Natural polysaccharides from plants, fungi, algae, microorganisms, and animals have attracted increasing interest as food-derived candidates for liver protection. This critical review integrates preparation identity, structural attributes, mechanistic evidence, disease-model specificity, and translational readiness rather than treating these dimensions independently. Available preclinical evidence suggests that hepatoprotective phenotypes may emerge from interconnected redox, inflammatory, metabolic, gut–liver-axis, immune, and regulated-cell-death processes; however, many pathway assignments remain associative, and comparatively few studies use inhibitors, genetic perturbation, rescue experiments, microbiota depletion, or transplantation to establish causality. Reported structure–activity relationships are strongly preparation- and context-dependent. Molecular weight, monosaccharide composition, glycosidic linkage, branching, higher-order conformation, and chemical modification may contribute jointly to bioactivity, but cross-study heterogeneity in extraction, purification, purity, dose, route, and experimental model precludes a universal “optimal” structural rule. Translation is further constrained by the lack of standardized quality-control criteria, uncertain oral absorption and biodistribution, incomplete dose–response and long-term safety characterization, and the scarcity of controlled human trials. We therefore propose a structure–mechanism–model–efficacy framework and identify priorities for preparation standardization, causal mechanistic validation, pharmacokinetic and gut-metabolite studies, clinically feasible dosing, and well-controlled human trials. This evidence-calibrated framework may support the development of natural polysaccharides as functional-food ingredients and, where clinical evidence permits, potential adjunctive interventions for liver disorders.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: