Testosterone and Fertility

Between 2007 and 2011, one research group in the north Indian city of Lucknow published four papers that are still, more than a decade later, the entire human evidence base for using Mucuna pruriens as a fertility treatment. They came out of the Department of Biochemistry at King George's Medical University — which was renamed Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University partway through the series, which is why the affiliation changes between papers by the same authors.

The protocol was the same each time and it was very simple: 5 g a day of powdered Mucuna pruriens seed, taken by mouth, for three months. The men who took it were being investigated for infertility. Before treatment and again at three months, the researchers measured semen and drew blood.

What they reported is genuinely interesting. Testosterone and LH went up. Prolactin and FSH came down. Sperm count and motility improved. The antioxidant enzymes in seminal fluid — superoxide dismutase and catalase — which had been running low, came back up. Lipid peroxide, the marker of oxidative damage, came down. A separate study used NMR spectroscopy to look at the small-molecule chemistry of seminal plasma and found several metabolites shifting back toward the values seen in fertile men.

And here is the sentence that has to sit next to all of that, because the supplement industry has spent fifteen years leaving it out: every one of those men was infertile. In one of the studies they were also under measurable psychological stress, with raised cortisol to prove it. Nobody in these trials was a healthy fertile man taking Mucuna to feel stronger in the gym. The evidence is about correcting a deficit, not about pushing a normal system higher, and those are not the same claim.

This article walks through what was measured, why the dopamine–prolactin link makes the hormone result mechanistically sensible rather than mysterious, where the study designs are weak, what the animal work adds, and the specific pharmacology cautions — some of which are serious — that come with a bean that is roughly 4–7% levodopa by weight.

Table of Contents

  1. The Lucknow Studies: What Was Actually Done
  2. The Hormone Results: Testosterone, LH, FSH and Prolactin
  3. Why Dopamine Lowers Prolactin, and Why That Lifts Testosterone
  4. Sperm Count and Motility: What “Improved” Meant
  5. The Oxidative-Stress Arm: SOD, Catalase, Glutathione, Vitamin C
  6. What NMR Found in Seminal Plasma
  7. The Stressed Subgroup and Cortisol
  8. Why This Is Not Evidence for a “Testosterone Booster”
  9. The Honest Limits of This Evidence
  10. What the Animal Work Adds — and Does Not
  11. Dosing, Forms and Standardisation
  12. Cautions: Drugs, Psychiatry and the Itching Hairs
  13. A Practical Position
  14. Key Research Papers
  15. Connections
  16. Featured Videos

The Lucknow Studies: What Was Actually Done

Four papers, one group, one intervention. It helps to see them laid out, because press coverage tends to blur them into a single “study” that sounds much larger than any of them is.

  1. Ahmad and colleagues, Fertility and Sterility, 2008. Sixty men undergoing infertility screening, plus sixty healthy fertile men as a reference group. The focus was the biochemistry of seminal plasma — lipids, lipid peroxide, fructose, and vitamins A, C and E, measured by HPLC and standard spectrophotometry (PMID 18001713).
  2. Shukla and colleagues, Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2010 (published online 2007). Sixty infertile men who were also under psychological stress — identified by questionnaire and by raised serum cortisol — plus sixty age-matched fertile controls. This is the paper that states the dose in plain text: 5 g per day of seed powder, three months. Its focus was the antioxidant defence system (PMID 18955292).
  3. Shukla and colleagues, Fertility and Sterility, 2009. Seventy-five infertile men, seventy-five fertile controls. This is the hormone paper: testosterone, LH, FSH and prolactin by radioimmunoassay, plus dopa, adrenaline and noradrenaline measured by HPLC in both blood and seminal plasma (PMID 18973898).
  4. Gupta and colleagues, Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, 2011. The largest of the four: 180 infertile men treated for three months, with fifty age-matched healthy men as controls. Proton NMR spectroscopy of seminal plasma metabolites, alongside repeat semen analysis and the same four hormones (PMID 21459537).

Two design facts matter enormously and are almost never mentioned when these results are quoted.

First, there was no placebo group. The abstracts describe these as prospective studies. The healthy fertile men were a reference group — a yardstick for what normal looks like — not a control arm swallowing a matched dummy powder. The actual comparison in every paper is each infertile man against his own baseline three months earlier. That is a legitimate way to generate a hypothesis. It is not a way to prove a treatment works, because it cannot separate the drug from regression to the mean, from seasonal and biological variability in semen quality (which is large), or from the well-documented tendency of people in a study to change other things about their lives at the same time.

Second, all four papers come from one group at one institution, with an overlapping author list. Independent replication elsewhere has not happened. In the fifteen years since, the searchable literature on Mucuna pruriens and human semen has not grown much: a PubMed query for the plant crossed with human semen returns fewer than a dozen records, and most of those are reviews summarising these same four studies, animal work, or papers about entirely different plants. When you read a supplement page citing “multiple clinical studies”, this is what it means.

Back to Table of Contents

The Hormone Results: Testosterone, LH, FSH and Prolactin

The 2009 paper is the one everybody is really quoting. Its finding, in the authors' own summary, was that infertile men started with lower testosterone and LH, and lower dopamine, adrenaline and noradrenaline in both blood and seminal plasma, than fertile controls. Men in the oligozoospermic group (low sperm count) additionally showed raised FSH and raised prolactin.

After three months of Mucuna pruriens:

The authors' conclusion was that the plant “regulates steroidogenesis and improves semen quality in infertile men”.

Note what direction each hormone moved, because it is not random and it is not what a crude “this raises testosterone” story predicts. If Mucuna were simply acting as an androgen — an exogenous testosterone-like substance — then LH would have gone down, suppressed by negative feedback, and FSH with it, and sperm production would have fallen. That is exactly what happens to men who take testosterone: their own axis switches off and their sperm count often drops to zero. Instead LH went up while testosterone went up, which is the signature of the pituitary being released, not bypassed.

The falling FSH is the mirror image of the same logic. FSH is high in men with failing sperm production because the testis is not sending back enough inhibin B to shut it off; as spermatogenesis recovers, FSH comes down. A drop in FSH here is a sign of the testis working better, not worse.

That internal consistency is the strongest argument the Lucknow data has. Uncontrolled before-and-after studies produce noise all the time — but noise does not usually arrange itself into a coherent endocrine pattern across four separate hormones.

Back to Table of Contents

Why Dopamine Lowers Prolactin, and Why That Lifts Testosterone

Here is the mechanism, in the order it happens.

Step one: the bean is levodopa. Mucuna pruriens seed contains L-DOPA — the identical molecule to prescription levodopa — at a few percent of its dry weight. This is not a metaphor or an “L-DOPA-like compound”. It is the drug, in a bean, and pharmacokinetic studies in Parkinson's disease have compared it directly against standard levodopa tablets and measured a comparable plasma curve (PMID 26366963, PMID 27206902). Everything else on this page follows from that one fact.

Step two: L-DOPA becomes dopamine. L-DOPA crosses into the brain and is decarboxylated to dopamine. In the hypothalamus, that matters for a specific reason.

Step three: dopamine is the brake on prolactin. Almost every hormone in the body is controlled by a releasing signal from the hypothalamus. Prolactin is the exception — it is controlled by an inhibiting signal. Neurons in the arcuate nucleus release dopamine into the pituitary portal circulation, and that dopamine continuously tells the lactotroph cells of the anterior pituitary not to secrete prolactin. Take the dopamine away and prolactin rises immediately. This is why drugs that block dopamine receptors — most antipsychotics, and the anti-nausea drug metoclopramide — reliably cause high prolactin as a side effect, and why the treatment for a prolactin-secreting pituitary tumour is a dopamine agonist such as cabergoline (PMID 36974474).

Step four: prolactin suppresses the testosterone axis. Sustained high prolactin blunts the pulsatile release of GnRH from the hypothalamus. Fewer GnRH pulses means less LH from the pituitary, and LH is the signal that tells the Leydig cells of the testis to make testosterone. The clinical picture of hyperprolactinaemia in men is therefore low testosterone, low libido, erectile difficulty and impaired sperm production — and correcting the prolactin with a dopamine agonist restores the axis.

Put the four steps together and the Lucknow hormone result stops being surprising:

L-DOPA → more dopamine → less prolactin → GnRH pulses recover → LH rises → testosterone rises.

And it explains the crucial caveat at the same time. Releasing a brake only helps if the brake was on. In men whose prolactin is already normal, there is no suppression to relieve. The mechanism predicts, of itself, that the men who benefit are the ones with a dopamine deficit or a prolactin excess — which is exactly the population studied, and exactly not the population buying the supplement.

The 2009 paper supports the first half of that chain directly: it measured dopamine in blood and seminal plasma, found it low in infertile men to begin with, and found it rising with treatment. That is an unusual and useful piece of data. It means the study did not merely assume the mechanism; it observed the intermediate step.

Back to Table of Contents

Sperm Count and Motility: What “Improved” Meant

All four papers report improvement in sperm concentration and motility. The 2008 Fertility and Sterility paper is the one that is most specific about who improved and by how much — and it contains the single most useful sentence in the entire series, because it is a negative one.

In the authors' own words, treatment increased sperm concentration and motility in all the infertile groups; oligozoospermic patients recovered sperm concentration significantly, but sperm motility was not restored to normal levels in asthenozoospermic men.

Unpack that:

That is a real and specific limit, published by the researchers themselves in the abstract, and it is exactly the kind of detail that gets stripped out when a result is repackaged as marketing copy. If your semen analysis shows a motility problem rather than a count problem, the strongest reading of this evidence is “may help, unlikely to fix it”.

A second caution on the numbers, which applies to every uncontrolled semen study and not just this one: semen parameters are enormously variable within the same man. Count and motility swing with fever, illness, abstinence interval, season, sleep and time of day. A single baseline sample followed by a single three-month sample, with no placebo arm, is a design in which some improvement is expected by chance alone — men are usually enrolled when their numbers are bad, and bad numbers tend to drift back toward that man's own average whether or not anything is done. This does not mean the effect is fake. It means the study cannot tell you how much of it was the bean.

Back to Table of Contents

The Oxidative-Stress Arm: SOD, Catalase, Glutathione, Vitamin C

Sperm are unusually vulnerable to oxidative damage, and the reason is structural. Their membranes are exceptionally rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids, which is what makes the tail flexible enough to swim — and polyunsaturated fats are precisely what free radicals attack. A sperm cell also carries very little cytoplasm, and cytoplasm is where a cell keeps most of its antioxidant machinery. So a sperm is a fragile, fat-rich cell with the protective equipment stripped out, and it depends on the surrounding seminal plasma to do the defending for it.

Both the 2008 and the 2010 papers went after this directly, and both found the defence system depleted in infertile men before treatment and improved afterwards.

From the 2010 stress paper (PMID 18955292), the men had, at baseline:

After three months on 5 g/day, lipid peroxide fell and SOD, catalase, glutathione and ascorbic acid were all restored, alongside the improvement in count and motility.

The 2008 paper adds the fat-soluble side of the same story: lipid peroxidation was inhibited, and the levels of vitamins A, C and E in seminal plasma recovered, as did total lipids, triglycerides, cholesterol and phospholipids. It also reported that fructose was corrected — a detail worth a sentence, because seminal fructose is made by the seminal vesicles under androgen control and is the main fuel sperm burn to swim. Fructose being abnormal, and then normalising, is consistent with the androgen picture improving.

How much of this is Mucuna acting as an antioxidant in its own right, and how much is downstream of hormones recovering? The studies cannot separate the two. Both are plausible, and the plant does have measurable antioxidant activity in the laboratory. But note the sequencing problem: a herb that merely mopped up free radicals would not be expected to move LH and prolactin. A herb that restored the hormonal axis would be expected to improve seminal antioxidant status as a consequence. The parsimonious reading is that the dopamine effect is primary and the antioxidant findings largely follow it — though that is an inference, not something the data proves.

Back to Table of Contents

What NMR Found in Seminal Plasma

The 2011 paper (PMID 21459537) is the most technically ambitious of the four and, at 180 treated men, the largest. Rather than measuring a short list of pre-chosen chemicals, it used proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy to profile seminal plasma broadly — a method that reads many small molecules at once from a single sample.

The metabolites tracked were lactate, alanine, choline, citrate, glycerophosphocholine, glutamine, tyrosine, histidine, phenylalanine and uridine. After three months of treatment, the authors reported that Mucuna rectified the disturbed levels of alanine, citrate, glycerophosphocholine, histidine and phenylalanine, moving them toward the profile seen in the fifty healthy control men, with concurrent improvement in the clinical semen variables and the reproductive hormones.

Two of those are worth knowing about:

The same group had earlier published the methodological groundwork for reading these spectra — a discriminant-function model that classified seminal plasma samples by their NMR profile (PMID 20719458). That is a reasonable piece of technique, and it is fair to say the analytical side of this work is more sophisticated than the trial design side.

It should still be read for what it is: a description of chemistry moving in a favourable direction in an uncontrolled cohort. Metabolite normalisation is a biomarker, not a baby. None of the four papers reports pregnancy rates or live births, which is the outcome that actually matters to a couple trying to conceive. Fifteen years on, nobody has run that trial.

Back to Table of Contents

The Stressed Subgroup and Cortisol

The 2010 paper deliberately narrowed its population: not just infertile men, but infertile men under psychological stress, identified both by questionnaire and by an objectively elevated serum cortisol. Sixty of them, against sixty age-matched fertile controls.

This is a real clinical group rather than a contrived one. Chronic stress suppresses male fertility through several converging routes — cortisol interferes with GnRH pulsatility, glucocorticoids act directly on Leydig cells to reduce testosterone output, and the resulting oxidative burden lands on precisely the fragile cells described above. Infertility itself is also a potent source of stress, so the arrow runs in both directions and a feedback loop is easy to fall into.

After three months of 5 g/day, the authors reported that treatment “significantly ameliorated psychological stress” along with the fall in seminal lipid peroxide, the restoration of SOD, catalase, glutathione and ascorbic acid, and the improvement in sperm count and motility. Their conclusion was that Mucuna both reactivates the antioxidant defence system and helps in the management of stress.

Mechanistically this is coherent with the dopamine story rather than being a separate claim. Dopaminergic tone modulates the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis, so a levodopa-containing seed nudging both the reproductive and the stress axes at once is not two effects but one input with two outputs. The companion article on stress and cortisol covers that side in more depth.

The caveats are the same as everywhere else on this page: no placebo, and a stress questionnaire administered by researchers who knew every participant was receiving the treatment is about as suggestible an outcome measure as exists. Self-reported stress improving in an unblinded study is close to uninformative on its own. The cortisol and the antioxidant enzymes are harder to talk yourself into.

Back to Table of Contents

Why This Is Not Evidence for a “Testosterone Booster”

Mucuna is sold hard to men who want more testosterone for training, body composition, energy and libido. The Lucknow data is the evidence those adverts lean on. It does not support them, and the reasons are worth stating plainly.

  1. The wrong population. Every participant was an infertile man, screened at a fertility clinic; in the 2010 study they were additionally selected for measurable stress and high cortisol. Every one of them started with testosterone, LH and dopamine below the fertile controls. A study in men with a deficit tells you about correcting a deficit. It cannot tell you what happens to a man whose numbers are already normal, because no such man was enrolled.
  2. The mechanism itself predicts a ceiling. Mucuna raises testosterone by removing an inhibition — lifting prolactin's suppression of GnRH. If prolactin is not elevated and dopamine tone is not low, there is nothing to release. This is not a hostile interpretation; it is what the pathway implies, and it is why the effect and the population fit together so neatly.
  3. Ceilings are real for the whole class. A broad review of plant products marketed for testosterone, sperm and prostate parameters concluded that the human evidence across these herbs is generally weak and does not support their use as testosterone enhancers in healthy men (PMID 30790614). Mucuna is not an exception to that pattern; it is a member of the class with somewhat better mechanistic grounding than most.
  4. No healthy-volunteer trial exists. Not a positive one, not a negative one. If a product page claims Mucuna raises testosterone in healthy men, ask which study, and then look at who was in it.
  5. “It felt like it worked” is dopamine, not androgen. A levodopa-containing seed produces noticeable subjective effects — drive, motivation, mood, libido — within hours, long before any hormone could plausibly have changed. Those effects are real, but they are the dopamine talking. Interpreting them as a testosterone rise is a very easy mistake to make and it feeds a great many five-star reviews.

Systematic reviews of medicinal plants for male infertility list Mucuna among the more promising candidates while making the same point about evidence quality (PMID 34721595, PMID 31989693). “Promising in infertile men” and “effective in healthy men” are separated by a study nobody has run.

Back to Table of Contents

The Honest Limits of This Evidence

Collected in one place, so they can be weighed together rather than met one at a time:

What survives all of that? Something worth taking seriously but not worth overstating: a coherent, mechanistically explicable set of changes across hormones, antioxidant enzymes and seminal metabolites, in the right direction, in a population where the mechanism predicts a benefit, reported by one group and never independently confirmed. That is a good reason to consider it as an adjunct in male-factor infertility with medical supervision. It is not a good reason to take it because you would like more testosterone.

Back to Table of Contents

What the Animal Work Adds — and Does Not

The animal literature is larger, better controlled, and about animals. Read in that spirit, it does two useful things: it supplies control groups the human work lacks, and it identifies which component of the seed is doing the work.

The mechanism study. Singh and colleagues at the Central Drug Research Institute in Lucknow used ethinyl oestradiol (3 mg/kg body weight daily for 14 days) to deliberately wreck spermatogenesis in rats, then gave either whole Mucuna pruriens or isolated L-DOPA for 56 days, comparing both against a group left to recover on its own. Both treated groups recovered faster and more completely than the auto-recovery group, with lower reactive oxygen species, restored mitochondrial membrane potential, regulated apoptosis, a recovered hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axis, more testicular germ cells, and higher sperm count and motility. The authors stated it was the first study to demonstrate that L-DOPA largely accounts for the pro-spermatogenic properties of the plant (PMID 23349947).

That is an important result for a practical reason. If the active principle is L-DOPA, then Mucuna's fertility effect is not a mysterious synergy of an Ayurvedic whole plant — it is a drug effect, with a drug's dose-response and a drug's interactions. The cautions section below follows directly from it.

The chronic-stress model. A Thai group gave rats aqueous Mucuna pruriens seed extract at 150 or 300 mg/kg for 20 days before, and then alongside, 81 days of induced chronic stress. Pre-treated animals had lower cortisol and better protected testicular and epididymal tissue, with improved sperm count, viability and acrosome integrity, improved expression of the steroidogenic proteins StAR and CYP11A1 and of the androgen receptor, and reduced caspase activity (PMID 35180038). This is the animal analogue of the 2010 human stress study, with the controls that study did not have.

The ageing model. In 24-month-old rats given seed extract at 200 mg/kg for 60 days, total and free testosterone, FSH and LH all rose, and testicular architecture improved measurably against untreated aged animals — tubular diameter up about 25%, number of tubules about 35%, epithelial height about 25%, epithelial volume about 20%, and Leydig cell number about 35% — with inflammatory and apoptotic markers reduced (PMID 37229277).

The livestock study. Twenty-four rabbit bucks were fed diets containing 0, 1.5 or 3% Mucuna seed meal for three months. At 3%, sperm motility rose about 36% and concentration about 66% against controls, morphological abnormalities fell about 68%, and mating behaviour changed measurably — mounting latency down about 70%, successful mounting frequency up about 60% (PMID 30659457).

Taken together the animal work is consistent, dose-responsive and mechanistically detailed. It is also, in every case, an animal given an extract at a dose calculated per kilogram of body weight, usually in a model of deliberately induced damage. None of it establishes an effect in a healthy human, and per-kilogram animal doses do not translate directly to human ones.

Back to Table of Contents

Dosing, Forms and Standardisation

What the human studies used, exactly:

Some practical points that follow.

Five grams of seed powder is a lot of powder. It is a heaped teaspoon or more, not a capsule. Most capsules on the market hold 300–500 mg of extract, so a product sold as “Mucuna” may deliver a small fraction of the studied dose — or, if it is a 15–99% L-DOPA extract, several times more of the active compound in a much smaller pill. These are not interchangeable, and the label rarely makes the difference obvious.

Standardised extracts are a different product. Whole seed powder is roughly 4–7% L-DOPA depending on cultivar and processing, so 5 g of powder supplies a couple of hundred milligrams of L-DOPA spread across a food matrix. A “99% L-DOPA” extract is, functionally, unregulated levodopa. The Parkinson's pharmacokinetic literature is instructive here: measured against standard levodopa formulations, Mucuna preparations behave like the drug, with a comparable plasma profile (PMID 26366963, PMID 27206902). Treat a high-percentage extract with the respect you would give a prescription.

L-DOPA content is unstable and unlabelled. It varies with variety, soil, harvest and storage, and it degrades with heat, light and time. Cassani and colleagues had to measure L-DOPA content directly when working out a low-cost preparation method for Parkinson's patients, precisely because you cannot assume it from the weight of powder (PMID 27206902). Nothing on a supplement label tells you what you are actually getting.

Timing and food. L-DOPA competes with dietary amino acids for the same intestinal and blood–brain-barrier transporters, so a large protein meal blunts absorption. Between meals is more consistent. Nausea is the commonest complaint and is usually dose-related; starting lower and building up over a couple of weeks is sensible.

Back to Table of Contents

Cautions: Drugs, Psychiatry and the Itching Hairs

This is the section that matters most, and it exists because of one fact established earlier: the active compound is a prescription drug. Everything a doctor would warn about with levodopa applies here, with the added problem that the dose is unknown.

Do not combine with these

Psychiatric risk is real at high dose

The most sobering entry in this plant's literature is a 1990 report in The Lancet of an outbreak of acute toxic psychosis attributed to Mucuna pruriens (PMID 1978001). It was a food-exposure setting rather than a supplement one, and the report is brief, but it establishes the point that matters: a levodopa-rich food can produce psychosis at sufficient exposure. Dopaminergic drugs are known to cause hallucinations, agitation, confusion and impulse-control problems, and none of that becomes impossible because the source is a bean.

Anyone with a history of psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or a serious impulse-control problem should avoid Mucuna. Anyone else should treat escalating the dose as a decision with a real downside, not just an ineffective one.

The hairs on the pod are a genuine hazard

The species name pruriens is Latin for “itching”, and it was not chosen casually. The seed pods are covered in fine barbed spicules containing a protease that produces intense, prolonged, maddening itching on skin contact — the plant's common English name in parts of the world is cowitch, and it has been used as an itching powder. In the eye it can cause a serious inflammatory reaction. The properly processed seed powder sold as a supplement does not contain these hairs, but anyone handling raw pods should wear gloves, long sleeves and eye protection, and should be aware that the spicules become airborne.

Other cautions

Back to Table of Contents

A Practical Position

Pulling it together into something usable.

If you are a man being investigated for infertility — particularly with low sperm count, low testosterone, low LH, or a raised prolactin — Mucuna is a defensible adjunct. It is inexpensive, the mechanism fits your situation, and the human data, weak as its design is, is at least in your population. Take it as part of a plan your urologist or reproductive endocrinologist knows about, at the studied 5 g/day of seed powder, for at least three months, and re-test rather than guessing. Tell whoever is treating you that you are taking it, because it moves prolactin and will affect how your results are read.

If your prolactin is normal, your testosterone is normal, and you are fertile, the evidence on this page does not apply to you. You may still notice a dopaminergic lift in drive and mood — that effect is real and is covered in the dopamine and mood article — but it is not a testosterone effect, and no study supports taking Mucuna as a testosterone booster in men whose testosterone is fine.

If you are taking an antipsychotic, an MAOI, or prescription levodopa, do not take it at all without the prescriber's involvement.

And the things that are boring and better evidenced still come first: stopping smoking, keeping the scrotum cool, treating a varicocele if you have one, correcting a genuine zinc or selenium deficiency rather than supplementing on spec, sleeping, and dealing with the stress that the 2010 study was built around. Mucuna is a reasonable addition to that list. It is not a substitute for it.

Back to Table of Contents

Key Research Papers

Every citation below has been checked against its PubMed record. Where a claim on this page rests on a number, that number appears in the abstract of the paper cited beside it.

  1. Ahmad MK, Mahdi AA, Shukla KK, Islam N, Jaiswar SP, Ahmad S. Effect of Mucuna pruriens on semen profile and biochemical parameters in seminal plasma of infertile men. Fertility and Sterility. 2008;90(3):627–635. PMID: 18001713
  2. Shukla KK, Mahdi AA, Ahmad MK, Shankhwar SN, Rajender S, Jaiswar SP. Mucuna pruriens improves male fertility by its action on the hypothalamus-pituitary-gonadal axis. Fertility and Sterility. 2009;92(6):1934–1940. PMID: 18973898
  3. Shukla KK, Mahdi AA, Ahmad MK, Jaiswar SP, Shankwar SN, Tiwari SC. Mucuna pruriens reduces stress and improves the quality of semen in infertile men. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2010;7(1):137–144. PMID: 18955292
  4. Gupta A, Mahdi AA, Ahmad MK, Shukla KK, Bansal N, Jaiswer SP, Shankhwar SN. A proton NMR study of the effect of Mucuna pruriens on seminal plasma metabolites of infertile males. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis. 2011;55(5):1060–1066. PMID: 21459537
  5. Gupta A, Mahdi AA, Ahmad MK, Shukla KK, Jaiswer SP, Shankhwar SN. 1H NMR spectroscopic studies on human seminal plasma: a probative discriminant function analysis classification model. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis. 2011;54(1):106–113. PMID: 20719458
  6. Singh AP, Sarkar S, Tripathi M, Rajender S. Mucuna pruriens and its major constituent L-DOPA recover spermatogenic loss by combating ROS, loss of mitochondrial membrane potential and apoptosis. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e54655. PMID: 23349947
  7. Lapyuneyong N, Tangsrisakda N, Choowong-In P, Chaisiwamongkol K, Uabundit N, Sawatpanich T, Arun S, Wu AT, Iamsaard S. Seed extract of Thai Mucuna pruriens reduced male reproductive damage in rats induced by chronic stress. Pharmaceutical Biology. 2022;60(1):374–383. PMID: 35180038
  8. Ganesh MK, Lakshmanan G, Khan MZI, Prakash S. Aging induced testicular damage: analyzing the ameliorative potential of Mucuna pruriens seed extract. 3 Biotech. 2023;13(6):206. PMID: 37229277
  9. Mutwedu VB, Ayagirwe RBB, Bacigale SB, Mwema LM, Butseme S, Kashosi T, Mitima B, Manyawu GJ, Nyongesa AW. Effect of dietary inclusion of small quantities of Mucuna pruriens seed meal on sexual behavior, semen characteristics, and biochemical parameters in rabbit bucks (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2019;51(5):1195–1202. PMID: 30659457
  10. Santos HO, Howell S, Teixeira FJ. Beyond tribulus (Tribulus terrestris L.): the effects of phytotherapics on testosterone, sperm and prostate parameters. Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 2019;235:392–405. PMID: 30790614
  11. Roozbeh N, Amirian A, Abdi F, Haghdoost S. A systematic review on use of medicinal plants for male infertility treatment. Journal of Family and Reproductive Health. 2021;15(2):74–81. PMID: 34721595
  12. Abarikwu SO, Onuah CL, Singh SK. Plants in the management of male infertility. Andrologia. 2020;52(3):e13509. PMID: 31989693
  13. Infante ME, Perez AM, Simao MR, Manda F, Baquete EF, Fernandes AM, Cliff JL. Outbreak of acute toxic psychosis attributed to Mucuna pruriens. The Lancet. 1990;336(8723):1129. PMID: 1978001
  14. Contin M, Lopane G, Passini A, Poli F, Iannello C, Guarino M. Mucuna pruriens in Parkinson disease: a kinetic-dynamic comparison with levodopa standard formulations. Clinical Neuropharmacology. 2015;38(5):201–203. PMID: 26366963
  15. Cassani E, Cilia R, Laguna J, Barichella M, Contin M, Cereda E, Isaias IU, Sparvoli F. Mucuna pruriens for Parkinson's disease: low-cost preparation method, laboratory measures and pharmacokinetics profile. Journal of the Neurological Sciences. 2016;365:175–180. PMID: 27206902
  16. Lampariello LR, Cortelazzo A, Guerranti R, Sticozzi C, Valacchi G. The magic velvet bean of Mucuna pruriens. Journal of Traditional and Complementary Medicine. 2012;2(4):331–339. PMID: 24716148
  17. Auriemma RS, Pirchio R, Pivonello C, Garifalos F, Colao A, Pivonello R. Approach to the patient with prolactinoma. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2023;108(9):2400–2423. PMID: 36974474

Live PubMed Topic Searches

  1. Mucuna pruriens and male infertility
  2. Mucuna pruriens and semen parameters
  3. Mucuna pruriens and testosterone
  4. Prolactin, testosterone and male hypogonadism
  5. Oxidative stress, seminal plasma and sperm motility
  6. L-DOPA content of Mucuna pruriens seed

Back to Table of Contents

Connections

Back to Table of Contents