Moringa oleifera as a Natural Alternative for the Control of Gastrointestinal Parasites in Equines: A Review
Mona Mohamed Mohamed Yasseen Elghandour,1 Aristide Maggiolino,2,* Paulina Vázquez-Mendoza,3 Edwin Rafael Alvarado-Ramírez,4 José Cedillo-Monroy,5 Pasquale De Palo,2 and Abdelfattah Zeidan Mohamed Salem1,*
Ivayla Dincheva, Academic Editor, Ilian Badjakov, Academic Editor, and Bistra Galunska, Academic Editor
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer
Associated Data
Abstract
Studies have shown a wide variety of parasites that infect horses, causing major gastrointestinal damage that can lead to death, and although the main method of control has been synthetic anthelmintics, there are parasites that have developed resistance to these drugs. For generations, plants have been used throughout the world as a cure or treatment for countless diseases and their symptoms, as is the case of Moringa oleifera, a plant native to the western region. In all its organs, mainly in leaves, M. oleifera presents a diversity of bioactive compounds, including flavonoids, tannins, phenolic acids, saponins, and vitamins, which provide antioxidant power to the plant. The compounds with the greatest antiparasitic activity are tannins and saponins, and they affect both the larvae and the oocytes of various equine gastrointestinal parasites. Therefore, M. oleifera is a promising source for the natural control of gastrointestinal parasites in horses.
Keywords: bioactive compounds, equines, gastrointestinal parasites, natural antiparasitics, Moringa oleifera
1. Introduction
Equines are used mainly as draft animals to till the land, as driving force attached to carriages, and as a means of transportation, especially in peri-urban and rural areas of various countries [1], for which they play an important role in the livelihood and economy of people worldwide. Despite this, the welfare of these animals is low, and their health is poor, and among the problems of greatest and most important concern is infection by gastrointestinal parasites [2,3]. According to various studies, nematodes are the most abundant group of gastrointestinal parasites within any equine population [4], and many of these nematodes have been associated with colic, frustration, and reduced anxiety and animal growth rates [5,6]. In addition, in the case of young and immunocompromised horses, they are also associated with diarrhea, abdominal pain, and can even cause death [7], reasons for which they are considered the main health threat to equine welfare [8]. For this reason, the constant monitoring and control of these parasites is an important aspect to minimize the negative impacts and guarantee a healthy and productive life in the animals [9,10].
In horses, parasite control is frequently carried out through anthelmintic treatments based on drugs of synthetic origin [11]. However, the timing and frequency of treatments, prolonged use of the same active ingredient, insufficient dosages, and unauthorized use of anthelmintic drugs are some of the factors that have led to decreased efficacy of synthetic anthelmintics and the development of different mechanisms in parasite populations to generate resistance to anthelmintics [12,13]. For this reason, this has become an important problem in veterinary medicine and, consequently, in recent years, research focused on finding new control alternatives has increased, and among the most promising is the use of plants, specifically those that present high concentrations of bioactive compounds [14]. In plants, these compounds are produced for various physiological functions, such as defense against pathogen attack and protection against abiotic stress, but within the organism of humans and animals, they produce medicinal effects [15]. Therefore, there are plants that have been used throughout the world and from generation to generation as a cure or treatment for countless diseases and their symptoms since it has been shown that they have antibacterial, anthelmintic, and insecticidal properties [16,17].
Moringa oleifera, commonly called “Moringa”, is a plant native to the western and sub-Himalayan region, India, Pakistan, Africa, and Arabia, currently cultivated in the Philippines, Cambodia, Central, North and South America, and the Caribbean islands [18], and is widely distributed in tropical and subtropical regions of the world, including Ghana, Uganda, Egypt, Sierra Leone, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Kenya, and Haiti [17]. Moringa belongs to the Moringaceae family, which is made up of 14 species worldwide, and of which Moringa is the most studied with respect to its phytochemical profile, especially the identification of bioactive compounds with therapeutic potential and their possible medicinal uses [19]. On the other hand, this plant is of important pharmaceutical value, thanks to the fact that its leaves, roots, seeds, fruits, and flowers have anti-inflammatory, antiparasitic [20], antidiabetic, antioxidant, immunomodulatory, anticancer, antihypertensive, and antimicrobial properties, which are of great importance for both humans and animals [21], and several analyses suggest that it has antiparasitic effects against Plasmodium, Trypanosoma, and Leishmania [20,21]. In addition, it is a species that can grow in adverse environments and with little rainfall since it can store enough water in its roots to tolerate prolonged periods of drought [22]. Therefore, the objective of this work was to document the main gastrointestinal parasites in horses, their effects on animal health, and the resistance they have presented to synthetic drugs, as well as to compile research involving the use of plants with antiparasitic activity and propose Moringa oleifera as a natural antiparasitic.
2. Main Equine Gastrointestinal Parasites
In horses, gastrointestinal parasitism is often associated with poverty in developing countries [23], but this is not the only factor influencing parasite incidence. In general, all equines are at risk of gastrointestinal parasitism [24], even from the first hours of life, due to a weak immune system [25,26], although animals that are under grazing conditions are more susceptible [27] since pastures can provide adequate conditions for the development of parasite larvae that are expelled by animals through feces [28], so these animals tend to have higher infection rates [26].
Although horses harbor many species of gastrointestinal parasites such as nematodes, protozoa, and multicellular cestodes, the diversity of the parasites varies depending on the age of the animal, with the youngest (<2 years) presenting the greatest diversity and parasite load in comparison with adult animals, which generally have already acquired some degree of immunity [25]. Table 1 shows the main most prevalent parasite species and the regions in which they have been reported.
Table 1
Main species of parasites infecting equines, compared to the regions where they are most prevalent.
Type of ParasitePredominant Parasite
SpeciesCountry with Highest
PrevalenceReferencesNematodeCyathostomum
catinatum
Cylicostephanus longibursatusFrance, Ukraine, United States, and Australia[29]C. nassatusBrazil[29]Strongyles spp.United States, Scandinavia, Sweden, Holland, Denmark, Ethiopia, and Kenya.[30,31]Caenorhabditis
elegansEurope, North America, New Zealand, Australia, Ethiopia, and Saudi Arabia.[32]TrichinellaRomania, France, and Italy[33]Gasterophilus sp.Belgium, Ireland, Poland, France, Germany, Morocco, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and China.[34,35,36]Oxyuris equiUnited States, New Zealand[37]ProtozoaLeishmaniaArgentina, Brazil, Venezuela[38]Theileria equiAsia, Europe, Africa, and South America[39]Babesia caballiEast and Southern Africa, Asia (especially China and Korea), Europe (Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Hungary, and Romania), Chile, and Argentina.[40]Parascaris sp.Europe, North America, New Zealand, Australia, Ethiopia, and Saudi Arabia.[32]Sarcocystis neuronaArgentina, Brazil, and North America.[41,42]CestodeAnoplocephala
perfoliata
Anoplocephala magna
Anoplocephaloidess
mamillanaSpain, Poland, and Sweden[43]
As shown in Table 1, among the gastrointestinal parasites that infect horses, helminth parasites, especially nematodes, are the ones that have been reported most frequently and that present the greatest diversity of species, and it has been reported that they can constitute more than 75% of the total parasitic fauna in horses [44]. Equines can be infected by approximately 83 species of nematodes, including species of the Strongylus (large strongyles) and Parascaris genera and cyathostomines (small strongyles), the latter being considered the most important gastrointestinal parasite due to its prevalence, resistance to benzimidazoles and pyrantel, as well as its pathogenic effects [7,45]. Gastrointestinal nematodes are transmitted by pastures. The eggs hatch, and the larvae develop in the third infective stage in the environment, depending on exogenous factors such as atmospheric temperature, rainfall, and the type of terrain in which the animals are found (grass available, soil type, etc.; Figure 1) [45]. Because their cuticle acts as a protective layer, third instar larvae can tolerate freezing and desiccation for a period of time, while first and second instar larvae are less tolerant of these conditions [46]. Therefore, the infectivity of pastures with cyathostominae parasites depends to a large extent on environmental conditions [47].
Life cycle of gastrointestinal nematodes: (a) adult females lay eggs in the host’s gastrointestinal tract, (b) eggs are shed by the host in feces, (c) first instar larvae remain in the bundles, (d) first instar larvae pass to second instars in feces, (e) second instar larvae become infective third instar larvae and migrate to vegetation, and (f) in the infective third instar larvae stage, they are ingested by the host and finally become adults within the cecum/colon.
In various parts of the world, numerous species of cyathostominae have been reported to infect equines, making them the most common helminths, with more than 50 described species, and causing disease in equines of all ages, but they are more frequently observed as larval ciatostomosis in young animals [45,48]. In addition to the above, these parasites have been considered successful in horses due to their life cycle, in which the early larvae of the third stage encyst within the intestinal mucosa, allowing them to survive toxicity of anthelmintics, except for moxidectin [45,49]. Unlike strongyles, parasites of the genus Parascaris spp. develop in ovo until the third larval instar, and during this time, they are protected from environmental conditions by the thick eggshell [50]. Under favorable conditions, such as moist soil, these eggs can survive for several years [51]. Infection by Parascaris spp. is produced by oral absorption of eggs that contain third stage larvae, a stage in which they are highly pathogenic in foals and yearlings and are sporadically found in adult horses [51,52].
On the other hand, researchers have reported that, as shown in Table 1, there is a high incidence in endemic areas of America, where the prevalence of equine cutaneous leishmaniasis infection exceeds that of humans, with a prevalence of 5, 3, and 28% of parasitic lesions in humans, dogs, and donkeys, respectively [53]. A serious disease that occurs in horses and other members of the equine family is equine piroplasmosis, which is caused by ticks that transmit the intraerythrocytic protozoa, Theileria equi and Babesia caballi, leading to anemia as a primary clinical result [39,54]. Infectious carriers are not always symptomatic, which means that there is a risk in non-zootic areas [54,55].
Table 1 shows that the European continent has a high prevalence of parasitic diseases in horses. An example is the countries of France and Italy, where since 1975, there have been several outbreaks of human trichinellosis as a consequence of the consumption of raw or undercooked horse meat [56,57]. The intestine constitutes the Trichinella’s initial point of contact with its host, and the duration of the enteral phase and the number of newly hatched larvae produced by females in the host’s intestine determine the duration of the disease, which stimulates a local inflammatory reaction culminating in death expulsion of intestinal worms [58]. On the other hand, Oxyuris equi is a common parasite of equines with worldwide distribution, which follows a direct life cycle with adults and inhabits mainly in the right dorsal colon [37], while Sarcocystis neurona is a pathogen that is housed in the central nervous system of horses and is considered the main cause of protozoan myeloencephalitis [41,59].
Cestodes occur in horses all over the world, so they are not considered endemic parasites of any specific region, and it has been reported that they use numerous species of oribatid mites that remain in pastures as intermediate hosts, so they are accidentally ingested by animals during grazing. In equines, it has been reported that they can only be infected by three species: Anoplocephala perfoliata, Anoplocephala magna, and Anoplocephaloides mamillana (syn. Paranoplocephala mamillana) [43], and of these, A. perfoliata is the most frequent, while the other two species have been observed sporadically [60]. Like most cestodes, both A. magna and A. mamillana house in the small intestine, whereas A. perfoliata, unlike these species, has a preference for the area around the ileocecal junction in the cecum [43].
3. Impact of Gastrointestinal Parasites on the Health of Equines
As has been observed in other herbivorous animals, equine gastrointestinal parasitism also affects the health and well-being of the animals, especially in young horses (less than 2 years of age) and is a risk factor for intestinal diseases [10]. One of these diseases is equine piroplasmosis, which is a consequence of the single or simultaneous infection of the blood apicomplex intracellular parasites Theileria equi and Babesia caballi [39], and some of the symptoms that have been shown in infected animals that presented severe acute disease are high fever, lethargy, anorexia, peripheral edema, splenomegaly, hemolysis, tachycardia, pigmenturia, and occasionally death [54,61]. In females, this parasitic disease decreases reproductive capacity and causes transplacental transmission, leading to abortion, fatal neonatal piroplasmosis at birth, or the offspring being born as subclinical carriers of the disease [62,63].
The equine bloodworm, Strongylus vulgaris, is considered the most pathogenic gastrointestinal parasite and is also commonly known as “the horse killer” [64]. Various investigations have shown that the clinical disease caused by this parasite is most frequently characterized by peritonitis [65] and that this condition was associated with positive anti-S. vulgaris, which confirmed that this parasite can cause the death of animals [66]. This is due to the migration of the larval stages carried out by this parasite within the cranial mesenteric artery, which causes inflammation and occlusion of the arteries, thus causing intestinal infarction and septic peritonitis [65]. Another disease is protozoal myeloencephalitis, which occurs when Sarcocystis neurona invades the central nervous system of the horse, causing asymmetric muscle atrophy and ataxia [41,59]. Gasterophilus are obligate parasites adapted to a larval life in the intestinal tract of horses and are the cause of gasterophilosis, a disease that causes lesions such as destruction of the gums, ulcerations, peritonitis, anemia, severe weakness, and blockage of the gastrointestinal tract, or even the death of the hosts [67]. Like other nematodes, small Strongyles have a remarkable pathogenic capacity upon entering the intestine and can cause clinical symptoms such as lethargy, sudden weight loss, wasting, and diarrhea [29]. In equines, Parascaris equorum represents a great threat, especially for young horses, with a prevalence ranging from 31 to 61% [32]. In addition, P. equorum infection is associated with lethargy, loss of appetite, decreased weight gain, hypoproteinemia, cough, and runny nose, especially in young horses [68], even causing death due to intestinal impaction or rupture [52].
Equine cyathostomins are parasites that can cause the critical disease called larval cyathostomy, a potentially fatal generalized typhocolitis [29], while Leishmania, an opportunistic parasite, is less severe in equines than in other hosts. It is not considered a deadly parasite, but the main symptoms reported are development of nodules in areas such as eyes, snout, neck, pinna, scrotum, and legs, and no visceral lesions have been described to date [69]. In the case of Oxyuris equi, the clinical signs are varied, but in severe cases, skin abrasions have been observed in the perineal region, and the eggs are quite resistant, so much so that they can persist in the perianal region and the environment for relatively long periods of time [59]. In younger horses, the small intestinal roundworm, Parascaris equorum, may represent a latent health risk, as the signs of the disease can be both respiratory and intestinal [68]. Although Oxyuroidea nematodes, or roundworms, do not represent a significant threat to equine health, female O. equi protrudes from the animals’ anus and deposits eggs in the perineal area, which becomes irritating to the host and, consequently, to horses. They rub the head of the tail and rump against fixed objects, causing local damage to the skin, fur, and tail [60]. In cestodes, unlike the other two species, A. perfoliata, in addition to being associated with various forms of colic, also causes pathological reactions around its attachment site, characterized by hyperemia, thickening of the mucosa, and necrotic ulcers, which explains why only this species is associated with clinical diseases in horses [43,70].
4. Resistance of Gastrointestinal Parasites to Synthetic Anthelmintics
For decades, the control of gastrointestinal parasites has been based on the application of synthetic anthelmintics, and for horses, there are three classes of broad-spectrum anthelmintics: benzimidazoles (fenbendazole and oxibendazole), tetrahydropyrimidines (pyrantel), and macrocyclic lactones (ivermectin and moxidectin) [27]. Although for years these drugs were a successful control method due to the effectiveness they demonstrated in reducing the parasite load [71], frequent use and inadequate quantity caused their efficacy to decrease [72], and the parasites developed resistance to anthelmintics [2,73].
The anthelmintic resistance of parasites has been defined by various authors as the decrease in the effectiveness of a drug to inhibit the growth and cause the death of the parasite when applied in therapeutically recommended doses [74]. Similarly, resistance is considered to be the loss of sensitivity of a parasite to a drug that was previously lethal to it [75]. According to Nipane et al. [76], there are three types of anthelmintic resistance: cross resistance, lateral resistance, and multiple resistance. Cross resistance is in which parasites are able to tolerate therapeutic doses of an anthelmintic that has a different mechanism of action, whereas lateral resistance is a condition in which resistance is due to selection for another anthelmintic that has a different mechanism of action. Similar action and multiple resistance occur when a parasite population exhibits cross and lateral resistance.
Four possible mechanisms by which equine parasites increase their resistance to anthelmintics have been identified: (i) activation of pre-existing alleles for resistance to toxic compounds, (ii) spontaneous mutations before or at the time of anthelmintic exposure, (iii) frequent mutations for the reappearance of alleles that provide resistance, and (iv) host migration of resistant alleles spread through new populations [12,26,77,78]. However, it is not ruled out that anthelmintic resistance may be the result of the selection of a parasite subpopulation that is capable of resisting the toxicity of drugs that were previously lethal to it and that this subpopulation selects specific genes that allow it to survive, which are believed to mutate and are responsible for the development of resistance [79]. Furthermore, once the parasite develops resistance within a parasite population, it persists for several years and passes the genes associated with resistance to its offspring [80,81]. Therefore, the control of gastrointestinal parasites in horses remains a complex challenge, and there is a need to seek new control alternatives [82,83].
5. Plant Bioactive Compounds for the Control of Gatrointestinal Parasites in Equines
The growing need to look for alternatives other than synthetic antiparasitics for the control of gastrointestinal parasites in herbivores, including equines, which, in addition to being effective, are also sustainable and do not cause toxicity in animals [84], has allowed plants to be considered as a viable option. This is because various plant species with antiparasitic activities have been identified [85,86], which even have the ability to partially or totally replace synthetic drugs and thus assist in the prevention of the antiparasitic resistance in parasites [87]. In addition, antiparasitic drugs made from plants are considered biodegradable and ecological [88], thanks to the fact that they are less likely to accumulate in the tissues of animals, and in some cases, they contribute to the mitigation of greenhouse gases, which reduces the impact of animals on the environment [89,90]. These benefits are mainly attributed to the presence of bioactive compounds in plants, such as alkaloids, flavonoids, tannins, saponins, coumarins, terpenes, lignans, and amino acids, which have been reported to have antimethanogenic and antiparasitic properties [86,91,92]. In the case of antiparasitic properties, it has been reported that the same plant species can present several mechanisms of action against parasites because they present a wide variety of bioactive compounds, which also decreases the probability that parasites develop antiparasitic resistance [93].
Despite the benefits that plants provide, there are few studies that have been carried out on their use in the control of gastrointestinal parasites in monogastric animals, particularly in horses, as highlighted by Scantlebury et al. [94]. In addition, the few studies carried out focus on parasites of the Strongylidae family, both in the cyathostominae and Strongylinae subfamilies, although the presence of cyathostominae is usually greater than strongylinae [95,96], as already mentioned above. In this sense, it has been reported that Alectryon oleifolius contains procyadinin A2, a compound that belongs to the group of condensed tannins and has demonstrated anthelmintic activity against cyathostomins in horses, since it is capable of completely inhibiting the development of these parasites from the egg to the third larval instar (L3) at a concentration of 50 µg mL−1, while at 25 µg mL−1, it inhibits larval migration [97]. In another study, they reported that of 37 plants evaluated, only Acacia baileyana, Acacia melanoxylon, Acacia podalyriifolia, Alectryon oleifolius, Duboisia hopwoodii, Eucalyptus gomphocephala, and Santalum spicatum were able to inhibit cyathostomin larval development by 100% compared to the control, with a concentration of 1400 µg mL−1, and they attributed it to the presence of tannins [98]. These authors also point out that Duboisia hopwoodii was the most potent plant in anthelmintic terms and that this was possibly due to the content of alkaloids, such as nornicotine and nicotine. Similarly, Peachey et al. [99] reported that when evaluating the potential use of nine plants for the control of cyathostomy eggs and L3 stage larvae, only Acacia nilotica, Cucumis Prophetarum, Rumex abyssinicus, Allium sativum, Artemisia absinthium, Chenopodium album, and Zingiber officinale showed anthelmintic activity. In the case of Allium sativum, its antiparasitic properties have been reported to be due to the presence of cysteine sulfoxide compounds (allicin, cycloalin, methiin, and isoaline) and γ-glutamylcysteine (γ-glutamyl-S-allylcysteine, γ-glutamyl -S-methylcysteine, and γ-glutamyl-S-t-propenylcysteine), and the synergy they form with each other for parasite control [100]. However, it has been shown that allicin, a molecule that belongs to the organosulfur group, is the most abundant (10 mg g−1 matter fresh) in Allium sativum, and that it is responsible for its characteristic odor when crushed, as well as the inhibition it exerts on the growth of Babesia caballi and Theleria equi at concentrations of 10 and 100 µM, respectively [100,101]. Contrary to this, Buono et al. [14] reported that in the short term (15 days), there is no effect of Allium sativum on the elimination of intestinal strongyle eggs in horses, while when evaluating the control of Parascaris equorum using five plants with anthelmintic properties, only Artemisia dracunculus, Mentha pulegium, and Zataria multiflora showed potential for larval control from the first instar to the fourth at concentrations greater than 100 µg mL−1, and Eucalyptus camadulensis and Allium sativum did not exert effective control over this parasite [102].
In an in vivo study, a 56.9% reduction of intestinal strongyle eggs was reported in Equus asinus, a species belonging to equines. This, with the use of an antiparasitic product derived from Cardus mariano, Eucalyptus globulus, Gentiana lutea, Urtica urens, and Mallotus philippinensis, and the anthelmintic activity, was attributed to the content of terpenoids, steroids, flavonoids, coumarins, and phenols that has been reported in these plants [103]. Instead, the saponins extracted from Medicago arborea, Medicago sativa, and the “Santiago” and “Angola” cultivars of the Medicago polymorpha species were able to inhibit the development and hatching of gastrointestinal parasite eggs by more than 80% in this same animal species [104]. Likewise, when evaluating Albizia lophantha against gastrointestinal nematodes in horses, 11 and 43% inhibition of egg hatching was achieved with concentrations of 80 and 120 µg mL−1, respectively, and was attributed to the presence of active compounds in the plant, especially tannins and total phenols [105]. On the other hand, Collas et al. [106] evaluated the effectiveness of Achillea millefolium, Artemisia absinthium, Centaurium erythraea, Gentiana asclepiadea, Inula helenium, and Tanacetum vulgare as ovicidal and larvicidal against nematodes in Equus asinus, and of all plants, Inula helenium showed the strongest effects at concentrations of 41 and 408 µg mL−1, respectively, and was attributed to the presence of sesquiterpene lactones and the inulin contained in this plant. Meanwhile, when evaluating the efficacy of Onobrychis viciifolia as an anthelmintic against larval development and strongyle egg hatching in horses, they reported that with 29% of this plant in the feces, it was possible to reduce the development of eggs of strongyles by 82% strongyles, while a concentration of 75 µg mL−1 decreased egg hatching by 37% [107]. This agrees with what was reported by Grimm et al. [108], who reported that Onobrychis viciifolia demonstrated an inhibitory effect on the motility of infective strongyle larvae, suggesting that it might have the ability to perturb strongyles at different stages of the life cycle. In the same way, it has been reported that the seeds of Trachyspermum ammi have anthelmintic activity against gastrointestinal nematodes in Equus asinus, thanks to the fact that the main component is thymol (54.6%), a compound that belongs to the group of terpenes and is considered as the active compound that causes the anthelmintic effect, although it also contains other compounds with anthelmintic properties and with which it acts in synergy [109].
6. Main Active Compounds of Moringa oleifera
M. oleifera is a plant whose parts are traditionally used for different purposes, but the leaves are generally the most used, particularly in human and animal nutrition, in traditional medicine and as a natural antiparasitic in ruminants [110,111,112] as they are rich in vitamins, carotenoids, polyphenols, phenolic acids, flavonoids, flavonoids, alkaloids, glucosinolates, isothiocyanates, tannins, and saponins [113]. Additionally, other parts of this plant contain an important mineral profile and are a good source of proteins, vitamins, β-carotene, amino acids, various phenolics, quercetin, βsitosterol, caffeoylquinic acid, and kaempferol [114].
Table 2 shows different bioactive compounds of M. oleifera, as well as their concentrations throughout the plant; however, it should be noted that differences in concentrations can be observed in the literature; this may be due to the variation between the age of the plants, exposure to the sun, the parts of the plant in which the concentrations were evaluated, geographical location, abiotic factors, nature of the solvents, or the method of extraction of the active compounds.
Table 2
Bioactive compounds of Moringa oleifera.
Type of CompoundActive CompoundsPart of PlantConcentrationReferencesVitaminsγ-tocopherolAdult leaves5.7 µg g−1[115]Young leaves27.8 µg g−1Vitamin CFresh leaves200 mg 100 g−1[112]Dried leaves18.7–140 mg 100 g−1Vitamin AFresh leaves11,300 (U.K.)[116]FlavonoidsLuteolinLeaves6.2 μg g−1[117]QuercetinLeaves0.207 mg g−1[118]MyricetinLeaves5.8 mg g−1KaempferolLeaves7.57 mg g−1EpicatechinFreeze-dried leaves5.68 mg g−1[119]Phenolic acidsCaffeic acidFreeze-dried leaves0.536 mg g−1[119]O-coumaric acidFreeze-dried leaves6457 mg g−1Gallic AcidLeaves1034 mg g−1[120,121]Chlorogenic acidLeaves0.018–0.489 mg g−1Ellagic acidLeaves0.009–0.189 mg g−1PhenolsLeaves10 mg mL−1[122]Ferulic acidLeaves128.2 µg g−1[123]RutinLeaves190 µg g−1Glucosinolates4-(α-L-
ramnopyranosyloxy)- benzylFreeze-dried young leaves59.4 mg g−1[124]TanninsTanninsDried leaves12–20.6 g kg−1[125,126]SaponinsSaponinsDried leaves64–81 g kg−1[127]
The compounds presented in Table 2 are all those that give M. oleifera its characteristic properties. Its leaves defend the plant from the effect of free radicals and pollutants due to its antioxidant activity as a result of the vitamins found in this part, especially the antioxidant effect of vitamin E [112,115]. Another of its main components is flavonoids, which are synthesized in the plant as a response to microbial infections, making them a good source of flavonoids, which are used as a potential compound against chronic diseases associated with oxidative stress [113]. Their main ones are Quercetin and Kaempferol, which have a higher antioxidant power than traditional vitamins [118]. Phenolic acids belong to the group of phenolic compounds derived from hydroxybenzoic acid and hydroxycinnamic acid, which are antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antimutagenic, and anticarcinogenic compounds [117,121]. Several studies have described the potential use of moringa seeds, leaves, and gum extracts to control nematode parasites by containing potential secondary metabolites (tannins, saponins, alkaloids) responsible for more than 90% inhibition of egg hatching. Tannins have attracted the most attention for their antiparasitic effect on internal nematodes. Similarly, saponins are known for their excellent source of cytotoxic and anthelmintic compounds that justify their isolation and purification for the development of new drugs [128].
7. Antiparasitic Activity of Moringa oleifera
It is important to mention that there are currently no studies that have evaluated Moringa oleifera as an antiparasitic in horses, so this section describes the antiparasitic activity that M. oleifera could present in these animals. In addition, although it is known that the results of the studies may vary in response to the type of solvent used, what is intended is to demonstrate the antiparasitic activity of some bioactive compounds that contain M. oleifera, and therefore the type of extract is not mentioned. In this sense, the evaluation of medicinal plants has allowed the identification of some metabolites, such as alkaloids, phenols, and terpenes, that have been useful for the treatment of diseases caused by parasites in animals [129]. In the case of M. oleifera, it has been used to control malaria, trypanosomiasis, schistosomiasis, and filariasis [111], thanks to the bioactive compounds it presents [130]. In addition, it was reported that M. oleifera has powerful anthelmintic activity, these being the parasites that most attack equines (Table 1), added to the fact that it has ovicidal and larvicidal properties that hinder the hatching process of the eggs and larval development and converge in the death of the parasite [17].
In horses, it has been shown that bioactive compounds from plants can exert control over gastrointestinal parasites and that, in the case of nematodes (Strongylus sp., Trichostrongylus axei, Strongyloides westeri, and Parascaris equorum), the compounds with the highest activity against these parasites are phenols and tannins [105]. In this regard, it has been reported that the leaves of M. oleifera have the potential to combat nematodes [131], and according to what was reported by Mbogning-Tayo et al. [132], the leaves of mature trees can inhibit the development and hatching of the eggs in 92.8 and 99.0%, and cause the mortality of the first and second instar larvae in 98.8 and 100.0%, at a dose of 5 mg mL−1. Some researchers have attributed the antiparasitic activity mainly to the tannin content, but they are classified according to their chemical structure as follows: in condensed tannins, which are made up of complex compounds and are characterized by the presence of flavonoids, and in tannins, hydrolyzables that have a simple structure and contain smaller molecules, including gallic and ellagic acids [133]. Of both tannins, the hydrolyzed ones have greater antiparasitic activity than the condensed ones, especially gallic acid, which can inhibit almost 100% of gastrointestinal nematode eggs, at a dose of 1 mg mL−1 [134], and is capable of increasing its activity by entering into synergy with other compounds such as ellagic acid [135]. Although the mechanisms of action of tannins against gastrointestinal parasites are unknown with certainty, it has been suggested that, in the case of condensed tannins, it is possibly related to the number of hydroxyl groups since it is related to the capacity that the tannins present tannins to bind to proteins because this bond is formed by hydrogen bonds, a phenolic hydroxyl of the tannin (donor), and a carbonyl oxygen of the peptide bond in the protein (acceptor) [136]. In addition, tannins easily bind to proline, an abundant amino acid in the cuticle of nematodes, so when exposed to tannins, they suffer damage to the cuticle and intestinal surface [134,137]. However, tannin constituents can influence antiparasitic activity as some contain an acetal functional group, such as procyanidin A2, which increases the binding affinity for tannin proteins [97]. Similarly, it has been reported that they can interfere with energy generation by uncoupling oxidative phosphorylation, and it has been reported that they can act indirectly by improving the immune response of host animals [138]. However, it is possible that there is synergy between bioactive compounds, such as condensed tannins and two flavonoids, quercetin (flavonols) and luteolin (flavonoids), which, being in synergy, improve the inhibition of helminth sheathing [135].
In the family Cyathostominae, hatching of nematode eggs can be inhibited by phenolic acids (phenolic acids such as gallic acid, chlorogenic acid, caffeic acid, and rosmarinic acid) and flavonoids (rutin, luteolin, apigenin, and quercitin), which have cytotoxic effects, and the signaling pathways and gene expression appear, which leads to the death of larvae and adults of these parasites [139]. Likewise, these compounds can adhere to the egg membrane, which alters the permeability of the eggshell and interrupts osmosis or diffusion [133]. In addition, gallic acid has an affinity for proteins [140], and nematode eggs have a high content of glycoproteins on the outer surface of their cuticle, so the hydroxyl groups of gallic acid can be attached by links with eggshell proteins [133], and with them cause the inhibition of egg hatching. It has been reported that tannins also show high efficacy (100% inhibition) for the control of cyathostomin larval development in horses, the most abundant parasites in these animals, which is in agreement with other studies on the anthelmintic activity of tannins [97,98,141].
Saponins also play an important role in the antiparasitic activity of plants [142,143] since they have the ability to destabilize and penetrate the egg membrane, destroy content, and inhibit the activity of the enzyme responsible for hatching [144]. In addition, they can also induce anti-feeding behavior through paralysis of the alimentary system so that it weakens and detaches from the intestinal wall to finally be expelled through the feces [145]. However, the chemical structure of saponins is also key to antiparasitic efficacy since there are saponin constituents that present less antiparasitism than others [104]. Another bioactive compound in M. oleifera is terpenoids [146], which according to Imani-Baran et al. [109], in the seeds of Trachyspermum ammi, they were responsible for the control of nematodes in Equus asinus, which indicates that, in horses, the leaves of M. oleifera could cause a similar effect on nematodes.
Quercetin is a flavonol present in M. oleifera, which has been described as the most potent compound among polyphenols and with antinematocidal activity, since it can inhibit the hatching of eggs and the viability of nematode larvae [147]. Instead, caffeic acid is a bioactive polyphenol that is also present in M. oleifera, and is capable of inhibiting proteolysis, lipolysis, and suppressing the activation of matrix metalloproteinases, pathways, and enzymes that are activated by the nematode embryo before hatching [148]. It has been reported that the synergy of these two compounds is capable of inhibiting the hatching of nematode eggs by more than 90.0%, and it is attributed to the adhesion of these compounds and the damage they cause in structures of the cuticle of the eggs, which modifies the permeability of the membrane and allows the aggregation and infiltration of materials [147]. However, it has been reported that hatching is inhibited but not the embryonic process, so the mechanism of action is possibly the blocking of hatching in response to the increase in the thickness of the eggshell [147]. Despite the above, it is not ruled out that embryonic mortality inside the eggs is the cause of asphyxia and/or cellular toxicity associated with the accumulation of metabolic products [149].
The antileishmanial activity of some plants has been attributed to the presence of compounds such as alkaloids, chalcones, triterpenoids, naphthoquinones, quinones, terpenes, steroids, lignans, saponins, and flavonoids [130]. In this sense, M. oleifera has shown that it has a high activity against Leishmani donovani and significantly reduces infected macrophage cells (86%), thus attacking both stages (promastigotas and amastigotas) of Leishmania [121,150]. Similarly, Allahverdiyev et al. [151] analyzed the antileishmanial effects of M. oleifera nanoparticles against parasites and observed that the growth and metabolic activity of Leishmania is inhibited as a result of the effects that M. oleifera causes on mitochondrial function through oxidative stress and the infectivity of promastigotes by impeding the survival of amastigotes within the host cells. It has also been reported that M. oleifera affects Leishmania through a change in the morphology of the promastigote, uncovering the loss of its flagellum and inducing a change in appearance from oval to circular [152]. These changes inhibit their mobility, preventing them from reaching immune system cells such as macrophages, phagocytes, and granulocytes, in which, as shown in Figure 2, endocytosis is necessary to have the necessary means to mature into amastigotes, a stage in which parasites can reproduce and continue to infect more cells in different tissues [152]. Furthermore, it has been reported that M. oleifera does not show cytotoxicity on macrophage cells, as it has been shown that there is no difference between treated and untreated, uninfected macrophage cells [153]. Despite the research that has been carried out on the different active compounds of M. oleifera, it is considered that the greatest antiparasitic effects are not provided by a single compound but by several since they act synergistically, as already mentioned.
Life cycle of Leishmania in equines and M. oleifera-induced promastigote inhibition. (a) Insects inject promastigotes into the skin of equine, (b) Promastigotes are phagocytized by macrophages, (c) Promastigotes transform into amastigotes, (d) Amastigotes multiply and leave infected cells to infect new cells of various tissues, and (e) Sandfly takes blood with infected macrophages.
8. Future Perspectives
Considering the usefulness of equines in the daily activities of human beings, the resistance that gastrointestinal parasites are generating to synthetic drugs in these animals, and the damage that these parasites cause to equine health, it is necessary to seek new alternatives of control. Undoubtedly, in this situation, bioactive compounds from plants offer a natural and environmentally friendly alternative, and in this current era, it is necessary to think about the future and the generation of ecological products. In this sense, Moringa oleifera is a plant that has demonstrated anthelmintic activity in ruminants, it has even been considered a candidate for the generation of new drugs, but in horses, it has not been evaluated as an antiparasitic, so scientific bases need to be generated that allow its use as a natural antiparasitic. This involves exploring various extraction methods (aqueous, methanolic, and ethanolic) to obtain bioactive compounds (tannins, flavonoids, phenolics, saponins, and alkaloids) with antiparasitic activity since there are compounds that have more affinity for some solvents than others and the antiparasitic potential depends on the extracted compounds [154]. In the same way, when defining the doses, it is necessary to consider the toxicity that each bioactive compound could cause in the animals and thus avoid adverse effects on their health, as well as evaluate in different types of parasites and larval stages and establish the mechanism of action that exerts on the control of parasites. In addition, it has been hypothesized that bioactive compounds from some plants do not exert direct anthelmintic activity on parasites but instead enhance the host animal’s immune system, thereby indirectly reducing the parasite load [103]. Therefore, the hematological profile of the animals should be included in the in vivo evaluations.
9. Conclusions
Given the need to generate an alternative for the control of gastrointestinal parasites that are presenting resistance to synthetic drugs in horses, Moringa oleifera represents an alternative that is not only natural, but also ecological for the control of these parasites. The main benefit of this plant is found in its leaves, which is the bioactive compounds that it presents, both in the region where it is native and in the places where it is cultivated. These compounds have demonstrated antiparasitic activity, and the main ones are flavonoids, phenolic acids, tannins, vitamins, and saponins. In addition, this plant is capable of adapting to a wide variety of edaphoclimatic conditions, even adverse conditions, which gives it an advantage over those plants that have antiparasitic activity but do not adapt to any region. Therefore, M. oleifera can be considered as a source of bioactive compounds for the generation of new drugs of natural origin for the control of gastrointestinal parasites in horses, and it can be cultivated in different regions for industrialization purposes. However, research is required to validate and understand its mechanism of action, with the aim of a safer and more correct application in animals.
Funding Statement
This research received no external funding.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.M.M.Y.E., P.V.-M. and A.Z.M.S.; investigation, M.M.M.Y.E.; resources, M.M.M.Y.E.; data curation, M.M.M.Y.E., E.R.A.-R. and A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M.M.Y.E., A.M., J.C.-M. and P.V.-M.; writing—review and editing, P.D.P. and A.Z.M.S.; visualization, A.M., P.D.P. and A.Z.M.S.; supervision, M.M.M.Y.E., A.M., P.D.P. and A.Z.M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
References
1. Fesseha H., Aliye S., Mathewos M., Nigusie K. Prevalence and risk factors associated with donkey gastrointestinal parasites in Shashemane and Suburbs, Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Heliyon. 2022;12:e12244. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12244. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
2. Wilkes E.J., Heller J., Raidal S.L., Woodgate R.G., Hughes K.J. A questionnaire study of parasite control in Thoroughbred and Standardbred horses in Australia. Equine Vet. J. 2020;4:547–555. doi: 10.1111/evj.13207. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. Elsawy B.S.M., Nassar A.M., Alzan H.F., Bhoora R.V., Ozubek S., Mahmoud M.S., Kandil O.M., Mahdy L.A. Rapid Detection of Equine Piroplasms Using Multiplex PCR and First Genetic Characterization of Theileria haneyi in Egypt. Pathogens. 2021;11:1414. doi: 10.3390/pathogens10111414. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. Flota-Burgos G.J., Rosado-Aguilar J.A., Rodríguez-Vivas R.I., Borges-Argáez R., Martínez-Ortiz-de-Montellano C., Gamboa-Angulo M. Anthelmintic activity of extracts and active compounds from Diospyros anisandra on Ancylostoma caninum, Haemonchus placei and cyathostomins. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020;7:565103. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.565103. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Gokbulut C., McKellar Q.A. Anthelmintic drugs used in equine species. Vet. Parasitol. 2018;261:27–52. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2018.08.002. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Salem S.E., Abd El-Ghany A.M., Hamad M.H., Abdelaal A.M., Elsheikh H.A., Hamid A.A.A., Saud M.A., Daniels S.P., Ras R. Prevalence of gastrointestinal nematodes, parasite control practices and anthelmintic resistance patterns in a working horse population in Egypt. Equine Vet. J. 2020;53:339–348. doi: 10.1111/evj.13325. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Saeed M.A., Beveridge I., Abbas G., Beasley A., Bauquier J., Wilkes E., Jacobson C., Hughes K.J., El-Hage C., O’Handley R., et al. Systematic review of gastrointestinal nematodes of horses from Australia. Parasit. Vector. 2019;12:1–16. doi: 10.1186/s13071-019-3445-4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
8. Amer M.M., Desouky A.Y., Helmy N.M., Abdou A.M., Sorour S.S. Identifying 3rd larval stages of common strongylid and non-strongylid nematodes (class: Nematoda) infecting Egyptian equines based on morphometric analysis. BMC Vet. Res. 2022;1:432. doi: 10.1186/s12917-022-03526-8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Brady H.A., Nichols W.T. Drug resistance in equine parasites: An emerging global problem. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2009;29:285–295. doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2009.04.186. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Mathewos M., Teshome D., Fesseha H. Study on gastrointestinal nematodes of equines in and around Bekoji, south eastern Ethiopia. J. Parasitol. Res. 2022;2022:8210160. doi: 10.1155/2022/8210160. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Elghryani N., McOwan T., Mincher C., Duggan V., de Waal T. Estimating the Prevalence and Factors Affecting the Shedding of Helminth Eggs in Irish Equine Populations. Animals. 2023;34:581. doi: 10.3390/ani13040581. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Wolstenholme A.J., Fairweather I., Prichard R., von Samson-Himmelstjerna G., Sangster N.C. Drug resistance in veterinary helminths. Trends Parasitol. 2004;20:469–476. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2004.07.010. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Fritzen B., Rohn K., Schnieder T., von Samson-Himmelstjerna G. Endoparasite control management on horse farms–lessons from worm prevalence and questionnaire data. Equine Vet. J. 2010;1:79–83. doi: 10.2746/042516409X471485. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Buono F., Pacifico L., Piantedosi D., Sgroi G., Neola B., Roncoroni C., Genovese A., Rufrano D., Veneziano V. Preliminary observations of the effect of garlic on egg shedding in horses naturally infected by intestinal strongyles. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2019;72:79–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2018.10.025. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Ahmed H., Kilinc S.G., Celik F., Kesik H.K., Simsek S., Ahmad K.S., Afzal M.S., Farrakh S., Safdar W., Pervaiz F., et al. An inventory of anthelmintic plants across the globe. Pathogens. 2023;12:131. doi: 10.3390/pathogens12010131. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
16. Alonso-Díaz M.A., Torres-Acosta J.F.J., Sandoval-Castro C.A., Hoste H. Comparing the sensitivity of two in vitro assays to evaluate the anthelmintic activity of tropical tannin rich plant extracts against Haemonchus contortus. Vet. Parasitol. 2011;181:360–364. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.03.052. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Fatima T., Sajid M.S., Jawad-Ul-Hassan M., Siddique R.M., Iqbal Z. Phytomedicinal value of Moringa oleifera with special reference to antiparasitics. Pak. J. Agri. Sci. 2014;51:251–262. [Google Scholar]
18. Pérez M.T.A. Exotic ingredients: Dermopharmaceutical properties and applications. Offarm Pharm. Soc. 2005;24:70–77. [Google Scholar]
19. Mekonnen Y. The multi-purpose Moringa tree: Ethiopia. In: Mekonnen Y., editor. Examples of the Development of Pharmaceutical Products from Medicinal Plants. Volume 10. Research and Publication Office, Addis Ababa University; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: 2002. pp. 111–118. [Google Scholar]
20. El-Sayed N.M., Fathy G.M. Prophylactic and therapeutic treatments’ effect of Moringa oleifera methanol extract on cryptosporidium infection in immunosuppressed mice. Antiinfect. Agents. 2019;2:130–137. doi: 10.2174/2211352517666181221094420. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Korsor M., Ntahonshikira C., Kwaambwa H.K., Bello H.M. Anthelminthic effect of Moringa oleifera leaf supplement on gastrointestinal parasites in Boer goats. For. Hare Papers. 2017;22:106–125. [Google Scholar]
22. Murslain M., Javed N., Khan S.A., Khan H.U., Abbas H., Munawar M. Efficacy of Moringa leaves and Trichoderma harzianum on the invasion and development of Meloidogyne javanica. Pak. J. Phytopathol. 2013;25:59–64. [Google Scholar]
23. Gómez-Cabrera K., Salas-Romero J., Sifontes J.A., de la Torre Cánova R., Salas J.E., Nielsen M.K. Feasibility of selective anthelmintic therapy to horses in tropical conditions: The Cuban scenario. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2021;53:1–7. doi: 10.1007/s11250-021-02966-y. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. Scott I., Bishop R.M., Pomroy W.E. Anthelmintic resistance in equine helminth parasites–a growing issue for horse owners and veterinarians in New Zealand? N. Z. Vet. J. 2015;63:188–198. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2014.987840. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. Reinemeyer C.R., Nielsen M.K. Control of helminth parasites in juvenile horses. Equine Vet. Educ. 2016;4:225–232. doi: 10.1111/eve.12541. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Johnson A.C.B., Biddle A.S. The Use of Molecular Profiling to Track Equine Reinfection Rates of Cyathostomin Species Following Anthelmintic Administration. Animals. 2021;11:1345. doi: 10.3390/ani11051345. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Matthews J.B. Anthelmintic resistance in equine nematodes. Int. J. Parasitol. Drugs Drug Resist. 2014;3:310–315. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpddr.2014.10.003. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Hoskin S.O., Gee E.K. Feeding value of pastures for horses. N. Z. Vet. J. 2004;52:332–341. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2004.36449. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Corning S. Equine cyathostomins: A review of biology, clinical significance, and therapy. Parasites Vectors. 2009;2:S1. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-2-S2-S1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
30. Tydén E., Enemark H.L., Franko M.A., Höglund J., Osterman-Lind E. Prevalence of Strongylus vulgaris in horses after ten years of prescription usage of anthelmintics in Sweden. Vet. Parasitol. 2019;276:100013. doi: 10.1016/j.vpoa.2019.100013. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Ibrahim N., Berhanu T., Deressa B., Tolosa T. Survey of prevalence of helminth parasites of donkeys in and around Hawassa town, Southern Ethiopia. Glob. Vet. 2011;6:223–227. [Google Scholar]
32. Gerhard A.P., Krücken J., Heitlinger E., Janssen I.J.I., Basiaga M., Kornaś S., Beier C., Nielsen M.K., Davis R.E., Wang J.B., et al. The P-glycoprotein repertoire of the equine parasitic nematode Parascaris univalens. Sci. Rep. 2020;10:13586. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-70529-6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Pozio E., Sofronic-Milosavljevic L., Morales M.A.G., Boireau P., Nöckler K. Evaluation of ELISA and Western Blot Analysis using three antigens to detect anti-Trichinella IgG in horses. Vet. Parasitol. 2002;108:163–178. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4017(02)00185-1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Li T.T., Wang J.L., Zhang N.Z., Li W.H., Yan H.B., Li L., Jia W.Z., Fu B.Q. Rapid and visual detection of Trichinella spp. using a lateral flow strip-based recombinase polymerase amplification (LF-RPA) assay. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2019;9:1. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2019.00001. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Niedźwiedź A., Borowicz H., Nicpoń J.M. Prevalence study in horses infected by Gasterophilus sp. in an eastern region of Poland. Vet. Parasitol. 2013;191:94–96. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2012.08.023. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. Attia M.M., Khalifa M.M., Mahdy O.A. The prevalence of Gasterophilus intestinalis (Diptera: Oestridae) in donkeys (Equus asinus) in Egypt with special reference to larvicidal effects of neem seed oil extract (Azadirachta indica) on third stage larvae. Open Vet. J. 2018;8:423–431. doi: 10.4314/ovj.v8i4.12. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Wolf D., Hermosilla C., Taubert A. Oxyuris equi: Lack of efficacy in treatment with macrocyclic lactones. Vet. Parasitol. 2014;201:163–168. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2013.12.009. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Vexenat J.A., Barretto A.C., Rosa A.C., Sales C.C., Magalhães A.V. Natural infection of Equus asinus by Leishmania braziliensis braziliensis-Bahia, Brazil. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz. 1986;81:237–238. doi: 10.1590/S0074-02761986000200016. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
39. Wise L.N., Kappmeyer L.S., Mealey R.H., Knowles D.P. Review of equine piroplasmosis. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2013;27:1334–1346. doi: 10.1111/jvim.12168. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
40. Friedhoff K., Soule C. An account on equine babesioses. Rev. Sci. Tech. 1996;15:1191. doi: 10.20506/rst.15.3.972. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Henker L.C., Bandinelli M.B., de Andrade C.P., Bianchi M.V., Sonne L., Driemeier D., Soares J.F., Pavarini S.P. Pathological, immunohistochemical, and molecular findings of equine protozoal myeloencephalitis due to Sarcocystis neurona infection in Brazilian horses. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2020;52:3809–3817. doi: 10.1007/s11250-020-02419-y. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
42. Dubey J.P., Lindsay D.S., Saville W.J.A., Reed S.M., Granstrom D.E., Speer C.A. A review of Sarcocystis neurona and equine protozoal myeloencephalitis (EPM) Vet. Parasitol. 2001;95:89–131. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4017(00)00384-8. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
43. Wolf M.K. Equine tapeworm infections: Disease, diagnosis, and control. Equine Vet. Educ. 2016;28:388–395. doi: 10.1111/eve.12394. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
44. Lichtenfels J.R., Kharchenko V.A., Dvojnos G.M. Illustrated identification keys to strongylid parasites (Strongylidae: Nematoda) of horses, zebras and asses (Equidae) Vet. Parasitol. 2008;156:4–161. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2008.04.026. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45. Flanagan K.L., Morton J.M., Sandeman R.M. Prevalence of infestation with gastrointestinal nematodes in Pony Club horses in Victoria. Aus. Vet. J. 2013;6:241–245. doi: 10.1111/avj.12052. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
46. Nielsen M.K., Kaplan R.M., Thamsborg S.M., Monrad J., Olsen S.N. Climatic influences on development and survival of free-living stages of equine strongyles: Implications for worm control strategies and managing anthelmintic resistance. Vet. J. 2007;1:23–32. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2006.05.009. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
47. Leathwick D.M., Donecker J.M., Nielsen M.K. A model for the dynamics of the free-living stages of equine cyathostomins. Vet. Parasitol. 2015;209:210–220. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2015.02.031. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
48. Van Doorn D.C.K., Ploeger H.W., Eysker M., Geurden T., Wagenaar J.A., Kooyman F.N.J. Cylicocyclus species predominate during shortened egg reappearance period in horses after treatment with ivermectin and moxidectin. Vet. Parasitol. 2014;206:246–252. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2014.10.004. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
49. Boxell A.C., Gibson K.T., Hobbs R.P., Thompson R.C.A. Occurrence of gastrointestinal parasites in horses in metropolitan Perth, Western Australia. Aust. Vet. J. 2004;82:91–95. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2004.tb14653.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
50. Lyons E.T., Tolliver S.C., Kuzmina T.A., Collins S.S. Further evaluation in field tests of the activity of three anthelmintics (fenbendazole, oxibendazole, and pyrantel pamoate) against the ascarid Parascaris equorum in horse foals on eight farms in Central Kentucky (2009–2010) Parasitol. Res. 2011;109:1193–1197. doi: 10.1007/s00436-011-2379-3. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
51. Hautala K., Näreaho A., Kauppinen O., Nielsen M.K., Sukura A., Rajala-Schultz P.J. Risk factors for equine intestinal parasite infections and reduced efficacy of pyrantel embonate against Parascaris sp. Vet. Parasitol. 2019;273:52–59. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2019.08.004. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
52. Boelow H., Krücken J., von Samson-Himmelstjerna G. Epidemiological study on factors influencing the occurrence of helminth eggs in horses in Germany based on sent-in diagnostic samples. Parasitol. Res. 2023;122:749–767. doi: 10.1007/s00436-022-07765-4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
53. Aguilar C.M., Rangel E.F., Garcia L., Fernandez E., Momen H., Grimaldi F.G., Vargas Z.D. Zoonotic cutaneous leishmaniasis due to Leishmania (Viannia) braziliensis associated with domestic animals in Venezuela and Brazil. Memórias Do Inst. Oswaldo Cruz. 1989;84:19–28. doi: 10.1590/S0074-02761989000100005. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
54. Lei R., Wang X., Zhang D., Liu Y., Chen Q., Jiang N. Rapid isothermal duplex real-time recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) assay for the diagnosis of equine piroplasmosis. Sci. Rep. 2020;10:4096. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-60997-1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
55. Camino E., Dorrego A., Carvajal K.A., Buendia-Andres A., de Juan L., Dominguez L., Cruz-Lopez F. Serological, molecular and hematological diagnosis in horses with clinical suspicion of equine piroplasmosis: Pooling strengths. Vet. Parasitol. 2019;275:108928. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2019.108928. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
56. Boireau P., Vallee I., Roman T., Perret C., Mingyuan L., Gamble H.R., Gajadhar A. Trichinella in horses: A low frequency infection with high human risk. Vet. Parasitol. 2000;93:309–320. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4017(00)00348-4. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
57. Sofronic-Milosavljevic L., Pozio E., Patrascu I.V., Skerovic N., Morales M.G., Gamble H.R. Immunodiagnosis of Trichinella infection in the horse. Parasite. 2001;8:S260–S262. doi: 10.1051/parasite/200108s2260. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
58. Fariña F.A., Pasqualetti M.I., Bessi C., Ercole M.E., Vargas C., Arbusti P., Ayesa G., Ribicich M.M. Comparison between Trichinella patagoniensis and Trichinella spiralis infection in BALB/c mice. Vet. Parasitol. 2020;286:109248. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2020.109248. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
59. Erskine M., Graves E., Vaala W., Tully R.C., French D.D., Bowman R., Kaplan R.M. AAEP Parasite Control Guidelines. AAEP; San Antonio, TX, USA: 2019. pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
60. Rehbein S., Visser M., Winter R. Prevalence, intensity and seasonality of gastrointestinal parasites in abattoir horses in Germany. Parasitol. Res. 2013;1:407–413. doi: 10.1007/s00436-012-3150-0. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
61. Jongejan F., Uilenberg G. The global importance of ticks. Parasitology. 2004;129:S3–S14. doi: 10.1017/S0031182004005967. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
62. Allsopp M.T.E.P., Lewis B.D., Penzhorn B.L. Molecular evidence for transplacental transmission of Theileria equi from carrier mares to their apparently healthy foals. Vet. Parasitol. 2007;148:130–136. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2007.05.017. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
63. Tirosh-Levy S., Gottlieb Y., Mazuz M.L., Savitsky I., Steinman A. Infection dynamics of Theileria equi in carrier horses is associated with management and tick exposure. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2020;6:101508. doi: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2020.101508. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
64. Nielsen M.K., Facison C., Scare J.A., Martin A.N., Gravatte H.S., Steuer A.E. Diagnosing Strongylus vulgaris in pooled fecal samples. Vet. Parasitol. 2021;296:109494. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2021.109494. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
65. Pihl T.H., Nielsen M.K., Olsen S.N., Leifsson P.S., Jacobsen S. Nonstrangulating intestinal infarctions associated with Strongylus vulgaris: Clinical presentation and treatment outcomes of 30 horses (2008–2016) Equine Vet. J. 2018;4:474–480. doi: 10.1111/evj.12779. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
66. Hedberg-Alm Y., Penell J., Riihimäki M., Osterman-Lind E., Nielsen M.K., Tydén E. Parasite Occurrence and Parasite Management in Swedish Horses Presenting with Gastrointestinal Disease—A Case–Control Study. Animals. 2020;10:638. doi: 10.3390/ani10040638. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
67. Yan L., Pape T., Elgar M.A., Gao Y., Zhang D. Evolutionary history of stomach bot flies in the light of mitogenomics. Syst. Entomol. 2019;44:797–809. doi: 10.1111/syen.12356. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
68. Cribb N.C., Cote N.M., Boure L.P., Peregrine A.S. Acute small intestinal obstruction associated with Parascaris equorum infection in young horses: 25 cases (1985–2004) N. Z. Vet. J. 2006;6:338–343. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2006.36721. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
69. Mhadhbi M., Sassi A. Infection of the equine population by Leishmania parasites. Equine Vet. J. 2020;52:28–33. doi: 10.1111/evj.13178. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
70. Sazmand A., Bahari A., Papi S., Otranto D. Parasitic diseases of equids in Iran (1931–2020): A literature review. Parasit. Vectors. 2020;13:1–19. doi: 10.1186/s13071-020-04472-w. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
71. Fissiha W., Kinde M.Z. Anthelmintic resistance and its mechanism: A review. Infect. Drug Resist. 2021;14:5403–5410. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S332378. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
72. Nascimento L.S., Evaristo A.M., Oliveira G.M., Ferreira M.S., Silva D.L., Azevedo S.S., Yamamoto S.M., Araujo M.M., Horta M.C. Anthelmintic resistance of gastrointestinal nematodes in sheep grazing in irrigated and dry areas in the semiarid region of northeastern Brazil. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2021;53:1–8. doi: 10.1007/s11250-021-02647-w. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
73. Fausto G.C., Fausto M.C., Vieira Í.S., de Freitas S.G., de Carvalho L.M., de Castro Oliveira I., Silva E.N., Campos A.K., de Araujo J.V. Formulation of the nematophagous fungus Duddingtonia flagrans in the control of equine gastrointestinal parasitic nematodes. Vet. Parasitol. 2021;295:109458. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2021.109458. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
74. Jabbar A., Iqbal Z., Kerboeuf D., Muhammad G., Khan M.N., Afaq M. Anthelmintic resistance: The state of play revisited. Life Sci. 2006;79:2413–2431. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2006.08.010. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
75. Raza A., Qamar A.G., Hayat K., Ashraf S., Williams A.R. Anthelmintic resistance and novel control options in equine gastrointestinal nematodes. Parasitology. 2019;4:425–437. doi: 10.1017/S0031182018001786. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
76. Nipane S.F., Mishra B., Panchbuddhe A.N. Resistencia a los antihelmínticos: Preocupación actual del médico. Mundo Vet. 2008;9:281. [Google Scholar]
77. Scare J.A., Lyons E.T., Wielgus K.M., Nielsen M.K. Combination Deworming for the Control of Double-Resistant Cyathostomin Parasites-Short and Long Term Consequences. Vet. Parasitol. 2018;251:112–118. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2018.01.010. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
78. Higuera-Piedrahita R.I., Dolores-Hernández M., Jiménez-Pérez L.G., Camacho-Enríquez B.C., Zamilpa A., López-Arellano R., Mendoza-de-Gives P., Cuéllar-Ordaz J.A., López-Arellano M.E. In Vitro Nematocidal Effect and Anthelmintic Activity of Artemisia cina Against Haemonchus contortus in Gerbils and Relative Expression of Hc29 Gene in Transitional Larvae (L3–L4) Acta Parasitol. 2021;66:938–946. doi: 10.1007/s11686-021-00364-w. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
79. Gilleard J.S., Beech R.N. Population genetics of anthelmintic resistance in parasitic nematodes. Parasitology. 2007;8:1133–1147. doi: 10.1017/S0031182007000066. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
80. Sangster N.C., Cowling A., Woodgate R.G. Ten events that defined anthelmintic resistance research. Trends Parasitol. 2018;7:553–563. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2018.05.001. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
81. Nielsen M.K. Anthelmintic resistance in equine nematodes: Current status and emerging trends. Int. J. Parasitol. Drugs Drug Resist. 2022;20:76–88. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpddr.2022.10.005. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
82. Peregrine A.S., Molento M.B., Kaplan R.M., Nielsen M.K. Anthelmintic resistance in important parasites of horses: Does it really matter? Vet. Parasitol. 2014;201:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2014.01.004. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
83. Stratford C.H., Lester H.E., Morgan E.R., Pickles K.J., Relf V., McGorum B.C., Matthews J.B. A questionnaire study of equine gastrointestinal parasite control in Scotland. Equine Vet. J. 2014;1:25–31. doi: 10.1111/evj.12101. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
84. Ahuir-Baraja A.E., Cibot F., Llobat L., Garijo M.M. Anthelmintic resistance: Is a solution possible? Exp. Parasitol. 2021;230:108169. doi: 10.1016/j.exppara.2021.108169. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
85. Hammond J.A., Fielding D., Bishop S.C. Prospects for plant anthelmintics in tropical veterinary medicine. Vet. Res. Commun. 1997;21:213–228. doi: 10.1023/A:1005884429253. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
86. Higuera-Piedrahita R.I., Dolores-Hernández M., de la-Cruz-Cruz H.A., Andrade-Montemayor H.M., Zamilpa A., López-Arellano R., González-Garduño R., Cuéllar-Ordaz J.A., Mendoza-de-Gives P., López-Arellano M.E. An Artemisia cina n-hexane extract reduces the Haemonchus contortus and Teladorsagia circumcincta fecal egg count in naturally infected periparturient goats. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2022;2:95. doi: 10.1007/s11250-022-03103-z. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
87. Lanusse C., Canton C., Virkel G., Alvarez L., Costa-Junior L., Lifschitz A. Strategies to optimize the efficacy of anthelmintic drugs in ruminants. Trends Parasitol. 2018;8:664–682. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2018.05.005. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
88. Davuluri T., Chennuru S., Pathipati M., Krovvidi S., Rao G.S. In vitro anthelmintic activity of three tropical plant extracts on Haemonchus contortus. Acta Parasitol. 2020;65:11–18. doi: 10.2478/s11686-019-00116-x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
89. Santillán M.K.G., Khusro A., Salem A.Z., Pliego A.B., Elghandour M.M. Potential and Valorization of Salix babylonica Waste Leaf Extract to Mitigate Equine Fecal Production of Methane, Carbon Monoxide, and Hydrogen Sulfide. Waste Biomass Valorization. 2022;14:1079–1095. doi: 10.1007/s12649-022-01926-3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
90. Alvarado T.D., Elghandour M.M., Ekanem N.J., Alcala-Canto Y., Velázquez A.E., Pacheco E.B.F., Purba R.A.P., Salem A.Z. Influence of Azadirachta indica and Cnidoscolus angustidens Dietary Extracts on Equine Fecal Greenhouse Gas Emissions. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2022;116:104049. doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2022.104049. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
91. Rodrigues C.I., da Costa D.M., Santos A.C.V., Batatinha M.J.M., Souza F.V.D., de Souza E.H., Borges M.B., Queiroz C.A., Soares T.L., Brandão H.N. Assessment of in vitro anthelmintic activity and bio-guided chemical analysis of BRS Boyrá pineapple leaf extracts. Vet. Parasitol. 2020;285:109219. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2020.109219. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
92. Hussein D., El-Shiekh R.A., Saber F.R., Attia M.M., Mousa M.R., Atta A.H., Abdel-Sattar E., Mouneir S.M. Unravelling the anthelmintic bioactives from Jasminum grandiflorum L. subsp. Floribundum adopting in vitro biological assessment. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2021;275:114083. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2021.114083. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
93. Chagas A.C.S. Medicinal plant extracts and nematode control. CABI Rev. 2015;10:1–8. doi: 10.1079/PAVSNNR201510008. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
94. Scantlebury C.E., Peachey L., Hodgkinson J., Matthews J.B., Trawford A., Mulugeta G., Tefera G., Pinchbeck G.L. Participatory study of medicinal plants used in the control of gastrointestinal parasites in donkeys in Eastern Shewa and Arsi zones of Oromia region, Ethiopia. BMC Vet. Res. 2013;39:1–12. doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-9-179. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
95. Bellaw J.L., Krebs K., Reinemeyer C.R., Norris J.K., Scare J.A., Pagano S., Nielsen M.K. Anthelmintic therapy of equine cyathostomin nematodes–larvicidal efficacy, egg reappearance period, and drug resistance. Int. J. Parasitol. 2018;48:97–105. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2017.08.009. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
96. Baptista C.J., Sós E., Szabados T., Kerekes V., de Carvalho L.M. Intestinal parasites in Przewalski’s horses (Equus ferus Przewalskii): A field survey at the Hortobágy National Park, Hungary. J. Helminthol. 2021;95:e39. doi: 10.1017/S0022149X21000274. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
97. Payne S.E., Flematti G.R., Reeder A., Kotze A.C., Durmic Z., Vercoe P.E. Procyanidin A2 in the Australian plant Alectryon oleifolius has anthelmintic activity against equine cyathostomins in vitro. Vet. Parasitol. 2018;249:63–69. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2017.11.008. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
98. Payne S.E., Kotze A.C., Durmic Z., Vercoe P.E. Australian plants show anthelmintic activity toward equine cyathostomins in vitro. Vet. Parasitol. 2013;196:153–160. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2013.01.012. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
99. Peachey L.E., Pinchbeck G.L., Matthews J.B., Burden F.A., Mulugeta G., Scantlebury C.E., Hodgkinson J.E. An evidence-based approach to the evaluation of ethnoveterinary medicines against strongyle nematodes of equids. Vet. Parasitol. 2015;210:40–52. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2015.03.009. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
100. Bhatwalkar S.B., Mondal R., Krishna S.B.N., Adam J.K., Govender P., Anupam R. Antibacterial properties of organosulfur compounds of garlic (Allium sativum) Front. Microbiol. 2021;12:613077. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.613077. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
101. Salama A.A., AbouLaila M., Terkawi M.A., Mousa A., El-Sify A., Allaam M., Igarashi I. Inhibitory effect of allicin on the growth of Babesia and Theileria equi parasites. Parasitol. Res. 2014;113:275–283. doi: 10.1007/s00436-013-3654-2. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
102. Rakhshandehroo E., Asadpour M., Malekpour S.H., Jafari A. The anthelmintic effects of five plant extracts on the viability of Parascaris equorum larvae. Equine Vet. Educ. 2017;29:219–224. doi: 10.1111/eve.12676. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
103. Arfuso F., Bazzano M., Brianti E., Gaglio G., Passantino A., Tesei B., Laus F. Nutritional Supplements Containing Cardus mariano, Eucalyptus globulus, Gentiana lutea, Urtica urens, and Mallotus philippinensis extracts are effective in reducing egg shedding in dairy jennies (Equus asinus) naturally infected by cyathostomins. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020;7:556270. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.556270. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
104. Maestrini M., Tava A., Mancini S., Salari F., Perrucci S. In vitro Anthelmintic Activity of Saponins Derived from Medicago Spp. Plants against Donkey Gastrointestinal Nematodes. Vet. Sci. 2019;6:35. doi: 10.3390/vetsci6020035. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
105. Chicaiza-Tisalema E., Barros-Rodríguez M., Zurita-Vásquez H., Mera-Andrade R., Velástegui-Espín G., Muñoz-Espinoza M., Espinoza-Vaca S., Ortiz-Tirado P., Ibarra-López E. Efecto antihelmíntico in vitro del extracto de Albizia lophantha sobre nematodos gastrointestinales de caballos. Rev. Investig. Vet. Perú 2016;27:484–488. doi: 10.15381/rivep.v27i3.12007. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
106. Collas C., Sallé G., Dumont B., Cabaret J., Cortet J., Martin-Rosset W., Wimel L., Fleurance G. Are sainfoin or protein supplements alternatives to control small strongyle infection in horses? Animal. 2018;12:359–365. doi: 10.1017/S1751731117001124. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
107. Buza V., Cătană L., Andrei S.M., Ștefănuț L.C., Răileanu Ș., Matei M.C., Cernea M. In vitro anthelmintic activity assessment of six medicinal plant aqueous extracts against donkey strongyles. J. Helminthol. 2020;94:e147. doi: 10.1017/S0022149X20000310. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
108. Grimm P., Laroche N., Julliand S., Sorci G. Inclusion of sainfoin in the diet might alter strongyle infection in naturally infected horses. Animals. 2022;12:955. doi: 10.3390/ani12080955. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
109. Imani-Baran A., Abdollahi J., Akbari H., Jafarirad S., Moharramnejad S. Anthelmintic activity of crude powder and crude aqueous extract of Trachyspermum ammi on gastrointestinal nematodes in donkey (Equus asinus): An in vivo study. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2020;248:112249. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2019.112249. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
110. Cabardo Jr D.E., Portugaliza H.P. Anthelmintic activity of Moringa oleifera seed aqueous and ethanolic extracts against Haemonchus contortus eggs and third stage larvae. Int. J. Vet. Sci. Med. 2017;1:30–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ijvsm.2017.02.001. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
111. Pedraza-Hernández J., Elghandour M.M., Khusro A., Salem M.Z., Camacho-Diaz L.M., Barbabosa-Pliego A., Salem A.Z. Assessment on bioactive role of Moringa oleifera leaves as anthelmintic agent and improved growth performance in goats. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2021;2:318. doi: 10.1007/s11250-021-02745-9. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
112. Leone A., Spada A., Battezzati A., Schiraldi A., Aristil J., Bertoli S. Cultivation, genetic, ethnopharmacology, phytochemistry and pharmacology of Moringa oleifera leaves: An overview. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015;16:12791–12835. doi: 10.3390/ijms160612791. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
113. Vergara-Jimenez M., Almatrafi M.M., Fernandez M.L. Bioactive components in Moringa oleifera leaves protect against chronic disease. Antioxidants. 2017;6:91. doi: 10.3390/antiox6040091. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
114. Sharma V., Paliwal R. Isolation and characterization of saponins from Moringa oleifera (Moringaceae) pods. Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 2013;5:179–183. [Google Scholar]
115. Ferreira P.M.P., Farias D.F., Oliveira J.T.D.A., Carvalho A.D.F.U. Moringa oleifera: Bioactive compounds and nutritional potential. Rev. Nut. 2008;21:431–437. doi: 10.1590/S1415-52732008000400007. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
116. Ramachandran C., Peter K.V., Gopalakrishnan P.K. Drumstick (Moringa oleifera): A multipurpose Indian vegetable. Econ. Bot. 1980;34:276–283. doi: 10.1007/BF02858648. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
117. Marrufo T., Nazzaro F., Mancini E., Fratianni F., Coppola R., De Martino L., De Feo V. Chemical composition and biological activity of the essential oil from leaves of Moringa oleifera Lam. cultivated in Mozambique. Molecules. 2013;18:10989–11000. doi: 10.3390/molecules180910989. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
118. Coppin J.P., Xu Y., Chen H., Pan M.H., Ho C.T., Juliani R., Simon J.E., Wu Q. Determination of flavonoids by LC/MS and anti-inflammatory activity in Moringa oleifera. J. Funct. Foods. 2013;5:1892–1899. doi: 10.1016/j.jff.2013.09.010. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
119. Zhang M., Hettiarachchy N.S., Horax R., Kannan A., Praisoody M.A., Muhundan A., Mallangi C.R. Phytochemicals, antioxidant and antimicrobial activity of Hibiscus sabdariffa, Centella asiatica, Moringa oleifera and Murraya koenigii leaves. J. Med. Plants Res. 2011;5:6672–6680. doi: 10.5897/JMPR11.621. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
120. Prakash D., Suri S., Upadhyay G., Singh B.N. Total phenol, antioxidant and free radical scavenging activities of some medicinal plants. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2007;58:18–28. doi: 10.1080/09637480601093269. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
121. Singh B.N., Singh B.R., Singh R.L., Prakash D., Dhakarey R., Upadhyay G., Singh H.B. Oxidative DNA damage protective activity, antioxidant and anti-quorum sensing potentials of Moringa oleifera. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2009;47:1109–1116. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2009.01.034. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
122. Chumark P., Khunawat P., Sanvarinda Y., Phornchirasilp S., Morales N.P., Phivthong-Ngam L., Ratanachamnong P., Srisawat S., Klai-Upsorn S.P. The in vitro and ex vivo antioxidant properties, hypolipidaemic and antiatherosclerotic activities of water extract of Moringa oleifera Lam. leaves. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2008;116:439–446. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2007.12.010. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
123. Verma A.R., Vijayakumar M., Mathela C.S., Rao C.V. In vitro and in vivo antioxidant properties of different fractions of Moringa oleifera leaves. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2009;47:2196–2201. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2009.06.005. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
124. Bennett R.N., Mellon F.A., Foidl N., Pratt J.H., Dupont M.S., Perkins L., Kroon P.A. Profiling glucosinolates and phenolics in vegetative and reproductive tissues of the multi-purpose trees Moringa oleifera L. (horseradish tree) and Moringa stenopetala L. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003;51:3546–3553. doi: 10.1021/jf0211480. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
125. Teixeira E.M.B., Carvalho M.R.B., Neves V.A., Silva M.A., Arantes-Pereira L. Chemical characteristics and fractionation of proteins from Moringa oleifera Lam. leaves. Food Chem. 2014;147:51–54. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.09.135. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
126. Saini R.K., Sivanesan I., Keum Y.S. Phytochemicals of Moringa oleifera: A review of their nutritional, therapeutic and industrial significance. 3 Biotech. 2016;6:203. doi: 10.1007/s13205-016-0526-3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
127. Makkar H.A., Becker K. Nutrional value and antinutritional components of whole and ethanol extracted Moringa oleifera leaves. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1996;63:211–228. doi: 10.1016/S0377-8401(96)01023-1. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
128. Soltan Y.A., Morsy A.S., Hashem N.M., Sallam S.M. Utilization of Moringa oleifera in ruminant nutrition; Proceedings of the Sustainable Development of Livestock’s Production Systems “(SDLPS)”; Bab Sharqi, Egypt. 7–9 November 2017; pp. 7–9. [Google Scholar]
129. El-Khadragy M., Alolayan E.M., Metwally D.M., El-Din M.F.S., Alobud S.S., Alsultan N.I., Alsaif S.S., Awad M.A., Abdel Moneim A.E. Clinical efficacy associated with enhanced antioxidant enzyme activities of silver nanoparticles biosynthesized using Moringa oleifera leaf extract, against cutaneous leishmaniasis in a murine model of Leishmania major. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2018;15:1037. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15051037. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
130. Anwar F., Latif S., Ashraf M., Gilani A.H. Moringa oleifera: A food plant with multiple medicinal uses. Phytother. Res. 2007;21:17–25. doi: 10.1002/ptr.2023. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
131. Páez-León S.Y., Carrillo-Morales M., Gómez-Rodríguez O., López-Guillén G., Castañeda-Ramírez G.S., Hernández-Núñez E., Wong-Villarreal A., Aguilar-Marcelino L. Nematicidal activity of leaf extract of Moringa oleifera Lam. against Haemonchus contortus and Nacobbus aberrans. J. Helminthol. 2022;96:e13. doi: 10.1017/S0022149X22000025. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
132. Mbogning-Tayo G., Wabo-Poné J., Komtangi M.C., Yondo J., Ngangout A.M., Mbida M. Anthelminthic activity of Moringa oleifera leaf extracts evaluated in vitro on four developmental stages of Haemonchus contortus from goats. Am. J. Plant. Sc. 2014;5:1702–1710. doi: 10.4236/ajps.2014.511185. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
133. García-Hernández C., Rojo-Rubio R., Olmedo-Juárez A., Zamilpa A., de Gives P.M., Antonio-Romo I.A., Aguilas-Marcelino L., Arece-Garcia J., Tapia-Maruri D., González-Cortazar M. Galloyl derivatives from Caesalpinia coriaria exhibit in vitro ovicidal activity against cattle gastrointestinal parasitic nematodes. Exp. Parasitol. 2019;200:16–23. doi: 10.1016/j.exppara.2019.03.012. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
134. Klongsiriwet C., Quijada J., Williams A.R., Mueller-Harvey I., Williamson E.M., Hoste H. Synergistic inhibition of Haemonchus contortus exsheathment by flavonoid monomers and condensed tannins. Int. J. Parasitol. Drugs Drug Resist. 2015;5:127–134. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpddr.2015.06.001. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
135. Hoste H., Martinez-Ortiz-De-Montellano C., Manolaraki F., Brunet S., Ojeda-Robertos N., Fourquaux I., Torres-Acosta J.F.J., Sandoval-Castro C.A. Direct and indirect effects of bioactive tannin-rich tropical and temperate legumes against nematode infections. Vet. Parasitol. 2012;186:18–27. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.11.042. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
136. Williams A.R., Fryganas C., Ramsay A., Mueller-Harvey I., Thamsborg S.M. Direct anthelmintic effects of condensed tannins from diverse plant sources against Ascaris suum. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e97053. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097053. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
137. Sneha A., Preet S. Impact of sublethal conventional and biorational larvicidal stress on fitness status in nutritionally challenged Aedes aegypti larvae. Int. J. Mosq. Res. 2016;3:39–46. [Google Scholar]
138. Tibe O., Pernthaner A., Sutherland I., Lesperance L., Harding D.R.K. Condensed tannins from Botswanan forage plants are effective priming agents of γδ T cells in ruminants. Vet Immunol. Immunopathol. 2012;146:237–244. doi: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2012.03.003. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
139. Martinez P.A.C., González J.A.L., Corredor D.W.S. Evaluación in vitro de la actividad antihelmíntica de extractos metanólicos de Guazuma ulmifolia frente a nematodos Cyathostominae. Investig. Vet. Perú 2023;34:e22852. doi: 10.15381/rivep.v34i1.22852. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
140. Engstrom M.T., Karonen M., Ahern J.R., Baert N., Payré B., Hoste H., Salminen J.P. Chemical structures of plant hydrolyzable tannins reveal their in vitro activity against egg hatching and motility of Haemonchus contortus nematodes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016;64:840–851. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.5b05691. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
141. Puerto A.M., Arece García J., López L.Y., Roche Y., Molina M., Sanavria A., da Fonseca A.H. Efecto in vitro de extractos acuosos de Moringa oleifera y Gliricida sepium en el desarrollo de las fases exógenas de estrongílidos gastrointestinales de ovinos. Rev. Salud Anim. 2014;36:28–34. [Google Scholar]
142. Copani G., Hall J.O., Miller J., Priolo A., Villalba J.J. Plant secondary compounds as complementary resources: Are they always complementary? Oecologia. 2013;172:1041–1049. doi: 10.1007/s00442-012-2551-1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
143. Traore F., Faure R., Ollivier E., Gasquet M., Azas N., Debrauwer L., Keita A., Timon-David P., Balansard G. Structure and antiprotozoal activity of triterpenoid saponins from Glinus oppositifolius. Planta Med. 2000;66:368–371. doi: 10.1055/s-2000-8551. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
144. Gomes D.C., de Lima H.G., Vaz A.V., Santos N.S., Santos F.O., Dias Ê.R., Botura M.B., Branco A., Batatinha M.J.M. In vitro anthelmintic activity of the Zizyphus joazeiro bark against gastrointestinal nematodes of goats and its cytotoxicity on Vero cells. Vet. Parasitol. 2016;226:10–16. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2016.06.004. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
145. Kimenju J.W., Mbaria J.M., Nalule A.S. In vitro anthelmintic potential of Vernonia amygdalina and Secamone africana on gastrointestinal nematodes. Agric. Biol. J. N. Am. 2013;4:54–66. [Google Scholar]
146. Barreto M.B., Freitas J.V.B.D., Silveira E.R., Bezerra A.M.E., Nunes E.P., Gramosa N.V. Constituintes químicos voláteis e não-voláteis de Moringa oleifera Lam., Moringaceae. Rev. Bras. Farm. 2009;19:893–897. doi: 10.1590/S0102-695X2009000600018. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
147. von Son-de Fernex E., Alonso-Díaz M.Á., Mendoza-de Gives P., Valles-de la Mora B., González-Cortazar M., Zamilpa A., Gallegos E.C. Elucidation of Leucaena leucocephala anthelmintic-like phytochemicals and the ultrastructural damage generated to eggs of Cooperia spp. Vet. Parasitol. 2015;214:89–95. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2015.10.005. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
148. Kovaleva E.S., Masler E.P., Skantar A.M., Chitwood D.J. Novel matrix metalloproteinase from the cyst nematodes Heterodera glycines and Globodera rostochiensis. Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 2004;136:109–112. doi: 10.1016/j.molbiopara.2004.03.001. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
149. Brunet S., Fourquaux I., Hoste H. Ultrastructural changes in the third-stage, infective larvae of ruminant nematodes treated with sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia) extract. Parasitol. Int. 2011;60:419–424. doi: 10.1016/j.parint.2010.09.011. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
150. Kaur A., Kaur P.K., Singh S., Singh I.P. Antileishmanial compounds from Moringa oleifera Lam. Z Naturforsch. C. J. Biosci. 2014;69:110–116. doi: 10.5560/znc.2013-0159. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
151. Allahverdiyev A.M., Abamor E.S., Bagirova M., Ustundag C.B., Kaya C., Kaya F., Rafailovich M. Antileishmanial effect of silver nanoparticles and their enhanced antiparasitic activity under ultraviolet light. Int. J. Nanomed. 2011;6:2705–2714. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S23883. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
152. Mekonnen Y., Gessesse A. Documentation on the uses of Moringa stenopetala and its possible antileishmanial and antifertility effects. SINET Ethiop. J. Sci. 1998;21:287–295. doi: 10.4314/sinet.v21i2.18126. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
153. Hammi K.M., Essid R., Tabbene O., Elkahoui S., Majdoub H., Ksouri R. Antileishmanial activity of Moringa oleifera leaf extracts and potential synergy with amphotericin B. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2020;129:67–73. doi: 10.1016/j.sajb.2019.01.008. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
154. Nagpal K., Pawar P., Rathi R., Gaur N., Singh I. Anthelmintic Potential of Herbal Drugs. In: Sindhu R.K., Singh I., Shirkhedkar A.A., Panichayupakaranant P., editors. Herbal Drugs for the Management of Infectious Diseases. 1st ed. Volume 1. John Wiley & Sons; Hoboken, NJ, USA: 2022. pp. 341–357. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Plants are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)