4.3 Article

Antimalarial activity and toxicity of Garcinia mangostana Linn.

期刊

出版社

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.1016/S1995-7645(14)60118-8

关键词

Garcinia mangostana Linn.; Plasmodium falciparum; Plasmodium berghei; Antimalarial activity

资金

  1. National Research Council of Thailand [034/2556]
  2. Thammasat University
  3. Commission on Higher Education
  4. Ministry of Education of Thailand (NRU Project)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the antimalarial activity and toxicity of the crude ethanolic extract of its pericarp both in vitro and in vivo. Methods: The antimalarial activity of Garcinia mangostana (G. mangostana) Linn. extract against 3D7 and K1 Plasmodium falciparum (P. falciparum) clone were assessed using SYBR green I-based assay. A 4-day suppressive test of Plasmodium berghei (P. berghei) infected mouse was performed to investigate in vivo antimalarial activity. Results: The in vitro antimalarial activity was selective (SI > 5) and classified as weak and good to moderate activity against both 3D7 and K1 P. falciparum clones with median IC50 (range) values of 11.12 (10.94-11.29) and 7.54 (6.80-7.68) mu g/mL, respectively. The extract was considered non-toxic to mice. The maximum tolerated doses for acute and subacute toxicity in mice were 5 000 and 2 000 mg/kg, respectively. Median (range) parasite density on day 4 of the negative control group (25% Tween-80), mice treated with 250, 500, 1000, and 2 000 mg/kg body weight of the extract, and 10 mg/kg body weight of chloroquine for 14 d were 12.8 (12.2-13.7), 11.4 (9.49-13.8), 11.6 (9.9-12.5), 11.7(10.6-12.8), 10.9 (9.4-11.6) and 0 (0-0)% respectively. Parasite density on day 4 in the control group treated with Tween-80 was higher than the groups treated with chloroquine and all dose levels of the extract. Conclusions: G. mangostana Linn. showed weak antimalarial activity of the extract both in vitro and in vivo could be due to limitation of absorption of the active compounds.

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

4.3
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