ArticleScientific reports2025
"Therapeutic potential of Acalypha indica L. leaf fractions against foodborne pathogens: an in vitro and in silico study".
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.
- Chitosan/pectin bio-composite films enriched with bioactive fraction of Acalypha indica L. as active packaging: a comparative assessment of postharvest fruit quality.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Antimicrobial evaluation ofFrontiers in microbiology · 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
This study investigates the inhibition effects of Acalypha indica L. leaf extract obtained using various solvents, viz. petroleum ether, chloroform and ethanol. Among the extracts, the ethanolic extract showed the strongest antioxidant activity, with 84.36% scavenging potential in 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) and 69% in the Ferric ion Reducing Antioxidant Power (FRAP) assay. Similarly, in antimicrobial activity, the ethanolic extract showed the highest inhibition zone of 24.0 mm against S. aureus and 29.3 mm against E. coli. Response Surface Methodology (RSM) utilize a Box-Behnken design (BBD) analysed with optimize conditions for enhancing antioxidant activity. Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) identified eleven major phytocompounds, which were further evaluated through molecular docking and ADMET studies against S. aureus's DNA gyrase B and E. coli's Dihydrofolate reductase. Docking result shows highest binding affinity towards two compounds such as 2(5 H)-Furanone,3-chloro-5-((dimethylamino)methyl)-4,5-dimethyl- and N-(2,2-Dichloro-1-hydroxyethyl)-2,2-dimethylpropanamide with docking scores of -5.21 and - 8.38 kcal/mol for S. aureus and - 4.39 and - 8.75 kcal/mol for E. coli. These two hits were selected for molecular dynamic simulation studies to evaluate protein-ligand complex stability. Overall, the ethanolic extract exhibited strong antioxidant and antimicrobial properties, suggesting as potential candidate for application in food packaging.
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.