ArticleMolecular and cellular biochemistry2024
Comparative analysis of the antibacterial efficacy and bioactive components of Thuja occidentalis obtained from four different geographical sites.
Article in Molecular and cellular biochemistry, 2024. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring pharmacological potential ofPhysiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology · 2025Review
- Exploring Monkeypox: prospects for therapeutics through computational-aided drug discovery.Molecular diversity · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not there were significant differences in the antibacterial potential of Thuja occidentalis collected from four distinct geographical sites, namely Chamba (Himachal Pradesh, India), Jalandhar (Punjab, India), Aurangabad (Bihar, India) and Kakching (Manipur, India). The plant extracts were prepared in three different solvents: ethanol, methanol, and acetone. The antibacterial potential of the plant extracts was tested against five different bacterial species using well diffusion test. The minimum inhibitory and bactericidal concentrations of the plant sample exhibiting maximum zone of inhibition against different bacterial strains were calculated. Further, the total phenols, flavonoids, and antioxidant efficacy (using DPPH assay) were also analysed biochemically. The activity of different antioxidant enzymes including SOD, CAT and APX were also recorded as these enzymes protect the cells from free radical damage. GC-MS analysis was also performed on all plant extracts to identify the bioactive components. The results showed that the T. occidentalis collected from the Kakching, Manipur, East side of India showed the highest zone of inhibition against all the bacterial strains, followed by Chamba, Jalandhar, and lastly Aurangabad. To analyse the impact of phytochemicals on the antibacterial efficacy, a correlation was drawn between the biochemical parameters and zone of inhibition using Karl Pearson's method. Most bacterial species demonstrated a positive correlation between antibacterial effectiveness (zone of inhibition) and biochemical markers. The GC-MS study revealed positive correlation between zone of inhibition and peak area percentages of α-Pinene, β-caryophyllene, Germacrene-D, and Humulene in all bacterial species indicating that these chemicals may play a key role in the bactericidal potential of T. occidentalis. Based on the results of this investigation, it is evident that the antibacterial effectiveness of T. occidentalis varies with its geographical location which may be attributed to the differences in the phytochemical makeup.
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.