↓ Skip to main content

An assessment on the role of endophytic microbes in the therapeutic potential of Fagonia indica

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An assessment on the role of endophytic microbes in the therapeutic potential of Fagonia indica
Published in
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12941-017-0228-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lubna Rahman, Zabta K. Shinwari, Irum Iqrar, Lutfur Rahman, Faouzia Tanveer

Abstract

Natural products of animals, plants and microbes are potential source of important chemical compounds, with diverse applications including therapeutics. Endophytic bacteria that are especially associated with medicinal plants presents a reservoir of therapeutic compounds. Fagonia indica has been recently investigated by numerous researchers because of its striking therapeutic potential especially in cancer. It is also reported that endophytes play a vital role in the biosynthesis of various metabolites; therefore we believe that endophytes associated with F. indica are of crucial importance in this regard. The present study aims successful isolation, molecular identification of endophytic bacteria and their screening for bioactive metabolites quantification and in vitro pharmacological activities. 16S rRNA gene sequencing was used for the identification of isolated endophytic bacteria. Methanolic extracts were evaluated for total phenolic contents (TPC), total flavonoids contents (TFC), DPPH free radical scavenging activity, reducing power and total anti-oxidant assays were performed. And also screened for antibacterial and antifungal activities by disc diffusion method and their MIC were calculated by broth dilution method using microplate reader. Further, standard protocols were followed for antileishmanial activity and protein kinase inhibition. Analysis and statistics were performed using SPSS, Table curve and Origin 8.5 for graphs. Bacterial strains belonging to various genera (Bacillus, Enterobacter, Pantoea, Erwinia and Stenotrophomonas) were isolated and identified. Total phenolic contents and total flavonoids contents varies among all the bacterial extracts respectively in which Bacillus subtilis showed high phenolic contents 243 µg/mg of gallic acid equivalents (GAE) and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia showed high flavonoids contents 15.9 µg/mg quercitin equivalents (QA), total antioxidant capacity (TAC) 37.6 µg/mg of extract, reducing power (RP) 206 µg/mg of extract and 2, 2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) free radical scavenging activity with 98.7 μg/mL IC50 value. Although all the extracts tested were active to inhibit growth of selected pathogenic microbes (bacteria and fungi), but significant antibacterial activity was observed against Klebsiella pneumonia and B. subtilis. An Enterobacter cloaca was active against Leishmania tropica with IC50 value of 1.4 µg/mg extracts. B. subtilis and Bacillus tequilensis correspondingly exhibit significant protein kinase inhibition of 47 ± 0.72 and 42 ± 1.21 mm bald zones, indicating anti-infective and antitumor potential. Our findings revealed that crude extracts of selected endophytic bacteria from F. indica possess excellent biological activities indicating their potential as an important source of antibiotics (antifungal, antibacterial) compounds.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 18%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Researcher 8 9%
Lecturer 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 30 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 8%
Chemistry 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 34 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 August 2017.
All research outputs
#18,566,650
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
#461
of 611 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,077
of 317,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
#10
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 611 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 317,441 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.