4.5 Article

Anthelmintic activity of Cocos nucifiera L. against sheep gastrointestinal nematodes

期刊

VETERINARY PARASITOLOGY
卷 159, 期 1, 页码 55-59

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2008.10.018

关键词

Small ruminants; Haemonchus contortus; Trichostrongylus colubriformis; Anthelmintic activity; Medicinal plants; Condensed tannins

资金

  1. National Research Council (CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The development of anthelmintic resistance has made the search for alternatives to control gastrointestinal nematodes of small ruminants imperative. Among these alternatives are several medicinal plants traditionally used as anthelmintics. This work evaluated the efficacy of Cocos nucifera fruit oil sheep gastrointestinal parasites. The ethyl acetate extract obtained from the liquid of green coconut husk fiber (LGCHF) was submitted to in vitro and in vivo tests. The in vitro assay was based oil egg hatching (EHT) and larval development tests (LDT) with Haemonchus contorus. The concentrations tested in the EHT were 0.31, 0.62, 1.25, 2.5 and 5 mg ml(-1), while in the LDT they were 5, 10, 20, 40 and 80 mg The in vivo assay was a controlled test. In this experiment, 18 sheep infected with gastrointestinal nematodes were divided into three groups (n=6), with the following closes administered: G1-400 mg kg(-1) LGCHF ethyl acetate extract, G2-0.2 mg kg(-1) moxidectin (Cydectin (R)) and G3-3% DMSO. The worm burden was analyzed. The results of the in vitro and in vivo tests were submitted to ANOVA and analyzed by the Turkey and Kruskal-Wallis tests, respectively. The extract efficacy in the EHT and LDT, at the highest concentrations tested, was 100% on egg hatching and 99.77% on larval development. The parameters evaluated in the controlled test Were not statistically different, showing that despite the significant results of the in vitro tests, the LGCHF ethyl acetate extract showed no activity against sheep gastrointestinal nematodes. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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