Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T11:26:48.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VI.—An Investigation of the Hepatotoxic Effects in the Fowl of Ragwort (Senecio jacobæa Linn.), with special reference to the Induction of Liver Tumours with Seneciphylline*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

J. G. Campbell
J. G. Campbell
Affiliation:
British Empire Cancer Campaign Unit at the Poultry Research Centre, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, 9.
Get access

Synopsis

The alkaloids of Ragwort (Senecio jacobæa Linn.) are known to be hepatotoxic to farm animals and man. Survivors invariably show permanent impairment of the liver, manifested by cirrhosis and its sequelæ. Senecio infusions may be consumed in small amounts in Britain as a herbal remedy, and in South Africa the Bantu frequently incorporate them in native medicines. It has been shown that these tribes have a high incidence of cirrhosis and primary liver cancer, and there is good evidence that their deficient diet may play an important part in sensitizing the liver to toxins. In the present study, the ragwort alkaloid seneciphylline has been administered by injection to fowls maintained on both adequate and deficient diets, and further fowls received the dried plant in their food. A significant proportion of these birds subsequently developed primary liver tumours. Although there was a higher mortality rate in both treated and controls fed the deficient diet, there was no evidence of a greater tendency to develop liver tumours compared with the birds on the balanced diet.

It is also suggested that the condition known as “cavernous angioma” of the liver of cattle and sheep in Britain may be due to ingestion of ragwort in sub-lethal amounts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , January 1957 , pp. 111 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This paper was assisted in publication by a grant from the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland.

References

References to Literature

Barger, G., and Blackie, J. J. (1937). J. Chem. Soc., 584.Google Scholar
Berman, C. (1941). S. Afr. J. Med. Sci., 6, 11.Google Scholar
Bisset, H. N. (1936). Vet. Rec., 48, 1488.Google Scholar
Bradbury, R. B. (1954). Chem. and Ind., 1022.Google Scholar
Bradbury, R. B., and Culvenor, C. C. J. (1954 a). Chem. and Ind., 1021.Google Scholar
Bradbury, R. B., and Culvenor, C. C. J. (1954 b). Aust. J. Chem., 7, 378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, L. B. (1955). Aust. Vet. J., 31, 33.Google Scholar
Cartwright, C. W. (1936). Vet. Rec., 48, 817.Google Scholar
Chase, W. H. (1904). Rep. Chief Vet. Surg. C.G.H., G41, 19.Google Scholar
Chen, K. K., Harris, P. M., and Rose, G. L. (1940). J. Pharmacol., 68, 130.Google Scholar
Cook, J. W., Duffy, E., and Schoental, R. (1950). Brit. J. Cancer, 4, 405.Google Scholar
Cushny, A. R. (1910–1911). J. Pharmacol., 2, 531.Google Scholar
Cushny, A. R., and Watt, H. E. (1920). Lancet, ii, 1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahme, E., and Müller, B. (1955). Berl. Münch. Tierärztl. Wschr., 68, 101.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. (1935). J. Path. Bact., 40, 285.Google Scholar
De Koch, G., Du Toit, P. J., and Steyn, D. G. (1931). Rep. Vet. Res. S. Afr., 17, 617.Google Scholar
Ferguson, H. N. (1940). Vet. Rec., 52, 758.Google Scholar
Forsythe, A. A. (1954). “British poisonous plants”, Bull. Minist. Agric. Lond., 161, 47.Google Scholar
Gillman, J., Gillman, T., Mandelstam, J., and Gilbert, C. (1945). Brit. J. Exp. Path., 26, 67.Google Scholar
Gilruth, J. A. (1903). Rep. Dep. Agric. N.Z., 11, Appendix V, p. 228.Google Scholar
Harris, P. N., Anderson, R. C., and Chen, K. K. (1942). J. Pharmacol., 75, 78.Google Scholar
Koekemoer, M. J., and Warren, F. L. (1951). J. Chem. Soc., 66.Google Scholar
Leonard, N. J. (1950). The Alkaloids: I, p. 107. (Editors, Manske, R. F., and Holmes, H. L.) Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Lofthouse, F. (1949). Vet. Rec., 61, 115.Google Scholar
Pethick, W. H. (1906). Special Report on Pictou Cattle Disease. (Dep. Agric., Ottawa, Canada.)Google Scholar
Reynolds, A. (1936). Vet. Rec., 48, 1407.Google Scholar
Robertson, W. (1906). J. Comp. Path. Ther., 19, 97.Google Scholar
Rose, C. L., Finck, R. D., Harris, P. N., and Chen, K. K. (1945). J. Pharmacol., 83, 265.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, I., and Beath, O. A. (1945). Amer. J. Clin. Path., 15, 407.Google Scholar
Sapeika, N. (1952). Brit. J. Exp. Path., 33, 223.Google Scholar
Schoental, R. (1954). Brit. Med. J., i, 335.Google Scholar
Schoental, R., and Head, M. A. (1955). Brit. J. Cancer, 9, 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoental, R., Head, M. A., and Peacock, P. R. (1954). Brit. J. Cancer, 8, 458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selzer, G., and Parker, R. G. F. (1951). Amer. J. Path., 27, 885.Google Scholar
Selzer, G., Parker, R. G. F., and Sapeika, N. (1951). Brit. J. Exp. Path., 32, 14.Google Scholar
Theiler, A. (1918 a). Rep. Dir. Vet. Res. S. Afr., 5/6.Google Scholar
Theiler, A. (1918 b). Rep. Dir. Vet. Res. S. Afr., 7/8.Google Scholar
Vardiman, P. H. (1952). J. Amer. Vet. Med. Ass., 121, 397.Google Scholar
Verney, F. A. (1911). J. Comp. Path. Ther., 24, 226.Google Scholar
Watt, J. M., and Breyer Brandwijk, M. C. (1952). The Medicinal and Poisonous Plants of South Africa, p. 198. E. & S. Livingstone, Edinburgh.Google Scholar