A systematic review of Moringa oleifera seed toxicity and safety: comparative analysis of toxicology methodologies and results
Data files
Aug 04, 2026 version files 82.83 KB
-
PLOSone_CollectedData_CSV_JJR_040826.csv
25.34 KB
-
PLOSone_ConflictOfInterest_Data_CSV_JJR_040826.csv
20.63 KB
-
PLOSone_ResearchQuality_Data_CSV_JJR_040826.csv
9.82 KB
-
PLOSone_RiskOfBias_Data_CSV_JJR_040826.csv
15.30 KB
-
README.md
11.75 KB
Abstract
This systematic review aims to assess the reliability of contemporary toxicological research on Moringa oleifera seeds. Academic databases were browsed on a yearly basis (2014 – 2024); identification and screening were conducted between July 17th 2023, and January 13th 2025. Primary research reports on M. oleifera seed toxicology were included for data collection. Fifty-three fields were used to collect data. Data were synthesised by comparing methodological data points to contemporary toxicity testing guidelines; results were presented as a narrative synthesis. Conflict of interest, research quality and risk of bias were assessed using Cochrane tools modified for non-human laboratory studies. Thirty-seven non-duplicate publications were identified, of which 14 were included for data collection. In total, 395 data points were collected and synthesised. Financial conflicts of interest were declared in one report. Nine reports received “lower quality” or “lowest quality” research quality judgements. Six reports received “high risk of bias” judgements. Bias risk was commonly associated with selective reporting of data. M. oleifera seed toxicity was commonly tested via rodent study. Seven rodent studies included an acute toxicity test and nine included a sub-acute toxicity test. Two acute oral toxicity tests returned LD50 values of 14,000 – 15,000 mg/kg bw. Three sub-acute oral toxicity tests returned NOAEL values of 100 - 257 mg/kg bw/d. Oral LD50 and NOAEL data could only be derived from reports with “lowest quality” research and/or “high risk of bias” judgements, so these safety limits are unreliable. Inadequate dosing schemes were the primary cause of limited LD50 and NOAEL data. Dose range non-compliance also caused unnecessary animal suffering. To facilitate standardisation in future research, several guideline-based methodological recommendations are made. Determining reliable safety limits for M. oleifera seed consumption may reduce incidence of acute kidney injury, thereby supporting Targets 3.4 and 3.d of the United Nations sustainable development goals.
Dataset DOI: 10.5061/dryad.6q573n6f3
Description of the data and file structure
This dataset contains the data, assessments and judgements required to replicate analyses and syntheses in the manuscript titled "A systematic review of Moringa oleifera seed toxicity and safety (2014 – 2024): comparative analysis of toxicology methodologies and results " (Russell, Pritchard and Paterson, in review).
The table titled "PLOSone_CollectedData_CSV_JJR_040826.csv" contains data collected from the 14 reports included in the systematic review; all of these reports investigated toxicological effects of Moringa oleifera seed or materials derived from Moringa oleifera seeds. A total of 395 data points were collected using 53 data fields. Data fields pertain to experimental design, methods of analyses and results. The data collection process was conducted in duplicate to ensure accuracy. The table concludes with comments on experimental outcomes (positive/negative) and concerns regarding experimental design. These data and comments were used in the synthesis of the systematic review; therefore, the authors chose to include the comments in the data table to allow third-party researchers to replicate the synthesis. Within the table, data fields are arranged into nine categories:
1. M. oleifera seed handling: Source(s) of MO seeds; Method of species verification; Age of MO seeds at time of testing; Storage conditions of MO seeds.
2. M. oleifera seed processing: MO seed primary processing methods; MO seed defatting; MO seed secondary processing methods; MO seed tertiary processing methods; Maximum processing temperature; Final MO seed dose type(s).
3. Test organism species, age & housing conditions: Species/breed of test organism(s); Age of rodents at time of testing; Rodent acclimatisation duration; Rodent housing temperature; Rodent housing humidity; Rodent housing light cycle; Rodent diet during acclimatisation; Rodents per cage; Adherence to ethical guideline(s) for animal testing.
4. Methods of M. oleifera dose administration: Rodent fasting practices; Method of MO seed administration; Dose administration vehicle.
5. Experimental design: Acute toxicology: Total number of test organisms; Test organisms per group; Number of dosed groups; Inclusion of negative control group (Y/N); MO seed dosing concentration(s); Duration of observations; Method(s) of data/statistical analysis.
6. Experimental design: Sub-acute toxicology: Total number of test organisms; Test organisms per group; Number of dosed groups; Inclusion of negative control group (Y/N); MO seed dosing concentration(s); Duration of study; Method(s) of data/statistical analysis.
7. Results: Acute toxicology: Mortality rate; LD50; Clinical observations; Additional observations.
8. Results: Sub-acute toxicology: NOAEL; Mortality rate; Clinical observations; Food consumption rate change; Body weight change; Changes to sensory reactivity; Haematological changes; Changes to biochemistry: renal panel; Changes to biochemistry: hepatic panel; Gross necropsy observations; Histopathological changes; Reproductive pathology; Additional observations.
9. Outcomes: Acute toxicology; Sub-acute toxicology; Additional notes.
Author comments are exclusively contained within the “Additional notes” field at the conclusion of the table.
The table titled "PLOSone_ConflictOfInterest_Data_CSV_JJR_040826.csv" contains conflict of interest statements, funding statements, acknowledgement statements and data pertaining to author affiliations and institutes for each of the 14 reports included in the systematic review. The table concludes with conflict of interest judgements and judgement reasoning for each report. This assessment was conducted using Cochrane tools modified for in vitro laboratory studies. Conflict of interest judgements were used in the synthesis of the systematic review.
The table titled "PLOSone_ResearchQuality_Data_CSV_JJR_040826.csv" contains ten signalling questions which were used to assess the quality of research of each of the 14 reports included in the systematic review. Each question is designed so that an answer of "yes" indicates positive research quality, "unclear" indicates minor quality loss and "no" indicates significant quality loss. Each report was assessed identically using all ten signalling questions. Justification for answers of "unclear" and "no" are provided within the table. Reports are allocated an overall Quality Score (QS) and corresponding Quality Judgement (QJ) at the conclusion of the table. This assessment was conducted using Cochrane tools modified for in vitro laboratory studies. Research quality judgements (and associated reasoning) were used in the synthesis of the systematic review. The following signalling questions were used to assess research quality:
Q-Q1: Are procedures fully described?
Q-Q2: Are procedures appropriate?
Q-Q3: Is the group size/number of replicates appropriate?
Q-Q4: Do procedures include appropriate control groups?
Q-Q5: Are procedures applied identically to all groups?
Q-Q6: Are procedures replicable?
Q-Q7: Is analysis fully described?
Q-Q8: Is analysis appropriate?
Q-Q9: Is analysis applied identically to all groups?
Q-Q10: Are data fully reported?
The table titled "PLOSone_RiskOfBias_Data_CSV_JJR_040826.csv" contains 10 signalling questions, categorised into three bias domains, which were used to assess the risk of bias of each of the 14 reports included in the systematic review. Within each bias domain, questions were answered sequentially (e.g. B-Q1.1, B-Q1.2 and then B-Q1.3). Each answer was then applied to the flow chart corresponding to its bias domain (see supporting figures “S1”, “S2” and “S3” within the manuscript). By answering all signalling questions within a bias domain, the corresponding flow chart was used to determine a risk of bias judgement for that bias domain (B-J1, B-J2 and B-J3). The table concludes with overall risk of bias judgements (B-J4) for each included report, as determined by the "Overall risk-of-bias judgement criteria" at the end of the table. This assessment was conducted using Cochrane tools modified for in vitro laboratory studies. Risk of bias judgements (and associated reasoning) were used in the synthesis of the systematic review. The following bias domains and signalling questions were used to assess risk of bias:
Bias domain 1: Risk of bias due to experimental design and confounding factors
B-Q1.1: Does the design of the experiment preclude bias?
B-Q1.2: Are confounding factors identified, measured, controlled and reported?
B-Q1.3: Do negative control data suggest confounding?
Bias domain 2: Risk of bias due to missing data
B-Q2.1: Are results data fully reported?
B-Q2.2: Are data pertaining to confounding factors fully reported?
B-Q2.3: Are missing data likely to affect the perception of M. oleifera seed toxicity?
Bias domain 3: Risk of bias due to selective reporting of data
B-Q3.1a: Were data collected, analysed or presented using multiple methods in parallel?
B-Q3.1b: Do conclusions consider data generated by all parallel methods?
B-Q3.2: Are conclusions drawn from desirable data from a select sub-group or sub-groups?
B-Q3.3: Are conclusions made in omission of undesirable data from a select sub-group or sub-groups?
Assessments for conflict of interest, research quality and risk of bias were judged by two researchers in parallel using no automation tools; a third researcher was used to settle disagreements between the two principal judges.
Files and variables
File: PLOSone_CollectedData_CSV_JJR_040826.csv
Description: Methodological and results data collected from 14 reports for the synthesis of the systematic review titled " A systematic review of Moringa oleifera seed toxicity and safety (2014 – 2024): comparative analysis of toxicology methodologies and results " (Russell, Pritchard and Paterson, in review).
Variables
- Missing values indicated with "N/A"
- ALP – Alkaline phosphatase (measure of hepatic function)
- ALT – Alanine aminotransferase (measure of hepatic function)
- ANOVA – Analysis of variance (statistical technique)
- AST – Aspartate aminotransferase (measure of hepatic function)
- EC50 – Half maximal effective concentration
- HCT – Hematocrit (haematological measurement)
- HGB – Hemoglobin (haematological measurement)
- IP – Intraperitoneal (injection site for drug delivery)
- LC50 – Median lethal concentration
- LD50 – Median lethal dose
- LSD test – Fisher's Least Significant Difference test (statistical technique)
- MCV – Mean corpuscular volume (haematological measurement)
- MO – Moringa oleifera
- NOAEL – No observed adverse effect level
- OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
- PBS – Phosphate-buffered saline (drug delivery vehicle)
- PCV – Packed cell volume (haematological measurement)
- PLT – Platelet concentration (haematological measurement)
- RBC – Red blood cell concentration (haematological measurement)
- WBC – White blood cell concentration (haematological measurement)
File: PLOSone_ConflictOfInterest_Data_CSV_JJR_040826.csv
Description: Conflict of interest assessments of 14 reports for the synthesis of the systematic review titled "A systematic review of Moringa oleifera seed toxicity and safety (2014 – 2024): comparative analysis of toxicology methodologies and results " (Russell, Pritchard and Paterson, in review)
Variables
- Missing values indicated with "N/A"
- No abbreviations in table
File: PLOSone_ResearchQuality_Data_CSV_JJR_040826.csv
Description: Research quality assessments of 14 reports for the synthesis of the systematic review titled "A systematic review of Moringa oleifera seed toxicity and safety (2014 – 2024): comparative analysis of toxicology methodologies and results " (Russell, Pritchard and Paterson, in review)
Variables
- No missing values in table
- EC50 – Half maximal effective concentration
- LD50 – Median lethal dose
- NOAEL – No observed adverse effect level
- OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
- QS – Quality score
File: PLOSone_RiskOfBias_Data_CSV_JJR_040826.csv
Description: Risk of bias assessments of 14 reports for the synthesis of the systematic review titled "A systematic review of Moringa oleifera seed toxicity and safety (2014 – 2024): comparative analysis of toxicology methodologies and results " (Russell, Pritchard and Paterson, in review)
Variables
- No missing values in table ("N/A" indicated inapplicable signalling question)
- AST – Aspartate aminotransferase (measure of hepatic function)
- LD50 – Median lethal dose
- NOAEL – No observed adverse effect level
- OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Code/software
All data tabulated in CSV file format.
CSV is an unformatted, open-access file format, considered near-universally accessible.
Access information
Other publicly accessible locations of the data:
- None
Data was derived from the following sources:
- Fourteen reports were subject to data collection & synthesis in this systematic review. No tables, figures or extended quotations were taken and used from any report into the manuscript. Summaries of data and short quotations fall under "fair use" copyright law for all included reports.