Momin durrani biography sample
Abstract
Pentavalent antimonials continue to be the standard treatment for cutaneous leishmaniasis. But their use is retarded owing to highly-priced, prolonged hospitalization, noxious and poor solubility. Therefore, there is a dire need to characterize new potential compounds possessing anti-leishmanial activity. Topical therapies that are more successful are an essential alternative therapeutic option for the localized self-limiting form of this disease. We tested the herbal-based topical cream Lesh Nat B against Leishmania tropica KWH23 promastigotes and axenic amastigotes in vitro. The anti-leishmanial activity of Lesh Nat B cream was evaluated using the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay against promastigotes and axenic amastigotes. The results of Lesh Nat B cream were concentration and incubation time-dependent. After 72 h of incubation, Lesh Nat B cream efficiently suppresses the promastigote form of the parasite, followed by 48 h and 24 h. At 72 h, the lowest and highest levels of activity were 37% and 90%. Amastigotes had a minimum activity of 34% and a maximum activity of 78.5%, respectively. This formulation was more cytotoxic against promastigote form than amastigotes form at 72 h incubation periods. All the experiments were carried out in triplicates. Half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) values were determined to be (66 ug/ml) and (70 ug/ml) against promastigote and amastigote forms, respectively. Moreover, 1.63% hemolytic activity was observed in Lesh Nat B cream at (10 µg/ml) while 3% hemolytic activity was observed at (37 µg/ml). It can be concluded that Lesh Nat B cream demonstrated effective Leishmanicidal and less hemolytic activity and can be used as an alternative therapeutic option for the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis; however, more studies are expected to justify its effectiveness in treating cutaneous leishmaniasis in both humans and animals.
Keywords: Cutaneous leishmaniasis, Period in Indian history, c. 1712–1857 The decline of the Mughal Empire was a period in Indian history roughly between the early 18th century and mid 19th century during which the Mughal Empire, which once dominated the subcontinent, experienced a sharp decline. Various factors frequently cited to be responsible for the decline include internal conflicts, Rajput, Sikh and Maratha rebellions, Afghan and Persian invasions and expansion of East India Company influence and power. The period is usually considered to have begun with the death of Bahadur Shah I in 1712 and ended with the deposition of Bahadur Shah II in 1857. A number of provinces became hereditary vassal monarchies who ruled nominally in the name of the emperor. All powers, including the Marathas and British, nominally ruled in the name of the emperor, and the politics of the era was marked by these powers trying to gain a larger influence over the emperor than the other. Several Historians have debated the cause of decline. Irfan Habib argues the excessive exploitation of the peasantry by the rich, which stripped away the will and the means to support the regime causing the empire to collapse. Jeffrey G. Williamson states that the Indian economy went through deindustrialization in the latter half of the 18th century as an indirect outcome of the collapse of the Mughal Empire, with British rule later causing further deindustrialization which led to a decline in agricultural productivity, which drove up food prices, nominal wages, and textile prices. This led to India losing a share of the world textile market to Britain. Karen Leonard focuses on the failure of the regime to work with Hindu bankers In a religious interpretation, some scholars argue that the Hindu powers revolted against the rule of a Muslim dynasty. Some Historians assert such orthodox policies resulting in decline o This is a list of state leaders in the 19th century (1851–1900) AD, except for the leaders within British south Asia and its predecessor states, and those leaders within the Holy Roman Empire. These polities are generally sovereign states, but excludes minordependent territories, whose leaders can be found listed under territorial governors in the 19th century. For completeness, these lists can include colonies, protectorates, or other dependent territories that have since gained sovereignty. Angola Cameroon Central African Republic Chad Congo: Belgian; today, the Democratic Republic of the Congo .Decline of the Mughal Empire
List of state leaders in the 19th century (1851–1900)
Africa
Africa: Central