ArticleScientific reports2025
Investigation of antibacterial and wound healing activities of the extract of Rhodotorula mucilaginosa endophyte isolated from cucumber leaves.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
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
Endophytic fungi represent a reservoir of pharmacologically essential secondary metabolites. The current study focused on the antibacterial properties of the endophytic yeast-like fungus Rhodotorula mucilaginosa (R. mucilaginosa) isolated for the first time from Cucumis sativus (cucumber) leaves. After isolation, R. mucilaginosa was identified by 18S rRNA gene sequencing and was cultured on Asian rice for production of fungal metabolites. Then, its phytochemical profile was elucidated using LC-HRESI-MS/MS technique to reveal 22 compounds which are mainly carotenoids and fatty acids in nature. Dried ethyl acetate extract of R. mucilaginosa was tested for antimicrobial activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates. The extract of R. mucilaginosa (ERM) showed minimum inhibitory concentrations with a range from 64 to 512 µg/mL. The crystal violet assay was utilized to determine the effect of ERM on the tested isolates' ability to produce biofilms. The percentage of strong biofilm-forming isolates dropped from 20 to 3.3% and 10%, respectively, after the treatment with ½ and ¼ MICs of ERM. When tested isolates of P. aeruginosa were exposed to sub-MICs of ERM, their cell size significantly decreased, and their biofilm matrix was reduced. The in vitro anti-inflammatory activity of ERM was supported by the marked decrease in TNF-α gene expression in the cells treated with either ERM or piroxicam compared to the control cells. The wound healing effect of ERM was investigated in vitro, where ERM showed improvement in the wound healing process. In addition, the wound healing effect of ERM was investigated in vivo using a model of infection in rats, where the wounds were infected with P. aeruginosa. The histological investigation of the wound showed a remarkable improvement in the group treated with ERM. Therefore, further investigation is required to explore the possible application of ERM as a potential antibacterial agent, which could aid in our fight against pathogenic microbes that have become resistant.
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.