ReviewArchives of microbiology2026
A multi-barrier defence strategy using plant-derived antifungals against mycotoxigenic fungi in livestock feed.
Review in Archives of microbiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mycotoxigenic fungi, principally Aspergillus, Fusarium, and Penicillium spp. contaminate 60-80% of global feed commodities and cause multi-billion-dollar losses through animal health impairment, reduced productivity, and food chain carry-over. Despite decades of reliance on synthetic antifungals (azoles, polyenes, echinocandins), the emergence of resistant strains and growing regulatory pressure demand fundamentally different solutions. Existing reviews have catalogued plant-derived phytochemicals as promising alternatives yet have failed to provide an integrated, mechanistically grounded, and practically deployable framework that (i) explains why phytochemicals overcome synthetic resistance, (ii) ranks candidate compounds according to translational readiness, and (iii) guides rational multi-component formulation. This review addresses those gaps by introducing three integrative conceptual frameworks proposed for feed-system applications. The Multi-Barrier Phytogenic Defence (MBPD) Framework, which conceptualises antifungal action as five overlapping but mechanistically distinct barriers- specifically, membrane disruption, mycotoxin-gene silencing, oxidative equilibrium perturbation, enzymatic cascade interference, and signal-transduction blockade explains how simultaneous engagement of multiple barriers makes resistance evolution geometrically less probable than with single-target drugs. A Resistance-Indexed Phytochemical Selection (RIPS) model that scores candidate compounds against six criteria (multi-target coverage, ergosterol independence, efflux-pump evasion, biofilm penetration, generally recognized as safe (GRAS) status, and stability in feed matrices) to produce a prioritised shortlist for formulators. A Translational Readiness Score (TRS) applicable across the pipeline from in-vitro evidence to commercial feed inclusion, addressing the persistent gap between laboratory efficacy and practical livestock outcomes. These frameworks are validated against published minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) data, gene-expression studies, and in-vivo trials, and are used to re-evaluate the evidence base for key compounds including thymol, eugenol, cinnamaldehyde, citral, curcumin, and resveratrol. These six compounds were selected because they represent the highest-scoring candidates under the RIPS model and collectively illustrate the full range of MBPD barrier engagement; the rationale for this selection is detailed in Sects. 5 and 6. The review concludes with a research agenda and a recommendation for an evidence-based regulatory pathway that, taken together, offer a roadmap for sustainable mycotoxin control in global feed systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42423768What 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.