Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26668657›Full record

ArticleThe open microbiology journal2015

Assessment of the Antimicrobial Activity of Few Saudi Arabian Snake Venoms.

Abdulrahman K Al-Asmari, Rajamohamed Abbasmanthiri, Nasreddien M Abdo Osman, Yunus Siddiqui, Faisal Ahmed Al-Bannah, Abdulgadir M Al-Rawi, Sarah A Al-Asmari

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The open microbiology journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Oral microflora ofOpen veterinary journal · 2025
    Article
  3. International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Inhibition of bacterial biofilms by the snake venom proteome.Biotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2023
    Article
  6. Antibacterial Activity of Venom from the Puff Adder (International journal of microbiology · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Infectious Complications Following Snakebite byThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2020
    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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Abdulrahman K Al-AsmariDepartment of Research Center.
Rajamohamed AbbasmanthiriDepartment of Research Center.
Nasreddien M Abdo OsmanDepartment of Research Center.
Yunus SiddiquiDepartment of Research Center.
Faisal Ahmed Al-BannahEndocrinology.
Abdulgadir M Al-RawiFamily & Community Medicine.
Sarah A Al-AsmariDentistry, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Endocrinology Research Center · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVenoms of two cobras, four vipers, a standard antibiotic and an antimycotic, were evaluated comparatively, as antimicrobials.

methodsSix venom concentrations and three of the standard antibiotic and the antimycotic were run in micro-dilution and diffusion plates against the microorganisms.

resultsEchis pyramidum, Echis coloratus and Cerastes cerastes gasperettii highest venom concentrations gave significant growth inhibition zones (GIZ) with respect to a negative control, except Bitis arietans, whose concentrations were significant. The cobra Walterinnesia aegyptia had significant venom concentrations more than Naja haje arabica. The Staphylococcus aureus Methicillin Resistant (MRSA) bacterium was the most susceptible, with a highly (P < 0.001) significant GIZ mean difference followed by the Gram positive Staphylococcus aureus, (P < 0.001), Escherichia coli (P < 0.001), Enterococcus faecalis (P < 0.001) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa which, had the least significance (P < 0.05). The fungus Candida albicans was resistant to both viper and cobra venoms (P > 0.05). The antibiotic Vancomycin was more effective than snake venoms though, they were more efficient in inhibiting growth of the resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. This antibiotic was also inactive against the fungus, whilst its specific antifungal Fungizone was highly efficient with no antibacterial activity.

conclusionsThese findings showed that snake venoms had antibacterial activity comparable to antibiotics, with a directly proportional relationship of venom concentration and GIZ, though, they were more efficient in combatting resistant types of bacteria. Both venoms and the standard antibiotic, showed no antifungal benefits.

Indexed as

Agar diffusionantimicrobialEchis pyramidumfungizoneGIZvenoms.

Identifiers

PMID26668657
PMCPMC4676055
OpenAlexW1595598151

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.