Evaluation of antiviral activity of Ocimum sanctum and Acacia arabica leaves extracts against H9N2 virus using embryonated chicken egg model.

BACKGROUND: In the view of endemic avian influenza H9N2 infection in poultry, its zoonotic potential and emergence of antiviral resistance, two herbal plants, Ocimum sanctum and Acacia arabica, which are easily available throughout various geographical locations in India were taken up to study their antiviral activity against H9N2 virus. We evaluated antiviral efficacy of three different extracts each from leaves of O. sanctum (crude extract, terpenoid and polyphenol) and A. arabica (crude extract, flavonoid and polyphenol) against H9N2 virus using in ovo model. METHODS: The antiviral efficacy of different leaves extracts was systematically studied in three experimental protocols viz. virucidal (dose-dependent), therapeutic (time-dependent) and prophylactic (dose-dependent) activity employing in ovo model. The maximum non-toxic concentration of each herbal extracts of O. sanctum and A. arabica in the specific pathogen free embryonated chicken eggs was estimated and their antiviral efficacy was determined in terms of reduction in viral titres, measured by Haemagglutination (HA) and real time quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assays. RESULTS: All the extracts of O. sanctum (crude extract, terpenoid and polyphenol) and A. arabica (crude extract, flavonoid and polyphenol) showed significant virucidal activity, however, crude extract ocimum and terpenoid ocimum showed highly significant to significant (p < 0.001-0.01) decrease in virus genome copy numbers with lowest dose tested. Similarly, therapeutic effect was observed in all three extracts of O. sanctum in comparison to the virus control, nevertheless, crude extract ocimum and terpenoid ocimum maintained this effect for longer period of time (up to 72 h post-incubation). None of the leaves extracts of A. arabica had therapeutic effect at 24 and 48 h post-incubation, however, only the crude extract acacia and polyphenol acacia showed delayed therapeutic effect (72 h post-inoculation). Prophylactic potential was observed in polyphenol acacia with highly significant antiviral activity compared to virus control (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The crude extract and terpenoid isolated from the leaves of O. sanctum and polyphenol from A. arabica has shown promising antiviral properties against H9N2 virus. Future investigations are necessary to formulate combinations of these compounds for the broader antiviral activity against H9N2 viruses and evaluate them in chickens.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, ethylene brassylate, CAS Registry Number 105-95-3.

: The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (1.4 mg/day). The repeated dose toxicity endpoint was completed using ethylene dodecanedioate (CAS # 54982-83-1) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100. The developmental and reproductive toxicity endpoint was completed using oxacyclohexadec-12-en-2-one, (12E)- (CAS # 111879-80-2) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra along with data on the target material. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework along with data on the suitable read across analog oxacyclohexadec-12-en-2-one, (12E)- (CAS # 111879-80-2).

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 2-ethyl-1-butanol, CAS Registry Number 97-95-0.

The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data from the suitable read across analog 2-ethylhexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) show that this material is not genotoxic. Data from the suitable read across analog isopropyl alcohol (CAS # 67-63-0) show that this material does not have skin sensitization potential. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (1.4 mg/day). The repeated dose toxicity endpoint was completed using 2-ethylhexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) and 1-heptanol, 2-propyl (CAS # 10042-59-8) as suitable read across analogs, which provided a MOE > 100. The developmental and reproductive toxicity endpoint was completed using 2-ethyl-hexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) and isobutyl alcohol (CAS # 78-83-1) as suitable read across analogs, which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 2-ethyl-1-hexanol, CAS registry number 104-76-7.

The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data show that this material is not genotoxic. Data from the suitable read across analog 2-butyloctan-1-ol (CAS # 3913-02-8) show that this material does not have skin sensitization potential. The reproductive and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (0.03 and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The developmental and repeat dose toxicity endpoints were completed data on the target material which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, linalyl benzoate, CAS Registry Number 126-64-7.

The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data show that this material is not genotoxic. Data from the suitable read across analog linalyl phenylacetate (CAS # 7143-69-3) show that this material does not have skin sensitization potential. The repeated dose toxicity endpoint was completed using linalyl cinnamate (CAS # 78-37-5) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100. The developmental and reproductive toxicity endpoint was completed using linalool (CAS # 78-70-6), dehydrolinalool (CAS # 29171-20-8), benzoic acid (CAS # 65-85-0) and sodium benzoate (CAS # 532-32-1) as suitable read across analogs, which provided a MOE > 100. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was completed using linalool (CAS # 78-70-6) and benzoic acid (CAS # 65-85-0) as suitable read across analogs, which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework along with data from the suitable read across analog linalyl cinnamate (CAS # 78-375).

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 3,7-dimethyl-1,6-nonadien-3-ol, CAS Registry Number 10339-55-6.

The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data from the suitable read across analog linalool (CAS # 78-70-6) show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential and also provided a MOE > 100 for the local respiratory endpoint. The repeated dose, developmental and reproductive toxicity endpoints were completed using nerolidol (isomer unspecified, CAS # 7212-44-4) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, benzyl butyrate, CAS Registry Number 103-37-7.

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data from the suitable read across analog benzyl acetate (CAS # 140-11-4) show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential and also provided a MOE > 100 for the repeated dose, developmental and reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, linalyl cinnamate, CAS Registry Number 78-37-5.

The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential. The reproductive and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (0.03 and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The developmental toxicity endpoint was completed using linalool (CAS # 78-70-6), dehydrolinalool (CAS # 29171-20-8) and cinnamic acid (CAS # 621-82-9) as suitable read across analogs, which provided a MOE > 100. The repeated dose toxicity endpoint was completed using data on the target material which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 2-methylundecanol, CAS Registry Number 10522-26-6.

This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data from the suitable read across analogs 2-butyloctan-1-ol (CAS # 3913-02-8) and 2-ethyl-1-hexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential. The reproductive and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (0.03 and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The repeated dose toxicity endpoint was completed using 2-ethyl-1-hexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) and 1-heptanol, 2-propyl (CAS # 10042-59-8) as suitable read across analogs, which provided a MOE > 100. The developmental toxicity endpoint was completed using 2-ethyl-1-hexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100 The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 1-(1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-4,4-dimethyl-1-naphthyl)propan-1-one, CAS Registry Number 74499-60-8.

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data from the target material and the suitable read across analog 6-acetyl-1,1,2,4,4,7-hexamethyltetraline (CAS # 21145-77-7) show that this material is not genotoxic. Data from the suitable read across analog 6-acetyl-1,1,2,4,4,7-hexamethyltetraline (CAS # 21145-77-7) provided a MOE > 100 for the repeat dose and developmental toxicity endpoints. The reproductive and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class II material (0.009 mg/kg/day and 0.47 mg/day, respectively). Data on the target material showed that this material is below the non-reactive DST for skin sensitization and did not have the potential for phototoxicity or photoallergenicity. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, Isopulegol, CAS Registry Number 89-79-2.

This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential. The repeated dose, developmental and reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (0.03, 0.03 mg/kg/day and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, p-Isopropylbenzyl acetate, CAS Registry Number 59230-57-8.

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data from the suitable read across analog, benzyl acetate (CAS # 140-11-4), show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential. The repeated dose, developmental and reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using benzyl acetate (CAS # 140-11-4) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, α-Methylbenzyl acetate, CAS Registry Number 93-92-5.

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization potential, as well as, environmental safety. Developmental toxicity was determined to have the most conservative systemic exposure derived NO[A]EL of 100 mg/kg/day. A gavage developmental toxicity study conducted in rats on a suitable read across analog resulted in aMOE of 3571 while considering 78.7% absorption from skin contact and 100% from inhalation. A MOE of >100 is deemed acceptable.