ArticleArchives of microbiology2025
Analysis of disruptive action of electrical current on cell membrane integrity and modelling its antimicrobial activity.
Article in Archives of 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is essential to eliminate harmful microbes from vital aspects of our lives, including dental instruments and other healthcare devices, cosmetics, foods, and products that come into contact with them. Electrical stimulation (ES) has been proposed to address the recent problems of developing resistance to chemical antimicrobial agents. Therefore, additional research is needed to determine the ideal voltage and exposure time for this application, and it would be beneficial to have a predictive tool for its use. In this study, different voltages were applied for various time periods to determine whether electrical stimulation at different ES levels could inhibit the growth of Gram-negative E. coli, P. aeruginosa, and Gram-positive S. aureus, S. epidermidis. Bacterial growth was significantly inhibited by ES application for all strains. Different zones of inhibition were demonstrated by the cathode and anode. Next, we examined the effect of ES on bacterial cell membrane integrity. Our data indicate that ES treatment disrupts the cell membrane integrity of E. coli and S. aureus cells. We then analyzed and modeled the inhibition zone diameter data using three machine learning regression. support vector regression, random forest regression, and Gaussian process regression (GPR). The GPR method proved to be the best-performing machine learning model and was therefore used to develop software that predicts inhibition zone diameters based on given predictive values. In conclusion, our results indicate that ES is an effective antimicrobial application that disrupts cell membrane and we believe that it can effectively be used for sterilization and infection management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41085669What 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.