4.5 Article

Acute oral toxicity of colchicine in rats: effects of gender, vehicle matrix and pre-exposure to lipopolysaccharide

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED TOXICOLOGY
卷 27, 期 5, 页码 421-433

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/jat.1198

关键词

colchicine; lethality; lipopolysaccharide; Half and Half cream; rats; oral; toxicity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The oral toxicity of a single administration by gavage (10, 20 or 30 mg kg(-1) body weight) of colchicine (COL) was determined in young, mature mate and female Sprague-Dawley rats. The effect of COL was evaluated in the presence or absence of additional treatment variables that included vehicle and lipopolysaccharide (LPS) pre-exposure. The vehicle for COL was either Half and Half cream (H & H) or saline, and each group included pretreatment with either saline or a low, minimally toxic dose (83 mu g kg(-1) body weight) of LPS. Colchicine toxicity in both male and female age-matched rats was characterized by progressively more severe dose-related clinical signs of toxicity. These included mortality, decreased body weight and feed intake during the first several days after dosing, with recovery thereafter in surviving animals. There were differences in the severity of the toxic response to COL between male and female rats. The most notable sex-related difference was in COL lethality. Female rats were two times more susceptible to the lethal effects of COL than male rats. Saline or H & H delivery vehicles did not result in any apparent qualitative or quantitative differences in COL toxicity. LPS pretreatment significantly potentiated COL lethality in both males and females, although the potentiation in males was greater than in females. LPS pretreatment modestly increased the COL induced anorexic effect in surviving males, but not in surviving female animals. LPS did not appear to modulate either the body weights or clinical signs of COL induced toxicity in surviving males or females. Copyright (C) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.5
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