Meta-analysis reveals hop-derived compounds inhibit cancer cell proliferation, indicating potential therapeutic value.
Background/Objectives: Humulus lupulus (hops) are a perennial, dioecious plant widely cultivated for beer production, used for their distinguishing aroma and bitterness-traits that confer high added value status. Various hop-derived compounds have been reported to exhibit antioxidant, antimicrobial, antiproliferative and other bioactive effects. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the impact of hop compounds on the viability of diverse cancer cell lines. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed following PRISMA guidelines. Data were synthesized via multivariate meta-analysis and meta-regression, using IC50 values as the effect size. Key variables included assay type (SRB, tetrazolium salt-based, crystal violet), exposure duration (24, 48, 72 h), specific hop compound and cancer cell line. Results: Of 622 articles identified, 61 met eligibility criteria, yielding 354 individual experiments. Meta-regression of xanthohumol (XN) IC50 values across SRB, tetrazolium and crystal violet assays revealed no statistically significant differences at 24 h (p = 0.77), 48 h (p = 0.35) and 72 h (p = 0.70), supporting the interchangeability of the methods. Meta-analysis confirmed that hop constituents inhibit cancer cell proliferation; XN emerged as the most potent flavonoid (IC50 = 16.89 μM at 72 h), while lupulone was the strongest compound overall (IC50 = 5.00 μM at 72 h). Crude hop extracts demonstrated greater antiproliferative selectivity for cancer versus non-cancer cells (IC50 = 35.23 vs. 43.80 μg/mL at 72 h). Conclusions: Hop compounds, and particularly bitter acids, demonstrate promising antiproliferative activity against cancer cells with comparatively low toxicity to healthy cells. Furthermore, our analysis confirms the comparability of SRB, tetrazolium-based and crystal violet assays, supporting the robust integration of antiproliferative data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tsionkis et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: