3.8 Article

Evaluation of Antimalarial Activity of the 80% Methanolic Stem Bark Extract of Combretum molle Against Plasmodium berghei in Mice

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/2515690X19890866

关键词

Combretum molle; antimalarial; folklore use; chemosuppressive; crude extract

资金

  1. Debre Markos University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. People are dependent on the traditional use of medicinal plants for the treatment of malaria without scientific validations. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the antimalarial activity of methanolic stem bark extract of Combretum molle in mice. Methods. After being infected with Plasmodium berghei, the mice were randomly divided into 5 groups (n = 5). In all cases, group I mice were treated as negative control and received 3% Tween 80; group II mice were treated with 25 mg/kg chloroquine; and groups III, IV, and V mice were treated with 100 mg/kg, 200 mg/kg, and 400 mg/kg of crude extract, respectively. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey's post hoc analysis. Results. In the chemosuppressive test, the parasitic suppression effect of the crude extract was found to be significant (P < 0.05) as compared with the negative control. In the curative experiment, the average parasitic level of those mice treated by the 3 doses of the crude extract was significantly suppressed at days 5, 6, and 7 of treatment (P < 0.001). Besides, the crude extract had been found to have a chemoprophylactic role as it inhibited the parasite level significantly relative to the negative control (P < 0.001). Moreover, the crude extract had preventive effects on packed cell volume reduction in the 3 tests (P < 0.001). Conclusions. The findings of the present study has supported the folklore use of the leaves of Combretum molle in the treatment of malaria. Therefore, further fractionation and characterization of the crude extract is necessary to identify the responsible lead compound(s) responsible for antiplasmodial activity.

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

3.8
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