Abstract
The pursuit of nutraceuticals to improve the quality of life for patients with neurodegenerative conditions is a dynamic field within neuropharmacology. Unfortunately, many nutraceuticals that show promise in preclinical studies fail to demonstrate significant clinical benefits in human trials, leading to their exclusion as therapeutic options. This discrepancy may stem from the categorical interpretation of preclinical and clinical results. Basic researchers often assume that non-human experimental animals exhibit less phenotypic variability than humans. This belief overlooks interindividual phenotype variation, thereby leading to categorical conclusions being drawn from experiments. Consequently, when human clinical trials are conducted, the researchers expect similarly conclusive results. If these results are not achieved, the nutraceutical is deemed ineffective for clinical use, even if numerous individuals might benefit. In our study, we evaluated whether analyzing phenotype variability and similarity through non-categorical methods could help identify rotenone (ROT)-treated rats that might benefit from consuming nano-emulsified punicic acid (Nano-PSO), even if the prevention of "parkinsonism" or the restoration of neurometabolic function is inconsistent across individuals. Our findings supported this hypothesis. The benefits of Nano-PSO were not categorical; however, analyzing phenotype variance allowed us to identify ROT rats with varying degrees of benefit from Nano-PSO consumption. Hence, the translational potential of results from basic science studies testing nutraceuticals as pharmaceutical products against neurodegeneration may improve if researchers also interpret their results using non-categorical methods of data analysis for population screening, even if the overall therapeutic outcomes for the entire population show internal inconsistencies.