Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T23:22:54.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of anthelmintics on the development of eggs of Angiostrongylus costaricensis in vitro

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2024

A. Ishih ,
M. Yanoh ,
C. Ikeya ,
A. Ban  and
M. Terada
A. Ishih*
Affiliation:
Department of Parasitology, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu 431-3192, Japan
M. Yanoh
Affiliation:
Department of Parasitology, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu 431-3192, Japan
C. Ikeya
Affiliation:
Department of Parasitology, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu 431-3192, Japan
A. Ban
Affiliation:
Department of Parasitology, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu 431-3192, Japan
M. Terada
Affiliation:
Department of Parasitology, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu 431-3192, Japan
*
*Fax: 81 53 435 2337 E-mail: aishih@hama-med.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Effects of the anthelmintics, pyrantel and levamisole, on egg development of Angiostrongylus costaricensis were studied in vitro. After 7 days, about 80% of eggs developed to first-stage larvae in Ham's F-12 medium with 10% foetal calf serum under 5% CO2. Significant inhibition of development was caused by pyrantel (10-9–10-8 g ml-1) and levamisole (10-9–10-8 g ml-1) (Mann-Whitney U-test; P<0.05), and none of the eggs developed to first-stage larvae in higher concentrations of these anthelmintics (10-7 g ml-1). Furthermore, incubation with these drugs at 10-8 g ml-1 for at least 3 h or at 10-4 g ml-1 for 1 h caused irreversible effects on egg development.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 75 , Issue 4 , December 2001 , pp. 351 - 354
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aubry, M.L., Cowell, P., Davey, M.J. & Shevde, S. (1970) Aspects of the pharmacology of a new anthelmintic: pyrantel. British Journal of Pharmacology 38, 332–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coles, G.C. (1977) The biochemical mode of action of some modern anthelmintics. Pesticide Science 8, 536–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freshney, R.I. (1987) Maintenance of the culture-cell lines. 127–136. in Culture of animal cells. A manual of basic technique. New York, Alan R. Liss, Inc.Google Scholar
Graziani, G., Martin, G.L., de (1977) Pharmacokinetic studies on levamisole. Drugs under Experimental and Clinical Research 2, 221–223.Google Scholar
Hata, H. (1996) In vitro cultivation of Angiostrongylus costaricensis eggs to first stage larvae in chemically defined medium. International Journal for Parasitology 26, 281–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ishih, A. (1994) Die Wirkung des Anthelminthikums Levamisol auf erste Angiostrongylus cantonensis-Larven in infizierten Ratten. Parasitology Research 80, 267–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maingi, N., Bjorn, H. & Dangolla, A. (1998) The relationship between faecal egg count reduction and the lethal dose 50% in the egg hatch assay and larval development assay. Veterinary Parasitology 77, 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morera, P. (1973) Life history and redescription of Angiostrongylus costaricensis Morera and Cespedes, 1971. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 22, 613–621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morera, P. (1985) Abdominal angiostrongyliasis: a problem of public health. Parasitology Today 1, 173–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loria-Cortes, R., Lobo-Sanahuja, J.F. (1980) Clinical abdominal angiostrongylosis. A study of 116 children with intestinal eosinophilic granuloma caused by Angiostrongylus costaricensis . American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 29, 538–544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terada, M., Rodriguez, B.O., Dharejo, A.M., Ishii, A.I. & Sano, M. (1986) Studies on chemotherapy of parasitic helminths (XXVI). Comparative in vitro effects of various anthelmintics on the motility of Angiostrongylus costaricensis and A. cantonensis . Japanese Journal of Parasitology 35, 93–95.Google Scholar
Terada, M., Tungtrongchitr, A., Ishih, A. & Sano, M. (1992) Effects of membendazole on abdominal angiostrongyliasis in mice after worm maturation: preliminary trials. Japanese Journal of Parasitology 41, 481–486.Google Scholar
Tungtrongchitr, A., Ishih, A., Terada, M. & Radomyos, P. (1992) The influence of immunosuppression on the efficacy of mebendazole in mice infected with adult Angiostrongylus costaricensis . Journal of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology 15, 61–70.Google Scholar
Van den Bossche, H. (1976) The molecular basis of anthelmintic action. pp. 553–572 in Van den Bossche, H. (Ed.) Biochemistry of parasites and host–parasite relationships. Amsterdam, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Van den Bossche, H. (1980) Peculiar targets in anthelmintic chemotherapy. Biochemical Pharmacology 29, 1981–1990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Varady, M. & Corba, J. (1999) Comparison of six in vitro tests in determining benzimidazole and levamisole resistance in Haemonchus contortus and Ostertagia circumcincta of sheep. Veterinary Parasitology 80, 239–249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed