4.2 Article

Efficacy of maslinic acid and fenbendazole on muscle larvae of Trichinella zimbabwensis in laboratory rats

期刊

JOURNAL OF HELMINTHOLOGY
卷 90, 期 1, 页码 86-90

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0022149X14000923

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of South Africa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trichinellosis is a zoonotic disease caused by nematode species of the genus Trichinella. Anthelmintics targeting the intestinal adults and muscle-dwelling larvae of Trichinella spp. have been tested, with limited success. This study was aimed at determining the efficacy of maslinic acid and fenbendazole on muscle larvae of Trichinella zimbabwensis in laboratory rats. Forty-two Sprague-Dawley rats, with an average weight of 270 g and 180 g for males and females respectively, were infected with T. zimbabwensis larvae. Infected rats were randomly assigned to three groups which were subjected to single treatments with each of maslinic acid, fenbendazole and a combination of both on day 25 post-infection (pi), and three groups which were subjected to double treatments with each of these drugs and a combination on days 25 and 32 pi. The untreated control group received a placebo. In single-treatment groups, the efficacy of each treatment, measured by rate of reduction in muscle larvae, was significant (P < 0.001) for both drugs compared to the untreated control group. There was no apparent synergistic effect on the combination of the two drugs in reducing the muscle larval burden, either in single or double treatments. In all the treatment regimens, the reductions were significant (P < 0.001) when compared to the untreated control and not significant when the single treatments were compared with the double treatments (P > 0.05). We conclude that the efficacy of maslinic acid against larval stages of T. zimbabwensis in rats was comparable to that of fenbendazole, with no side-effects observed, making maslinic acid a promising anthelmintic against larval stages of Trichinella species.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据