ArticlePloS one2020
Towards understanding the antagonistic activity of phytic acid against common foodborne bacterial pathogens using a general linear model.
Article in PloS one, 2020. 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, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Replacement of nitrates and nitrites in meat-derived foods through the utilization of coagulase-negative staphylococciCurrent research in food science · 2024Review
- A study on Sr/Zn phytate complexes: structural properties and antimicrobial synergistic effects against Streptococcus mutans.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Phytic Acid againstFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The Role of Micronutrients and Toxic Metals in the Management of Epidemics in Cambodia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Antimicrobial Activity of Phytic Acid: An Emerging Agent in Endodontics.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing challenge of antibiotic resistance requires not only the discovery of new antibiotics, but also the development of new alternative approaches. Therefore, in the present study, we investigated for the first time the antibacterial potential of phytic acid (myo-inositol hexakisphosphate, IP6), a natural molecule that is 'generally recognized as safe' (FDA classification), against the proliferation of common foodborne bacterial pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella Typhimurium. Interestingly, compared to citric acid, IP6 was found to exhibit significantly greater inhibitory activity (P<0.05) against these pathogenic bacteria. The minimum inhibitory concentration of IP6 varied from 0.488 to 0.97 mg/ml for the Gram-positive bacteria that were tested, and was 0.244 mg/ml for the Gram-negative bacteria. Linear and general models were used to further explore the antibacterial effects of IP6. The developed models were validated using experimental growth data for L. monocytogenes, S. aureus and S. Typhimurium. Overall, the models were able to accurately predict the growth of L. monocytogenes, S. aureus, and S. Typhimuriumin Polymyxin acriflavine lithium chloride ceftazidime aesculin mannitol (PALCAM), Chapman broth, and xylose lysine xeoxycholate (XLD) broth, respectively. Remarkably, the early logarithmic growth phase of S. Typhimurium showed a rapid and severe decrease in a period of less than one hour, illustrating the bactericidal effect of IP6. These results suggest that IP6 is an efficient antibacterial agent and can be used to control the proliferation of foodborne pathogens. It has promising potential for environmentally friendly applications in the food industry, such as for food preservation, food safety, and for prolonging shelf life.
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.