ArticlePloS one2021
Cytotoxicity, antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of mosses obtained from open habitats.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Mosses in Urban Environments as Passive Biofilters and Organisms Impacted by Asbestos-Contaminated Habitats.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
- Phytochemistry of Bryophytes: Biologically Active Compounds and Their Uses as Cosmetics, Foods, and in Drug Development.Progress in the chemistry of organic natural products · 2025Review
- Influence of phytocenosis on the medical potential of moss extracts: the Pleurozium schreberi (Willd. ex Brid.) Mitt. case.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Effects of Water-Ethanol Extracts from FourPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Discovery and Anticancer Activity of the Plagiochilins from the Liverwort GenusLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Nest building in titmice Paridae: Selectivity in bryophyte use.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mosses are mainly the object of ecological and taxonomic research. This group of plants are still underestimated by scientists in other aspects of research. Recent research has shown that these plants contain remarkable and unique substances with high biological activity. Five species of mosses from a large urban ecosystem were identified for present study. In order to determine their biological potential, multifaceted studies were carried out, including: total phenolics content, antioxidant activity, antimicrobial and antifungal study, cytotoxicity evaluation, and scratch assay to assess pro-regenerative effect in the context of their possible use as the ingredients of biologically active cosmetics. Additionally, determination of individual phenolic compounds in selected extracts of the tested mosses was made. Research showed that Ceratodon purpureus and Dryptodon pulvinatus extracts had the greatest potential as antioxidants and antimicrobial activity. The cytotoxicity assessment indicated that the extracts from Dryptodon pulvinatus and Rhytidiadelphus squarossus exerted the strongest negative effect on mouse fibroblast line L929 viability at higher concentrations. While, the extract from Tortulla muralis best stimulated human foreskin fibroblast line HFF-1 proliferation and wound healing. The research on individual phenolic compounds content in the extracts tested indicated over 20 peaks on UPLC chromatograms. The conducted study has shown that mosses, especially so far unexplored species of open ecosystems, and e.g. epilytic habitats, may be a valuable source of biologically active substances and thus may constitute important medical and cosmetic possibilities.
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.