Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36114199›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

The biocompatibility and antifungal effect of Rosmarinus officinalis against Candida albicans in Galleria mellonella model.

Vanessa Marques Meccatti, Lívia Mara Alves Figueiredo-Godoi, Thaís Cristine Pereira, Patrícia Michelle Nagai de Lima, Amjad Abu Hasna, Lavinia Barbosa Senna, Maria Cristina Marcucci, Juliana Campos Junqueira, Luciane Dias de Oliveira

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  5. PeerJ · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Endodontic irrigants from a comprehensive perspective.World journal of clinical cases · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
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

9 authors.

Vanessa Marques MeccattiDepartment of Biosciences and Oral Diagnosis, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (ICT-UNESP), São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil.
Lívia Mara Alves Figueiredo-GodoiDepartment of Biosciences and Oral Diagnosis, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (ICT-UNESP), São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil.
Thaís Cristine PereiraDepartment of Biosciences and Oral Diagnosis, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (ICT-UNESP), São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil.
Patrícia Michelle Nagai de LimaDepartment of Biosciences and Oral Diagnosis, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (ICT-UNESP), São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil.
Amjad Abu HasnaDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Endodontics Division, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (ICT-UNESP), Av. Eng. Francisco José Longo Avenue 777, São José dos Campos, SP, CEP 12245-000, Brazil. d.d.s.amjad@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1112-985X
Lavinia Barbosa SennaDepartment of Biosciences and Oral Diagnosis, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (ICT-UNESP), São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil.
Maria Cristina MarcucciDepartment of Biosciences and Oral Diagnosis, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (ICT-UNESP), São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil.
Juliana Campos JunqueiraDepartment of Biosciences and Oral Diagnosis, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (ICT-UNESP), São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil.
Luciane Dias de OliveiraDepartment of Biosciences and Oral Diagnosis, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (ICT-UNESP), São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study was performed to evaluate the biocompatibility and antifungal effect of Rosmarinus officinalis against Candida albicans in Galleria mellonella model. Five different concentrations of R. officinalis glycolic extract (50; 25; 12.5 e 6.25 mg/mL) were used to evaluate its biocompatibility in G. mellonella model, in which the nystatin suspension (100; 50; 25; 12.5 e 6.25%) was used as a control group. The antifungal action of R. officinalis glycolic extract was evaluated on C. albicans for 72, 48 and 12 h at two different phases: (1) using the extract as therapeutic agent; and (2) using the extract as prophylactic agent. PBS was used as a negative control group. G. mellonella survival curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method and statistical analysis was performed using the log-rank test (Mantel-Cox) and the significance level was set at (α ≤ 0.05). There was no significant difference among the groups in which all were biocompatible except of a significant death rate of 26.6% with nystatin 100%. In phase 1, it was found that after 7 days, there was no statistically significant difference among the prophylactic treatment groups. In phase 2, the groups of R. officinalis 6.25 mg/mL for 72 h and R. officinalis of 12.5 mg/mL for 24 h promoted the survival rate of the larvae in comparison with the control group with a significant difference (p = 0.017) and (p = 0.032) respectively. Therefore, R. officinalis extract is biocompatible in different concentrations and can be used as a prophylactic agent against fungal infection.

Indexed as

MothsRosmarinusAnimalsAntifungal AgentsCandida albicansNystatinPlant ExtractsAntifungal AgentsNystatinPlant Extracts

Identifiers

PMID36114199
PMCPMC9481548

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.