Figure 1.
The schematic extraction and fractionation of UA from the leaves of E. tereticornis.
$Washed with water and the solvent was dried over anhydrous Na2SO4. *Solvent was completely removed under vacuum at 35°C on a Buchi Rota vapour.
Figure 2.
2D structure of Ursolic Acid (UA).
Figure 3.
Docking results of studies compounds on B. malayi (Filarial nematode worm) glutathione-S-transferase (BmGST) homology model.
(a) docked standard drug DEC-c (control) on BmGST model active site with docking energy −4.9 kcal mol−1, (b) docked another standard drug Ivermectin (control) with docking energy −8.4 kcal mol−1, (c) docked UA on BmGST model with high docking energy −8.6 kcal mol−1.
Table 1.
In vitro activity of chloroform extract of E. tereticornis, its main constituent Ursolic Acid (UA) and reference drugs ivermectin and DEC on microfilariae and female adult worms of B. malayi.
Table 2.
Details of Docking energy, active site pocket residues and H-bonds revealed by molecular docking of DEC, IVM and UA on BmGST of B. malayi.
Table 3.
Predicted ADME parameters (DS v3.5, Accelrys, USA).
Figure 4.
Adsorption model of Ursolic Acid (UA) and the standard antifilarial drugs.
Table 4.
Compliance of Dec, IVM & UA to the theoretical parameters of oral bioavailability and drug likeness properties.
Table 5.
Details of computational toxicity risk parameters of DEC, IVM and UA calculated by OSIRIS.
Figure 5.
Micro-(A) and macrofilaricidal (B) activity of UA and reference drug diethylcarbamazine-citrate (DEC-C) against Brugia malayi in Mastomys coucha.
Values are mean ± S.D. of 5 animals from two experiments. (A) No alteration in Microfilarial count in treated animals at each time point post initiation of treatment over day 0. Statistics: Student's ‘t’ test. Significance level (B) *P<0.05 (vs sterilized female worm of control animals).
Table 6.
Predicted therapeutic activity of UA against various reported diseases.
Table 7.
The reported interaction between UA and target.
Figure 6.
Signaling pathway map screened by Metadrug.