ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2016
In vitro Antibacterial Activity of Combretum edwardsii, Combretum krausii, and Maytenus nemorosa and Their Synergistic Effects in Combination with Antibiotics.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anti-Staphylococcal, Anti-Candida, and Free-Radical Scavenging Potential of Soil Fungal Metabolites: A Study Supported by Phenolic Characterization and Molecular Docking Analysis.Current issues in molecular biology · 2023Article
- Biological activities ofPharmaceutical biology · 2023Article
- Antioxidant and Antibacterial Activities of the Leaf and Stem Extracts ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Ethnopharmacology, Antimicrobial Potency, and Phytochemistry of AfricanAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Potential anti-Heliyon · 2021Article
- Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Properties of a Bacterial Endophyte,International journal of microbiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study investigated the antibacterial activity of crude extracts of C. edwardsii, Combretum krausii, and Maytenus nemorosa as well as their interactions with selected antibiotics against drug resistant bacterial strains. Using the rapid p-iodonitrotetrazolium chloride colorimetric assay, minimum inhibitory concentration values of plant extracts and antibiotics were determined. The interactions of plant extracts and antibiotics were studied using a checkerboard method. The MICs of the plant extracts and antibiotics were in the range of 0.037-6.25 and 0.001-2.5 mg/ml, respectively. The plant fractions tested in the present study displayed varying levels of antibacterial activity depending on the bacterial strains. Generally, Staphylococcus aureus was the most susceptible of the three strains of bacteria while the other two beta-lactamase producing Gram-negative bacteria were the most resistant. The hexane leaf extract of M. nemorosa was the most active (MIC = 37 μg/ml) against S. aureus. Ethyl acetate leaf extract of C. krausii was the most active against Klebsiella pneumoniae and ethyl acetate leaf extract of C. edwardsii was the most active against Escherichia coli. Synergistic interactions were detected in 13% of the combinations against E. coli, 27% of the combinations against K. pneumoniae and 80% of the combinations against S. aureus. The few synergistic interactions observed in the present study suggest that the crude extracts of the leaves of M. nemorosa, C. edwardsii, and C. krausii could be potential sources of broad spectrum antibiotic resistance modifying compounds.
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.