ArticlePloS one2026
Identification of antimicrobial compounds in Dipsacus inermis via phytochemical profiling, in vitro assessment, and advanced computational techniques.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a major challenge in treating infections such as pneumonia and typhoid fever, necessitating novel therapeutics. Plant-derived natural products provide a promising alternative. This study evaluated dichloromethane (DCM) and methanol (MeOH) extracts of Dipsacus inermis against six bacterial strains: Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus subtilis, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Salmonella typhi, and Enterobacter aerogenes. Antibacterial activity was assessed following standardized CLSI guidelines for both zone of inhibition (ZOI) and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) assays. The DCM extract demonstrated superior activity, with ZOI values of 17.87 ± 0.23 mm (S. aureus and E. aerogenes) and 16.83 ± 0.29 mm (S. typhi), and MICs of 1.562 mg/mL (B. subtilis and E. aerogenes) and 12.5 mg/mL (S. aureus, S. typhi, E. coli, and P. aeruginosa). One-way ANOVA followed by pairwise post-hoc comparisons confirmed significant differences among extract concentrations and relative to the reference control, highlighting dose-dependent potency. GC-MS and HPLC analyses identified multiple bioactive compounds, primarily terpenoids and steroids. All identified compounds were subjected to in silico studies against DNA gyrase B, tyrosyl-tRNA synthetase, PBP2X, PBP4, and DHFR. Compounds DI10 and DI31 emerged as potent multi-target leads, while DI22 exhibited selective activity against PBP4. ADMET profiling indicated favorable pharmacokinetics, high intestinal absorption, and minimal toxicity risks. DFT and MESP analyses revealed electronic features and reactive sites critical for ligand-protein interactions. Molecular dynamics simulations confirmed stable protein-ligand complexes, with RMSD stabilizing at 1.5-2.5 Å, compact conformations (Rg: 16.3-21.6 Å), persistent hydrogen bonds, and favorable binding free energies (-45 to -52 kcal/mol) via MM-PBSA. These integrated in vitro and in silico findings indicate that DCM-derived compounds, particularly DI10 and DI31, are primarily responsible for the observed antibacterial activity and represent promising candidates for antimicrobial drug development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.