| Title |
In vitro studies on medicinal plants used against bacterial diabetic foot ulcer (BDFU) and urinary tract infected (UTI) causing pathogens
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Parasitic Diseases, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12639-014-0555-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S. Subbu lakshmi, G. Chelladurai, B. Suresh |
| Abstract |
The pus samples from diabetic foot ulcer patients and urine samples from urinary tract infected patients were collected and inoculated in nutrient agar plates. The colonies showing different morphologies were streaked on selective agar plates. The antibacterial assay of selected commercial antibiotics was tested against the foot ulcer and urinary tract isolates. The result revealed that most of the organisms were found to be resistant against the antibiotics. Screening of antibacterial activity of selected plants, methanol extracts of plants were prepared and tested against foot ulcer pathogens. Among the plants used, the methanolic extract Tragia involucrata was very effective against the foot ulcer pathogens and to separate the compounds present in the methanolic extract of T. involucrata, when it was subjected to column chromatography. The fractions obtained were further checked for their antibacterial property and fraction 1 which inhibited the pathogens, were subjected to thin layer chromatography and the structure of the particular phytochemical compound was elucidated by NMR study. The spices were tested for their antibacterial property against the urinary tract pathogens. Among the spices tested; Allium sativum inhibited the growth of the pathogens isolated from urinary tract infection. It can be concluded that the plants extract can be used to discover natural products that may serve as lead for the development of new pharmaceuticals addressing the major therapeutic needs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 18% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 8% |
| Researcher | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 20 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 22 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 April 2017.
All research outputs
#3,209,773
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Parasitic Diseases
#10
of 432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,018
of 250,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Parasitic Diseases
#2
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 432 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 250,793 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.