Ba Yue Zha (Akebia Fruit)

Chinese Herb Actions

Chinese Herb Dosage

• What is the typical dosage of Ba Yue Zha?

  6–12 g in decoction is the range our record holds — an ordinary mid-range dose for a fruit medicinal, and consistent with the ranges given in the standard reference literature.

  • Part used — the ripe fruit, harvested in autumn and dried. Not the stem, and not the seed, both of which are separate items in the genus.
  • Preparation — decocted normally; no special handling instruction attaches to it. The dried fruit is commonly broken or sliced before decocting.
  • Name and season — the name records the harvest: the fruit ripens and splits open along its seam around the eighth lunar month, which is when it is gathered. Fruit splitting at maturity is a well-documented feature of this species and has itself been the subject of repeated plant-science study.

  Translation field, flagged not changed. Our record renders the name as “Eighth Month Sticker.” The name refers to the fruit splitting open in the eighth lunar month, and is commonly written with a character meaning to burst or split rather than the one held here. We have left the field exactly as recorded and flag it as an owner decision rather than editing an identity field.

  Source: our own herb record (dosage and translation as held on file); dosage cross-referenced against published materia medica consensus and multiple online sources; fruit splitting at ripening per PMID 38069056, PMC 10706055, DOI 10.3390/ijms242316732 and PMID 39596453, PMC 11594767. Reference only — not a prescription.

Chinese Herb Contraindications & Cautions

• Are there cautions for Ba Yue Zha? Is it safe?

  Our record records two cautions: it is not used during pregnancy, and it can injure fluids, so it is used carefully in yin-deficient patients. Separately — and this is a regulatory rather than a safety point — medicinal products containing Akebia trifoliata are prohibited in the United Kingdom under the 2001 Mu Tong Order.

  • Pregnancy — contraindicated per our record.
  • Yin deficiency and fluid depletion — the herb promotes urination and is described as injuring fluids; used against an already dry picture it makes matters worse.
  • UK legal status — sale, supply and importation of medicinal products consisting of or containing this species, or any part of it, is prohibited by SI 2001/1841. This is a precautionary, name-based prohibition adopted because the “Mu Tong” name could not be relied on to identify the plant; it is not a finding that Akebia is toxic. UK readers should nonetheless understand that this herb falls inside that Order.
  • The mass-dispersing indication — lumps, nodules and cysts require medical diagnosis. The traditional action recorded here describes a pattern, and nothing on this page should be read as guidance for treating a growth.
  • Species identification — because Akebia sits inside the Mu Tong naming tangle, the practical safety question for any purchased material is which plant it actually is. Ask a supplier for the botanical binomial rather than the pinyin name.

  Source: our own cautions record (pregnancy; injures fluids, care in yin deficiency); UK prohibition per SI 2001 No. 1841, articles 2(b), 3 and footnote 6, read directly at legislation.gov.uk; category cautions per published materia medica consensus, cross-referenced against multiple online sources. Reference note, not a safety guarantee.

Chinese Herb Toxicity & Overdose

• Is Akebia fruit toxic?

  Low toxicity, and specifically: it is not a source of aristolochic acid. In the only head-to-head repeated-dose study we could resolve, mice given Akebia trifoliata orally for 28 days showed a no-observed-adverse-effect level of 0.40 g/kg/day — about five times the equivalent human dose — with a few degenerated endothelial cells in the renal glomerulus appearing only at the top dose of 2.00 g/kg/day. Akebia quinata was cleaner still, with no adverse effect above 3.00 g/kg/day. The Aristolochia comparator in the same experiment caused obvious nephropathy at a quarter of the equivalent human dose.

  Two honest qualifications. First, that study tested Akebia drug material in the Mu Tong sense; we did not find a repeated-dose toxicology study of the dried fruit specifically. Second, low measured toxicity in mice is not the same as a completed human safety evaluation, and none exists. What the data do establish clearly is the negative: the aristolochic acid problem does not belong to this genus.

  Source: our own herb record (not flagged toxic); comparative 28-day repeated oral toxicity in mice per PMID 18582552, DOI 10.1016/j.jep.2008.05.037; botanical family placement per PMID 34352331, DOI 10.1016/j.jep.2021.114486. Neutral reference facts — not a safety guarantee.

Herb-Drug Interactions

• No clinical herb–drug interactions are documented for Ba Yue Zha. We found no interaction studies, case reports or pharmacokinetic work for the fruit. The theoretical considerations are the ordinary ones for a urination-promoting herb — practitioner awareness in patients on diuretics or on medicines cleared by the kidney — and, from the animal literature only, that Akebia extracts have shown effects on lipid metabolism and blood glucose handling in rodents, which is a reason for awareness rather than a demonstrated interaction with any medication.

  Patients taking prescription medication should tell their prescriber what is in their formula. (Flagged for practitioner confirmation; reference information only.)

  Source: precautionary inference only, from the animal metabolic findings summarised in PMID 34352331. No clinical interaction is claimed or demonstrated.

Western / Biomedical Research

Chinese Herb Clinical Studies & Research

Provided as research context — a summary of published biomedical study, not a therapeutic or medical claim.

• Is there modern research on Ba Yue Zha (Akebia trifoliata)?

  Yes — a substantial literature, but almost all of it is either fruit-crop science or laboratory chemistry, and the largest single strand concerns polysaccharides isolated from the fruit. There are no clinical trials for the traditional Liver-qi indication. A 2021 Journal of Ethnopharmacology review of A. quinata and A. trifoliata is the best single entry point: it reports triterpenoid saponins as the dominant secondary metabolites, and finds that the metabolite profile differs measurably between stem, root, fruit and seed and between the two species.

  • Fruit polysaccharides — immune signalling (cell and zebrafish) — an arabinofuranan isolated from the fruits stimulated phagocytic activity and raised nitric oxide, IL-6, IL-1β and TNF-α in a macrophage cell line, and increased reactive oxygen species and nitric oxide in a zebrafish embryo model. Isolated-polysaccharide laboratory work.
  • Fruit polysaccharides — antioxidant and lifespan (nematode) — a purified polysaccharide from A. trifoliata fruit, mainly glucose and galactose, scavenged hydroxyl radicals in vitro, improved survival of Caenorhabditis elegans under heat and oxidative stress, extended mean lifespan, and reduced lipofuscin and malondialdehyde accumulation in ageing worms.
  • Fruit polysaccharides — anti-angiogenic modification (zebrafish) — a heteropolysaccharide from A. quinata fruit was chemically modified with selenium; the selenised form inhibited tumour cell proliferation and migration and blocked angiogenesis in zebrafish xenografts. Note that this tested a chemically altered derivative, not the herb.
  • Fruit extract and skin glycation (cell) — A. quinata fruit extract showed antioxidant and anti-glycation activity in a study of skin ageing driven by advanced glycation end products. Cosmetic-science context.
  • Gut bacteria (in vitro fermentation) — juices from A. trifoliata fruit altered the composition of human faecal microbiota in laboratory fermentation. A compositional finding, not a health outcome.
  • Toxicology, and the aristolochic acid question — the 2008 comparative 28-day mouse study discussed above remains the most decision-relevant piece of research on this genus, because it separates Akebia from Aristolochia quantitatively rather than by assertion.

  All of the above is chemistry, cell work, invertebrate or rodent research. It is consistent with a well-tolerated food-grade fruit with antioxidant and immune-active polysaccharides; none of it evidences the traditional indications in people.

  Sources: PMID 34352331, DOI 10.1016/j.jep.2021.114486 (genus review, phytochemistry by plant part, European Pharmacopoeia monograph); PMID 33483042, DOI 10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.117521 (arabinofuranan from the fruits, immunomodulatory); PMID 36385463, DOI 10.1007/s11130-022-01031-9 (A. trifoliata fruit polysaccharide, antioxidant and lifespan in C. elegans); PMID 34973766, DOI 10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.118950 (selenised fruit heteropolysaccharide, zebrafish); PMID 26569300, PMC 4663606, DOI 10.3390/nu7115478 (fruit extract and glycation-driven skin ageing); PMID 37860745, PMC 10581979, DOI 10.1007/s10068-023-01308-y (fruit juices and faecal microbiota in vitro); PMID 18582552, DOI 10.1016/j.jep.2008.05.037 (comparative repeated-dose toxicity). Research context, not a therapeutic claim.

Chinese Herb Notes

• Does Akebia contain aristolochic acid? Is Ba Yue Zha related to the Mu Tong problem?

  Akebia contains no aristolochic acid. It belongs to the Lardizabalaceae, a family entirely separate from the Aristolochiaceae, and the toxic compounds are simply not part of its chemistry. But Akebia is caught up in the Mu Tong affair anyway, because its stem is one of several plants that have been sold under the name “Mu Tong” — a name that was also used for the genuinely dangerous Aristolochia manshuriensis. The problem is the name, not the plant.

  Three different plants have been supplied as “Mu Tong”:

  • Akebia species (Lardizabalaceae) — the stem, sold as Mu Tong or Bai Mu Tong. No aristolochic acid. This is the genus the fruit on this page comes from.
  • Clematis armandii (Ranunculaceae) — Chuan Mu Tong, the source most commonly supplied in the United States. No aristolochic acid. This is the herb our own Mu Tong entry records.
  • Aristolochia manshuriensis (Aristolochiaceae) — Guan Mu Tong. This is the dangerous one, prohibited in China from 2004, and the species implicated in aristolochic acid nephropathy.

  A direct comparison exists. A 2008 Journal of Ethnopharmacology study dosed mice orally for 28 days with Akebia trifoliata, Akebia quinata and Caulis aristolochiae manshuriensis side by side. The Aristolochia groups showed marked weight loss and obvious nephropathy above 0.24 g/kg/day, with a no-observed-adverse-effect level of 0.06 g/kg/day — a quarter of the equivalent human dose. The two Akebia species had no-observed-adverse-effect levels of 0.40 g/kg/day and above 3.00 g/kg/day, roughly five and twenty-five times the equivalent human dose. The gap between the genera is not subtle.

  How deep the naming confusion runs. That same 2008 paper’s own abstract describes the two Akebia species as “Aristolochia species,” which is botanically wrong — they are Lardizabalaceae. We are noting this because it illustrates the point better than any commentary could: if a peer-reviewed toxicology paper can slide between the two names, a product label certainly can. Judge material by its binomial, not by its pinyin name.

  Is Ba Yue Zha banned in the UK? Does the Mu Tong Order cover the fruit?

  Yes — on the plain wording of the Order, the fruit is covered. The Medicines (Aristolochia and Mu Tong etc.) (Prohibition) Order 2001, SI 2001/1841, in force from 1 July 2001, prohibits at article 2(b) the sale, supply and importation of any medicinal product consisting of or containing a plant belonging to a named list of species, and that list includes Akebia quinata and Akebia trifoliata by name, alongside Clematis armandii, Clematis montana, three Cocculus species and Stephania tetrandra, and the whole genus Aristolochia.

  • The point that settles it — the Order names species, not plant parts, and its own footnote states that “plant” includes part of a plant, by reference to section 132(1) of the Medicines Act 1968. So the prohibition is not limited to the stem: the fruit of Akebia trifoliata — which is this herb — falls inside it, as would the leaf, root or seed.
  • The labelling limb — article 3 separately prohibits any medicinal product whose label or accompanying document indicates, in any language, that it consists of or contains “Mu Tong” or “Fangji” or any term derived from those, or a plant specified in article 2(b). A product labelled as containing Akebia trifoliata is therefore caught by article 3 as well as article 2.
  • Precautionary, not evidential — this is deliberately a name-based prohibition. It sweeps in the aristolochic-acid-free substitutes precisely because the names could not be relied on to tell which plant was in the bag. Being on the list is not a finding that Akebia is toxic.
  • Elsewhere — the position differs by jurisdiction. An “Akebia stem” monograph, covering A. quinata, A. trifoliata or a mixture of the two, was introduced into the European Pharmacopoeia in 2018 and retained in the 10th edition. A pharmacopoeial monograph is a quality standard rather than an authorisation to sell, and it does not displace a national prohibition. We do not assert any US regulatory status, having been unable to verify one at primary-source level.

  Do you hold the Akebia stem as well as the fruit?

  No. This fruit is the only Akebia entry in our materia medica. Our Mu Tong entry is Chuan Mu Tong, Caulis Clematidis Armandii — the Clematis source, not the Akebia one. Saying so plainly is more useful than leaving readers to assume the stem is here under some other name. Readers who meet “Mu Tong” sourced from Akebia should read our Chuan Mu Tong page for the naming problem and understand that the material it describes is a different plant family from this one.

  Category placement, flagged not changed. Our record files Ba Yue Zha under herbs that regulate water and drain dampness, yet the lead action it records is spreading Liver qi, and its channels are Liver and Stomach. Standard reference sources more commonly place Akebia fruit among the qi-regulating herbs, with promoting urination as a secondary action. The recorded actions themselves are not in dispute; only the shelf they sit on is. We have left the category exactly as held and flag it for owner decision.

  Source: our own herb records (this herb, and our Mu Tong entry with its Clematis armandii Latin, and the absence of any Akebia-stem record); UK prohibition per The Medicines (Aristolochia and Mu Tong etc.) (Prohibition) Order 2001, SI 2001 No. 1841, articles 2, 3 and footnote 6, read directly at legislation.gov.uk; comparative 28-day oral toxicity per PMID 18582552, DOI 10.1016/j.jep.2008.05.037; family placement and the European Pharmacopoeia “Akebia stem” monograph per PMID 34352331, DOI 10.1016/j.jep.2021.114486; 2004 prohibition of Guan Mu Tong in China per PMID 18588699, PMC 2488332, DOI 10.1186/1749-8546-3-7. Cross-referenced against multiple online sources.