Evaluation of antimicrobial activity of selected plant extracts by rapid XTT colorimetry and bacterial enumeration
Abstract
The aim of this study was to screen and evaluate the antimicrobial activity of indigenous Jordanian plant extracts, dissolved in dimethylsulfoxide, using the rapid XTT assay and viable count methods. XTT rapid assay was used for the initial screening of antimicrobial activity for the plant extracts. Antimicrobial activity of potentially active plant extracts was further assessed using the "viable plate count" method. Four degrees of antimicrobial activity (high, moderate, weak and inactive) against Bacillus subtilis, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, respectively, were recorded. The plant extracts of Hypericum triquetrifolium, Ballota undulata, Ruta chalepensis, Ononis natrix, Paronychia argentea and Marrubium vulgare had shown promising antimicrobial activity. This study showed that while both XTT and viable count methods are comparable when estimating the overall antimicrobial activity of experimental substances, there is no strong linear correlation between the two methods.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Tetrazolium salts, MTT and XTT are often used in MIC endpoint determination for both antifungal and antibacterial microdilution assays.
“Tetrazolium salts, 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) and 2,3-bis {2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-[(sulfenylamino) carbonyl]-2H-tetrazolium-hydroxide} (XTT), are often used in the MIC endpoint determination for both antifungal and antibacterial microdilution assays [57], [58], [59], [60].”
From Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: A review (2016) · cites this paper as [57]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: A review
Balouiri, M., Sadiki, M., & Ibnsouda, S. K. (2016) · Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.jpha.2015.11.005 · Cited by 7,264 · see citing works
Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) Oil: A Natural Preservative to Control Meat Spoilage
Del Serrone, P., Toniolo, C., & Nicoletti, M. (2015) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods4010003 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
- Authors
- Al-Bakri, A. G., & Afifi, F. U.
- Venue
- Journal of Microbiological Methods
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-01
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 19-25
- ISSN
- 0167-7012 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2087555148
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 5.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Microbiological Methods (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Essential Oils and Antimicrobial Activity
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Medicinal Plant Research
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Natural Compound Pharmacology Studies
- Keywords
- antimicrobial activity, plant extracts, Bacillus subtilis, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Hypericum triquetrifolium, Ruta chalepensis, Ononis natrix, Paronychia argentea, Marrubium vulgare, method comparison
- MeSH terms
- Anti-Infective Agents, Bacillus subtilis, Colorimetry, Escherichia coli, Formazans, Jordan, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Plant Extracts, Plants, Medicinal, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Colony Count, Microbial
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review