Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
REVIEW ARTICLE
A Review of Plant Species Assessedin vitro forAntiamoebic Activity or both Antiamoebic andAntiplasmodial Properties
Poonam Sharma and Jayashri Devi Sharma*Medicinal Ecology, Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi110067, India
The resurgence of the protozoal diseases amoebiasis and malaria has been known to occur, from time totime, in endemic and epidemic proportions all over the world. Furthermore, the import of these indivi-dual pathogens to other areas from tropical regions encourages these protozoal diseases to occur on aglobal scale with considerable associated mortality and morbidity. From time immemorial, the cure ofthese diseases has been attempted with the use of traditional plant products, derived from such species asare available within local habitats and ecosystems, and dependent on their host community for their con-servation. Scientific validation and in vitro investigation, continues to be an important requirement fordrug development, particularly with the emergence of resistance and cross resistance to some standarddrugs used in such protozoal diseases. This paper provides a comparative compilation of the various stu-dies reported between 1982 and 1999, on plants with antiamoebic activities and those which possess bothantiamoebic and antiplasmodial activities. The results suggest that it is advisable to increase effortstowards the conservation of such plants, in order to retain their economic and therapeutic significance.Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords:antiamoebic plants; entamoeba histolytica; antiplasmodial plants; plasmodium falciparum; metronidazole;chloroquine.
INTRODUCTION
Amoebiasis is a major cause of morbidity and mortalityin tropical areas. It is known to be a major health problemin China, Mexico, the Eastern portion of South America,South-East and West Africa, and the whole of South-EastAsia including the Indian subcontinent (WHO, 1985,Adams and MacLeod, 1977). An estimated 480 millionpeople, or 12% of the world’s population are infectedwith E. histolytica, and amoebiasis causes about 40000 to110000 deaths per year worldwide.
The occurrence of the disease is known to be moreclosely related to sanitation and socioeconomic statusthan to the location and climate of the region (Stanley1996). Complex aetiological factors are poor life-style,environmental conditions in the tropics, and the non-availability of guaranteed conventional medical cure. Insuch situations people have commonly looked for naturalsymptomatic cures and resorted to self-medication fromtraditionally used plants as found in folklore. A numberof traditionally found natural products that are believed tobe of medicinal value have been further studied for
scientific validation, and put through the rigors ofstandard drug use. Ipecacuanha, is an antiamoebicBrazilian root, first taken to Europe by Piso in 1658,and it was not until the mid nineteenth century that itsprinciple alkaloid, emetine, was tested on dysentericstools againstE. histolyticaand in the cure of amoebicdysentery. Glaucarubin, a quassinoid isolated fromSimarouba glauca, was found to havein vitro amoebi-cidal activity and its chemistry and relative toxicity werereported in the late 1940’s (Van Assendelftet al., 1956).
The development of standard drugs for differentprotozoal infections have some similarities. Metronida-zole, derived from a microbial product and described byCosar and John in 1959 (Tanowitzet al., 1975) hasbecome the drug of choice in amoebiasis, much aschloroquine once was in malaria. Losch in 1875 recordedthe use of quinine enemas to treat patients withamoebiasis (Marshallet al., 1997). While emetineformulations derived from Ipecacuanha are mixtures ofcompounds, a direct antiamoebic effect of any singleisolate is difficult to evaluate.
The inherent difficulties of separating the role of asingle plant compound in the activity of an extract, intesting antiprotozoal activity in general and antiamoebicactivity in particular, are the following:
1. Mixtures of the common classes of compounds(alkaloids, terpenes, quinines) and other miscella-neous compounds are often present in mostpreliminary active extracts;
PHYTOTHERAPY RESEARCHPhytother. Res.15, 1–17 (2001)
Copyright# 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
* Correspondence to: Dr J. D. Sharma, Medicinal Ecology, Environmentaland Occupational Health, School of Environmental Sciences, JawaharlalNehru University, New Delhi 110067, India.E-mail: [email protected]/grant sponsor: UGC Fellowship.
Received April 2000Revised July 2000
Accepted September 2000
2. Differencesoccur in the selectivityandsensitivityof specific antiamoebicand antiplasmodialcom-pounds in various antiprotozoal cultures andstrains;
3. In vivo and in vitro differencesare found in thevirulence of various strains of E. histolytica(Gomeset al., 1997)resultingin variedpathogen-esis(Clark, 1998);
4. Two or manymorebiological componentsmaybeinvolved in the effect of the compoundtested,e.g.associationsof the amoebaewith bacterial flora(polyaxeniccultures)maymakeit difficult to provea direct antiamoebiceffect.
Reportedmethodsfor in vitro bioassayfor antiamoebicactivity havebeenbasedondifferentculturemethodsandtesting protocols and have used different strains ofamoebae.A survey of the various methodshas beenpublishedsince the initial isolation and culture of E.histolytica by Cavier in 1960 (Youssef, 1968) andupdatedto include the microdilution technique(Wrightet al., 1988).
Laboriousmicroscopicobservationswererecordedonthe effects of drugs upon motility and morphologyofcultivated parasites(Balamuth, 1952). Since not all-motile organismsmaybeableto reproduce,investigatorsfound it important to resort to subcultureto determinekilling asanendpoint(Tanowitzetal., 1975).Theabilityof a cell to grow andmultiply is a stringentcriterion forviability.
The colony method eliminated the need for micro-scopic observationand subculture.A new method forclonal growthof theseparasitesin semi-solidmediahasbeenusedextensively.This hashelpedin the identifica-tion of selectivityandmechanismsof actionongrowthofthe testcompounds(Gillin andDiamond,1981).
A plate method permitting a sharp demarcationbetweendirect andindirect antiamoebiceffectsof givencompoundswere attemptedon Amoebaabdou (‘DrugAmoeba’) (Kradolfer and Jarumilinta, 1965). Otherbiological componentslike E. coli, alreadyestablishedontheagarplates,were‘desensitized’to theactionof thevast majority of compoundsin this plate sensi-discmethod.
In broth cultures,emetine,the principal alkaloid ofipecacuanhawas shownby Vedder in 1911 to destroyamoebaein high dilutions (Rogers, 1912). Dilutionassaysusing liquid medium are time consumingandrequirerelatively largequantitiesof testcompounds,andwere used to evaluate standard antiamoebic drugs,emetine,2-3-dehydroemetine,metronidazole,5-chloro-8-hydroxyquinoline,antimalarialdrugs,Cinchonaalka-loids andquassinoids(Keeneet al., 1986).
A micromethodwasdevelopedbasedonmeasuringtheincorporation of tritiated thymidine into amoebaebyscintillation counting in microtitre plates(CedenoandKrogstad, 1983). A newer microdilution procedure,which does not require the use of radio-labelledcompoundsbut dependson a simpler spectroscopicmethodof measuringoptical densityand its correlationwith the numberof viable amoebaein a culture is alsoknownto showa goodcorrelationcoefficient(Wright etal., 1988).
Plant species have the potential to yield newantiamoebic agents. Development of this potentialrequiresthescreeningof largenumbersof plantextracts,
isolation and identification of the active compounds,uncoveringtheir mechanismof action, and the perfor-manceof toxicity tests to demonstrateselectiveanti-amoebiceffects.
PLANTS WITH ANTIAMOEBIC ACTIVITY
In past decadesscientific studies in the search forantiamoebicagentsfrom plant-derivedmaterialswerebased on the traditional usage of these materials.Ethnopharmacologicalresearchof this kind has led totheformationof syntheticmedicinesanddrugs.Themostactive plant extractsfrom effective use of plant partswereselectedfor extensivebiologicalandphytochemicalstudies.This further led to attemptsfor the isolationandcharacterizationof active principles. A compilation ofsuchstudiesis shownin Table1.
PLANTS WITH COMMON ANTIAMOEBIC ANDANTIPLASMODIAL ACTIVITY
Therich historicalheritageof traditionalknowledgeanddifferent indigenoussystemsof medicinebroughtaboutthe developmentof formulationscomprisingthe useofseveral plants for mixed protozoal infections. Plantextracts and compoundswhich possessantiamoebicactivity may also haveantiplasmodialactivity and viceversa, in such mixed infections since both classesoforganism are protozoans.The specificity of isolatedcompoundswhich test well for E. histolytica and P.falciparumarelistedin Table2. Someof theexamplesofisolatedalkaloids,terpenesand quinonesand miscella-neous compoundscan be seen to have comparableeffectivenessto well-knownstandarddrugs.
DISCUSSION
Of themanyplantswhichhavebeentestedovertheyearsby different workers,preparationsderivedfrom Simar-ouba amara, Brucea javanica, Strychnosusambarensisand Cryptolepis sanquinolentahave shown inhibitorypotencycomparableto the effective rangeof standarddrugsfor bothantiamoebicandantiplasmodialactivity.Aformol HCl and n-butanol extract of Gardenia jovistontanis also show promising antiamoebic activity.Quassinoids,bruceantinand brusatol,which havebeenisolatedfrom Bruceajavanica, show the besteffectivevalueagainstboththeprotozoa.Thealkaloid,gentianine,however,was found to be an artefactproducedduringextraction(Natarajanet al., 1974).
Among the various standard antiprotozoal drugs,metronidazoleand chloroquine,are the most effectiveasreportedin thesein vitro studies.It is fundamentalthatstandarddrugsmust be usedin assaysfor comparativepurposeswith theplantderivedisolates.Sofar thestudieswith metronidazoleshowanIC50 rangeof 1–2mg/mL andMIC of 0.312–0.625mg/mL against E. histolytica.Chloroquine diphosphatehas been found to have anED50 of 0.168mM and an IC50 of 0.156mM againstP.falciparum.
Preliminaryindicationsof specificityof actionduring
2 P. SHARMA AND J. D. SHARMA
Copyright# 2001JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Phytother.Res.15, 1–17(2001)
Tab
le1.
Aco
mpi
latio
nof
rese
arch
wor
ksh
owin
gin
vitr
ost
udie
swith
vario
usst
rain
sof
E.h
isto
lytic
afo
rsc
reen
ing
ofpl
ant
extr
acts
,diff
eren
tfr
actio
nsan
dpu
rified
com
poun
ds
S.
No
.B
ota
nic
al
na
me
(Fa
mily
)P
art
use
dE
xtr
act
/Cla
sso
fco
mp
ou
nd
Na
me
of
com
po
un
dD
ose
ef®
cie
ncy
E.
his
toly
tica
stra
inin
vit
roR
efe
ren
ce
1A
caci
aa
uri
culifo
rmis
Le
gu
me
sE
tha
no
lN
.D.
Lo
wa
ctiv
ity
at
E.
his
toly
tica
Un
iya
le
ta
l.(1
99
0)
(Mim
osa
cea
e)
10
00mg
/mL
ST
A2
Aca
lph
ap
hle
oid
es
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Ca
lza
da
et
al.
(Eu
ph
orb
iace
ae
)E
nti
rep
lan
tM
eth
an
ol
N.D
.7
.23
HM
1-I
MS
S(1
99
8a
)3
Alc
ho
rne
aco
rdif
olia
MIC
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caT
on
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8)
(Eu
ph
orb
iace
ae
)L
ea
ve
sD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
12
54
Alliu
msa
tiv
um
10
0%
killin
ga
tE
.h
isto
lyti
caM
ire
lma
ne
ta
l.(1
98
7)
(Lilia
cea
e)
Clo
ve
sC
rud
eg
arl
ic-e
xtr
act
oil
50mg
/mL
SA
W1
73
4R
/c1
AR
Allic
in3
0mg
/mL
MIC
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caB
ori
es
et
al.
(19
91
)5
An
no
na
che
rim
olia
Fru
its
Me
tha
no
lN
.D.
>1
00
Re
hm
an
An
no
na
mu
rica
taF
ruit
sM
eth
an
ol
>1
00
(An
no
na
cea
e)
EC
10
0(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Sh
ah
et
al.
(19
87
)6
Ard
isia
ox
yp
hy
lla
Ro
ots
Dic
hlo
rom
eth
an
e2
00
BY
80
(My
rsin
ace
ae
)P
etr
ole
um
eth
er
20
0in
solu
ble
po
rtio
nR
ap
an
on
e2
00
7B
erb
eri
sa
sia
tica
MIC
(mg
/mL
)1
00
E.
his
toly
tica
SF
L3
So
hn
ie
ta
l.(1
99
5)
(Be
rbe
rid
ace
ae
)N
.A.
N.A
.N
.D.
8B
rick
ellia
pa
nic
ula
taIC
50
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caC
alz
ad
ae
ta
l.(1
99
9)
(Ast
era
cea
e)
N.A
.F
lav
on
oid
Xa
nth
om
icro
l2
74
.85
HM
1-1
MS
SM
IC(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
To
na
et
al.
(19
98
)9
Bri
de
lia
ferr
ug
ine
aR
oo
tb
ark
De
coct
ion
N.D
.6
2.5
(Eu
ph
orb
iace
ae
)S
tem
ba
rkD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
25
01
0B
ruce
aja
va
nic
aIC
50
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caN
IH2
00
Ke
en
ee
ta
l.(1
98
6)
(Sim
aro
ub
ace
ae
)F
ruit
sQ
ua
ssin
oid
sB
uta
no
le
xtr
act
8.2
5B
ruce
an
tin
0.3
5B
ruce
ine
C1
0Q
ua
ssin
0.5
Ca
nth
in-6
-on
e2
3E
me
tin
e0
.07
2,3
-De
hy
dro
em
eti
ne
0.1
6M
etr
on
ida
zole
0.2
25
-Ch
loro
-8-h
yd
rox
yq
uin
olin
e0
.19
Am
od
iaq
uin
e0
.07
Me
pa
crin
e0
.58
Pri
ma
qu
ine
23
.2C
hlo
roq
uin
e2
4.8
Qu
inin
e1
4.8
Qu
inid
ine
16
.6Q
uin
idin
on
e7
.4C
inch
on
am
ine
14
.81
0-M
eth
ox
yci
nch
on
am
ine
4.5
3-E
piq
uin
am
ine
12
.9IC
50
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caH
M-1
Gillin
et
al.
(19
82
)
PLANTS SHOWINGANTIAMOEBIC ACTIVITY 3
Copyright# 2001JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Phytother.Res.15, 1–17(2001)
Tab
le1.
Con
tinue
d
S.
No
.B
ota
nic
al
na
me
(Fa
mily
)P
art
use
dE
xtr
act
/Cla
sso
fco
mp
ou
nd
Na
me
of
com
po
un
dD
ose
ef®
cie
ncy
E.
his
toly
tica
stra
inin
vit
roR
efe
ren
ce
11
Bru
cea
an
tid
yse
nte
rica
Fru
its
Qu
ass
ino
ids
Bru
cea
nti
n0
.01
8(S
ima
ruo
ba
cea
e)
Sim
alila
cto
ne
D0
.04
7A
ila
nth
ino
ne
0.0
68
Gla
uca
rub
olo
ne
0.1
2G
lau
caru
bin
on
e0
.14
Aila
nth
on
e0
.14
Gla
uca
rub
in1
.57
12
Ca
jan
us
caja
nM
IC(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
To
na
et
al.
(19
98
)(F
ab
ace
ae
)L
ea
ve
sD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
>5
00
13
Ca
rica
pa
pa
ya
MIC
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caT
on
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8)
(Ca
rica
cea
e)
Ma
ture
see
ds
De
coct
ion
N.D
.�7
.81
Imm
atu
rese
ed
sM
ace
rati
on
inw
ate
r6
2.5
14
Ca
ssia
®st
ula
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
36
4A
ntu
rlik
ar
et
al.
(19
93
)(C
ae
salp
ine
ace
ae
)S
ee
ds
Eth
an
ol
N.D
.1
09
.61
5C
ast
ela
tex
an
aIC
50(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Ca
lza
da
et
al.
(19
98
a)
(Sim
aro
ub
ace
ae
)S
tem
ba
rka
nd
wo
od
Me
tha
no
lN
.D.
46
.84
HM
1-I
MS
S
16
Ca
ste
late
xa
na
Ae
ria
lp
art
sIC
50(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
He
inri
che
ta
l.(1
99
2)
(Sim
aro
ub
ace
ae
)E
tha
no
lN
.D.
31
±63
NIH
20
0D
ich
loro
me
tha
ne
N.D
.4
±8W
ate
rN
.D.
63
17
Ca
ste
lato
rtu
osa
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Ca
lza
da
et
al.
(19
98
a)
(Sim
aro
ub
ace
ae
)S
tem
ba
rka
nd
wo
od
Me
tha
no
lN
.D.
41
HM
1-I
MS
S
18
Ce
iba
pe
nta
nd
raM
IC(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
To
na
et
al.
(19
98
)(B
om
ba
cea
e)
Ste
mb
ark
De
coct
ion
N.D
.1
25
19
Ce
ph
ae
lis
ipe
cacu
an
ha
Ro
ot
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
NIH
20
0W
rig
ht
et
al.
(19
89
)(R
ub
iace
ae
)A
lka
loid
sE
me
tin
e1
.7C
ep
ha
elin
e3
.26
Psy
cho
trin
e8
.19
20
Ce
nti
pe
da
min
ima
IC5
0(m
M)
E.
his
toly
tica
Yu
et
al.
(19
94
)(A
ste
race
ae
)W
ho
lep
lan
tS
esq
uit
erp
en
ela
cto
ne
Bre
vilin
A4
.5±9
21
Ch
en
op
od
ium
gra
ve
ole
ns
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
He
inri
che
ta
l.(1
99
2)
(Ch
en
op
od
iace
ae
)A
eri
al
pa
rts
Eth
an
ol
N.D
.1
25
±25
0N
IH2
00
Dic
hlo
rom
eth
an
eN
.D.
31
±63
Wa
ter
N.D
.>
25
02
2C
ho
ne
mo
rph
afr
ag
na
ns
MIC
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caS
FL
3C
ha
tte
rje
ee
ta
l.(1
98
7)
(Ap
ocy
an
ace
ae
)R
oo
tsS
tero
ida
la
lka
loid
Ch
on
em
orp
hin
e1
00
23
Cig
arr
illa
me
xic
an
aL
ea
ve
sIC
50(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Ca
lza
da
et
al.
(19
98
a)
(Ru
bia
cea
e)
Me
tha
no
lN
.D.
45
.13
HM
1-I
MS
SIC
50
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caN
IH2
00
Ke
en
ee
ta
l.(1
98
6)
24
Cin
cho
na
led
ge
ria
na
Le
av
es
Fra
ctio
nA
N.D
.0
.21
4 P. SHARMA AND J. D. SHARMA
Copyright# 2001JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Phytother.Res.15, 1–17(2001)
Tab
le1.
Con
tinue
d
S.
No
.B
ota
nic
al
na
me
(Fa
mily
)P
art
use
dE
xtr
act
/Cla
sso
fco
mp
ou
nd
Na
me
of
com
po
un
dD
ose
ef®
cie
ncy
E.
his
toly
tica
stra
inin
vit
roR
efe
ren
ce
(Ru
bia
cea
e)
Fra
ctio
nB
N.D
.3
Fra
ctio
nC
N.D
.0
.52
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
NIH
20
0K
ee
ne
et
al.
(19
87
)2
5C
inch
on
ale
dg
eri
an
aL
ea
ve
sA
lka
loid
s3
-Iso
cory
na
nth
eo
l4
.13b,
17b-
18
,19
-D
eh
yd
roo
chro
lifu
an
ine
1.7
3b,
17a-
18
,19
-D
eh
yd
roo
chro
lifu
an
ine
3a,
17b-
Cin
cho
ph
yllin
e2
3a,
17a-
Cin
cho
ph
yllin
eC
inch
on
asp
s.A
lka
loid
s0
.96
(Ru
bia
cea
e)
2.2
26
Cis
siu
sa
relo
ide
sM
IC(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
To
na
et
al.
(19
98
)(V
ita
cea
e)
Le
av
es
De
coct
ion
N.D
.>
50
02
7C
lem
ati
sd
ioic
aIC
50
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caH
M1
-1M
SS
Ca
lza
da
et
al.
(19
98
b)
(Ra
nu
ncu
lace
ae
)L
ea
ve
sM
eth
an
ol
N.D
.1
29
4.1
92
8C
nid
osc
olu
ste
hu
aca
ne
nsi
sIC
50(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Ca
lza
da
et
al.
(19
98
a)
(Eu
ph
orb
iace
ae
)E
nti
rep
lan
tM
eth
an
ol
N.D
.1
3.7
HM
1-I
MS
S2
9C
om
me
lin
ae
rect
aIC
50(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Ca
lza
da
et
al.
(19
98
a)
(Co
mm
elin
ace
ae
)E
nti
rep
lan
tM
eth
an
ol
N.D
.2
9.5
3H
M1
-IM
SS
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
NIH
20
0S
ha
rma
an
dS
ha
rma
30
Co
mm
iph
ora
wig
hti
iG
um
-ole
o-
resi
nC
hlo
rofo
rmN
.D0
.22
(19
96
)
(Bu
rse
race
ae
)A
qu
eo
us
N.D
.0
.24
Pe
tro
leu
me
the
rN
.D.
0.8
83
1C
on
yza
®la
gin
oid
es
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
HM
1-I
MS
SC
alz
ad
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8a
)
(Ast
era
cea
e)
En
tire
pla
nt
Me
tha
no
lN
.D.
14
1.6
32
Co
ny
za®
lag
ino
ide
sIC
50
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caC
alz
ad
ae
ta
l.(1
99
9)
(Ast
era
cea
e)
N.A
.F
lav
on
oid
3,6
-Dim
eth
ox
yka
em
pfe
ol
10
5.3
HM
1-1
MS
S3
3C
ost
us
afe
rM
IC(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
To
na
et
al.
(19
98
)(Z
ing
ibe
race
ae
)J
uic
eD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
12
53
4C
ross
op
tery
xfe
bri
fug
aM
IC(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
To
na
et
al.
(19
98
)(R
ub
iace
ae
)L
ea
ve
sD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
12
5IC
50
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caH
M1
-1M
SS
Ca
lza
da
et
al.
(19
98
b)
35
Cu
ph
ea
pin
eto
rum
Ro
ot
Me
tha
no
l7
3.2
3(L
yth
race
ae
)F
lav
on
oid
Ka
em
pfe
rol
7.9
3Q
ue
rce
tin
11
4.3
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
HM
1-1
MS
SC
alz
ad
ae
ta
l.(1
99
9)
PLANTS SHOWINGANTIAMOEBIC ACTIVITY 5
Copyright# 2001JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Phytother.Res.15, 1–17(2001)
Tab
le1.
Con
tinue
d
S.
No
.B
ota
nic
al
na
me
(Fa
mily
)P
art
use
dE
xtr
act
/Cla
sso
fco
mp
ou
nd
Na
me
of
com
po
un
dD
ose
ef®
cie
ncy
E.
his
toly
tica
stra
inin
vit
roR
efe
ren
ce
36
Cu
ph
ea
pin
eto
rum
Ro
ot
Fla
vo
no
idK
ae
mp
fero
l7
.93
(Ly
thra
cea
e)
Qu
erc
eti
n1
14
.33
7D
atu
raa
rbo
rea
MIC
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caT
on
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8)
(So
lan
ace
ae
)L
ea
ve
sD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
12
53
8D
ialu
me
ng
leri
an
um
MIC
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caT
on
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8)
(Ca
esa
lpin
ea
ece
ae
)S
tem
ba
rkD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
62
.53
9D
race
an
are
¯e
xa
MIC
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caT
on
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8)
(Ag
av
ace
ae
)L
ea
ve
sD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
62
.54
0D
yss
od
iap
ap
po
saIC
50(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Ca
lza
da
et
al.
(19
98
a)
(Ast
era
cea
e)
En
tire
pla
nt
Me
tha
no
lN
.D.
14
4.6
HM
1-I
MS
SM
IC(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
To
na
et
al.
(19
98
)4
1E
up
ho
rbia
hir
taL
ea
ve
sM
ace
rati
on
inw
ate
rN
.D.
25
0(E
up
ho
rbia
cea
e)
Wh
ole
pla
nt
Ma
cera
tio
nin
wa
ter
N.D
.3
1.2
54
2F
uch
sia
mic
rop
hy
lla
Ste
m/L
ea
ve
sIC
50
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caH
M1
-1M
SS
Ca
lza
da
et
al.
(19
98
b)
(On
ag
race
ae
)M
eth
an
ol
N.D
.7
59
.87
43
Ga
rcin
iako
laM
IC(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
To
na
et
al.
(19
98
)(C
lusi
ace
ae
)S
tem
ba
rkD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
12
54
4G
era
niu
mn
ive
um
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Ca
lza
da
et
al.
(19
98
a)
(Ge
ran
iace
ae
)R
oo
tM
eth
an
ol
N.D
.8
.7H
M1
-IM
SS
IC5
0(m
M)
E.
his
toly
tica
Go
nza
lez-
Ga
rza
an
dS
aid
-Fe
rna
nd
ez
(19
88
)4
5G
oss
yp
ium
he
rba
ciu
mS
ee
do
ilN
.A.
Go
ssy
po
l0
.01
5H
M-1
:IM
SS
(Ma
lva
cea
e)
IC5
0(m
M)
E.
his
toly
tica
Go
nza
lez-
Ga
rza
et
al.
(19
93
)4
6G
oss
yp
ium
sp.
Se
ed
oil
N.A
.(ÿ
)-G
oss
yp
ol
0.0
1H
M-1
(Ma
lva
cea
e)
0.0
16
HK
-90
.03
8H
M-3
0.0
26
HM
-20
.02
9H
M-3
8IC
50(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
He
inri
che
ta
l.(1
99
2)
47
Go
ua
nia
po
lyg
am
aL
ea
ve
sE
tha
no
lN
.D.
12
5±2
50
NIH
20
0(R
ha
mn
ace
ae
)D
ich
loro
me
tha
ne
N.D
.1
25
±25
0W
ate
rN
.D.
>2
50
48
He
insi
ap
ulc
he
lla
MIC
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caT
on
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8)
(Ru
bia
cea
e)
Ro
ot
ba
rkD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
15
.62
49
He
lia
nth
em
um
glo
me
ratu
mIC
50(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
HM
1-1
MS
SC
alz
ad
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8b
)
(Cis
tace
ae
)S
tem
/Le
av
es
Me
tha
no
lN
.D.
15
8.2
25
0H
elia
nth
em
um
glo
me
ratu
mIC
50(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
HM
1-1
MS
SC
alz
ad
ae
ta
l.(1
99
9)
(Cis
tace
ae
)S
tem
/Le
av
es
Fla
vo
no
ids
Tilir
osi
de
17
.45
51
He
lio
psi
slo
ng
ipe
sIC
50(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Ca
lza
da
et
al.
(19
98
a)
(Ast
era
cea
e)
Ro
ot
Me
tha
no
lN
.D.
53
.12
HM
1-I
MS
S
6 P. SHARMA AND J. D. SHARMA
Copyright# 2001JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Phytother.Res.15, 1–17(2001)
Tab
le1.
Con
tinue
d
S.
No
.B
ota
nic
al
na
me
(Fa
mily
)P
art
use
dE
xtr
act
/Cla
sso
fco
mp
ou
nd
Na
me
of
com
po
un
dD
ose
ef®
cie
ncy
E.
his
toly
tica
stra
inin
vit
roR
efe
ren
ce
52
He
llia
nth
ella
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Ca
lza
da
et
al.
(19
98
a)
qin
qu
en
erv
is(A
ste
race
ae
)R
oo
tM
eth
an
ol
N.D
.4
.61
HM
1-I
MS
S
Dilu
tio
nE
.h
isto
lyti
cain
-vit
roW
hit
e(1
93
3)
53
Ho
larr
he
na
inte
ge
rrim
aB
ark
an
dS
ee
ds
Alk
alo
idN
orc
on
ess
ine
1:5
00
0
(Ap
ocy
an
ace
ae
)C
on
ess
ine
1:2
0,0
00
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Wri
gh
te
ta
l.(1
98
9)
54
Ho
larr
he
na
pu
be
sce
ns
Ba
rkA
lka
loid
sC
on
ess
ine
8.9
7N
IH2
00
(Ap
ocy
an
ace
ae
)C
on
ess
imin
e1
.87
Iso
con
ess
imin
e2
0.9
Co
nku
rch
ine
12
Co
ne
ssid
ine
2.2
9H
olo
na
min
e3
.96
MIC
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caT
on
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8)
55
Hy
me
no
card
iaa
cid
aS
tem
ba
rkD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
31
.25
(Eu
ph
orb
iace
ae
)R
oo
tb
ark
De
coct
ion
N.D
.2
50
56
Ja
son
iag
luti
no
saA
eri
al
pa
rts
Ace
ton
eN
.D.
Sig
ni®
can
tin
hib
itio
na
t1
00mg
/mL
E.
his
toly
tica
Ra
hm
an
Villa
esc
usa
et
al.
(19
96
)
(Ast
era
cea
e)
57
Ja
tro
ph
acu
rca
sM
IC(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
To
na
et
al.
(19
98
)(E
up
ho
rbia
cea
e)
Le
av
es
De
coct
ion
N.D
.3
1.2
55
8J
ust
icia
insu
lari
sM
IC(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
To
na
et
al.
(19
98
)(A
can
tha
cea
e)
Le
av
es
De
coct
ion
N.D
.>
50
05
9K
oh
leri
ad
ep
pe
an
aIC
50(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Ca
lza
da
et
al.
(19
98
a)
(Ge
sne
ria
cea
e)
Le
av
es
Me
tha
no
lN
.D.
12
0.9
2H
M1
-IM
SS
60
Le
pid
ium
vir
gin
icu
mIC
50(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Ca
lza
da
et
al.
(19
98
a)
(Cru
cife
rae
)E
nti
rep
lan
tM
eth
an
ol
N.D
.1
05
HM
1-I
MS
S6
1M
alm
ea
de
pre
ssa
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Ca
lza
da
et
al.
(19
98
a)
(An
no
na
cea
e)
Ste
mb
ark
an
dw
oo
dM
eth
an
ol
N.D
.4
53
.41
HM
1-I
MS
S
62
Ma
ng
ife
rain
dic
aM
IC(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
To
na
et
al.
(19
98
)(A
na
card
iace
ae
)S
tem
ba
rkD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
�7.8
1M
IC(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
To
na
et
al.
(19
98
)6
3M
ap
rou
ne
aa
fric
an
aL
ea
ve
sD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
62
.5(E
up
ho
rbia
cea
e)
Ro
ot
ba
rkD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
31
.25
64
Mo
rin
da
mo
rin
do
ide
sM
IC(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
To
na
et
al.
(19
98
)(R
ub
iace
ae
)L
ea
ve
sD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
15
.62
65
My
rta
nth
us
arb
ore
us
MIC
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caT
on
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8)
(Mo
race
ae
)L
ea
ve
sD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
>5
00
66
On
go
kea
go
reM
IC(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
To
na
et
al.
(19
98
)(O
laca
cea
e)
Ste
mb
ark
De
coct
ion
N.D
.>
50
06
7P
ara
the
sis
chia
pe
nsi
sS
tem
/le
av
es
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
HM
1-1
MS
SC
alz
ad
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8b
)
PLANTS SHOWINGANTIAMOEBIC ACTIVITY 7
Copyright# 2001JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Phytother.Res.15, 1–17(2001)
Tab
le1.
Con
tinue
d
S.
No
.B
ota
nic
al
na
me
(Fa
mily
)P
art
use
dE
xtr
act
/Cla
sso
fco
mp
ou
nd
Na
me
of
com
po
un
dD
ose
ef®
cie
ncy
E.
his
toly
tica
stra
inin
vit
roR
efe
ren
ce
(My
rist
ica
cea
e)
Me
tha
no
lN
.D.
11
70
.68
68
Pa
rop
sia
bra
zze
an
aM
IC(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
To
na
et
al.
(19
98
)(F
laco
urt
iace
ae
)R
oo
tb
ark
De
coct
ion
N.D
.7
.81
69
Pe
nta
cle
tra
ma
cro
ph
ylla
MIC
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caT
on
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8)
(Mim
osa
cea
e)
Ste
mb
ark
De
coct
ion
N.D
.2
50
70
Ph
yto
lla
cad
od
eca
nd
raM
IC(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
To
na
et
al.
(19
98
)(P
hy
tolla
cace
ae
)L
ea
ve
sD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
>5
00
EC
50
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caN
IH2
00
Ha
rris
an
dP
hillip
son
(19
82
)7
1P
icra
sma
ex
cels
aW
oo
dQ
ua
ssin
oid
Qu
ass
in0
.5(S
ima
rou
ba
cea
e)
Ind
ole
alk
alo
idC
an
thin
-6-o
ne
23
Eth
an
ol
10
00mg
/mL
E.
his
toly
tica
NIH
20
0G
ho
sha
le
ta
l.(1
99
6)
72
Pip
er
lon
gu
mF
ruit
sH
ex
an
e1
00
0mg
/mL
(Pip
era
cea
e)
Ch
loro
form
50
0mg
/mL
n-B
uta
no
l(S
olu
ble
)1
00mg
/mL
n-B
uta
no
l(i
nso
lub
le)
No
ta
ctiv
eP
ipe
rin
eN
ot
act
ive
73
Pip
er
sch
mid
tii
Wh
ole
pla
nt
He
xa
ne
N.D
.9
8%
at
10
00mg
/mL
E.
his
toly
tica
Jo
shi
et
al.
(19
90
)(P
ipe
race
ae
)tr
op
ho
zoit
es
kille
d7
4P
lum
ba
go
sca
nd
en
sIC
50(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Ca
lza
da
et
al.
(19
98
a)
(Plu
mb
ag
ina
cea
e)
Ste
mb
ark
Me
tha
no
lN
.D.
11
7.9
HM
1-I
MS
SM
IC(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Ah
me
de
ta
l.(1
99
6)
75
Pro
sop
isju
li¯
ora
N.A
.A
lka
loid
sJ
uli¯
ori
ne
10
(Le
gu
min
osa
e)
Ju
li¯
ori
cin
e1
0B
en
zen
ein
solu
ble
7.5
Alk
alo
ida
lp
ort
ion
MIC
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caT
on
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8)
76
Psi
diu
mg
ua
jav
aL
ea
ve
sD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
62
.5(M
yrt
ace
ae
)S
tem
ba
rkD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
�7.8
17
7P
tele
atr
ifo
lia
taIC
50(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Ca
lza
da
et
al.
(19
98
a)
(Ru
tace
ae
)S
tem
ba
rka
nd
wo
od
Me
tha
no
lN
.D.
18
.94
HM
1-I
MS
S
78
Pte
rid
ium
aq
uilin
um
MIC
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caT
on
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8)
(Pte
rid
ace
ae
)T
wig
sD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
>5
00
79
Qu
ass
iaa
fric
an
aM
IC(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
To
na
et
al.
(19
98
)(S
ima
rou
ba
cea
e)
Ro
ot
ba
rkD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
31
.5IC
50(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
He
inri
che
ta
l.(1
99
2)
80
Qu
erc
us
ole
oid
es
Ba
rkE
tha
no
lN
.D.
12
5±2
50
NIH
20
0(F
ag
ace
ae
)D
ich
loro
me
tha
ne
N.D
.1
25
±25
0W
ate
rN
.D.
>2
50
81
Ra
tib
ida
lati
pa
lia
ris
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Ca
lza
da
et
al.
(19
98
a)
(Ast
era
cea
e)
Ro
ot
Me
tha
no
lN
.D.
91
.72
HM
1-I
MS
S8
2R
au
wo
l®a
ob
stra
taM
IC(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
To
na
et
al.
(19
98
)(A
po
cya
na
cea
e)
Ro
ot
ba
rkD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
31
.5
8 P. SHARMA AND J. D. SHARMA
Copyright# 2001JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Phytother.Res.15, 1–17(2001)
Tab
le1.
Con
tinue
d
S.
No
.B
ota
nic
al
na
me
(Fa
mily
)P
art
use
dE
xtr
act
/Cla
sso
fco
mp
ou
nd
Na
me
of
com
po
un
dD
ose
ef®
cie
ncy
E.
his
toly
tica
stra
inin
vit
roR
efe
ren
ce
83
Ru
bu
sco
rlif
oliu
sS
tem
/IC
50(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
HM
1-1
MS
SC
alz
ad
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8b
)(R
osa
cea
e)
lea
ve
sM
eth
an
ol
N.D
.7
2.4
28
4S
ida
rho
mb
ifo
lia
MIC
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caT
on
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8)
(Ma
lva
cea
e)
Le
av
es
De
coct
ion
N.D
.6
2.5
85
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Wri
gh
te
ta
l.(1
98
9)
Sim
aro
ub
aa
ma
raS
tem
Ch
loro
form
N.D
.2
.9N
IH2
00
(Sim
aro
ub
ace
ae
)B
uta
no
lN
.D.
6.8
9F
ruit
sQ
ua
ssin
oid
sA
ila
nth
ino
ne
0.0
63
Gla
uca
rub
ino
ne
0.1
68
2'-
ace
tox
y-g
lau
caru
bin
on
e0
.15
5H
ola
can
tho
ne
0.1
62
86
Sw
ite
nia
hu
millis
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Ca
lza
da
et
al.
(19
98
a)
(Me
lia
cea
e)
Ste
mM
eth
an
ol
N.D
.1
78
.1H
M1
-IM
SS
87
Str
ych
no
sg
oss
we
ile
riR
oo
tb
ark
Qu
ate
rna
rya
lka
loid
Dip
loce
lin
e1
00
%in
hib
itio
na
t5
0mg
/mL
E.
his
toly
tica
Re
hm
an
Ga
squ
et
et
al.
(19
92
)
(Lo
ga
nia
cea
e)
88
%in
hib
itio
na
t1
.5mg
/mL
E.
his
toly
tica
Du
Va
nB
ee
ke
ta
l.(1
98
4)
Ta
be
rna
em
on
tan
aa
ura
nti
aca
20
±80
%
Le
af
an
dtw
igE
tha
no
lN
.D.
T.
chip
pii
20
±80
%L
ea
f8
0±1
00
%R
oo
tb
ark
0±2
0%
T.
con
tort
art
aS
tem
ba
rk8
0±1
00
%L
ea
f2
0±8
0%
T.
cra
ssa
Tw
ig0
±20
%T
.d
ich
oto
ma
Ste
mb
ark
20
±80
%T
.e
gla
nd
ulo
saL
ea
f2
0±8
0%
Le
af
20
±80
%T
.g
lan
du
losa
Ste
mb
ark
20
±80
%L
ea
f2
0±8
0%
T.
he
tero
ph
ylla
Ste
mb
ark
0±2
0%
Le
af
20
±80
%T
.lo
ng
i¯o
raT
wig
20
±80
%T
.o
rie
nta
lis
Le
af
an
dtw
ig2
0±8
0%
T.
pa
chy
sip
ho
nL
ea
fa
nd
twig
20
±80
%R
oo
tb
ark
80
±10
0%
T.
pe
nd
uli¯
ora
Ste
mb
ark
10
0%
Le
af
10
0%
T.
pso
roca
rpa
Ste
mb
ark
20
-80
%L
ea
f1
00
%R
oo
tb
ark
10
0%
T.
un
du
lata
Ste
mb
ark
80
±10
0%
PLANTS SHOWINGANTIAMOEBIC ACTIVITY 9
Copyright# 2001JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Phytother.Res.15, 1–17(2001)
Tab
le1.
Con
tinue
d
S.
No
.B
ota
nic
al
na
me
(Fa
mily
)P
art
use
dE
xtr
act
/Cla
sso
fco
mp
ou
nd
Na
me
of
com
po
un
dD
ose
ef®
cie
ncy
E.
his
toly
tica
stra
inin
vit
roR
efe
ren
ce
T.
ve
ntr
ico
saS
tem
ba
rk8
0±1
00
%L
ea
f0
±20
%(A
po
cya
na
cea
e)
Ste
mb
ark
89
Te
lox
ys
gra
ve
ole
ns
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
Ca
lza
da
et
al.
(19
98
a)
(Ch
en
op
od
iace
ae
)E
nti
rep
lan
tM
eth
an
ol
N.D
.9
.13
HM
1-I
MS
SIC
50(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
HM
1-1
MS
SC
alz
ad
ae
ta
l.(1
99
9)
90
Te
lox
ys
gra
ve
ole
ns
N.A
Fla
vo
no
ids
Pin
oce
mb
rin
80
.76
(Ch
en
op
od
iace
ae
)P
ino
stro
bin
18
4.4
59
1T
etr
ace
rap
og
ge
iM
IC(m
g/m
L)
E.
his
toly
tica
To
na
et
al.
(19
98
)(D
ille
ne
ace
ae
)L
ea
ve
sD
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
>5
00
IC5
0(m
M)
E.
his
toly
tica
Go
nza
lez-
Ga
rza
et
al.
(19
93
)9
2T
he
spe
psi
ap
up
ula
na
Se
ed
oil
N.A
.(�
)-G
oss
yp
ol
0.2
35
HM
-1(M
alv
ace
ae
)2
.08
6H
K-9
0.2
25
HM
-30
.45
5H
M-2
1.0
85
HM
-38
93
Tit
ho
nia
div
ers
ifo
lia
Le
av
es
Ma
cera
tio
nin
wa
ter
MIC
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caT
on
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8)
(Ast
era
cea
e)
N.D
.6
2.5
MIC
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caN
IH2
00
ax
en
ica
nd
Po
lyx
en
ic
Bh
uta
ni
et
al.
(19
87
)
94
Ty
lop
ho
rain
dic
aA
eri
al
pa
rts
Eth
an
ol
15
0a
nd
75
.0T
ylo
ph
ori
ne
hy
dro
chlo
rid
e6
.25
an
d6
.25
Ph
en
an
thro
ind
olizi
din
ea
lka
loid
sT
ylo
ph
ori
ne
6.2
5a
nd
6.2
5T
ylo
ph
ori
nin
e4
00
an
d4
00
De
me
thy
lty
lop
ho
rin
e2
5a
nd
50
4-M
eth
ox
y-1
4-
hy
dro
xy
tylo
ph
ori
ne
3.1
2a
nd
12
.5
Ace
tylt
ylo
ph
ori
ne
d-S
ep
tici
ne
50
an
d2
5E
tha
no
l4
00
an
d4
00
Ph
en
an
thro
ind
ol-
Ty
lop
ho
rah
irsu
taA
eri
al
pa
rts
izid
ine
alk
alo
ids
Ty
loh
irsu
tin
ine
30
0a
nd
15
0(A
scle
pia
da
cea
e)
13
a-M
eth
ylt
ylo
hir
suti
nin
e5
0a
nd
10
01
3a
-Me
thy
lty
loh
irsu
tin
idin
e2
5a
nd
12
.5T
ylo
hir
suti
nid
ine
40
0a
nd
N.D
.1
3a
-Hy
dro
xy
tylo
ph
ori
ne
20
0a
nd
N.D
.1
3a
-Hy
dro
xy
sep
tici
ne
50
an
dN
.D.
Iso
tylo
cre
bin
e8
00
an
d8
00
10 P. SHARMA AND J. D. SHARMA
Copyright# 2001JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Phytother.Res.15, 1–17(2001)
Tab
le1.
Con
tinue
d
S.
No
.B
ota
nic
al
na
me
(Fa
mily
)P
art
use
dE
xtr
act
/Cla
sso
fco
mp
ou
nd
Na
me
of
com
po
un
dD
ose
ef®
cie
ncy
E.
his
toly
tica
stra
inin
vit
roR
efe
ren
ce
14
-De
ox
y-1
3a
-m
eth
ylt
ylo
hir
suti
nid
ine
25
an
d2
5
12
.5a
nd
12
.59
5V
ite
xm
ad
ien
sis
MIC
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caT
on
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8)
(Ve
rba
na
cea
e)
Le
av
es
De
coct
ion
N.D
.>
50
09
6V
oa
can
ga
afr
ica
na
Ma
cera
tio
nin
wa
ter
MIC
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caT
on
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8)
(Ap
ocy
an
ace
ae
)R
oo
tb
ark
N.D
.6
2.5
MIC
(mg
/mL
)E
.h
isto
lyti
caS
FL
3S
oh
ni
et
al.
(19
95
)9
7W
ho
lefo
rmu
lati
on
con
tain
ing
N.A
.E
tha
no
lN
.D.
10
00
Bo
err
ha
via
dif
fusa
(Ny
cta
gin
ace
ae
)T
ino
spo
raco
rdif
olia
(Me
nis
pe
rma
cea
e)
Be
rbe
ris
asi
ati
ca(B
erb
eri
da
cea
e)
Te
rmin
alia
che
bu
la(C
om
bre
tace
ae
)Z
ing
ibe
ro
f®ci
na
le(Z
ing
ibe
race
ae
)IC
50
(mg
/L)
Gillin
an
dD
iam
on
d(1
98
1)
98
Sta
nd
ard
dru
gs
ÐM
ep
acr
ine
Qu
ina
crin
eH
Cl
0.0
6-0
.5E
.h
isto
lyti
caH
M-1
:IM
SS
5-n
itro
imid
azo
leM
etr
on
ida
zole
0.1
-2.0
Em
eti
ne
HC
l2
-Ja
nIC
50
(mg
/mL
)W
rig
ht
et
al.
(19
87
)9
9S
tan
da
rdd
rug
sÐ
5-n
itro
imid
azo
leM
etr
on
ida
zole
0.3
2E
.h
isto
lyti
caN
IH2
00
Em
eti
ne
hy
dro
chlo
rid
e1
.23
4-a
min
oq
uin
olin
eC
Qd
iph
osp
ha
te1
5.1
Cin
cho
na
alk
alo
idQ
uin
ine
24
MIC
(mg
/mL
)M
ah
aja
ne
ta
l.(1
97
4)
10
0S
tan
da
rdd
rug
sÐ
5-n
itro
imid
azo
leM
etr
on
ida
zole
0.3
12
-0
.62
5E
.h
isto
lyti
can
itro
imid
azo
leT
inid
azo
le0
.62
5-
1.2
5
N.A
.,n
ot
av
aila
ble
inlite
ratu
re;
N.D
.,p
ure
-co
mp
ou
nd
sw
ere
no
td
esc
rib
ed
.
PLANTS SHOWINGANTIAMOEBIC ACTIVITY 11
Copyright# 2001JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Phytother.Res.15, 1–17(2001)
Tab
le2.
Aco
mpa
rativ
eco
mpi
latio
nof
plan
tex
trac
tsan
dco
mpo
unds
asse
ssed
for
antia
moe
bic
and
antip
lasm
odia
lac
tivity
byin
vitr
osc
reen
ing
with
E.
hist
olyt
ica
and
P.
falc
ipar
um
S.
Bo
tan
ica
ln
am
eE
xtr
act
/Cla
sso
fco
mp
ou
nd
Do
see
f®ci
en
cyD
ose
ef®
cie
ncy
No
.(F
am
ily
)a
nd
Pa
rtu
sed
Na
me
of
com
po
un
din
P.
falc
ipa
rum
inE
.h
isto
lyti
caR
efe
ren
ce
ED
50
(mM
)E
D5
0(m
M)
Wri
gh
te
ta
l.(1
99
2)
1A
lsto
nia
an
gu
stif
olia
Alk
alo
ids
Als
ton
eri
ne
46
.37
5.3
(Ap
ocy
an
ace
ae
)A
lsto
ph
yllin
e8
2.5
67
.7M
acr
als
ton
ine
Ina
ctiv
ea
t1
78
Ina
ctiv
ea
t7
0M
acr
als
ton
ine
ace
tate
3.4
31
5.5
1M
acr
oca
rpa
min
e9
.36
8.1
21
1-M
eth
ox
ya
kua
mm
icin
e4
1.3
70
.5N
or¯
uro
cura
rin
e1
29
84
.1P
leio
carp
am
ine
20
.54
7.4
Villa
sto
nin
e2
.92
11
.8V
inca
ma
jin
e1
38
ina
ctiv
ea
t7
0S
tan
da
rdd
rug
sC
Qd
iph
osp
ha
te0
.16
8N
TE
me
tin
eh
yd
roch
lori
de
NT
2.0
4IC
50
(mg
/mL
)2
An
no
na
mu
rica
taE
tha
no
lN
.D.
63
He
inri
che
ta
l.(1
99
2)
(An
no
na
cea
e)
Dic
hlo
rom
eth
an
eN
.D.
31
-63
Wa
ter
N.D
.2
50
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
Gb
ea
sso
re
ta
l.(1
99
0)
Eth
an
ol
N.D
.3
9.9
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
Wri
gh
te
ta
l.(1
98
8)
3B
ruce
aja
va
nic
aQ
ua
ssin
oid
sB
ruce
ine
A0
.01
10
.09
7(S
ima
rou
ba
cea
e)
Bru
cein
eB
0.0
11
0.3
06
Bru
cein
eC
0.0
05
0.2
79
Bru
cea
nti
n0
.00
08
0.0
19
Bru
cein
eD
0.0
15
0.3
86
Ya
da
nzi
osi
de
F5
2.3
3
IC5
0(m
M)
IC5
0(m
M)
Wri
gh
te
ta
l.(1
99
3)
4B
ruce
aja
va
nic
aQ
ua
ssin
oid
sB
ruce
an
tin
0.0
01
50
.03
5(S
ima
rou
ba
cea
e)
Bru
cein
eA
0.0
21
0.2
22
Bru
cein
eB
0.0
23
0.6
38
Bru
cein
eC
0.0
09
0.4
95
Bru
cein
eD
0.0
37
0.9
41
Bru
sato
l0
.00
60
.06
24
-Am
ino
qu
ino
lin
eC
Qd
iph
osp
ha
te0
.40
72
9.3
5-
Nit
roim
ida
zole
Me
tro
nid
azo
leN
T1
.87
MIC
(mg
/mL
)T
on
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8)
5C
ryp
tole
pis
san
gu
ino
len
taM
ace
rati
on
inw
ate
rN
.D.
�7.8
1(A
scle
pid
ea
cea
e)
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
Ind
ole
qu
ino
lin
ea
lka
loid
Cry
pto
lep
ine
0.0
31
MA
C(m
g/m
L)
Mb
ela
et
al.
(19
92
)
12 P. SHARMA AND J. D. SHARMA
Copyright# 2001JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Phytother.Res.15, 1–17(2001)
Tab
le2.
Con
tinue
d
S.
Bo
tan
ica
ln
am
eE
xtr
act
/Cla
sso
fco
mp
ou
nd
Do
see
f®ci
en
cyD
ose
ef®
cie
ncy
No
.(F
am
ily
)a
nd
Pa
rtu
sed
Na
me
of
com
po
un
din
P.
falc
ipa
rum
inE
.h
isto
lyti
caR
efe
ren
ce
6G
ard
en
iajo
vis
ton
an
tis
Aq
.E
tha
no
lN
.D.
3.1
3(R
ub
iace
ae
)n
-Bu
tan
ol
N.D
.1
.56
Fo
rmo
lH
Cl
N.D
.1
.56
Eth
er
N.D
.6
.25
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
We
en
en
et
al.
(19
90
)P
etr
ole
um
eth
er
N.D
.>
49
9D
ich
loro
me
tha
ne
N.D
.5
0±9
9M
eth
an
ol
N.D
.>
49
9
MIC
(mg
/mL
)T
on
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8)
7H
aru
ng
an
am
ad
ag
asc
ari
en
sis
De
coct
ion
N.D
.6
2.5
(Hy
pe
rica
cea
e)
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
Ge
ssle
re
ta
l.(1
99
4)
Eth
an
ol
N.D
.2
9P
etr
ole
um
eth
er
10
Eth
yla
ceta
te1
0W
ate
r8
8
MIC
(mg
/mL
)T
on
ae
ta
l.(1
99
8)
8N
au
cle
ala
tifo
lia
De
coct
ion
N.D
.>
50
0(R
ub
iace
ae
)D
eco
ctio
nN
.D.
>1
25
Gb
ea
sso
re
ta
l.(1
98
9)
Wa
ter
N.D
.1
5mg�
IC5
0<
22
/mg
MIC
(mg
/mL
)S
ha
rma
an
dB
hu
tan
i(1
98
8)
9P
art
he
niu
mh
yst
ero
ph
oro
us
Se
squ
ite
rpe
ne
lact
on
eP
art
he
nin
10
-12
.5(A
ste
race
ae
)H
oo
pe
re
ta
l.(1
99
0)
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
1.2
89
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
Wri
gh
te
ta
l.(1
98
8)
10
Sim
aro
ub
aa
ma
raQ
ua
ssin
oid
sG
lau
caru
bin
on
e0
.00
40
.16
8(S
ima
rou
ba
cea
e)
2'-
Ace
tylg
lau
caru
bin
on
e0
.00
80
.15
5A
ila
nth
ino
ne
0.0
15
0.0
63
Ho
laca
nth
on
e0
.00
70
.16
2M
etr
on
ida
zole
NT
0.3
2
IC5
0(m
M)
IC5
0(m
M)
Wri
gh
te
ta
l.(1
99
3)
11
Sim
aro
ub
aa
ma
raQ
ua
ssin
oid
sA
ila
nth
ino
ne
0.0
19
0.1
32
(Sim
aro
ub
ace
ae
)G
lau
caru
bin
on
e0
.00
80
.32
3
IC5
0(m
M)
IC5
0(m
M)
Wri
gh
te
ta
l.(1
99
4)
12
Str
ych
no
sh
en
nin
gsi
iA
lka
loid
sH
ols
tilin
e3
1.5
Ina
ctiv
ea
t6
3(L
og
an
iace
ae
)H
ols
tiin
e3
2.7
Ina
ctiv
ea
t6
5C
Qd
iph
osp
ha
te0
.15
6N
TE
me
tin
ed
ihy
dro
chlo
rid
e0
.13
3.0
7
PLANTS SHOWINGANTIAMOEBIC ACTIVITY 13
Copyright# 2001JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Phytother.Res.15, 1–17(2001)
Tab
le2.
Con
tinue
d
S.
Bo
tan
ica
ln
am
eE
xtr
act
/Cla
sso
fco
mp
ou
nd
Do
see
f®ci
en
cyD
ose
ef®
cie
ncy
No
.(F
am
ily
)a
nd
Pa
rtu
sed
Na
me
of
com
po
un
din
P.
falc
ipa
rum
inE
.h
isto
lyti
caR
efe
ren
ce
Me
tro
nid
azo
leN
T1
.87
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
IC5
0(m
g/m
L)
Wri
gh
te
ta
l.(1
99
1)
13
Str
ych
no
su
sam
ba
ren
sis
Alk
alo
ids
Usa
mb
are
nsi
ne
0.3
80
.49
(Lo
ga
nia
cea
e)
3'4
'-D
ihy
dro
usa
mb
are
nsi
ne
0.0
12
.18
Nb
-me
thy
lusa
mb
are
nsi
ne
Ch
lori
de
2.3
94
.12
Usa
mb
ari
ne
18
,19
-Dih
yd
rou
sam
ba
rin
eo
xa
late
1.8
50
.46
Str
ych
no
pe
nta
min
e1
.07
0.6
5S
try
chn
op
en
tam
ine
me
tha
ne
sulp
ho
na
teIs
ost
rych
no
pe
nta
min
eb
ase
0.0
97
.7A
kag
eri
ne
0.0
91
0.1
Tu
bu
losi
ne
NT
10
.76
.98
17
.10
.02
NT
IC5
0(m
M)
IC5
0(m
M)
Wri
gh
te
ta
l.(1
99
4)
14
Str
ych
no
su
sam
ba
ren
sis
Alk
alo
ids
5,6
-Dih
yd
ro¯
av
op
ere
irin
e3
.02
24
.31
(Lo
ga
nia
cea
e)
Iso
stry
chn
op
en
tam
ine
0.7
65
19
.5S
try
chn
ofo
lin
e1
3.8
Ina
ctiv
ea
t5
2S
try
chn
op
en
tam
ine
0.1
64
14
Str
ych
no
pe
nta
min
em
eth
an
esu
lph
on
ate
0.1
41
5.7
Usa
mb
are
nsi
ne
3',4
'-D
ihy
dro
usa
mb
are
nsi
ne
0.8
81
.13
Nb
-me
thy
lusa
mb
are
nsi
ne
chlo
rid
e0
.02
35
.02
Usa
mb
ari
ne
5.3
45
9.2
21
8,1
9-D
ihy
dro
usa
mb
ari
ne
ox
ala
te�4
.11
1.0
21
.98
1.2
IC5
0(m
M)
IC5
0(m
M)
Wri
gh
te
ta
l.(1
99
4)
15
Str
ych
no
sv
ari
ab
ilis
Alk
alo
ids
O-A
cety
liso
reti
culin
e2
2.1
Ina
ctiv
ea
t6
6(L
og
an
iace
ae
)Is
ore
ticu
lin
e�9
2In
act
ive
at
74
Re
tulin
al/is
ore
tulin
al
36
Ina
ctiv
ea
t7
5R
etu
lin
e�9
2In
act
ive
at
74
Iso
stry
chn
ob
ilin
e2
.07
Ina
ctiv
ea
t4
1D
ide
hy
dro
iso
stry
chn
ob
ilin
em
on
om
eth
an
esu
lph
on
ate
1.6
7In
act
ive
at
35
14 P. SHARMA AND J. D. SHARMA
Copyright# 2001JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Phytother.Res.15, 1–17(2001)
Tab
le2.
Con
tinue
d
S.
Bo
tan
ica
ln
am
eE
xtr
act
/Cla
sso
fco
mp
ou
nd
Do
see
f®ci
en
cyD
ose
ef®
cie
ncy
No
.(F
am
ily
)a
nd
Pa
rtu
sed
Na
me
of
com
po
un
din
P.
falc
ipa
rum
inE
.h
isto
lyti
caR
efe
ren
ce
12
'-H
yd
rox
yis
ost
rych
no
bilin
em
on
om
eth
an
esu
lph
on
ate
1.5
8In
act
ive
at
34
Str
ych
no
bilin
e1
.03
Ina
ctiv
ea
t3
5IC
50
(mM
)IC
50
(mM
)M
ars
ha
lle
ta
l.(1
99
4)
16
N.A
.B
isb
en
zyliso
qu
ino
lin
eF
un
ife
rin
e0
.63
10
8(M
en
isp
erm
ace
ae
)a
lka
loid
sT
ilia
ge
ne
6.3
2>
41
1D
ap
hn
olin
e0
.96
46
.4A
rom
olin
e1
.36
10
5H
om
oa
rom
olin
e3
.46
>8
2.2
Ox
ya
can
thin
eH
Cl
1.0
67
4.4
Th
aliso
pid
ine
0.0
94
1.2
Ph
ae
nth
ine
1.4
64
3.6
Te
tra
nd
rin
e0
.57
NT
Iso
tetr
an
dri
ne
0.1
6N
TT
etr
an
dri
ne
me
thio
did
e>
65
.4>
32
.7P
ycn
am
ine
0.8
33
1.9
Fa
ng
chin
olin
e1
.43
10
4B
erb
am
ine
0.4
51
7.8
Ob
am
eg
ine
0.7
45
5.4
Din
kla
cori
ne
3.9
25
4.8
Iso
cho
nd
od
en
dri
ne
22
>4
21
Tri
gille
tim
ine
42
.1>
44
8C
ocs
olin
e1
.16
NT
4-A
min
oq
uin
olin
eC
ocs
ulin
ine
�88
.9>
22
25
-Nit
roim
ida
zole
Iso
trilo
bin
e2
.06
18
.8C
ocs
ulin
em
eth
iod
ide
>1
7.8
>3
55
Gille
tin
e1
.81
38
.3In
sula
rin
ep
icra
te2
.07
>2
94
CQ
dip
ho
sph
ate
0.2
NT
Em
eti
ne
hy
dro
chlo
rid
eN
T2
.23
Me
tro
nid
azo
leN
T1
.87
CQ
,ch
loro
qu
ine
;MA
C,m
inim
um
am
oe
bic
ida
lco
nce
ntr
ati
on
;N.A
.,n
ota
va
ila
ble
inlite
ratu
re;N
.D.,
aft
er
cru
de
ex
tra
ctio
ns
pu
reco
mp
ou
nd
sw
ere
no
td
ete
cte
d;N
T,n
otte
ste
din
the
stu
dy
.
PLANTS SHOWINGANTIAMOEBIC ACTIVITY 15
Copyright# 2001JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Phytother.Res.15, 1–17(2001)
screeningof plant material should to be followed bystudies of their cytotoxicity. In vitro amoebicidalorplasmodicidalactivity canbe comparedwith cytoxicityto guinea-pigear keratinocytes(GPK cells), KB cells,HeLacells,andothercell lines,humanerythrocytesetc,measuredas DNA- and protein-synthesisinferred fromtheinhibition of theuptakeof tritiatedthymidinein vitro.Some measureof specificity can also be obtainedbycomparisonsof cytotoxicity betweennon-specificcul-tures.Someantiamoebiccompoundswhich have beenisolated from plants have also been shown to becytotoxic, with little evidencethat toxicity with quassi-noids may not parallel antiamoebicactivity and haveamore favourable therapeutic ratio. Such cytotoxicitystudiesmay also be useful in the evaluationof naturalproductsas leadsfor the synthesisof evenmoreusefulderivativesandfor studieson structure–activityrelation-ships, drug sensitivity, multi-drug resistanceand evenresistancereversal.
CONCLUSION
Over100plantspeciesandnumerouscompoundsderivedfrom themhavebeenevaluatedfor antiamoebicactivityor for both antiamoebic and antiprotozoal activity.Compositeor non-specificactivity of plant extractsisapparentlysignificant in traditional usesand cures.Inareas of limited resources,maintaining a minimum‘freedom from disease’or its containmentwith the useof such composite formulations may be more cost-effective than repeateddiagnostic and prognostic in-vestigations,and the cost of the drug along with itsdevelopment.In developingcountriesit is still economic-ally importantfor thepeopleto resortto plant remedies.Studiessuchasthosereportedin this reviewmayhelptorestoreconfidencein theuseof suchtraditionalplants.
Acknowledgements
We sincerelyacknowledgeMr Basantfor computerizingthe text andformatting the tables.This work waspursuedwith the help of UGCFellowshipgrantedto PoonamSharmatowardsherPhDProgramme.
REFERENCES
Adams EB, Macleod IN. 1977. Invasive amoebiasis I. Amoebicdysentery and its constituents. Medicine, 56: 315±323.
Ahmed A, Khan KA, Ahmed V. 1966. In vitro amoebicidalstudies on the alkaloids of Prosopis juli¯ora. Pak J Zoo 28:365±367.
Anturlikar SD, Gopumadhavan S, Mitra SK, Chauhan BL,Kulkarni BD. 1993. Antiamoebic activity of Cassia ®stula:In vitro and in vivo study. Indian Drugs 30: 582±585.
Balamuth W. 1952. Action of antibiotics against intestinalamoebae in vitro. Ann New York Acad Sci 55: 1093±1103.
Bhutani KK, Sharma GL, Ali M. 1987. Plant based antiamoebicdrugs: Part I. Antiamoebic activity of phenanthroidolizi-dine alkaloids: common structural determinants ofactivity with emetine. Planta Med 53: 532±536.
Bories C, Loiseau P, Cortes D et al. 1991. Antiparasitic activityof Annona muricata and Annona cherimolia seeds. PlantaMed 57: 434±436.
Calzada F, Alanis AD, Meckers M, Tapia-Contretas A, Cedillo-Rivera R. 1998b. In vitro susceptibility of Entamoebahistolytica and Giardia lamblia to some medicinal plantsused by people of Southern Mexico. Phytother Res 12:70±72.
Calzada F, Meckes M, Cedillo-Rivera R. 1999. Antiamoebicand antigiardial activity of plant ¯avonoids. Planta Med65: 78±80.
Calzada F, Meckes M, Cedillo-Rivera R, Tapia-Contreras A,Mata R. 1998a. Screening of Mexican medicinal plants forantiprotozoal activity. Pharmaceut Biol 36: 305±309.
Cedeno JR, Chatterjee DK, Iyer N, Krogstad DJ, Ganguli BN.1987. Antiamoebic activity of Chonemorphine, a steroidalalkaloid, in experimental models. Parasitol Res 74: 30±33.
Cedeno JR, Krogstad DJ. Susceptibility testing of Entamoebahistolytica. J Infect Dis 148: 1090±1095.
Clark, CG. 1998. Royal Society of Tropical Medicine andHygiene meeting at Manson House, London, 19 February1998. Amoebic disease. Entamoeba dispar; an organismreborn. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 92: 361±364.
Gasquet M, Quetin-Leclercq J, Timon-David P, Balansard G,Angenot L. 1992. Antiparasitic properties of diploceline, aquaternary alkaloid from Strychnos gossweileri. PlantaMed 58: 276±277.
Gbeassor M, Kedjagni AY, Koumaglo K et al. 1990. In vitroantimalarial activity of six medicinal plants. PhytotherRes 4: 115±117.
Gbeassor M, Kossou Y, Amegbo K, De Souza C, Koumaglo K,
Denke A. 1989. Antimalarial effects of eight Africanmedicinal plants. J Ethnopharmacol 25: 115±118.
Gessler MC, Nkunya MHH, Mwasumbi LB, Heinrich M,Tanner M. 1994. Screening Tanzanian medicinal plantsfor antimalarial activity. Acta Trop 56: 65±77.
Ghoshal S, Krishn Parasad BN, Lakshmi V. 1996. Antiamoebicactivity of Piper longum fruits against Entamoebahistolytica in vitro and in vivo. J Ethnopharmacol 50:167±170.
Gillin FD, Diamond LS. 1981. Inhibition of clonal growth ofGiardia lamblia and Entamoeba histolytica by metroni-dazole, quinacrine and other antimalarial agents. JAntimicrob Chemother 8: 305±316.
Gillin FD, Reiner DS, Suffness M. 1982. Bruceantin, a potentamoebicide from a plant, Brucea antidysenterica. Anti-microb Agents Chemother 22: 342±345.
Gomes MA, Melo MN, Pena GP, Silva EF. 1997. Virulenceparameters in the characterization of strains of Entamoe-ba histolytica. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo 39: 65±69.
Gonzalez-Garza MT, Martin SA, Mata-Cardenas BD, Said-Fernandez S. 1993. Differential effects of the (�)ÿ and(ÿ)ÿ gossypol enantiomers upon Entamoeba histolyticaaxenic cultures. J Pharm Pharmac 45: 144±145.
Gonzalez-Garza MT, Said-Fernandez S. 1988. Entamoebahistolytica: potent in vitro antiamoebic effect of gossypol.Exp Parasitol 66: 253±255.
Harris A, Phillipson JD. 1982. Cytotoxic and amoebicidalcompounds from Picrasma excelsa (Jamaican quassia). JPharm Pharmac 34 (10±12): 43.
Heinrich M, Kuhnt M, Wright CW et al. 1992. Parasitologicaland microbial evaluation of Mixe Indian medicinal plants(Mexico). J Ethnopharmacol 36: 81±85.
Hooper M, Kirby GC, Kulkarni MM. 1990. Antimalarial activityof parthenin and its derivatives. Eur J Med Chem 25: 717±723.
Joshi N, Garg HS, Bhakuni DS. 1990. Chemical constituentsof Piper schmidtii: Structure of a new neolignanschmiditin. J Nat Prod 53: 479±482.
Keene AT, Harris A, Phillipson JD, Warhurst DC. 1986. In vitroamoebicidal testing of natural products: Part I. Methodol-ogy. Planta Med 52: 278±285.
Keene AT, Phillipson JD, Warhurst DC, Koch M, Seguin E.1987. In vitro amoebicidal testing of natural products: Part2. Alkaloids related to emetine. Planta Med 53: 201±206.
Kradolfer F, Jarumilinta R. 1965. CIBA 32,644-Ba, a new
16 P. SHARMA AND J. D. SHARMA
Copyright# 2001JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Phytother.Res.15, 1–17(2001)
systemically active amoebicide. Ann Trop Med Parasitol59: 210±218.
Mahajan RC, Chitkara NL, Vinayak, Dutta DV. 1974. In vitrocomparative evaluation of tinidazole and metronidazoleon strains of E histolytica. Indian J Path Bact 17: 226±228.
Marshall MM, Naumovitz D, Ortega Y, Sherling CR. 1997.Water borne pathogens. Clin Microb Rev 10: 67±85.
Marshall SJ, Russell PF, Wright CW et al 1994. In vitroantiplasmodial, antiamoebic, and cytotoxic activities of aseries of bisbenzylisoquinoline alkaloids. AntimicrobAgents Chemother 38: 96±103.
Mbela TKM, Shabani M, Dieyi S, Cimanga K, Moswa L. 1992.Amoebicidal, fungicidal and bactericidal properties ofbark extracts of Gardenia jovis tonantis. Fitoterapia LXIII:179-183.
Mirelman D, Monheit D, Varon S. 1987. Inhibition of growthof Entamoeba histolytica by allicin, the active principle ofgarlic extract (Allium sativum). J Infect Dis 156: 493±500.
Natarajan PN, Wan ASC, Zaman V. 1974. Antimalarial,antiamoebic and toxicity tests on gentianine. PlantaMed 25: 258±260.
Rogers L. 1912. The rapid cure of amoebic dysentery andhepatitis by hypodermic injections of soluble salts ofemetine. Br Med Jr 22: 1424±1425.
Shah V, Sunder R, De Souza NJ. 1987. Chonemorphine andraanone-antiparasitic agents from plant sources. J NatProd 50: 730±731.
Sharma GL, Bhutani KK. 1988. Plant based antiamoebicdrugs: Part II. Amoebicidal activity of parthenin isolatedfrom Parthenium hysterophorus. Planta Med 54: 120±122.
Sharma PK, Sharma JD. 1996. Potent amoebicides from plantextractsÐAn in vitro assessment with the gum-oleo-resinof Commiphora wightti. Curr Sci, 71: 68±70.
Sohni YR, Kaimal P, Bhat RM. 1995. The antiamoebic effect ofcrude drug formulation of herbal extracts against Ent-amoeba histolytica in vitro and in vivo. J Ethnopharma-col, 45: 43±52.
Stanley SL Jr. 1996. Progress towards an amoebiasisvaccine. Parasitol Today 12: 7±14.
Tanowitz HB, Wittner M, Rosenbaum RM, Kress Y. 1975. Invitro studies on the differential toxicity of metronidazolein protozoa and mammalian cells. Ann Trop MedParasitol 69: 19±28.
Tona L, Kambu K, Ngimbi N, Cimanga K, Vlietinck AJ. 1998.Antiamoebic and phytochemical screening of someCongolese medicinal plants. J Ethnopharmacol 61: 57±65.
Uniyal SK, Bahuguna S, Sati OP. 1990. Biological screening ofextracts of some medicinal plants from Garhwal. HerbaHungarica 29: 37±41.
Van Assendelft F, Miller JW, Mintz DT, Schack JA, Ottolenghi
P, Most H. 1956. The use of Glaucarubin (a crystallineglycoside isolated from Simarouba glauca) in the treat-ment of human colonic amoebiasis. Am J Trop Med Hyg,5: 501±503.
Van Beek TA, Deelder AM, Verpoorte R, Svendsen AB. 1984.Antimicrobial, antiamoebic and antiviral screening ofsome Tabernaemontana sp. Planta Med 50: 180±185.
Villaescusa L, Diaz AM, Martin T, Gasquet M, Delmas F,Balansard G. 1996. Preliminary screening of antiprotozoalactivity of Jasonia glutinosa aerial parts. Int J Pharmacog34: 303±304.
Weenen H, Nkunya MHH, Mwasumbi LB, Kinabo LS, KilimaliVAEB. 1990. Antimalarial activity of Tanzanian medicinalplants. Planta Med 56: 368±370.
White AC. 1933. The physiological action of norconessine. JPharm Exp Ther 48: 79±87.
WHO. 1985. Amoebiasis and its control. Bull WHO 63: 417±426.
Wright CW, Allen D, Cai Y et al. 1994. Selective antiprotozoalactivity of some Strychnos alkaloids. Phytother Res 8:149±152.
Wright CW, Allen D, Cai Y et al. 1992. In vitro antiamoebic andantiplasmodial activities of alkaloids isolated from Alsto-nia angustifolia roots. Phytother Res 6: 121±124.
Wright CW, Anderson MM, Allen D et al. 1993. Quassinoidsexhibit greater selectivity against Plasmodium falcipar-um than Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia intestinalis orToxoplasma gondii in vitro. J Eukaryotic Microbiol 40:244±246.
Wright CW, Bray DH, O' Neill MJ et al 1991. Antiamoebic andantiplasmodial activities of alkaloids isolated fromStrychnos usambarensis. Planta Med 57: 337±340.
Wright CW, Kane SR, O'Neill MJ, Phillipson JD, Warhurst DC.1989. In vitro antiamoebic activity of some plants used intraditional medicine. In Biochemistry and MolecularBiology of `Anaerobic' Protozoa, Lloyd D, Coombs GH,Paget TAP (eds). Harwood: London; 242±253.
Wright CW, O' Neill MJ, Phillipson JD, Warhurst DC. 1987. Amicrodilution assay for determination of in vitro activityagainst Entamoeba histolytica. J Pharm Pharmacol 39(Suppl.): 105.
Wright CW, O'Neill MJ, Phillipson JD, Warhurst DC. 1988.Use of microdilution to assess in vitro antiamoebicactivities of Brucea javanica fruits, Simarouba amarastem, and a number of quassinoids. Antimicrob AgentsChemother 32: 1725±1729.
Yu HW, Wright CW, Cai Y et al. 1994. Antiprotozoal activitiesof Centipeda minima. Phytother Res 8: 436±438.
Youssef KA.1968. The `Drug Amoeba' in the screening andstudy of antiamoebic agents and antibiotics. Trans RoySoc Trop Med Hyg 62: 153±154.
PLANTS SHOWINGANTIAMOEBIC ACTIVITY 17
Copyright# 2001JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Phytother.Res.15, 1–17(2001)
