Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34521944›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Evaluation of acute and subacute toxicity of ethanolic extract and fraction of alkaloids from bark of Aspidosperma nitidum in mice.

Heliton Patrick Cordovil Brígido, Everton Luiz Pompeu Varela, Antônio Rafael Quadros Gomes, Mirian Letícia Carmo Bastos, Andre de Oliveira Feitosa, Andrey Moacir do Rosário Marinho, Liliane Almeida Carneiro, Márlia Regina Coelho-Ferreira, Maria Fâni Dolabela, Sandro Percário

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Toxicological Assessment and Dual Protective Roles ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Frontiers in chemistry · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Heliton Patrick Cordovil BrígidoPost-graduate Program in Pharmaceutical Innovation, Institute of Health Sciences, Federal University of Pará, Belém, PA, Brazil.
Everton Luiz Pompeu VarelaPost-graduate Program in Biodiversity and Biotechnology (BIONORTE), Institute of Biological Sciences, Federal University of Pará, Belém, PA, Brazil.
Antônio Rafael Quadros GomesPost-graduate Program in Pharmaceutical Innovation, Institute of Health Sciences, Federal University of Pará, Belém, PA, Brazil.
Mirian Letícia Carmo BastosPost-graduate Program in Biodiversity and Biotechnology (BIONORTE), Institute of Biological Sciences, Federal University of Pará, Belém, PA, Brazil.
Andre de Oliveira FeitosaPost-graduate Program in Chemistry, Institute of Exact and Natural Sciences, Federal University of Pará, Belém, PA, Brazil.
Andrey Moacir do Rosário MarinhoPost-graduate Program in Chemistry, Institute of Exact and Natural Sciences, Federal University of Pará, Belém, PA, Brazil.
Liliane Almeida CarneiroNational Primate Center, Evandro Chagas Institute, Ananindeua, PA, Brazil.
Márlia Regina Coelho-FerreiraBotany Coordination, Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovação e Comunicações, Belém, PA, Brazil.
Maria Fâni DolabelaPost-graduate Program in Pharmaceutical Innovation, Institute of Health Sciences, Federal University of Pará, Belém, PA, Brazil.
Sandro PercárioPost-graduate Program in Biodiversity and Biotechnology (BIONORTE), Institute of Biological Sciences, Federal University of Pará, Belém, PA, Brazil. percario@ufpa.br.
Universidade Federal do Pará · BRCentro Nacional de PrimatasMuseu Paraense Emílio Goeldi · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study investigated the acute and subacute toxicity of the ethanolic extract (EE) and alkaloid fraction (FA) from A. nitidum. The EE was obtained from trunk bark with ethanol, FA was obtained from the fractionation of EE. To test the acute toxicity, mice were divided into four groups, and the negative controls received water or aqueous solution of dimethyl sulfoxide, whereas the others received EE or FA (2000 mg/kg, orally, single dose). The same controls were used in the subacute trial. However, the animals were treated for 28 days, and the dose used was 1000 mg/kg per day of EE and FA. Daily clinical evaluations of the animals were performed. At the end of the experiment, hematological, biochemical, and histopathological assessments (liver, lung, heart, and kidney) were performed. In the acute and subacute toxicity studies, mice treated with EE and FA did not show any clinical changes, there were no changes in weight gain, hematological and biochemical parameters compared to the control groups (p > 0.05). In the histopathological examination, there was no abnormality in the organs of the treated animals. Therefore, EE and FA did not produce toxic effects in mice after acute and subacute treatment.

Indexed as

AlkaloidsAnimalsAspidospermaChromatography, High Pressure LiquidEthanolMaleMiceMice, Inbred BALB CPlant BarkPlant ExtractsAlkaloidsEthanolPlant Extracts

Identifiers

PMID34521944
PMCPMC8440572
OpenAlexW3199946382

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.