Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:23:19.653Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The alkaloidal content of blue lupine (Lupinus angustifolius L.) and its toxicity on small laboratory animals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

W. Carl Gordon  and
James H. M. Henderson
W. Carl Gordon
Affiliation:
George W. Carver Foundation, Tuskegee Institute, Alabama, U.S.A.
James H. M. Henderson
Affiliation:
George W. Carver Foundation, Tuskegee Institute, Alabama, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A method of extraction and isolation of the alkaloid of blue lupine was adopted for small samples of the various plant parts: seeds, leaves and pods.

2. From the evidence presented, it is shown that the seeds of blue lupine contain a higher percentage of crude alkaloid, than do the pods and leaves. On the basis of the extractions and isolation, seeds contained as much as 2·25%, leaves were found to contain 0·69%, and pods contained 1·46%.

3. The alkaloid isolated was identified as D-lupanine by its characteristic physical and chemical properties. The anhydrous monohydrochloride salt was prepared in pure form and from it were obtained samples of the pure free base, d-lupanine.

4. Toxicity determinations, involving the injection of water solutions of the crude free base, hydrochloride salt and the pure free base, administered intraperitoneally in guinea-pigs, rats and mice were carried out. Mice were found to be most susceptible, rats less susceptible, and guineapigs least susceptible to the effect of the various solutions injected. The minimal lethal dose (m.l.d.) is given for all three species of animals, and in addition the 50% lethal doses l.d. 50 are given for mice. The purest samples were the most toxic.

5. The symptoms shown by guinea-pigs, rats and mice poisoned by the alkaloid are similar. Gross pathology of the animals killed indicated death by asphyxiation.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 41 , Issue 1-2 , January 1951 , pp. 141 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1951

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

Clemo, G. H. & Raper, R. (1933). J. Chem. Soc. p. 644.Google Scholar
Couch, J. F. (1926). J. Agric. Res. 32, 51.Google Scholar
Couch, J. F. (1934). J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 56, 2434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couch, J. F. (1937). J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 59, 1469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gemma, A. M. (1882). Gaz. Med. Ital. (ser. 8, t. 4) 42, 147. (Quoted from Couch J. F. (1926). J. Agric. Res. 82, 51.)Google Scholar
Hagan, Max (1891). Liebigs Ann. 230, 370.Google Scholar
Marsh, C. D., Clawson, A. B. & Marsh, H. (1916). U.S. Dep. Agric. Bull. no. 405, 50 pp.Google Scholar
Raimondi, C. (1890). R. 1st. Lombardo Sci. e Let. Rend. (II) 23, 305. (Cf. Quotation from Couch J. F. (1926) J. Agric. Res. 32, 51.Google Scholar
Siebert, H. C. (1891). Arch. Pharm. 229, 544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar