4.3 Article

Plants of Brazilian restingas with tripanocide activity against Trypanosoma cruzi strains

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOENERGETICS AND BIOMEMBRANES
卷 49, 期 6, 页码 473-483

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10863-017-9733-9

关键词

Trypanossoma cruzi; Brazilian; Restingas; Plants; Trypanocide

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  3. Fundacao de Auxilio a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ)
  4. Programa Institucional de Inducao a Ciencia, Tecnologia e Inovacao em Saude (PAPES VI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chagas disease is caused by the Trypanosoma cruzi affecting millions of people, and widespread throughout Latin America. This disease exhibits a problematic chemotherapy. Benznidazole, which is the drug currently used as standard treatment, lamentably evokes several adverse reactions. Among other options, natural products have been tested to discover a novel therapeutic drug for this disease. A lot of plants from the Brazilian flora did not contain studies about their biological effects. Restinga de Jurubatiba from Brazil is a sandbank ecosystem poorly studied in relation to plant biological activity. Thus, three plant species from Restinga de Jurubatiba were tested against in vitro antiprotozoal activity. Among six extracts obtained from leaves and stem parts and 2 essential oils derived from leave parts, only 3 extracts inhibited epimastigote proliferation. Substances present in the extracts with activity were isolated (quercetin, myricetin, and ursolic acid), and evaluated in relation to antiprotozoal activity against epimastigote Y and Dm28 Trypanosoma cruzi strains. All isolated substances were effective to reduce protozoal proliferation. Essentially, quercetin and myricetin did not cause mammalian cell toxicity. In summary, myricetin and quercetin molecule can be used as a scaffold to develop new effective drugs against Chagas's disease.

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