4.4 Article

Lethality Bioassay using Artemia salina L.

期刊

出版社

JOURNAL OF VISUALIZED EXPERIMENTS
DOI: 10.3791/64472

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT, Portugal) [UIDB/04567/2020, UIDP/04567/2020, SFRH/BD/137671/2018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Natural products have been used for thousands of years to produce medicines. Nowadays, many chemotherapeutic drugs are derived from natural sources and used to treat various diseases. However, most of these compounds often cause toxicity and adverse effects. Therefore, a simple, quick, and low-cost method is needed to evaluate their toxicity. The brine shrimp assay, using Artemia salina as a model, is a convenient tool for assessing the toxicity of potentially bioactive compounds and screening natural product extracts.
Natural products have been used since ancient times to produce medicines. Nowadays, there are plenty of chemotherapeutic drugs obtained from natural sources and used against a plethora of diseases. Unfortunately, most of these compounds often display systemic toxicity and adverse effects. In order to better evaluate the tolerability of selected potentially bioactive samples, brine shrimp (Artemia salina) is generally used as a model in lethality studies. The A. salina test is based on the ability of the studied bioactive compounds to kill the microcrustaceans in their larval stage (nauplii). This method represents a convenient starting point for cytotoxicity studies, as well as for the general toxicity screening of synthetic, semisynthetic, and natural products. It can be considered a simple, quick, and low-cost assay, compared to many other assays (in vitro cells or yeast strains, zebrafish, rodents) generally suitable for the aforementioned purposes; moreover, it can be easily performed even without any specific training. Overall, A. salina assay represents a useful tool for the preliminary toxicity evaluation of selected compounds and the bio-guided fractionation of natural product extracts.

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