ArticleThe Onderstepoort journal of veterinary research2024
A potential antifungal bioproduct for Microsporum canis: Bee venom.
Article in The Onderstepoort journal of veterinary research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Natural treatment options for Microsporum canis dermatophytosis are being explored because of resistance to several antifungal medications. In this study, the potential antifungal effect of bee venom (BV), a natural antimicrobial agent, on M. canis was investigated. The antifungal effects of BV, fluconazole, itraconazole, amphotericin B and terbinafine were evaluated by the macrodilution method at various concentrations by modifying the microdilution method recommended by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. All isolates were observed to be susceptible to terbinafine and fully resistant to fluconazole and amphotericin B. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum fungicidal concentration (MFC) values of M. canis isolate 2 (Mc2) were determined as 8 µg/mL for itraconazole. The MIC and MFC values of BV were found to be 320 µg/mL for the Mc2 isolate and 640 µg/mL for the Mc6 isolate. The results showed that the isolates obtained from clinical samples in this study were highly resistant to all antifungal agents, except terbinafine. The increase in resistance indicates that antifungal drugs will become insufficient and ineffective over time and natural products such as BV should be evaluated as alternatives.Contribution: Although there are many drugs for the treatment of M. canis, the increase in resistance to antifungal agents reveals the need for the identification and development of new natural agents. Bee venom, which has been shown to have a safe and weak allergenic effect in various studies, can be tested for usability as a local antifungal drug when supported by in vivo studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.