• Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

Comparative toxicity study on classical and modified version of Jawarish Jalinoos (a traditional Unani formulation) in rats

Read this article at

      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.



      Jawarish Jalinoos (JJ) is a classical semisolid traditional Unani formulation clinically used for the treatment of weakness of vital organs, liver, and stomach. Although JJ has been widely used clinically for several decades, no scientific report is available for its safety.


      JJ and its sugar-free tablet version (SFJJ; formulated to target diabetic population) were assessed for safety in rats. Ninety-day repeated dose oral toxicity study was performed as per the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Guideline 408. JJ was orally administered at the dose of 2000 mg/kg bw/d, whereas SFJJ was orally administered at the doses of 506 mg/kg body weight (bw)/d, 1012 mg/kg bw/d, and 2024 mg/kg bw/d for 90 days. The animals were periodically observed for clinical signs of toxicity, mortality, morbidity, body weight changes, and feed consumption. At the end of the study, hematology, clinical biochemistry, electrolytes, gross pathology, relative organ weight, and histological examination were performed.


      Treatment with SFJJ and JJ showed no significant differences in body weight gain, feed consumption, hematology, clinical biochemistry, and serum electrolytes. No gross pathological findings and differences in relative organ weights were observed between control and drug treated rats. Histological examination revealed no toxicologically significant abnormalities related with SFJJ or JJ treatment.


      The 90-day repeated dose oral toxicity study demonstrates that the no observed adverse effect level of SFJJ and JJ is greater than 2024 mg/kg bw/d and 2000 mg/kg bw/d (p.o.) in rats, respectively. Both formulations were found to be safe up to the tested dose levels and experimental conditions, and therefore safe for clinical use as specified in the literature.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 19

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Dose translation from animal to human studies revisited.

      As new drugs are developed, it is essential to appropriately translate the drug dosage from one animal species to another. A misunderstanding appears to exist regarding the appropriate method for allometric dose translations, especially when starting new animal or clinical studies. The need for education regarding appropriate translation is evident from the media response regarding some recent studies where authors have shown that resveratrol, a compound found in grapes and red wine, improves the health and life span of mice. Immediately after the online publication of these papers, the scientific community and popular press voiced concerns regarding the relevance of the dose of resveratrol used by the authors. The animal dose should not be extrapolated to a human equivalent dose (HED) by a simple conversion based on body weight, as was reported. For the more appropriate conversion of drug doses from animal studies to human studies, we suggest using the body surface area (BSA) normalization method. BSA correlates well across several mammalian species with several parameters of biology, including oxygen utilization, caloric expenditure, basal metabolism, blood volume, circulating plasma proteins, and renal function. We advocate the use of BSA as a factor when converting a dose for translation from animals to humans, especially for phase I and phase II clinical trials.
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: found
        • Article: not found

        The current state of serum biomarkers of hepatotoxicity.

        The level of serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) activity reflects damage to hepatocytes and is considered to be a highly sensitive and fairly specific preclinical and clinical biomarker of hepatotoxicity. However, an increase in serum ALT activity level has also been associated with other organ toxicities, thus, indicating that the enzyme has specificity beyond liver in the absence of correlative histomorphologic alteration in liver. Thus, unidentified non-hepatic sources of serum ALT activity may inadvertently influence the decision of whether to continue development of a novel pharmaceutical compound. To assess the risk of false positives due to extraneous sources of serum ALT activity, additional biomarkers are sought with improved specificity for liver function compared to serum ALT activity alone. Current published biomarker candidates are reviewed herein and compared with ALT performance in preclinical and on occasion, clinical studies. An examination of the current state of hepatotoxic biomarkers indicates that serum F protein, arginase I, and glutathione-S-transferase alpha (GSTalpha) levels, all measured by ELISA, may show utility, however, antibody availability and high cost per run may present limitations to widespread applicability in preclinical safety studies. In contrast, the enzymatic markers sorbitol dehydrogenase, glutamate dehydrogenase, paraxonase, malate dehydrogenase, and purine nucleoside phosphorylase are all readily measured by photometric methods and use reagents that work across preclinical species and humans and are commercially available. The published literature suggests that these markers, once examined collectively in a large qualification study, could provide additional information relative to serum ALT and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) values. Since these biomarkers are found in the serum/plasma of treated humans and rats, they have potential to be utilized as bridging markers to monitor acute drug-induced liver injury in early clinical trials.
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Evaluation of organ weights for rodent and non-rodent toxicity studies: a review of regulatory guidelines and a survey of current practices.

          The Society of Toxicologic Pathology convened a working group to evaluate current practices regarding organ weights in toxicology studies. A survey was distributed to pharmaceutical, veterinary, chemical, food/nutritional and consumer product companies in Europe, North America, and Japan. Responses were compiled to identify organs routinely weighed for various study types in rodent and non-rodent species, compare methods of organ weighing, provide perspectives on the value of organ weights and identify the scientist(s) responsible for organ weight data interpretation. Data were evaluated as a whole as well as by industry type and geographic location. Regulatory guidance documents describing organ weighing practices are generally available, however, they differ somewhat dependent on industry type and regulatory agency. While questionnaire respondents unanimously stated that organ weights were a good screening tool to identify treatment-related effects, opinions varied as to which organ weights are most valuable. The liver, kidneys, and testes were commonly weighed and most often considered useful by most respondents. Other organs that break were commonly weighed included brain, adrenal glands, ovaries, thyroid glands, uterus, heart, and spleen. Lungs, lymph nodes, and other sex organs were weighed infrequently in routine studies, but were often weighed in specialized studies such as inhalation, immunotoxicity, and reproduction studies. Organ-to-body weight ratios were commonly calculated and were considered more useful when body weights were affected. Organ to brain weight ratios were calculated by most North American companies, but rarely according to respondents representing veterinary product or European companies. Statistical analyses were generally performed by most respondents. Pathologists performed interpretation of organ weight data for the majority of the industries.

            Author and article information

            [a ]Central Research Institute of Unani Medicine, Hyderabad, India
            [b ]Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine (CCRUM), Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India, New Delhi, India
            Author notes
            [* ] Corresponding author. Department of Pharmacology, Central Research Institute of Unani Medicine, Opposite ESI Hospital, AG’s Colony Road, Erragadda, Hyderabad, Telangana 500 038, India.Central Research Institute of Unani MedicineHyderabadIndia gmhusain@
            Integr Med Res
            Integr Med Res
            Integrative Medicine Research
            18 January 2017
            March 2017
            18 January 2017
            : 6
            : 1
            : 66-78
            © 2017 Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine. Published by Elsevier.

            This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (

            Original Article


            Comment on this article