, I think the article is getting pretty close for a review to start. Fritzmann (message me) 00:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
@Fritzmann2002 I apologize for the radio silence. I've been distracted by having strained my back slightly. There are other things I would like to get in there. I did find some sources for differentiating between different species. Going to work on that when I can concentrate, but if you want to put it up for review before I get to that it is fine. MtBotany (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I think what I will do is put it in the queue for a Peer Review. That way we can get a third opinion on it before GAN, while also not rushing the process at all. Fritzmann (message me) 19:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
@MtBotany: no luck on the peer review so far. I think I am going to go ahead and submit the article to GAN. I would like to get a reviewer before the drive ends; if we wait until then it could be quite some time. Even if there are some small mistakes we should be able to catch those during the review. Fritzmann (message me) 15:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I have figured out where the statement about younger animals being more susceptible than older animals to the toxicity of H. perforatum likely came from. https://archive.org/details/journalamer46ameruoft/page/152  Unfortunately it is in a section about Hypericum triquetrifolium then called Hypericum Crispum. While it is not unreasonable to assume that it may also be true for H. perforatum, I have not yet seen a reliable source stating it. 
Of more relevance the same 1914 article it states that at high doses a preparation of H. perforatum "has a very toxic action on the heart" in an experiment on dogs. I'm not entirely sure if that would be a good fact to add to the article or not. It is a very old experiment. MtBotany (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, possibly a very brief mention of the effect on dogs would be appropriate? But yeah I was also dubious of the claim of its effect on younger animals, that was one of the reasons I tagged the section. My vote would be to cut that claim entirely - it isn't particularly important anyways. Fritzmann (message me) 01:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The redirect ARIADNE7 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 7 § ARIADNE7 until a consensus is reached.  Plantdrew (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The redirect ARI7 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 7 § ARI7 until a consensus is reached.  Plantdrew (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The redirect APOSPORY (locus) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 7 § APOSPORY (locus) until a consensus is reached.  Plantdrew (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Unders Distribution, there is a discrepancy between the map and the text, which says that the plant is native to Sudan, for example Spacecow2021 (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch, I've updated the map to reflect the distribution listed at POWO, it should be accurate now. Fritzmann (message me) 13:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Nothing on this in the article, so I look at adding new (sub)section. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)