Table 2.

Antibacterial activity of the different types of A. paniculata extracts.

Plant Part	Extraction Methods	Assay	Number of Test MOs	Most Inhibited Mos	MEIC	ZOI (mm or %)	Remarks	Reference
AeP	Chloroform	AWDM	9	Enterobacter faecalis	250 μg/mL	35	Seven out of 9 pathogens were inhibited that were comparable with antibiotic, amikacin	[203]
L	Water	DDM	5	P. aeruginosa S. aureus MRSA	2 µg/disc 1000 µg/disc 250 µg/disc	8 ± 0.1 6 ± 0.1 8 ± 0.1	No activity against K. pneumoniae and E. coli.	[200]
L	70% Methanol	Two-fold broth MDM	10	Edwardsiella tarda E. coli Flavobacterium sp. P. aeruginosa Vibrio cholerae	31.5 mg/L	-	All the test MOs were inhibited	[204]
WP	DCM	DDM	12	E. faecalis S. aureus S. saprophyticus	1000 µg/disc	21.33 ± 1.53 20.00 ± 1.50 19.33 ± 1.15	Gram-negative bacteria were more resistant.	[205]
WP	Methanol			E. faecalis S. aureus S. saprophyticus	1000 µg/disc	24.00 ± 0.00 22.00 ± 0.00 22.00 ± 1.53	No activity observed against S. saprophyticus at 250 µg/disc
WP	Aqueous			M. luteus S. pyogenes E. faecalis	1000 µg/disc	23.17 ± 0.76 22.67 ± 0.58 22.00 ± 1.00	No activity was observed against M. luteus, S. pyogenes, E. faecalis and K. pneumoniae at 250 µg/disc
R	Hexane	Broth MDM	4	B. pumilus B. subtilis E. coli Proteus vulgaris	100 mg/mL 100 mg/mL 200 mg/mL 200 mg/mL	12 12 13 12	Hexane and methanolic extracts were more efficient against all tested MOs	[206]
R	Methanol	Broth MDM	4	E. coli B. subtilis Proteus vulgaris	100 mg/mL 200 mg/mL 200 mg/mL	12 12 13
WP	Methanol	CPADM	5	S. aureus	1000 μg/mL	19.67 ± 0.76	Gram-negative bacteria were more resistant to methanol extracts	[174]
AeP	Ethanol	AWDM	11	S. typhi V. cholerae	200 μg/mL	14 13	The ethanol extract was efficient	[173]
L	Methanol	AWDM	6	S. aureus	50 mg/mL	24 ± 0.2	Inhibit both Gram-positive and negative bacteria, but gram-negative bacteria are less susceptible	[201]
WP	DCM	DDM	10	S. aureus	1000 μg/disc	20 ± 1.50	Aqueous extracts were more effective compared to the DCM and methanol extracts	[207]
	Methanol			S. aureus S.saprophyticus	1000 μg/disc	22 ± 0.00 22 ± 1.53
	Aqueous			M. luteus	1000 μg/disc	23.17 ± 0.76
WP	Methanol	CPADM	5	S. aureus M. luteus	1000 μg/mL	19.67 ± 0.76 18.50 ± 0.58	Effective against all test MOs	[175]
L	Chloroform	AWDM	6	B. subtilis		22 ± 0.071	Chloroform extract of leaves was more efficient to inhibit all tested MOs than other extracts	[208]
	Aqueous		6	K. pneumoniae S. aureus B. subtilis		12 ± 0.344 12 ± 0.447 12 ± 0.084
	Acetone		6	S. aureus		13 ± 0.416
	Ethyl acetate		6	B. subtilis		15 ± 0.152
	Petroleum ether			-	-	-	No inhibitory activity
R	Chloroform	AWDM	6	B. subtilis		18 ± 0.055	Chloroform extract of roots was more efficient to inhibit all tested MOs than other extracts	[208]
	Aqueous			K. pneumoniae		14 ± 0.297
	Acetone			S. aureus		15 ± 0.055
	Ethyl acetate			B. subtilis		10 ± 0.626
	DMSO			S. aureus		14 ± 0.187
	Petroleum ether			-	-	-	No inhibitory activity
S	Ethyl acetate	AWDM	6	S. aureus B. subtilis		8 ± 0.303 8 ± 0.327	Chloroform extract of stems was more efficient to inhibit all tested MOs than other extracts	[208]
	DMSO			S. aureus		16 ± 0.332
	Acetone			S. aureus		16 ± 0.374
	Chloroform			B. subtilis		24 ± 0.219
	Aqueous			B. subtilis		13 ± 0.373
	Petroleum ether			-	-	-	No inhibitory activity

AeP: Aerial part, L: Leaves, R: Root, S: Stem/bark, WP: Whole plant, AWDM: Agar Well Dilution Method, CPADM: Cup-plate Agar Diffusion Method, DCM: Dichloromethane, DDM: Disc Diffusion Method, MEIC: Most Effective Inhibitory Concentration, DMSO: Dimethyl Sulfoxide, FA: Fluorogenic Assay, MDM: Microdilution Method, MOs: Microorganisms, NA: No activity, ZOI: Zone of Inhibition.