Phcog.Net logo

BROWSE ALL JOURNALS

    SEE ALL 6 JOURNALS
    Article

    Deciphering the in vitro Antimicrobial Potential of Some Macrolichens from Burachapori Wildlife Sanctuary, Assam, India

    Dilip Tamang1,2, Mandira Sarma1, Sanjeeva Nayaka3 Corresponding author

    1. 1Department of Botany, Cotton University, Panbazar, Guwahati Assam, INDIA.
    2. 2Department of Botany, Bahona College, Jorhat, Assam, INDIA.
    3. 3Lichenology Laboratory, Plant Diversity, Systematics and Herbarium Division CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, INDIA.

    CORRESPONDENCE

    Dilip Tamang

    Department of Botany, Cotton University, Panbazar, Guwahati-781001, Assam, INDIA. Department of Botany, Bahona College, Jorhat-78101, Assam, INDIA.

    dilipt23@gmail.com

    Received: 16-10-2025; Revised: 15-11-2025; Accepted: 09-12-2025.

    Volume 18, Issue 1 · pp. 213–223 · PUBLISHED Apr-Jun 2026 · DOI: 10.5530/pres.20260222

    View on Pharmacogn. Res. original site ↗

    ABSTRACT

    Background and Aim Lichens are reported to possess antimicrobial activities. Therefore, this study was carried out to screen the macro lichens collected from Burachapori wildlife sanctuary such as Ramalina hossei Vain., Ramalina nervulosa (Müll.Arg.) Abbayes, Parmotrema praesorediosum (Nyl.) Hale and Parmotrema tinctorum (Despr. ex Nyl.) Hale against 3 g positive 3 g negative pathogenic bacterial and three fungal strains. Materials and Methods Acetone, Chloroform and methanol extracts of the sample were prepared with 2 concentrations (1 mg, 2 mg) in triplicates and Agar well Diffusion method were employed for both the antibacterial and antifungal tests. Ampicillin was used as positive control in antibacterial screening in the concentration of 0.1 mg/mL. Fluconazole used in amount 100 μL as positive control in screening the antifungal activity of the lichen samples. Results All the activities showed dose dependent results. Zones are found to be higher at 2 mg/mL when compared to 1 mg/mL. For the antibacterial activity, the range of zone of inhibition was 16.7±0.17 to 28.2±0.15 (in m.m.) and for antifungal activity it was in the range of 17.7±0.55 to 26.4±0.46 (in m.m.). Also it is observed that acetone extracts of all the samples have shown excellent inhibition, whereas methanol extracts have showed moderate effect followed by chloroform extracts. Conclusion These results confirm the presence of antimicrobial compounds in the samples and further characterization of these potent antimicrobial compounds can be used as lead molecules against disease causing pathogenic microorganisms.

    KEYWORDS

    0% READ

    FULL TEXT

    INTRODUCTION

    Lichens are complex organisms consisting of two microorganisms, an algae and a fungus, as well as several kinds of bacteria, fungi, and non-obligate viruses that form a microecosystem. Lichenicolous fungi are those that grow on the lichen’s exterior, and endolichenic fungi are those that reside inside the lichen (Pant et al, 2025). These are fascinating biological systems that result from a symbiotic relationship, usually between an algal or cyanobacterial photobiont and a fungal mycobiont. Their distinct biology enables them to synthesize a wide range of secondary metabolites that are unique in other species and to colonize harsh environments, such as exposed rock faces in deserts and polar tundra (Gopal 2024). There are over 3,200 distinct species of lichens in India alone, out of the approximately 20,000 species that are known to exist worldwide (Huneck, 1999). These microorganisms produce a variety of potent secondary metabolites including antibiotics. The different bioactive substances that may be isolated from lichens show promise for biopharmaceutical uses for developing novel formulations or methods that include cytotoxic, antioxidant, and antimicrobial agents (Pradhan, 2023). The antimicrobial active components were found to be primarily concentrated in the organic solvent extract phases, particularly in the solvent extract phases such as methanol, ethanol, ethyl acetate, and acetone, while investigating the antibacterial potential of lichen extract (Tian et al, 2025). Several workers had investigated the antimicrobial effects of lichen species against significant pathogenic microorganisms in recent days showing the antibiotic potential of the lichen species (Prashith et al, 2015,Yadav et al, 2021, Sahoo et al, 2021, Essadki et al, 2024, Piñeiro, 2025). Matić et al. discovered noteworthy results when they examined the antibacterial and antioxidant activities of the methanol extracts of the lichens Cladonia rangiferina and Lobaria pulmonaria against Staphylococcus aureus in vitro. Natural endolichenic fungal products are a substantial source of new metabolites with potential uses in agriculture and medicine (Mansour et al, 2025).In traditional medicine, several lichens have been used to cure a variety of illnesses, such as diabetes, stomach problems, coughs, pulmonary TB, wound healing, and skin ailments (Srivastava, 2013). In today’s era, the fundamental problem of persistent antibiotic resistance in microorganisms is posing a threat to public health around the world. This constant concern has made the development of new antimicrobial agents and drugs to fight infectious diseases necessary and the lichens being the interesting organisms possessing bioactive compounds are being thoroughly screened for antimicrobial agents and properties.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Lichen collection and identification

    The lichen samples used in the study were collected from Burachapori Wildlife Sanctuary of Sonitpur district, Assam (India) during the field work from October 2021 to May 2023.They were identified at Lichenology Laboratory of CSIR-NBRI,Lucknow. The voucher specimens of the identified and used lichen samples in this study- Ramalina hossei no. 65470(LWG), Vain. Ramalina nervulosa (Müll.Arg.) Abbayes no. 65471(LWG), Parmotrema praesorediosum (Nyl.) Hale no. 65456(LWG) and Parmotrema tinctorum (Despr. ex Nyl.) Hale no. 65455(LWG) (as seen in the Figure 1) were deposited in the herbarium LWG of CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute, Lucknow, India.

    Figure 1: (Original own photographs) Lichen species screened for antibacterial and antifungal activities.

    Preparation of lichen extracts

    The dried samples were finely ground using an electric grinder and pulverized material (10 g) was extracted twice by soaking with 100 mL of acetone for 48 hr at room temperature. Further the separated extracts were filtered through Whatman No. 1 filter paper and the acetone filtrate was condensed to dryness using rotary evaporator at 40˚C. The same method was followed separately with methanol and chloroform. The extracts prepared in this way were used for antimicrobial studies (Tian, 2025).

    Test microorganisms

    The bioprospection was performed by taking three gram positive three gram negative pathogenic bacterial and three fungal strains were procured as the test organisms from recognized collection centre in India. They are the selected gram-positive bacterial strains such as Enterococcus faecalis MTCC-439, Bacillus cereus MTCC-5521, Clostridium botulinum MTCC-1349 and gram-negative strains Salmonella enteritidis MTCC-734, Pseudomonas aeruginosa MTCC-1688, Acinetobacter baumannii MTCC-1425.Whereas Aspergillus clavatus MTCC-1344, Aspergillus fumigatus and Candida glabrata MTCC-6507 are the fungal specimens.

    Determination of Antimicrobial Activity

    Preparation of Acetone, Methanol and Chloroform extracts done separately and performed the Antimicrobial studies using agar well diffusion methods.

    Agar Well Diffusion method for antibacterial studies

    The agar well diffusion method was employed to determine the antibacterial activity of the lichen samples against the selected gram-positive bacterial strains such as Enterococcus faecalis MTCC-439, Bacillus cereus MTCC-5521, Clostridium botulinum MTCC-1349 and gram-negative strains Salmonella enteritidis MTCC-734, Pseudomonas aeruginosa MTCC-1688, Acinetobacter baumannii MTCC-1425. A subculture of each bacterial strain at a volume of 200 µL, equivalent to 106 CFU/mL, was uniformly spread onto the surface of a Petri dish containing 20mL of nutrient agar, using a sterile cotton swab and wells were punched using a sterile gel borer. On the Nutrient agar, five wells with a diameter of 8 mm each were created for the bacterial strains. The first well was designated as the negative control and was loaded with 100 μL of DMSO, using which all the extracts were dissolved in the concentrations of 1mg/mL and 2mg/mL. While second well served as the positive control and contained 100 μL of Ampicillin (an antibiotic). Rest of the wells in all the plates contained 100 μL of test drug concentration 1mg/mL. Another same set of petri dishes were prepared for drug concentration 2mg/mL. The Petri dishes were prepared in triplicates and incubated at 22oC for 3-4 days, following which the measurement of the zone of inhibition surrounding the wells was performed after the incubation period. The concentration of positive control used was Ampicillin (0.1 mg/mL). The antibacterial activity of each compound was analysed by calculating the diameter of the inhibition zone and the potency of each compound was correlated with Ampicillin.

    Agar Well Diffusion method for antifungal studies

    The agar well diffusion method was employed to determine the antifungal activity of lichen samples against the selected fungal strains Aspergillus clavatus MTCC-1344, Aspergillus fumigatus MTCC-343 and Candida glabrata MTCC-6507. A standardized suspension of the test fungi were inoculated and incubated for 16-18 hr. at 37oC to obtain fresh cultures. This was uniformly spread onto the surface of a Petri dish containing 20mL of potato dextrose agar, using a sterile cotton swab and wells were punched using a sterile gel borer. On the agar, five wells with a diameter of 8 mm each were created for the fungal strains. The extracts were dissolved in solvent DMSO with different concentrations such as 1mg and 2 mg/mL. The second well was designated as the negative control and was loaded with 100 μL of DMSO, using which all the extracts were dissolved in the concentrations of 1mg/mL and 2mg/mL. While second well served as the positive control and contained 100 μL of Fluconazole (an antifungal tablet). Rest of the wells in all the plates contained 100 μL of test drug concentration 1mg/mL. Another same set of petri dishes were prepared for drug concentration 2mg/mL. The Petri dishes were prepared in triplicates and incubated at 22oC for 3-4 days. The antifungal activity of each compound was analysed by calculating the diameter of the inhibition zone and the potency of each compound was correlated with Fluconazole (Zambare, 2012).

    RESULTS

    Each of the four lichen samples that were examined showed a dose-dependent inhibitory ability against the tested organisms. When comparison to 1 mg/mL, zones are observed to be higher at 2 mg/mL which can be seen in Table 1. Additionally, it is noted that whereas methanol extracts had a moderate effect, acetone extracts of every sample showed excellent inhibition. Chloroform extracts follow next. Every triple experiment showed identical findings.

    Table 1: Showing zone of inhibition shown by extracts obtained against 6 bacterial strains (both gram positive and gram negative).
    Sl. No.SampleOrganismsZone of inhibition (in mm) Avg.Efficiency
    AmpicillinEnterococcus faecalis32.2±0.45+++
    Bacillus cereus31.4±0.80+++
    Clostridium botulinum31.6±0.7+++
    Salmonella enteritidis33.6±0.73+++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa34.6±0.75+++
    Acinetobacter baumannii32.6±0.62+++
    RHAE -1mgEnterococcus faecalis26.1±0.25+++
    Bacillus cereus25.5±0.35+++
    Clostridium botulinum21.4±0.35++
    Salmonella enteritidis22.1±0.37++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa21.4±0.58++
    Acinetobacter baumannii25.4±0.41+++
    RHAE -2mgEnterococcus faecalis28.1±0.15+++
    Bacillus cereus23.5±0.4++
    Clostridium botulinum26.5±0.35+++
    Salmonella enteritidis23.4±0.85++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa27.6±0.32+++
    Acinetobacter baumannii27.1±0.35+++
    RHME-1mgEnterococcus faecalis25.1±0.35++
    Bacillus cereus22.7±0.90++
    Clostridium botulinum19.3±0.49+
    Salmonella enteritidis20.5±0.80++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa21.3±1.17++
    Acinetobacter baumannii23.8±0.55++
    RHME-2mgEnterococcus faecalis27.1±0.20+++
    Bacillus Cereus23.1±0.66++
    Clostridium botulinum24.8±0.86++
    Salmonella enteritidis22.5±0.75++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa25.6±0.41+++
    Acinetobacter baumannii26.1±0.25+++
    RHCE-1mgEnterococcus faecalis23.1±0.3++
    Bacillus cereus18.7±0.35+
    Clostridium botulinum18.4±0.49+
    Salmonella enteritidis20.8±0.70++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa21.5±0.26++
    Acinetobacter baumannii18.4±0.25+
    RHCE-2mgEnterococcus faecalis24.7±0.87+++
    Bacillus cereus19.6±0.26++
    Clostridium botulinum19.1±0.15++
    Salmonella enteritidis23.7±0.15+++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa21.5±0.46++
    Acinetobacter baumannii19.6±0.35++
    RNAE-1mgEnterococcus faecalis26.1±0.76+++
    Bacillus cereus24.8±0.55++
    Clostridium botulinum22.1±0.38+++
    Salmonella enteritidis21.3±0.35++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa21.1±0.31++
    Acinetobacter baumannii24.1±0.15++
    RNAE-2mgEnterococcus faecalis28.2±0.15+++
    Bacillus cereus23.5±0.32++
    Clostridium botulinum26.5±0.36+++
    Salmonella enteritidis23.4±0.95++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa27.3±0.44+++
    Acinetobacter baumannii23.2±0.36++
    RNME-1mgEnterococcus faecalis24.5±0.35++
    Bacillus cereus21.9±0.46++
    Clostridium botulinum19.6±0.46++
    Salmonella enteritidis20.9±0.66++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa21.5±1.06++
    Acinetobacter baumannii23.6±0.67++
    RNME-2mgEnterococcus faecalis27.1±0.21+++
    Bacillus cereus23.3±0.46++
    Clostridium botulinum24.9±0.30+++
    Salmonella enteritidis22.6±0.64++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa23.3±0.42++
    Acinetobacter baumannii26.1±0.15+++
    RNCE-1mgEnterococcus faecalis22.5±0.57++
    Bacillus cereus18.9±0.30+
    Clostridium botulinum18.6±0.40+
    Salmonella enteritidis20.8±0.60++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa21.1±0.40++
    Acinetobacter baumannii17.4±0.38+
    RNCE-2 mgEnterococcus faecalis22.9±1.01++
    Bacillus cereus19.3±0.67++
    Clostridium botulinum20.2±0.53++
    Salmonella enteritidis21.2±0.36++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa21.4±0.67++
    Acinetobacter baumannii18.2±0.36+
    PPAE-1 mgEnterococcus faecalis25.7±1.40+++
    Bacillus cereus23.6±1.14++
    Clostridium botulinum21.6±0.40++
    Salmonella enteritidis21.1±0.35++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa20.4±0.35++
    Acinetobacter baumannii22.1±0.21++
    PPAE-2 mgEnterococcus faecalis27.8±0.59+++
    Bacillus cereus23.1±0.26++
    Clostridium botulinum26.2±0.17+++
    Salmonella enteritidis23.1±0.87++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa27.4±0.25+++
    Acinetobacter baumannii23.1±0.25++
    PPME-1 mgEnterococcus faecalis24.2±0.49++
    Bacillus cereus19.2±0.21+
    Clostridium botulinum19.1±0.10+
    Salmonella enteritidis20.5±0.40++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa21±0.70++
    Acinetobacter baumannii23.1±0.87++
    PPME-2 mgEnterococcus faecalis26.5±0.36+++
    Bacillus cereus22.3±0.42++
    Clostridium botulinum22.8±0.35++
    Salmonella enteritidis22.7±0.50++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa22.5±0.49++
    Acinetobacter baumannii25.5±0.49+++
    PPCE-1 mgEnterococcus faecalis20.9±0.21++
    Bacillus cereus18.7±0.36+
    Clostridium botulinum18.6±0.49+
    Salmonella enteritidis20.6±0.44++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa19.9±0.71++
    Acinetobacter baumannii16.7±0.17+
    PPCE-2 mgEnterococcus faecalis22.9±0.85++
    Bacillus cereus18.3±0.55+
    Clostridium botulinum20.1±0.15++
    Salmonella enteritidis21±0.20++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa20.6±0.38++
    Acinetobacter baumannii16.7±0.66+
    PTAE-1 mgEnterococcus faecalis26.3±0.46+++
    Bacillus cereus24.4±0.50++
    Clostridium botulinum21.3±0.46++
    Salmonella enteritidis21.5±0.46++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa20.8±0.76++
    Acinetobacter baumannii23.8±0.44++
    PTAE-2 mgEnterococcus faecalis27.7±0.55+++
    Bacillus cereus22.9±0.21++
    Clostridium botulinum26.1±0.25+++
    Salmonella enteritidis22.8±0.78++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa26.8±0.38+++
    Acinetobacter baumannii22.8±0.26++
    PTME-1 mgEnterococcus faecalis24±0.10++
    Bacillus cereus20.9±0.46++
    Clostridium botulinum19.6±0.55+
    Salmonella enteritidis20.8±0.26++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa20.6±0.46++
    Acinetobacter baumannii22.5±0.56++
    PTME-2 mgEnterococcus faecalis25.8±0.61+++
    Bacillus cereus22.6±0.49++
    Clostridium botulinum24.6±0.57++
    Salmonella enteritidis22.1±0.61++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa22.1±0.75++
    Acinetobacter baumannii25.6±0.42+++
    PTCE-1 mgEnterococcus faecalis21.2±0.17++
    Bacillus cereus18.5±0.46+
    Clostridium botulinum24.6±0.57+
    Salmonella enteritidis22.1±0.61++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa20.6±0.59++
    Acinetobacter baumannii17.4±0.35+
    PTCE-2 mgEnterococcus faecalis22.4±0.44++
    Bacillus cereus19.2±0.47+
    Clostridium botulinum20.2±0.42+
    Salmonella enteritidis21.3±0.50++
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa20.6±0.30++
    Acinetobacter baumannii18.3±0.50+

    Anti-bacterial studies Antifungal studies

    The screening of the lichen species against fungal specimens can be observed in Table 2:

    Table 2: Showing zone of inhibition shown by extracts obtained against 3 fungal strains.
    Sl. No.SampleOrganismsZone of inhibition (in mm) Avg.Efficiency
    1FluconazoleAspergillus clavatus30.4±0.35+++
    2Aspergillus fumigatus31.5±0.31+++
    3Candida glabrata30.5±0.35+++
    4RHAE -1 mgAspergillus clavatus23.7±0.47++
    5Aspergillus fumigatus23.1±1++
    6Candida glabrata22.9±0.29++
    7RHAE -2 mgAspergillus clavatus26.1±0.25+++
    8Aspergillus fumigatus25.5±0.40+++
    9Candida glabrata26.1±0.31+++
    10RHME-1 mgAspergillus clavatus20.8±0.66++
    11Aspergillus fumigatus19.3±0.46+
    12Candida glabrata20.1±0.25+
    13RHME-2 mgAspergillus clavatus21.6±0.99++
    14Aspergillus fumigatus20.1±0.55+
    15Candida glabrata20.5±0.36++
    16RHCE-1 mgAspergillus clavatus18.4±0.26+
    17Aspergillus fumigatus18.1±0.68+
    18Candida glabrata17.8±0.23+
    19RHCE-2 mgAspergillus clavatus20.7±0.84++
    20Aspergillus fumigatus19.1±0.85+
    21Candida glabrata19.8±0.81+
    22RNAE-1 mgAspergillus clavatus23.8±0.85++
    23Aspergillus fumigatus22.7±0.40++
    24Candida glabrata22.7±0.35++
    25RNAE-2 mgAspergillus clavatus25.8±0.38+++
    26Aspergillus fumigatus25.4±0.57+++
    27Candida glabrata26.2±0.61+++
    28RNME-1 mgAspergillus clavatus20.9±0.56++
    29Aspergillus fumigatus19.2±0.40+
    30Candida glabrata20.1±0.38+
    31RNME-2 mgAspergillus clavatus21.5±0.81++
    32Aspergillus fumigatus19.8±0.56+
    33Candida glabrata20.6±0.31++
    34RNCE-1 mgAspergillus clavatus18.5±0.32+
    35Aspergillus fumigatus17.8±0.75+
    36Candida glabrata18.1±0.35+
    37RNCE-2 mgAspergillus clavatus20.9±0.74++
    38Aspergillus fumigatus19.1±0.40+
    39Candida glabrata20.2±0.50+
    40PPAE-1 mgAspergillus clavatus24.8±0.56++
    41Aspergillus fumigatus23.1±1.40++
    42Candida glabrata22.1±0.47++
    43PPAE-2 mgAspergillus clavatus26.4±0.46+++
    44Aspergillus fumigatus25.8±0.55+++
    45Candida glabrata25.4±0.40+++
    46PPME-1 mgAspergillus clavatus21.1±0.49++
    47Aspergillus fumigatus19.2±0.55+
    48Candida glabrata20.1±0.42+
    49PPME-2 mgAspergillus clavatus21.1±0.95++
    50Aspergillus fumigatus19.3±0.45+
    51Candida glabrata20.4±0.30++
    52PPCE-1 mgAspergillus clavatus18.6±0.44+
    53Aspergillus fumigatus17.7±0.55+
    54Candida glabrata18.6±0.12+
    55PPCE-2 mgAspergillus clavatus20.8±0.30++
    56Aspergillus fumigatus19.1±0.85+
    57Candida glabrata20.2±0.47+
    58PTAE-1 mgAspergillus clavatus24.3±0.51++
    59Aspergillus fumigatus22.6±0.59++
    60Candida glabrata22.2±0.47++
    61PTAE-2 mgAspergillus clavatus25.9±0.15+++
    62Aspergillus fumigatus26.1±0.40+++
    63Candida glabrata25.4±0.26+++
    64PTME-1 mgAspergillus clavatus20.8±0.36++
    65Aspergillus fumigatus19.2±0.62+
    66Candida glabrata20.1±0.45+
    67PTME-2 mgAspergillus clavatus20.8±0.60++
    68Aspergillus fumigatus19.3±0.56+
    69Candida glabrata20.4±0.40++
    70PTCE-1 mgAspergillus clavatus18.9±0.30+
    71Aspergillus fumigatus17.9±0.64+
    72Candida glabrata18.6±0.36+
    73PTCE-2 mgAspergillus clavatus20.7±0.21++
    74Aspergillus fumigatus19.2±0.45+
    75Candida glabrata20.3±0.61+

    DISCUSSION

    Antibacterial activity

    All the 4 lichen samples has shown to be effective against 6 tested organisms having dose dependent inhibitory capacity. Zones are found to be higher at 2 mg/mL when compared to 1mg/ mL. The zone of inhibition range from 16.7±0.17 to 28.2±0.15 (in m.m.). The lowest was recorded for Chloroform extract of Parmotrema praesorediosum against Acinetobacter baumannii in 1 mg concentration. Whereas the highest zone of inhibition was recorded for Acetone extract of Ramalina nervulosa against Enterococcus faecalis in 2 mg concentration. Furthermore, it is noted that whereas methanol extracts had a moderate effect, acetone extracts of every sample shown excellent inhibition and least effect was shown by the Chloroform extracts. Every triple experiment yielded identical findings.

    Antifungal activity

    In case of antifungal activity also all the 4 lichen samples tested has shown to be effective against 3 tested organisms having the dose dependent inhibitory capacity. Zones are found to be higher at 2 mg/mL when compared to 1 mg/mL. The zones of inhibition were seen in the range 17.7±0.55 to 26.4±0.46 (in m.m.). Chloroform extract of Parmotrema praesorediosum has shown the lowest zone of inhibition against Aspergillus fumigatus in 1mg concentration. On the other hand Acetone extract of Parmotrema praesorediosum has shown the highest zone of inhibition against Aspergillus clavatus in 2 mg concentration. Also it is observed that acetone extracts of all the samples have shown excellent inhibition, whereas methanol extracts have showed moderate effect followed by the chloroform extracts. The results obtained are same in all the triplicate experiments.

    CONCLUSION

    From the experiment it was confirmed that lichens are interesting organisms having the antibacterial and antifungal activities. The pathogenic microorganisms were screened in vitro and found to have antimicrobial potential with zones of inhibition of various ranges. This study is really helpful to identify, isolate and characterize the principal compounds exhibiting the antimicrobial activity from the potential and medicinally important lichen species.

    REFERENCES

    As published

    Showing references and in-text citations exactly as published.

    1. 1.Essadki, Y.; Hilmi, A.; Cascajosa-Lira, A.; Girão, M.; Darrag, E. M.; Martins, R. et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of volatile compounds from the lichen Pseudevernia furfuracea (L.) Zopf. Against multidrug-resistant bacteria and fish pathogens. Microorganisms. 2024;12(11):Article 2336. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12112336DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
    2. 2.Huneck, S.. The significance of lichens and their metabolites. Die Naturwissenschaften. 1999;86(12):559–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001140050676DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
    3. 3.Jovana, M.; Nevena, P.; Marijana, K.. Antimicrobial AND antioxidant activity of the lichens Cladonia Rangiferina and Lobaria Pulmonaria. 2024;29.GOOGLE SCHOLAR
    4. 4.Mansour, S. A.; Serag, M. S.; Abdel-Azeem, A. M.. Antimicrobial activity of culturable endobionic fungi residing lichens and lower plants. Microbial Biosystems. 2025;10(1). https://doi.org/10.21608/mb.2025.414963DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
    5. 5.Pant, K.; Joshi, P.; Upreti, D. K.; Nayaka, S.; Darmwal, J.. Phytochemical investigation, antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of some Parmeliaceae lichens from Western Himalaya. Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology. 2025;19(1):263–274. https://doi.org/10.22207/JPAM.19.1.17DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
    6. 6.Piñeiro, M.; Manrique, S.; Gómez, J.; Rodriguez, J. M.; Barrera, P.; Caballero, D. et al. Biological activities of Usnea lethariiformis lichen extracts and UHPLC-ESI-QTOF-MS analysis of their secondary metabolites. Frontiers in Pharmacology. 2025;15:Article 1508835. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2024.1508835DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
    7. 7.Pradhan, S.; Dash, S.; Parida, S.; Sahoo, B.; Rath, B.. Antioxidant and antimicrobial activities and GC/MS-based phytochemical analysis of two traditional Lichen species Trypethellium virens and Phaeographis dendritica. Journal, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology. 2023;21(1):Article 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43141-023-00490-0DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
    8. 8.Prashith Kekuda, T. R.; Ranjitha, M. C.; Firdose, G.. Vidya P1 and Vinayaka K.S. Antimicrobial activity of selected corticolous macrolichens. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal. 2015;4(3):169–174.GOOGLE SCHOLAR
    9. 9.Sahoo, B.; Dash, S.; Parida, S.; Sahu, J. K.; Rath, B.. Antimicrobial activity of the lichens Parmotrema Andium and Dirinaria applanata. Journal of Applied Biology and Biotechnology. 2021;9(4):93–97.GOOGLE SCHOLAR
    10. 10.Sinha, G. P.; Nayaka, S.; Mishra, G. K.. A comprehensive checklist of lichens from India—2024. Cryptogam. Biodiversity and Assessment. 2024;8(2).GOOGLE SCHOLAR
    11. 11.Srivastava, P.; Upreti, D. K.; Dhole, T. N.; Srivastava, A. K.; Nayak, M. T.. Antimicrobial property of extracts of Indian lichen against human pathogenic bacteria. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Infectious Diseases. 2013;2013(1):Article 709348. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/709348DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
    12. 12.Tian, H.; Lu, J.; Liang, F.; Ding, H.; Xiao, C.. Unassuming lichens: Nature’s hidden antimicrobial warriors. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2025;26(7):Article 3136. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26073136DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
    13. 13.Yadav, H.; Nayaka, S.; Dwivedi, M.. Analytics on antimicrobial activity of lichen extract. Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology. 2021;15(2):701–708. https://doi.org/10.22207/JPAM.15.2.21DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
    14. 14.Zambare, V. P.; Christopher, L. P.. Biopharmaceutical potential of lichens. Pharmaceutical Biology. 2012;50(6):778–798. https://doi.org/10.3109/13880209.2011.633089DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR

    Cite this article

    SELECT FORMAT

    Tamang, D., Sarma, M., & Nayaka, S. (2026). Deciphering the in vitro Antimicrobial Potential of Some Macrolichens from Burachapori Wildlife Sanctuary, Assam, India. Pharmacognosy Research, 18(1), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.5530/pres.20260222