Antigonococcal Activity and Cytotoxicity Screening of Three Ziziphus Species Indigenous to South Africa.

Mcebisi J Mabuza, Marcel Kaiser, Thilivhali E Tshikalange, Abdullahi A Yusuf, Mahwahwatse J Bapela

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Chemistry & biodiversity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mcebisi J MabuzaDepartment of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8894-0889

Marcel KaiserSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Allschwil, Switzerland.

Thilivhali E TshikalangeDepartment of Life and Consumer Sciences, University of South Africa, Florida, South Africa.

Abdullahi A YusufDepartment of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Hatfield, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8625-6490

Mahwahwatse J BapelaDepartment of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4124-8550

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the extensive use of Ziziphus species in South African traditional medicine to treat various ailments, they remain poorly studied. Therefore, this study aimed to scientifically validate the ethnomedicinal use of Z. mucronata Willd., Z. rivularis Codd, and Z. zeyheriana Sond. in the treatment of gonorrhea. Their roots, stem bark, and leaves were sequentially extracted using five different solvents. The extracts were evaluated against Neisseria gonorrhoeae using the broth microdilution assay and cytotoxicity in rat skeletal (L6) myoblast cell lines. Of the 48 successive extracts evaluated, 12.5% exhibited high antigonococcal activity (MIC < 1 mg/mL), 33.3% showed moderate activity (MIC 1-6.25 mg/mL), and 54.1% were inactive (MIC > 6.25 mg/mL). Furthermore, the extracts displayed low cytotoxicity profiles, with 81% exhibiting no cytotoxicity (CC

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsNeisseria gonorrhoeaePlant ExtractsZiziphusAnimalsCell LineCell SurvivalDose-Response Relationship, DrugMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPlant LeavesPlant RootsRatsSouth AfricaAnti-Bacterial AgentsPlant Extractsantigonococcal activitycytotoxicityNeisseria gonorrhoeaeSouth AfricaZiziphus

Identifiers

PMID42407016

DOI10.1002/cbdv.71477

PMCPMC13336808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.