Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39137207›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Eco-alternative treatments for Vibrio parahaemolyticus and V. cholerae biofilms from shrimp industry through Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) and Guava (Psidium guajava) extracts: A road for an Ecuadorian sustainable economy.

Nicolás Renato Jara-Medina, Dario Fernando Cueva, Ariana Cecibel Cedeño-Pinargote, Arleth Gualle, Daniel Aguilera-Pesantes, Miguel Ángel Méndez, Lourdes Orejuela-Escobar, Diego F Cisneros-Heredia, Rebeca Cortez-Zambrano, Nelson Miranda-Moyano and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. ManagingMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Activities of Bluestem (International journal of microbiology · 2026
    Article
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

12 authors.

Nicolás Renato Jara-MedinaLaboratorio de Bacteriología, Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales COCIBA, Instituto de Microbiología, Calle Diego de Robles y Pampite, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador.
Dario Fernando CuevaLaboratorio de Bacteriología, Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales COCIBA, Instituto de Microbiología, Calle Diego de Robles y Pampite, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador.
Ariana Cecibel Cedeño-PinargoteLaboratorio de Bacteriología, Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales COCIBA, Instituto de Microbiología, Calle Diego de Robles y Pampite, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador.
Arleth GualleColegio de Ciencias e Ingenierías, Departamento de Ingeniería Química, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador.
Daniel Aguilera-PesantesResearch, Development, and Strategic Planning Department, Clydent S.A., Guayaquil, Ecuador.
Miguel Ángel MéndezColegio de Ciencias e Ingenierías, Departamento de Ingeniería Química, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0001-9281-2644
Lourdes Orejuela-EscobarColegio de Ciencias e Ingenierías, Departamento de Ingeniería Química, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0001-9887-1135
Diego F Cisneros-HerediaColegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales, Instituto de Biodiversidad Tropical IBIOTROP, Herbario de Botánica Económica, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0002-6132-2738
Rebeca Cortez-ZambranoLaboratorio de Bacteriología, Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales COCIBA, Instituto de Microbiología, Calle Diego de Robles y Pampite, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador.
Nelson Miranda-MoyanoColegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales, Instituto de Biodiversidad Tropical IBIOTROP, Herbario de Botánica Económica, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador.
Eduardo TejeraFacultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias Agropecuarias Aplicadas, Grupo de Bioquimioinformática, Universidad de Las Américas (UDLA), Quito, Ecuador.
António MachadoLaboratorio de Bacteriología, Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales COCIBA, Instituto de Microbiología, Calle Diego de Robles y Pampite, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0002-5089-8723

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding how environmental variables influence biofilm formation becomes relevant for managing Vibrio biofilm-related infections in shrimp production. Therefore, we evaluated the impact of temperature, time, and initial inoculum in the biofilm development of these two Vibrio species using a multifactorial experimental design. Planktonic growth inhibition and inhibition/eradication of Vibrio biofilms, more exactly V. parahaemolyticus (VP87 and VP275) and V. cholerae (VC112) isolated from shrimp farms were evaluated by Eucalyptus and Guava aqueous leaf extracts and compared to tetracycline and ceftriaxone. Preliminary results showed that the best growth conditions of biofilm development for V. parahaemolyticus were 24 h and 24°C (p <0.001), while V. cholerae biofilms were 72 h and 30°C (p <0.001). Multivariate linear regression ANOVA was applied using colony-forming unit (CFU) counting assays as a reference, and R-squared values were applied as goodness-of-fit measurements for biofilm analysis. Then, both plant extracts were analyzed with HPLC using double online detection by diode array detector (DAD) and mass spectrometry (MS) for the evaluation of their chemical composition, where the main identified compounds for Eucalyptus extract were cypellogin A, cypellogin B, and cypellocarpin C, while guavinoside A, B, and C compounds were the main compounds for Guava extract. For planktonic growth inhibition, Eucalyptus extract showed its maximum effect at 200 μg/mL with an inhibition of 75% (p < 0.0001) against all Vibrio strains, while Guava extract exhibited its maximum inhibition at 1600 μg/mL with an inhibition of 70% (p < 0.0001). Both biofilm inhibition and eradication assays were performed by the two conditions (24 h at 24°C and 72 h at 30°C) on Vibrio strains according to desirability analysis. Regarding 24 h at 24°C, differences were observed in the CFU counting between antibiotics and plant extracts, where both plant extracts demonstrated a higher reduction of viable cells when compared with both antibiotics at 8x, 16x, and 32x MIC values (Eucalyptus extract: 1600, 3200, and 6400 μg/mL; while Guava extract: 12800, 25600, and 52000 μg/mL). Concerning 72 h at 30°C, results showed a less notorious biomass inhibition by Guava leaf extract and tetracycline. However, Eucalyptus extract significantly reduced the total number of viable cells within Vibrio biofilms from 2x to 32x MIC values (400-6400 μg/mL) when compared to the same MIC values of ceftriaxone (5-80 μg/mL), which was not able to reduce viable cells. Eucalyptus extract demonstrated similar results at both growth conditions, showing an average inhibition of approximately 80% at 400 μg/mL concentration for all Vibrio isolates (p < 0.0001). Moreover, eradication biofilm assays demonstrated significant eradication against all Vibrio strains at both growth conditions, but biofilm eradication values were substantially lower. Both extract plants demonstrated a higher reduction of viable cells when compared with both antibiotics at 8x, 16x, and 32x MIC values at both growth sets, where Eucalyptus extract at 800 μg/mL reduced 70% of biomass and 90% of viable cells for all Vibrio strains (p < 0.0001). Overall results suggested a viable alternative against vibriosis in the shrimp industry in Ecuador.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBiofilmsEucalyptusPlant ExtractsPsidiumVibrio choleraeVibrio parahaemolyticusAnimalsEcuadorMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPenaeidaeAnti-Bacterial AgentsPlant Extracts

Identifiers

PMID39137207
PMCPMC11321589

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.