4.7 Review

Models for cytotoxicity screening of antileishmanial drugs: what has been done so far?

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2022.106612

关键词

Antileishmanial assay; In vitro cytotoxicity; Leishmania; Macrophage

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo aPesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [2014/21129-4, 2016/21171-6]
  2. UK Research and Innovation via the Global Challenges Research Fund under grant agreement 'A Global Network for Neglected Tropical Diseases' [MR/P027989/1]
  3. CAPES-DS [88887.487057/2020-00]
  4. FAPESP [2019/22175-3]
  5. FAEPEX-PRP/Unicamp [519.292]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A growing number of studies have shown the potential of numerous antileishmanial candidates in vitro. However, the lack of uniformity in cell type selection for cytotoxicity assays may result in incomparable and inconclusive data. Standardized preclinical testing protocols are needed to evaluate new antileishmanial candidates.
A growing number of studies have demonstrated the in vitro potential of an impressive number of antileishmanial candidates in the past years. However, the lack of uniformity regarding the choice of cell types for cytotoxicity assays may lead to uncomparable and inconclusive data. In vitro assays relying solely on non-phagocytic cell models may not represent a realistic result as the effect of an antileishmanial agent should ideally be presented based on its cytotoxicity profile against reticuloendothelial system cells. In the present review, we have assembled studies published in the scientific literature from 2015 to 2021 that explored leishmanicidal candidates, emphasising the main host cell models used for cytotoxicity assays. The pros and cons of different host cell types as well as primary cells and cell lines are discussed in order to draw attention to the need to establish standardised protocols for preclinical testing when assessing new antileishmanial candidates. (C) 2022 Elsevier Ltd and International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 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

4.7
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