↓ Skip to main content

Toxicological investigation of acute and chronic treatment with Gnidia stenophylla Gilg root extract on some blood parameters and histopathology of spleen, liver and kidney in mice

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Toxicological investigation of acute and chronic treatment with Gnidia stenophylla Gilg root extract on some blood parameters and histopathology of spleen, liver and kidney in mice
Published in
BMC Research Notes, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2964-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tilahun Alemayehu Nigatu, Mekbeb Afework, Kelbessa Urga, Wondwossen Ergete, Eyasu Makonnen

Abstract

In southeast Ethiopia, people locally use the roots of Gnidia stenophylla Gilg (Thymelaeaceae) to cure malaria and other diseases with no literature evidence substantiating its safety. The aim of this study was, therefore, to investigate the safety of the aqueous root extract of G. stenophylla after acute (single dose) and repeated sub chronic oral administration in mice. A single oral administration of the extract at 500, 1000, 2000 and 4000 mg/kg body weight did not induce any behavioral change and mortality in both sexes. The oral LD50 of the extract was found to be above 6000 mg/kg body weight in mice. Chronic treatment with the extract for 13 weeks did not induce any sign of illness and/or death and had no adverse effect on the body weight. Dose-related elevations of erythrocytes, hematocrit, hemoglobin, platelets and neutrophils differential and significant decrease in the number of lymphocyte were observed. Liver sections of mice treated with 800 mg/kg body weight, revealed mild inflammations around the portal triads and central veins; whereas the spleen and kidneys appeared normal with no detectable gross morphological and histopathological alteration at both doses. The results of this study revealed that aqueous root extract of G. stenophylla Gilg at antimalarial dose is safe even when taken for a longer period. At a higher dose, the extract may have a potential to increase some hematological indices but may induce mild hepatotoxicity as a side effect.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 17%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 23 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 6%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 23 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,577,751
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,037
of 4,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#326,067
of 438,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#119
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,284 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 438,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.