| Literature DB >> 26541197 |
Bernard N Jumba1,2,3, Christopher O Anjili4, Judith Makwali5, Johnstone Ingonga6, Rose Nyamao7, Sylvia Marango8, Joseph K Choge9, Christopher Khayeka-Wandabwa10,11,12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite advances to targeted leishmanicidal chemotherapy, defies around severe toxicity, recent emergence of resistant variants and absence of rational vaccine still persist. This necessitates search and/or progressive validation of accessible medicinal remedies including plant based. The study examined both in vivo and in vitro response of L. major infection to combined therapy of Ricinus communis and Azadirachta indica extracts in BALB/c mice as the mouse model. A comparative study design was applied.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26541197 PMCID: PMC4635543 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-015-1605-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Res Notes ISSN: 1756-0500
Fig. 1Cell viability of the Vero-E6 cells subjected to the test extracts
Model parameter statistics from the logistic regression of the five test extracts against promastigotes of L. major
| Test drug | Model | Parameter significance |
|---|---|---|
|
| Log (ρ/1 − ρ) = 0.434 + 0.384 × C − 0.0008 × C2 + 0.0001 × C3 | β0(0.0000) β1(0.0000) β2(0.0001) β3(0.0026) |
|
| Log (ρ/1 − ρ) = 0.225 + 0.324 × C − 0.0008 × C2 + 0.0008 × C3 | β0(0.0000) β1(0.0000) β2(0.0002) β3(0.0123) |
| Az + Rc | Log (ρ/1 − ρ) = 0.125 + 0.454 × C − 0.0008 × C2 + 0.0011 × C3 | β0(0.0000) β1(0.0000) β2(0.0003) β3(0.0016) |
| AMB | Log (ρ/1 − ρ) = 0.015 + 0.684 × C − 0.0008 × C2 + 0.0004 × C3 | β0(0.0000) β1(0.0000) β2(0.0004) β3(0.0021) |
| Pentostam | Log (ρ/1 − ρ) = 0.012 + 0.724 × C − 0.0008 × C2 + 0.0014 × C3 | β0(0.0000) β1(0.0000) β2(0.0001) β3(0.0089) |
Az + Rc, combination of R. communis and A. indica; AMB, amphotericin B
Fig. 2Promastigote growth inhibition following treatments with various test extracts
Optimal efficacy, IC90 and IC50 of test extracts against promastigote form of the parasite
| Concentration (µg/mL) | Test drugs | Controls | Parameter and statistics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Az | Rc | Az + Rc | Pentostam | AMB | F value | P value | |
| Optimal efficacy (%) | 78 | 61.5 | 91.2 | 96.5 | 98 | 26.654 | 0.002 |
| Concentration at optimal efficacy | 43.5 | 69.5 | 55.2 | 30.4 | 40.2 | 9.257 | 0.012 |
| IC90 | – | – | 42 | 16.2 | 25.1 | 15.226 | 0.003 |
| IC50 | 10.1 | 25.5 | 12.2 | 4.1 | 5.0 | 15.456 | 0.000 |
Az, A.indica; Rc, R. communis; Az + Rc, combination of A. indica and R. communis; AMB, amphotericin B
Fig. 3Amastigote growth inhibition following treatments with the test extracts
Model parameter statistics from the logistic regression of the plants extracts against amastigote of L. major
| Test drug | Model | Parameter significance |
|---|---|---|
|
| Log (ρ/1 − ρ) = 0.434 + 0.384 × C − 0.0008 × C2 + 0.0001 × C3 | β0(0.0000) β1(0.0000) β2(0.0001) β3(0.0026) |
|
| Log (ρ/1 − ρ) = 0.225 + 0.324 × C − 0.0008 × C2 + 0.0008 × C3 | β0(0.0000) β1(0.0000) β2(0.0002) β3(0.0123) |
|
| Log (ρ/1 − ρ) = 0.125 + 0.454 × C − 0.0008 × C2 + 0.0011 × C3 | β0(0.0000) β1(0.0000) β2(0.0003) β3(0.0016) |
| AMB | Log (ρ/1 − ρ) = 0.015 + 0.684 × C − 0.0008 × C2 + 0.0004 × C3 | β0(0.0000) β1(0.0000) β2(0.0004) β3(0.0021) |
| Pentostam | Log (ρ/1 − ρ) = 0.012 + 0.724 × C − 0.0008 × C2 + 0.0014 × C3 | β0(0.0000) β1(0.0000) β2(0.0001) β3(0.0089) |
Az + Rc, Combination of R. communis and A. indica; AMB, amphotericin B
Optimal efficacy, IC90 and IC50 of test extracts against amastigote form of the parasite
| Concentration (µg/mL) | Test drugs | Parameter and statistics | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Az | Rc | Az + Rc | Pento | AMB | F value | p value | |
| Optimal efficacy (%) | 72 | 59.5 | 88 | 98 | 92 | 17.311 | 0.002 |
| Concentration at optimal efficacy | 25.5 | 28.2 | 35.1 | 25.2 | 34.5 | 9.212 | 0.001 |
| IC90 | – | – | 34.5 | 15.5 | 24.5 | 19.221 | 0.001 |
| IC50 | 11.5 | 16.5 | 9.0 | 6.5 | 4.5 | 12.489 | 0.000 |
Az, A. indica; Rc: R. communis; Az + Rc combination of A. indica and R. communis; Pento, pentostam; AMB, amphotericin B
Fig. 4Nitric oxide production in the macrophages of BALB/c infected mice infected with L. major and subjected to different treatments by various test extracts
Fig. 5Effect of mono and combination therapy on L. majorlesion development in BALB/c mice
Body weight, weight of spleen, spleno-somatic index and number of parasites in BALB/c mice following various treatments
| Treatment | Body weight | Weight of spleen | Spleno-somatic index | No of parasites |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Az | 22.11 ± 0.54 | 0.18 ± 0.021c | 0.84 ± 0.10c | 37.3 ± 6.4c |
| Rc | 21.78 ± 0.89 | 0.23 ± 0.021b | 1.04 ± 0.08b | 58.4 ± 9.8b |
| Az + Rc | 20.50 ± 0.45 | 0.15 ± 0.006a | 0.73 ± 0.02a | 26.4 ± 0.7a |
| Amphotericin B | 21.00 ± 1.00 | 0.13 ± 0.005a | 0.74 ± 0.06a | 25.7 ± 0.5a |
| Pentostam | 21.00 ± 0.58 | 0.14 ± 0.010a | 0.75 ± 0.07a | 26.1 ± 0.4a |
| PBS | 21.00 ± 1.73 | 0.37 ± 0.014d | 1.83 ± 0.21d | 145.7 ± 6.7d |
| ANOVA | ||||
| F | 2.1332 | 35.255 | 71.214 | 46.987 |
| | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| P | 0.3245 | 0.0001 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
Means in the same column followed by the same superscript show no significant difference between them
Az, A. indica; Rc, R. communis; Az + Rc, A. indica and R. communis (combination therapy); PBS, phosphate buffered saline (negative control); Pentostam, standard drug (positive control); Amphotericin B, standard drug (positive control)
Fig. 6The LDU of L. major parasite in spleen of BALB/c mice infected with L. major receiving various treatments