1992
DOI: 10.1021/bk-1992-0503.ch014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ivermectin and Abamectin Metabolism

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Within ERAPharm, 2 potential metabolites of ivermectin were identified in cattle dung: 24‐hydroxymethyl‐H 2 B 1a and 3′′‐ O ‐desmethyl‐H 2 B 1a (Pope 2010). These metabolites were also reported to be the most prominent in cattle and swine liver (Chiu et al 1986, 1990; Halley et al 1992). However, the potential metabolites could not be quantified because of time constraints on the preparation of the appropriate metabolite standards.…”
Section: Phase II Tier Amentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Within ERAPharm, 2 potential metabolites of ivermectin were identified in cattle dung: 24‐hydroxymethyl‐H 2 B 1a and 3′′‐ O ‐desmethyl‐H 2 B 1a (Pope 2010). These metabolites were also reported to be the most prominent in cattle and swine liver (Chiu et al 1986, 1990; Halley et al 1992). However, the potential metabolites could not be quantified because of time constraints on the preparation of the appropriate metabolite standards.…”
Section: Phase II Tier Amentioning
confidence: 94%
“…SEL, in addition to having a saturated spiroketal moiety that is similar to IVM, also has a cyclohexyl ring in place of the isopropyl/isobutyl substituent on IVM and ABM. The absence of the C22-C23 double bond in IVM alters the conformation of the spiroketal moiety and modifies its metabolism in comparison with ABM (Halley et al, 1992). However, given the comparable ability of both IVM and ABM to antagonize the inhibitory effects of ethanol in P2X4Rs more effectively than SEL, it seems that their spiroketal differences are not the primary determinant for this effect.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…10,11 The LC 50 of AVM at 96 h was 3.2 μg L −1 for rainbow trout, 9.6 μg L −1 for bluegill sunfish, 15 μg L −1 for sheepshead minnow, 24 μg L −1 for channel catfish and 42 μg L −1 for carp. 10,11 The LC 50 of AVM at 96 h was 3.2 μg L −1 for rainbow trout, 9.6 μg L −1 for bluegill sunfish, 15 μg L −1 for sheepshead minnow, 24 μg L −1 for channel catfish and 42 μg L −1 for carp.…”
Section: Dose Finding Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The experimental dose and exposure time were determined in our initial experiments in full consideration of the reported toxicity data of AVM in various species. 10,11 The LC 50 of AVM at 96 h was 3.2 μg L −1 for rainbow trout, 9.6 μg L −1 for bluegill sunfish, 15 μg L −1 for sheepshead minnow, 24 μg L −1 for channel catfish and 42 μg L −1 for carp. However, no toxic data were available for AVM on goldfish.…”
Section: Dose Finding Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 98%