Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:23:20.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors influencing the assessment of anticoccidial activity in cell culture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Victoria S. Latter  and
R. G. Wilson
Victoria S. Latter
Affiliation:
Wellcome Research Laboratories, Langley Court, Beckenham, Kent BR3 3BS
R. G. Wilson
Affiliation:
Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd, Pharmaceuticals Division, Mereside, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire SK10 4TG
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A comparative study has been made of the factors influencing the assessment of anticoccidial potency in vitro against Eimeria tenella using established anticoccidials and arprinocid and some of its analogues. Drugs whose potency depended upon medium composition were amprolium, lasalocid and halofuginone. There was a difference in strain sensitivity with robenidine. Host cell type had an important effect on potency of monensin, decoquinate, arprinocid and its analogues. Arprinocid was active in chick liver cell systems but totally inactive in chick kidney cell systems, although its N-oxide was active in both cell types. Arprinocid-containing medium, conditioned by supporting the growth of chick embryo liver cell cultures, had an anticoccidial effect on E. tenella, growing in chick kidney cells. It is deduced that the anticoccidial activity of arprinocid in the chick is due to a metabolite.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 79 , Issue 1 , August 1979 , pp. 169 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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

REFERENCES

Ball, S. J., Warren, E. W. & Parnell, E. W. (1965). Anticoccidial activity of nicotinamide antagonists. Nature, London 208, 397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carrington, H. C., Crowther, A. E., Davey, D. G., Levi, A. A. & Rose, F. L. (1951). A metabolite of Paludrine with high antimalarial activity. Nature, London 168, 1080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacob, T. A., Buhs, R. P., Rosegay, A., Carlin, J., Van den Heuvel, W. I. A. & Wolf, F. J. (1978). Identification of 6-amino-9-(2-chloro-6-fluorobenzyl) purine-1-N-oxide, a urinary metabolite of 6-amino-9-(2-chloro-6-fluorobenzyl) purine MK-302, Arprinocid. Federation Proceedings 37, 813.Google Scholar
McDougald, L. R. & Galloway, R. B. B. (1973). Eimeria tenella: anticoccidial drug activity in cell cultures. Experimental Parasitology 34, 189–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryley, J. F. & Wilson, R. G. (1971). Studies on the mode of action of the coccidiostat robenidine. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 37, 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryley, J. F. & Wilson, R. G. (1972). Growth factor antagonism studies with coccidia in tissue culture. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 40, 31–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryley, J. F. & Wilson, R. G. (1976). Drug screening in cell culture for the detection of anticoccidial activity. Parasitology 73, 137–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryley, J. F. & Wilson, R. G. (1978). Cell and tissue culture. In Methods of Cultivating Parasites in vitro (ed. Taylor, A. E. R. and Baker, J. R.), pp. 111–28. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wang, C. C., Simashkevich, P. M. & Stotish, R. L. (1978). Arprinocid, an inhibitor of hypoxanthine–guanine transport. Federation Proceedings 37, 1351.Google Scholar
Wolf, F. J., Steffens, J. J., Alvaro, R. F. & Jacob, T. A. (1978). Microsomal conversion of MK-302, Arprinocid [6-amino.9-(2-chloro-6-fluorobenzyl) purine] to 6-amino-9-(2-chloro-6-fluorobenzyl) purine-1-N-oxide by liver microsomes from the chicken and the dog and to 2-chloro-6-fluorobenzyl alcohol by liver microsomes from the rat and mouse. Federation Proceedings 37, 814.Google Scholar