Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:21:02.694Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the anthelmintic activity of hexylresorcinol and tetrachlorethylene

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

W. P. Rogers
W. P. Rogers*
Affiliation:
from the Molteno Institute, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A method for examining conditions governing anthelmintic activity in the small intestine is described. Nippostrongylus muris in the rat was the test organism and hexylresorcinol and C2C14 were the drugs examined.

2. The efficiency of hexylresorcinol was reduced by 50% in 1% sodium tauroglycocholate which reached a concentration of 1·3% in the rat small intestine. The adsorption of this drug on mucin reduced its concentration in intestinal fluids and prevented penetration to parasites under mucus. These inhibiting factors account for the inactivity of hexylresorcinol in the rat.

3. Tetrachlorethylene, which stimulated N. muris to leave mucus and enter fluids in the intestinal lumen, was not inhibited by bile salt and was found to act rapidly in the rat.

4. Sodium laurate activated hexylresorcinol more efficiently than sodium oleate at pH. 6·5. Both soaps showed intrinsic anthelmintic properties.

5. The results obtained in examining the rate of movement of fluids down the intestine and the effects of detergents, bile salts, mucin and ascorbic acid on drug activity are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 36 , Issue 1-2 , September 1944 , pp. 98 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1944

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

Baldwin, E. (1943). Parasitology, 35, 89–111.Google Scholar
Brown, H. W. (1932). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol., N.Y., 30, 221–5.10.3181/00379727-30-6434Google Scholar
Brown, H. W. (1934). J. Amer. Med. Ass. 103, 651–60.Google Scholar
Cole, S. W. (1937). Lancet, 233, 575–76.Google Scholar
Chabrol, E., Charonnet, R., Maximin, M. & Boc-Quentin, A. (1930). C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 103, 3–5.Google Scholar
Dopter, C. & Deschiens, R. (1938). C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 129, 628–32.Google Scholar
Findlay, G. M. (1939). Recent Advances in Chemotherapy. London: J. and A. Churchill.Google Scholar
Friedmann, L. (1930). J. Amer. Chem. Soc., 52, 1305–11.Google Scholar
Gordon, H. & Whitlock, H. (1939). J. Coun. Sci. Industr. Res. Aust. 12, 50–2.Google Scholar
Jarisch, A. (1922). Biochem. Z. 134, 163–76.Google Scholar
Lamson, P. D. & Brown, H. W. (1936). Amer. J. Hyg. 23, 85–103.Google Scholar
Lamson, P. D. & Ward, C. B. (1932). J. Parasit. 18, 173–99.Google Scholar
Lamson, P. D., Brown, H. W. & Ward, C. B. (1935). J. Pharmacol. 53, 198–217.Google Scholar
Lamson, P. D., Caldwell, B. L., Brown, H. W. & Ward, C. B. (1931). Amer. J. Hyg. 13, 568–75.Google Scholar
McClean, D. & Hale, C. W. (1941). Biochem. J. 35, 159–83.Google Scholar
Robertson, W., Ropes, M. W. & Bauer, W. (1940). J. Biol. Chem. 133, 261–76.Google Scholar
Snell, F. D. & Snell, C. T. (1937). Colorimetric Methods of Analysis. New York: D. Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Steinmetzer, R. (1926). Wien. klin. Wschr. 39, 1–64.Google Scholar
Thomson, W. (1936). J. Hyg., Camb., 36, 24–5.Google Scholar
Trendelenburg, P. (1916). Arch. exp. Path. Pharmak. 79, 190–217.Google Scholar
Trim, A. R. (1943). Parasitology, 35, 209–19.Google Scholar
Watchorn, E. (1932). J. Hyg., Camb., 32, 156–70.10.1017/S0022172400017903Google Scholar
Wetzel, R. (1931). J. Parasit. 17, 95–7.10.2307/3271440Google Scholar
Whitlock, J. H. & Bliss, C. I. (1943). J. Parasit. 29, 48–58.Google Scholar
Williams, J. W. & Cady, L. C. (1934). Chem. Rev. 14, 171–217.10.1021/cr60048a001Google Scholar
Zuber, R. (1932). Z. Phys. 79, 280–91.10.1007/BF01349393Google Scholar