The DOI matches its Crossref record; 195 of the 195 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Systematic Review of Plants With Antibacterial Activities: A Taxonomic and Phylogenetic Perspective
Open accessAbstract
Background:Antimicrobial resistance represents a serious threat to human health across the globe. The cost of bringing a new antibiotic from discovery to market is high and return on investment is low. Furthermore, the development of new antibiotics has slowed dramatically since the 1950s’ golden age of discovery. Plants produce a variety of bioactive secondary metabolites that could be used to fuel the future discovery pipeline. While many studies have focused on specific aspects of plants and plant natural products with antibacterial properties, a comprehensive review of the antibacterial potential of plants has never before been attempted. Objectives:This systematic review aims to evaluate reports on plants with significant antibacterial activities. Methods:Following the PRISMA model, we searched three electronic databases: Web of Science, PubMed and SciFinder by using specific keywords: “plant,” “antibacterial,” “inhibitory concentration.” Results:We identified a total of 6,083 articles published between 1946 and 2019 and then reviewed 66% of these (4,024) focusing on articles published between 2012 and 2019. A rigorous selection process was implemented using clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, yielding data on 958 plant species derived from 483 scientific articles. Antibacterial activity is found in 51 of 79 vascular plant orders throughout the phylogenetic tree. Most are reported within eudicots, with the bulk of species being asterids. Antibacterial activity is not prominent in monocotyledons. Phylogenetic distribution strongly supports the concept of chemical evolution across plant clades, especially in more derived eudicot families. The Lamiaceae, Fabaceae and Asteraceae were the most represented plant families, while Cinnamomum verum,Rosmarinus vulgaris and Thymus vulgaris were the most studied species. South Africa was the most represented site of plant collection. Crude extraction in methanol was the most represented type of extraction and leaves were the main plant tissue investigated. Finally,Staphylococcus aureus was the most targeted pathogenic bacteria in these studies. We closely examine 70 prominent medicinal plant species from the 15 families most studied in the literature. Conclusion:This review depicts the current state of knowledge regarding antibacterials from plants and provides powerful recommendations for future research directions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35002501 · Cited by 31,710
Wang, G., Ma, R., Qiao, G., Wada, K., Aizawa, Y., & Satoh, T. (2015) · Integrative Medicine International · doi:10.1159/000368408 · Cited by 18,657
Essential oils: Their antibacterial properties and potential applications in foods—A review
Burt, S. (2004) · International Journal of Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.03.022 · Cited by 10,488
The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (2016) · Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society · doi:10.1111/boj.12385 · Cited by 9,555
Biological effects of essential oils—A review
Bakkali, F., Averbeck, S., Averbeck, D., & Idaomar, M. (2008) · Food and Chemical Toxicology · doi:10.1016/j.fct.2007.09.106 · Cited by 7,929
Wiegand, I., Hilpert, K., & Hancock, R. E. W. (2008) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/nprot.2007.521 · Cited by 6,156
The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health
Berendsen, R. L., Pieterse, C. M. J., & Bakker, P. A. H. M. (2012) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2012.04.001 · Cited by 5,347
THE ANGIOSPERM PHYLOGENY GROUP (2009) · Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society · doi:10.1111/j.1095-8339.2009.00996.x · Cited by 4,854
Cited by
De Rossi, L., Rocchetti, G., Lucini, L., & Rebecchi, A. (2025) · Antioxidants · doi:10.3390/antiox14020200 · Cited by 265
Liu, C., Jullian, V., & Chassagne, F. (2024) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2024.1459066 · Cited by 12
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Chassagne, F., Samarakoon, T., Porras, G., Lyles, J. T., Dettweiler, M., Marquez, L., Salam, A. M., Shabih, S., Farrokhi, D. R., & Quave, C. L.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Pharmacology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2021-01-08
- Volume
- 11
- Pages
- 586548-586548
- ISSN
- 1663-9812 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3118908164
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 195
- FWCI
- 6.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Systematic Review of Plants With Antibacterial Activities: A Taxonomic and Phylogenetic Perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fphar.2020.586548
- The paper
- Chassagne, F., Samarakoon, T., Porras, G., Lyles, J. T., Dettweiler, M., Marquez, L., Salam, A. M., Shabih, S., Farrokhi, D. R., & Quave, C. L. (2021). A Systematic Review of Plants With Antibacterial Activities: A Taxonomic and Phylogenetic Perspective. Frontiers in Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2020.586548
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.