| Full text | |
| Author(s): Show less - |
Nazato, Virginia Sbrugnera
[1]
;
Rubem-Mauro, Leandro
[1]
;
Gatto Vieira, Nathalia Aparecida
[1]
;
Rocha-Junior, Dimas dos Santos
[1]
;
Silva, Magali Glauzer
[1]
;
Lopes, Patricia Santos
[1]
;
Dal-Belo, Chariston Andre
[2]
;
Cogo, Jose Carlos
[3]
;
dos Santos, Marcio Galdino
[4]
;
da Cruz-Hoefling, Maria Alice
[5]
;
Oshima-Franco, Yoko
[1]
Total Authors: 11
|
| Affiliation: | [1] Univ Sorocaba, UNISO, BR-18023000 Sorocaba, SP - Brazil
[2] Univ Fed Pampa, UNIPAMPA, BR-97300000 Sao Gabriel, RS - Brazil
[3] Univ Vale Paraiba, UNIVAP, BR-12244000 Sao Jose Dos Campos - Brazil
[4] Univ Fed Tocantins, UFT, BR-77001090 Porto Nacl, TO - Brazil
[5] Univ Estadual Campinas, UNICAMP, BR-13083862 Campinas, SP - Brazil
Total Affiliations: 5
|
| Document type: | Journal article |
| Source: | Molecules; v. 15, n. 9, p. 5956-5970, SEP 2010. |
| Web of Science Citations: | 17 |
| Abstract | |
Extracts from Dipteryx alata bark obtained with different solvents (hexane, dichloromethane, ethyl acetate and methanol) were mixed in vitro with Bothrops jararacussu (Bjssu, 40 mu g/mL) and Crotalus durissus terrificus (Cdt, 15 mu g/mL) snake venoms, and applied to a mouse phrenic nerve-diaphragm preparation to evaluate the possible neutralization of venom effects. Cdt venom neurotoxic effect was not inhibited by any of the extracts, while the neurotoxic and myotoxic actions of Bjssu venom were decreased by the methanolic extract. This inhibition appears to be augmented by tannins. Dichloromethane bark extract inhibited similar to 40% of Bjssu venom effects and delayed blockade induced by Cdt. The methodology used to determine which extract was active allows inferring that: (i) phenolic acids and flavonoids contained in the methanolic extract plus tannins were responsible mostly for neutralization of Bjssu effects; (ii) terpenoids from the dichloromethane extract may participate in the anti-Cdt and anti-Bjssu venom effects; (iii) a given extract could not inhibit venoms from different species even if those belong to the same family, so it is improper to generalize a certain plant as antiophidian; (iv) different polarity extracts do not present the same inhibitory capability, thus demonstrating the need for characterizing both venom pharmacology and the phytochemistry of medicinal plant compounds. (AU) | |