ArticleCurrent microbiology2025
Novel Insights into the Antibacterial Potential of Euphrasia officinalis L.
Article in Current microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Regarding the resistance of bacteria to conventional antibiotics, the search for novel natural antibacterial agents is of significant importance. Herein, the antibacterial activity of ethanol and acetone extracts of the medicinal plant Euphrasia officinalis was evaluated. For the first time, the optimization of ultrasound-assisted extraction conditions to achieve a higher concentration of polyphenols and increase the antibacterial activity of E. officinalis extracts was performed using response surface methodology. Polyphenolic compounds were quantified through spectrophotometric and chromatographic techniques. The optimized extracts' antibacterial activity was analyzed via broth microdilution, time-kill, and cell membrane permeability assays. The optimized extracts exhibited strain-dependent antibacterial activity. Gram-positive bacteria (Staphylococcus aureus LM11, S. aureus LM12, and Enterococcus sp. LM5) were the most susceptible, at an extract concentration of 10 mg/mL. Tested extracts demonstrated a bactericidal effect after 24 h. Additionally, the extracts impact the cell membrane's permeability, disrupting its normal function which is the first report on the potential mode of action of tested E. officinalis extracts. Major compounds identified in optimized extracts were rutin (9.52 mg/kg dry weight (DW), ellagic acid (7.1 mg/kg DW), quercetin 3-O-glucoside (4.78 mg/kg DW), and isorhamnetin 3-O-rutinoside (3.21 mg/kg DW). This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of the extraction process, phytochemical composition, and antibacterial properties of E. officinalis extracts, laying the basis for developing new applications of these extracts as natural antibacterial agents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40711608What 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.