ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2025
In vitro evaluation the spectrum of antibacterial activity of botanical extracts and activity enhancement with outer membrane permeabilizers.
Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Isolation, Identification, and Antimicrobial Activity of Secondary Metabolites fromJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- WildFood science & nutrition · 2026Article
- Phytochemical Profile and Bioactive Potential ofCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2026Article
- Phytochemical and In Vitro Antibacterial Assessment of Selected Wild Edible Plants From Southwestern Ethiopia.International journal of food science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unique from Gram-positive bacteria, Gram-negative bacteria have an outer membrane containing lipopolysaccharide. This distinction has important implications for antibiotic therapies where this complex outer cell membrane presents a significant barrier to the entry of drugs, such as antibiotics, into the cell. Many botanical extracts are purported for their antibacterial properties. In this study, several botanical extracts were compared for their antibacterial activity against various Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Gram-positive bacteria were found to be more sensitive to the antibacterial effects of these botanical extracts, including Larrea tridentata, Eucalyptus glabra, Hypericum perforatum, Coptis chinensis and Hydrastis canadensis. For Gram-negative bacteria, various permeabilizers including EDTA, spermidine and polyethyleneimine, have been identified which facilitate the passage of the antibiotics through the outer membrane. These permeabilizers were tested to improve the efficacy of botanical extracts against Gram-negative bacteria where an increase in antibacterial activity was observed but was dependent on the type of permeabilizer used (EDTA being most effective) and the botanical extract (primarily observed with Larrea tridentata, Eucalyptus glabra, Coptis chinensis, and Salvia officinalis). These results characterize the spectrum of antibacterial activity of several commonly used botanical extracts in the presence and absence of membrane permeabilizers. The research performed supports the use of permeabilizers to potentially improve the antibacterial efficacy of botanical extracts and therapeutics.
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.