ReviewMicrobiologyOpen2022
In vivo and in silico screening for antimicrobial compounds from cyanobacteria.
Review in MicrobiologyOpen, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antibacterial Potential of Crude Extracts fromMicroorganisms · 2025Article
- In vivo and in silico screening for antimicrobial compounds from cyanobacteria.MicrobiologyOpen · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to the emerging rise of multi-drug resistant bacteria, the discovery of novel antibiotics is of high scientific interest. Through their high chemodiversity of bioactive secondary metabolites, cyanobacteria have proven to be promising microorganisms for the discovery of antibacterial compounds. These aspects make appropriate antibacterial screening approaches for cyanobacteria crucial. Up to date, screenings are mostly carried out using a phenotypic methodology, consisting of cyanobacterial cultivation, extraction, and inhibitory assays. However, the parameters of these methods highly vary within the literature. Therefore, the common choices of parameters and inhibitory assays are summarized in this review. Nevertheless, less frequently used method variants are highlighted, which lead to hits from antimicrobial compounds. In addition to the considerations of phenotypic methods, this study provides an overview of developments in the genome-based screening area, be it in vivo using PCR technique or in silico using the recent genome-mining method. Though, up to date, these techniques are not applied as much as phenotypic screening.
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.