ArticleMicrobiologyOpen2025
Study on Antibacterial Activity of Water Extract of Galla chinensis Against Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae.
Article in MicrobiologyOpen, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Natural Strategies for Dental Hard-Tissue Remineralization: A Scoping Review of Galla Chinensis and Its Dual Anticaries Action.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) represents a significant global public health concern, largely driven by factors including misuse of antibiotics and their inappropriate use in livestock. This study systematically evaluated the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of Galla chinensis (GC) water extract against a range of CPE strains, aiming to assess its potential therapeutic application and efficacy against multidrug-resistant bacteria (MDR). MIC values for carbapenemase with different plasmids spanned between 3.9 and 500 mg/mL, while readings of 62.55-500 mg/L demonstrated no colonies. The growth curve analysis demonstrated that the GC extract significantly inhibited bacterial growth at both 1/4 and 1/2 MIC doses, completely inhibiting bacterial growth at 1 MIC (p < 0.01). Furthermore, the effect of 1/4 MIC was also statistically different; however, it may not provide a meaningful inhibitory effect. qRT-PCR analysis revealed an increase in the expression of carbapenemase genes, including pkPC2_InFII, pNDM5_IncX3, pIMP4_IncN, and pOXA48_IncX3 subsequent to GC extract treatment at 1/2 MIC. Transcriptomic analysis further revealed differential gene expression associated with bacterial resistance mechanisms. Consequently, the GC extract demonstrated pronounced antibacterial efficacy against CPE, exhibiting a significant ability to inhibit their growth and minimize the activity of vital resistance genes.
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.