Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36309579›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Identification and antibacterial evaluation of endophytic actinobacteria from Luffa cylindrica.

Ramzy Ali Mahdi, Yadollah Bahrami, Elham Kakaei

Open access · goldAbstract 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
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Genomic insights and evaluation ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Diversity, molecular phylogenetics, and antibiotic biosynthetic potential of endophytic Actinobacteria isolated from medicinal plants in Nigeria.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ramzy Ali MahdiDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Yadollah BahramiDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran. bahramiyadollah@yahoo.com.
Elham KakaeiDepartment of Medical Biotechnology, Faculty of Medicine, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

Deputy for Research and Technology, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences 4000793
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria has limited treatment options and led to the untreatable infections, thereby necessitating the discovery of new antibiotics to battel against bacteria. Natural products from endophytic actinobacteria (EA) serve as a reservoir for discovery of new antibiotics. Therefore, the current study focused on the isolation and antibacterial properties of EA isolated from Luffa cylindrica. Six strains were identified using morphological characterization, SEM analyses and 16S rRNA gene sequencing from the roots and leaves of the plant. They were taxonomically classified as Streptomycetaceae family. This is the first report on EA form L. cylindrica. The strains produced a chain of oval, cubed or cylindrical shaped spores with spiny or smooth surfaces. Three strains; KUMS-B3, KUMS-B4 and KUMS-B6 were reported as endophytes for the first time. Fifty percent of isolates were isolated from leaves samples using YECD medium. Our results showed that the sampling time and seasons may affect the bacterial diversity. All six strains had antibacterial activity against at least one of the tested bacteria S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, and E. coli. Among the strains, KUMS-B6 isolate, closely related to S. praecox, exhibited the highest antibacterial activity against both gram-positive and negative bacteria. KUMS-B6, KUMS-B5 and KUMS-B4 isolates strongly inhibited the growth of P. aeruginosa. Interestingly, the strains, isolated from leaves exhibited stronger antagonist activities compared to those isolated from the roots. The study revealed that the isolated strains from Luffa produce a plethora of bioactive substances that are potential source of new drug candidates for the treatment of infections.

Indexed as

ActinobacteriaLuffaAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaEndophytesEscherichia coliMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPseudomonas aeruginosaRNA, Ribosomal, 16SStaphylococcus aureusAnti-Bacterial AgentsRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID36309579
PMCPMC9617871
OpenAlexW4307838754

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.