Claim · model-written summary
Micrococcus roseus and Staphylococcus aureus were sensitive to the different neem extracts, except the seed extracts at both concentrations.
- Taxon
- Azadirachta indica
Azadirachta indicat0 - Treatment
- the different extractse2
- Interactor
- M. roseus
Kocuria roseae2other
- Second interactor
- S. aureus
Staphylococcus aureuse2other - Outcome
- sensitivee2
- Qualifier
- except for the seed extracts at both concentrationse2
Verbatim
t0“neem tree (Azadirachta indica L.)”
e2“Among the strains, M. roseus and S. aureus were sensitive to the different extracts except for the seed extracts at both concentrations”
Title
Arasaratnam, V. Malaysian Journal of Microbiology 2026. doi:10.21161/mjm.230399
Other claims from this paper (6)
- Intervention effect Acetone extracts of neem tree parts showed higher antibacterial activity than distilled water and ether extracts.
- Intervention effect Ether extracts were more effective than distilled water extracts.
- Observation Proteus vulgaris was resistant to all neem extracts except the acetone extract of the leaves.
- Intervention effect The acetone extract of the leaves was the best antibacterial extract, followed by the acetone extract from the root and young shoots.
- Intervention effect Seed extracts showed the least antibacterial effect.
- Observation Antimicrobial substances are present in different parts of the neem tree.