Table 1.
Prophylactic effect of the Drug and Extract Treatments in parabss flies.
|
Treatment parabss flies |
Concentration (mg.ml-1) |
% of recovery at
t
= 0 Females |
% of recovery at
t
= 0 Males |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Mean ± SEM) | p | n (# flies) | (Mean ± SEM) | p | n (# flies) | ||
| Control | 0 | 15.85 ± 4.71 | 12 (134) | 53.95 ± 4.07 | 9 (89) | ||
| Phenytoin | 0.91 | 66.13 ± 9.55 | <0.0001 | 8 (71) | 89.86 ± 3.28 | <0.0001 | 8 (79) |
| 4.76 | 54.67 ± 10.68 | 0.01 | 5 (56) | 91.67 ± 3.33 | <0.0001 | 8 (76) | |
| 9.09 | 56.13 ± 4.82 | 0.003 | 6 (59) | 83.15 ± 5.12 | 0.001 | 6 (51) | |
| A. senegalensis | 0.27 | 34.88 ± 5.06 | 0.39 | 8 (68) | 75.87 ± 3.88 | 0.01 | 8 (75) |
| Leaf extract | 1.33 | 45.36 ± 4.52 | 0.015 | 9 (78) | 78.7 ± 6.64 | 0.01 | 6 (57) |
| 2.66 | 45.39 ± 4.17 | 0.25 | 8 (79) | 66.25 ± 5.98 | 0.31 | 8 (80) | |
| 13.3 | 58.84 ± 7.70 | 0.04 | 8 (89) | 71.94 ± 4.80 | 0.07 | 8 (77) | |
| 26.6 | 51.34 ± 7.96 | 0.006 | 9 (89) | 76.28 ± 6.65 | 0.01 | 8 (75) | |
| A. senegalensis | 0.27 | 64.20 ± 10.56 | <0.0001 | 8 (72) | 86.83 ± 5.53 | <0.0001 | 8 (78) |
| Stem Bark extract | 1.33 | 71.77 ± 5.97 | <0.0001 | 7 (62) | 89.89 ± 3.61 | <0.0001 | 7 (65) |
| 2.66 | 45.39 ± 4.17 | 0.02 | 9 (88) | 86.25 ± 3.75 | <0.0001 | 8 (80) | |
| 13.3 | 44.42 ± 7.55 | <0.0001 | 9 (92) | 74.21 ± 6.24 | 0.03 | 8 (82) | |
| 26.6 | 49.09 ± 7.25 | 0.001 | 8 (78) | 77.47 ± 4.97 | 0.005 | 9 (92) | |
The percentage of recovery of parabss flies was evaluated at t = 0, just at the end of the mechanical stimulation. ANOVAs showed effect of treatment in female [F(13, 114) = 4.48, p < 0.0001] and male flies [F(13, 108) = 4.74, p < 0.0001]. Dunnett's post hoc test comparing each treatment against the control for each sex is shown in column p. The n (# flies) column shows the number of replicates (n) and flies tested (in brackets) per condition.