ArticleBMC complementary and alternative medicine2016
Activity of crude extracts from Brazilian cerrado plants against clinically relevant Candida species.
Article in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the Antifungal and Antiproliferative Properties of the LichenPharmaceutics · 2024Article
- Prospecting Plant Extracts and Bioactive Molecules with Antimicrobial Activity in Brazilian Biomes: A Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Non-Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- "Cow's Hoof" (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Anti-Fungal Efficacy and Mechanisms of Flavonoids.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Ethanolic Extract of Dried Leaves from theOxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2020Article
- Review
- Phytochemical Analysis and Antimicrobial Activity of Myrcia tomentosa (Aubl.) DC. Leaves.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Article
- An Update onFrontiers in microbiology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedicinal plants have traditionally been used in many parts of the world as alternative medicine. Many extracts and essential oils isolated from plants have disclosed biological activity, justifying the investigation of their potential antimicrobial activity. In this study, the in vitro antifungal activity of six Brazilian Cerrado medicinal plant species were evaluated against clinically relevant Candida species.
methodsThe crude extract plants were evaluated against American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) standard strains of Candida spp. using disk diffusion method and determining the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC). The chemical study results were confirmed by HPLC method.
resultsAll six plant species showed antifungal activity. Among the species studied, Eugenia dysenterica and Pouteria ramiflora showed significant inhibitory activity against C. tropicalis at lowest MIC value of 125 and 500 μg/disc, respectively. The Eugenia dysenterica also disclosed MIC value of 125 μg/disc against C. famata, 250 μg/disc against C. krusei and 500 μg/disc against C. guilliermondii and C. parapsilosis. Pouteria torta, Bauhinia rufa, Erythroxylum daphnites and Erythroxylum subrotundum showed activity against the yeast strains with MIC value of 1000 μg/disc. The chemical study of the most bioactive extracts of Eugenia dysenterica and Pouteria ramiflora revealed catechin derivatives and flavonoids as main components.
conclusionsAll six evaluated plant species showed good antifungal potential against several Candida strains. However, E .dysenterica and P. ramiflora showed the higher inhibitory effect against the non-albicans Candida species. Our results may contribute to the continuing search of new natural occurring products with antifungal activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.