ArticleScientific reports2025
Assessment of the in vitro antimicrobial activity and fatty acid composition of crocodile oil from Crocodylus siamensis.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Crocodile oil has been traditionally used for its medicinal properties, including wound healing and antimicrobial effects. However, scientific validation of its antimicrobial activity remains limited. Although its potential to induce microbial resistance and its safety profile have been proposed in previous literature, these aspects were not addressed experimentally in the current study. This study aimed solely to evaluate the in vitro antimicrobial activity of crocodile oil using dip solution and standard microbiological approaches. Standard bacterial and fungal strains, including Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Candida albicans, were tested using disk diffusion and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) methods. Fatty acid composition was analyzed using GC-FID. The results demonstrated significant antimicrobial activity against Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213, Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 43300 (methicillin-resistant), Enterococcus faecalis, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Candida albicans. No inhibition was observed against Staphylococcus epidermidis ATCC 12228 and Klebsiella pneumoniae ATCC 4352, as confirmed by both disk diffusion and MIC methods. MIC values ranged from 187.5 to 500 µL/Ml. The lowest MIC was observed for Escherichia coli (187.5 µL/mL), while MICs of 375 µL/mL were recorded for Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 43300, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Candida albicans. The highest MIC (500 µL/mL) was observed for Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213. While the results are promising, further studies are necessary to evaluate safety, resistance development potential, and in vivo efficacy.
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.