Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26732702›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2016

Multipurpose effectiveness of Couroupita guianensis-synthesized gold nanoparticles: high antiplasmodial potential, field efficacy against malaria vectors and synergy with Aplocheilus lineatus predators.

Jayapal Subramaniam, Kadarkarai Murugan, Chellasamy Panneerselvam, Kalimuthu Kovendan, Pari Madhiyazhagan, Devakumar Dinesh, Palanisamy Mahesh Kumar, Balamurugan Chandramohan, Udaiyan Suresh, Rajapandian Rajaganesh and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
48.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 132 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Mode of action of nanoparticles against insects.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2018
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

15 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Jayapal SubramaniamDivision of Entomology, Department of Zoology, School of Life Sciences, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, 641046, Tamil Nadu, India.
Kadarkarai MuruganDivision of Entomology, Department of Zoology, School of Life Sciences, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, 641046, Tamil Nadu, India.
Chellasamy PanneerselvamDivision of Entomology, Department of Zoology, School of Life Sciences, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, 641046, Tamil Nadu, India.
Kalimuthu KovendanDivision of Entomology, Department of Zoology, School of Life Sciences, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, 641046, Tamil Nadu, India.
Pari MadhiyazhaganDivision of Entomology, Department of Zoology, School of Life Sciences, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, 641046, Tamil Nadu, India.
Devakumar DineshDivision of Entomology, Department of Zoology, School of Life Sciences, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, 641046, Tamil Nadu, India.
Palanisamy Mahesh KumarDivision of Entomology, Department of Zoology, School of Life Sciences, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, 641046, Tamil Nadu, India.
Balamurugan ChandramohanDivision of Entomology, Department of Zoology, School of Life Sciences, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, 641046, Tamil Nadu, India.
Udaiyan SureshDivision of Entomology, Department of Zoology, School of Life Sciences, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, 641046, Tamil Nadu, India.
Rajapandian RajaganeshDivision of Entomology, Department of Zoology, School of Life Sciences, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, 641046, Tamil Nadu, India.
Mohamad Saleh AlsalhiDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Research Chair in Laser Diagnosis of Cancer, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Sandhanasamy DevanesanDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Research Chair in Laser Diagnosis of Cancer, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Marcello NicolettiDepartment of Environmental Biology, Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185, Rome, Italy.
Angelo CanaleDepartment of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Pisa, via del Borghetto 80, 56124, Pisa, Italy.
Giovanni BenelliDepartment of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Pisa, via del Borghetto 80, 56124, Pisa, Italy. benelli.giovanni@gmail.com.
Bharathiar University · INKing Saud University · SAUniversity of Pisa · ITSapienza University of Rome · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mosquito-borne diseases represent a deadly threat for millions of people worldwide. According to recent estimates, about 3.2 billion people, almost half of the world's population, are at risk of malaria. Malaria control is particularly challenging due to a growing number of chloroquine-resistant Plasmodium and pesticide-resistant Anopheles vectors. Newer and safer control tools are required. In this research, gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) were biosynthesized using a cheap flower extract of Couroupita guianensis as reducing and stabilizing agent. The biofabrication of AuNP was confirmed by UV-vis spectrophotometry, Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction (XRD), zeta potential, and particle size analysis. AuNP showed different shapes including spheres, ovals, and triangles. AuNPs were crystalline in nature with face-centered cubic geometry; mean size was 29.2-43.8 nm. In laboratory conditions, AuNPs were toxic against Anopheles stephensi larvae, pupae, and adults. LC50 was 17.36 ppm (larva I), 19.79 ppm (larva II), 21.69 ppm (larva III), 24.57 ppm (larva IV), 28.78 ppm (pupa), and 11.23 ppm (adult). In the field, a single treatment with C. guianensis flower extract and AuNP (10 × LC50) led to complete larval mortality after 72 h. In standard laboratory conditions, the predation efficiency of golden wonder killifish, Aplocheilus lineatus, against A. stephensi IV instar larvae was 56.38 %, while in an aquatic environment treated with sub-lethal doses of the flower extract or AuNP, predation efficiency was boosted to 83.98 and 98.04 %, respectively. Lastly, the antiplasmodial activity of C. guianensis flower extract and AuNP was evaluated against CQ-resistant (CQ-r) and CQ-sensitive (CQ-s) strains of Plasmodium falciparum. IC50 of C. guianensis flower extract was 43.21 μg/ml (CQ-s) and 51.16 μg/ml (CQ-r). AuNP IC50 was 69.47 μg/ml (CQ-s) and 76.33 μg/ml (CQ-r). Overall, our results showed the multipurpose effectiveness of C. guianensis-synthesized AuNPs, since they may be proposed as newer and safer tools in the fight against CQ-r strains of P. falciparum and for field control of malaria vectors, in synergy with wonder killifish predators.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnophelesAntimalarialsCyprinodontiformesFlowersGoldInsecticidesInsect VectorsLarvaLecythidaceaeMalariaMetal NanoparticlesPlant ExtractsPlasmodium falciparumPredatory BehaviorPupaAntimalarialsGoldInsecticidesPlant ExtractsChloroquineFlower-mediated nanosynthesisGolden wonder killifishMalariaNanobiotechnologyPlasmodium falciparum

Identifiers

PMID26732702
OpenAlexW2231352951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.