Buradasınız

ASSESSMENT OF TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE OF CELL WALL CONTENTS OF LACTOBACILLUS ACIDOPHILUS (PROBIOTIC) IN WISTAR RATS AND SWISS ALBINO MICE

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Abstract (2. Language): 
The objective of present study was to assess the toxicological profile of the cell wall contents of L.acidophilus by acute (single dose) and subacute (repeated dose) toxicity study. The results of study provide information on target organs, possibilities of accumulation and estimation of No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL), which can be useful in establishing safety criteria for human exposure. Toxicity studies were carried out in rats and mice of each sex by subcutaneous administration. Acute study was carried out by subcutaneous administration of single high dose of cell wall contents of L.acidophilus obtained from 1012 CFU/mL. Subacute toxicity study was carried out by repeated administration of cell wall contents of L. acidophilus obtained from 106, 109 and 1012 CFU/mL for 28 days in each sex of rats and mice. Signs and symptoms of toxicity were observed periodically. Physio-dynamic parameters viz. change in body weight; food intake and water intake were recorded weekly. After completion of study, animals were sacrificed; their hematological and biochemical parameters were estimated and gross morphology with histopathology of vital organs was done. Cell wall contents of L.acidophilus did not show any mortality and signs of toxicity; moreover, no significant changes in hematological, biochemical and histopathological parameters were observed. In conclusion, cell wall contents of L.acidophilus studied at highest dose was found to be nontoxic.
329-337

REFERENCES

References: 

1. S. V. Chauhan, M. R. Chorawala. Probiotics,
prebiotics and synbiotics, International journal of
pharmaceutical science and research 3(3): 711-
726 (2012).
2. M. B. Roberfroid. Prebiotics and Synbiotics:
concepts and nutritional properties, British
Journal of Nutrition 80:S197-S202 (1998).
3. R. B. Sartor. Therapeutic manipulation of the
intestinal microflora in Inflammatory Bowel
Diseases: antibiotics, Probiotics and Prebiotics,
Gastroenterology 126:1620-1633 (2004).
4. C. F. McNaught, J. Macfie. Probiotics in clinical
practice: a critical review of the evidence,
Nutrition research 21: 343-353 (2001).
5. T. Borchers, C. Selmi, F. J. Meyers, C. L. Keen, M. E.
Gershwin. Probiotics and immunity, J
Gastroenterol 44: 26-46 (2009).
6. Vanderpool, F. Yan, D. B. Polk. Mechanisms of
Probiotic action: Implications for therapeutic
applications in inflammatory bowel diseases,
Inflamm Bowel Dis 14(2): 1585-1596 (2008).
7. S. Le beer, I. J. Claes, J. Vanderleyden. Antiinflammatory
potential of Probiotics: Lipoteichoic
acid makes a difference, Trends in Microbiology
1-6 (2011).
8. E. M. Quigley, B. Flourie. Probiotics and irritable
bowel syndrome: a rationale for their use and an
assessment of the evidence to date,
Neurogastroenterol Motil 19: 166–172 (2007).
9. S. V. Chauhan, M. R. Chorawala, G. B. Shah.
Evaluation of cell wall contents of probiotics
(L.casei, L.acidophilus, L.rhamnosus) in
lipopolysaccharide induced model of
inflammatory bowel diseases, M. Pharm Thesis,
May 2018. K. B. Institute of Pharmaceutical
Education and Research, Gandhinagar, Gujarat,
India.
10. B. S. Roberson and W. J. Cromatte. Influence of
the physical state of endotoxic preparations on
dermal toxicity, Journal of Bacteriology 84: 882-
887 (1962).
11. S. Teo, D. Stirling, S. Thomas, A. Hobermann, A.
Kiorpes, V. Khetani. A 90 days oral gavage
toxicity study of d-methyl penidate and DLmethyl
penidate in Sprague-dawley rats,
Toxicology 179: 189-196 (2002).
12. W. Hayes (ed): Principles and Methods of
Toxicology, 5th Edition, 2007, Informa Health
care, New York, NY.
13. M. Raza, O. A. Al-Shabanah, T. M. El-Hadiyah A. A.
Al-Majed. Effect of prolonged vigabatrin
treatment on hematological and biochemical
parameters in plasma, liver and kidney of swiss
albino mice, Sci. Pharma 70: 135-146 (2002).

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com