Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35478288›Full record

ReviewMicrobiologyOpen2022

In vivo and in silico screening for antimicrobial compounds from cyanobacteria.

Dorina Strieth, Selina Lenz, Roland Ulber

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Dorina StriethChair of Bioprocess Engineering, University of Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7985-242X
Selina LenzChair of Bioprocess Engineering, University of Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8732-5585
Roland UlberChair of Bioprocess Engineering, University of Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Anti-Infective AgentsCyanobacteriaAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective Agentsantimicrobial compoundsbioactivity assaycyanobacteriain silico screeningin vivo screening

Identifiers

PMID35478288
PMCPMC8924698

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.