4.4 Article

Echinococcus metacestodes as laboratory models for the screening of drugs against cestodes and trematodes

期刊

PARASITOLOGY
卷 137, 期 3, 页码 569-587

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S003118200999117X

关键词

Cystic echinococcosis (CE); alveolar echinococcosis (AE); Echinoccoccus granulosus; Echinoccoccus multilocularis; in vitro culture; chemotherapy

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [31-111780]
  2. Novartis Research Foundation
  3. Helvetia Sana Foundation
  4. Swiss Life Jubilaumsstiftung
  5. Novartis Animal Health
  6. Karl Enigk Stiftung

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Among the cestodes, Echinococcus granulosus, Echinococcus multilocularis and Taenia solium represent the most dangerous parasites. Their larval stages cause the diseases cystic echinococcosis (CE), alveolar echincoccosis (AE) and cysticercosis, respectively, which exhibit considerable medical and veterinary health concerns with a profound economic impact. Others caused by other cestodes, such as species of the genera Mesocestoides and Hymenolepis, are relatively rare in humans. In this review, we will focus on E. granulosus and E. multilocularis metacestode laboratory models and will review the use of these models in the search for novel drugs that could be employed for chemotherapeutic treatment of echinococcosis. Clearly, improved therapeutic drugs are needed for the treatment of AE and CE, and this can only be achieved through the development of medium-to-high throughput screening approaches. The most recent achievements in the in vitro culture and genetic manipulation of E. multilocularis cells and metacestodes, and the accessability of the E. multilocularis genome and EST sequence information, have rendered the E. multilocularis model uniquely suited for studies on drug-efficacy and drug target identification. This could lead to the development of novel compounds for the use in chemotherapy against echinococcosis, and possibly against diseases caused by other cestodes, and potentially also trematodes.

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

4.4
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