Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20640226›Full record

ArticleInternational geology review2010

Evaluation of the medicinal use of clay minerals as antibacterial agents.

Lynda B Williams, Shelley E Haydel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International geology review, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 237 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Optimization ofACS omega · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. A Review of Pickering Emulsions: Perspectives and Applications.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lynda B WilliamsSchool of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1404, Tel. (480) 965-0829, Fax. (480) 965-8102, Lynda.Williams@asu.edu.
Shelley E Haydel
Arizona State University · US

Funding

Assess structure and microbial interactions of clay mineral antibacterial agentR21AT003618 · NCCIH · ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-TEMPE CAMPUS · PI WILLIAMS, LYNDA B. · 2006 to 2007
$434k
NCCIH NIH HHS R21 AT003618
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Natural clays have been used to heal skin infections since the earliest recorded history. Recently our attention was drawn to a clinical use of French green clay (rich in Fe-smectite) for healing Buruli ulcer, a necrotizing fasciitis ('flesh-eating' infection) caused by Mycobacterium ulcerans. These clays and others like them are interesting as they may reveal an antibacterial mechanism that could provide an inexpensive treatment for this and other skin infections, especially in global areas with limited hospitals and medical resources.Microbiological testing of two French green clays, and other clays used traditionally for healing, identified three samples that were effective at killing a broad-spectrum of human pathogens. A clear distinction must be made between 'healing clays' and those we have identified as antibacterial clays. The highly adsorptive properties of many clays may contribute to healing a variety of ailments, although they are not antibacterial. The antibacterial process displayed by the three identified clays is unknown. Therefore, we have investigated the mineralogical and chemical compositions of the antibacterial clays for comparison with non-antibacterial clays in an attempt to elucidate differences that may lead to identification of the antibacterial mechanism(s).The two French green clays used to treat Buruli ulcer, while similar in mineralogy, crystal size, and major element chemistry, have opposite effects on the bacterial populations tested. One clay deposit promoted bacterial growth whereas another killed the bacteria. The reasons for the difference in antibacterial properties thus far show that the bactericidal mechanism is not physical (e.g., an attraction between clay and bacteria), but by a chemical transfer or reaction. The chemical variables are still under investigation.Cation exchange experiments showed that the antibacterial component of the clay can be removed, implicating exchangeable cations in the antibacterial process. Furthermore, aqueous leachates of the antibacterial clays effectively kill the bacteria. Progressively heating the clay leads first to dehydration (200 degrees C), then dehydroxylation (550 degrees C or more), and finally to destruction of the clay mineral structure by (~900 degrees C). By identifying the elements lost after each heating step, and testing the bactericidal effect of the heated product, we eliminated many toxins from consideration (e.g., microbes, organic compounds, volatile elements) and identified several redox-sensitive refractory metals that are common among antibacterial clays. We conclude that the pH and oxidation state buffered by the clay mineral surfaces is key to controlling the solution chemistry and redox related reactions occurring at the bacterial cell wall.

Identifiers

PMID20640226
PMCPMC2904249
OpenAlexW1983665580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.