In vivo antiplasmodial activity of hydromethanolic leaf extract and solvent fractions of Maytenus gracilipes (Celastraceae) against Plasmodium berghei in mice

Abstract

Background The incidence of resistance among currently available antimalarial drugs, as well as the high economic cost of malaria, has prompted researchers to look for novel antimalarial molecules. As a result, the current study was proposed to evaluate the antiplasmodial activity ( in vivo ) of Maytenus gracilipes based on the plant's traditional claims. Methods A cold maceration procedure using 80% methanol as a solvent was employed to obtain a crude extract from M. gracilipes leaves. Chloroform, n-butanol, and pure water were used to fractionate the hydromethanolic extract. Standard procedures were followed for an acute oral toxicity test. The antimalarial effects of the plant at 200, 400, and 600 mg/kg doses were investigated using three rodent malaria models (4-day suppressive, rane's, and repository tests). Thirty mice were utilized in each experiment (3 treatment and 2 control groups, each with six mice). Parasitemia, survival time, body weight, temperature, and packed cell volume were all used to assess the extracts' antiplasmodial activity. To compare results between groups, a one-way ANOVA with Post Hoc Tukey's HSD was used. Results In a 4-day suppressive investigation, all doses of the crude extract and fractions suppressed parasitemia significantly (P < 0.001) as compared to the negative control. The crude extract had the greatest chemosuppressive effect (74.15%) at 600 mg/kg dose. Chloroform had the greatest parasitemia suppression among the fractions; however it was less than the crude extract. In Rane's test, all doses of the crude extract produced substantial (P < 0.001) curative effects as compared to the negative control. Conclusion According to this study, the crude extract and solvent fractions of M. gracilipes leaves contain antimalarial activity with a substantial suppressive effect. The antiplasmodial effects were more active in the chloroform and n-butanol fractions, indicating that the plant's non-polar and medium polar constituents are responsible. Nonetheless, further analysis is required to isolate and characterize the active compounds responsible for the study plant's antimalarial activity.

Suppressive, Curative, and Prophylactic Effects of Maesa lanceolata Forssk. against Rodent Malaria Parasite Plasmodium berghei

“…The 400 mg of M. lanceolata chloroform fraction demonstrated almost the same amount of parasite suppression (81.28%) as that of the 14 mg of C. lutea chloroform fraction (81.35%) [ 74 ]. The current finding is in agreement with Maytenus gracilipes , Croton macrostachyus , and Vernonia amygdalina in which the chloroform fraction produced a more suppressive effect than the remaining fractions [ 48 , 49 , 77 ].…”

“…The rodent model of malaria has been effectively validated, and an in vivo study was selected because prodrug effects and the possibilities of infection control by the immune system are taken into consideration. The four-day chemosuppressive model is the primary and most commonly used test for the evaluation of innovative antiplasmodial drugs [ 48 , 70 ].…”

“…Proficient bioactive ingredient extraction from plant samples is primarily reliant on the solvent type utilized in the extraction process. Most commonly, water is used as the extracting solvent by the traditional healer but a water and alcohol mixture is more effective for extracting most plant metabolites in the maceration technique of plant extraction [ 48 ]. The collected fresh M. lanceolata leaves were rinsed with pure water to get rid of impurities.…”

“…The dilution was made based on the parasitemia of donor mice and erythrocyte count of the normal mice in such a way that one ml of blood contains 5 × 10 7 infected erythrocytes. Every experimental mouse was then infected through the intraperitoneal route with 0.2 ml suspension [ 48 , 50 ].…”

“…The body weight and temperature of every study mouse in every group were taken utilizing a sensitive digital weighing balance and thermometer (rectal), respectively. The changes in mean results reported in % before and after treatment were then calculated [ 48 , 50 ].…”