ArticleEuropean biophysics journal : EBJ2026
Disruption of bacterial membranes by plant extracts of celandine and dandelion: microbiological and langmuir monolayer studies.
Article in European biophysics journal : EBJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The article presents a study on the disruption of the bacterial membrane by celandine (CME) and dandelion (TOE) extracts containing bioactive compounds responsible for their antibacterial activity. The in vitro microbiological tests showed antibacterial effect both on Gram-positive (Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes) and Gram-negative (Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) pathogenic bacteria species. However, in the case of celandine herb extract, the effect was stronger, especially for Gram-positive bacteria. For a deeper understanding of the mechanism of antibacterial action, both studied extracts were subjected to biophysical studies on artificial bacterial lipid membranes, modeled with the Langmuir monolayers technique. The monolayer investigations were performed using two approaches: (i) monitoring the penetration of extracts injected into the aqueous subphase beneath a compressed lipid film, and (ii) comparing surface pressure-area isotherms recorded on a subphase with and without addition of extracts. These experiments confirmed the activity of TOE and CME at the membrane level, demonstrating the penetration of extract components into the membranes and their fluidizing effect. AFM analysis of the domain structures of the films transferred onto solid supports (Langmuir-Blodgett) revealed differences in film topography induced by the extracts and are in a good agreement with the results of biological tests and analytical analyses of the tested extracts. These findings confirm that the stronger antibacterial effect of CME, associated with a higher content of bioactive compounds, exerts a more destructive effect on the bacterial lipid membranes compared to TOE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42377409What 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.