Synergistic Effects between Mentha Piperita, Mentha Longifolia and Ocimum Basilicum on Different Bacterial Strains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to quantitatively evaluate antimicrobial activity of Mentha piperita, Mentha longifolia and Ocimum basilicum from Lamiaceae family, compare between them and to evaluate the type of interaction between them by microbroth dilution method and calculation of fractional inhibitory concentration. Dried leave of Mentha piperita, Mentha longifolia and Ocimum basilicum were extracted using same extraction method and solvent the highest ratio yielded by Mentha longifolia 9% and lowest ratio yielded by Ocimum basilicum 6%. Mentha piperita exhibit the lowest minimum inhibitory concentration value ranged between 1.5-<0.1 mg/ml, followed by Mentha longifolia and Ocimum basilicum ranged between 3-<0.1mg/ml with minimum bactericidal concentration ranged between 6-0.1875. On combination of leave extract Mentha piperita with Mentha longifolia exhibit the lowest minimum inhibitory concentration value ranged between 0.1875-<0.05 mg/ml, while combination of Mentha longifolia with Ocimum basilicum revealed minimum inhibitory concentration ranged between 0.75-<0.05. Among tested bacterial strain Streptococcus mitis showed high sensitivity against all tested leave extract alone and in combination form. The combinations of Mentha piperita, Mentha longifolia and Ocimum basilicum showed synergistic effects against most of bacteria. Mentha longifolia and Ocimum basilicum revealed antagonistic effect against Staphylococcus aureus. As a result three Lamiaceae species showed broad spectrum antimicrobial activity against isolated bacterial strain and their activity in combination form more pronounced than alone.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".