## 4 Discussion
These values are several times lower than those observed in the present work (between 7.5 and 10 mg GAE/mL), probably because a different solvent (ethanol) was used to obtain the mango extracts. Furthermore, [PERSON] et al. [43] investigated the antibacterial properties of mango seed extracts obtained by MAE, Fermentation-Assisted Extraction (FAE) and Solvent-Assisted Extraction (SAE) against six _S. aureus_ isolates. Their findings further supported the antibacterial potential of mango by-products, highlighting the importance of the extraction method in determining the antimicrobial efficacy of the extracts. The MICs revealed a high antibacterial activity (7.31-750 \(\upmu\)g/mL) compared to synthetic antibiotics (vancomycin and penicillin) and were influenced by the extraction technique: SAE had the highest biological activity. Finally, our work demonstrated the antibacterial capacity of mango extracts against a wide diversity of _Staphylococcus_ species (other than _S. aureus_) associated with food spoilage or pathogenic to humans. We also demonstrate the wide range of sensitivities between species, from high sensitivity (species of Group 1, Table 3) to highly resistant (such as _S. lugdunensis_). Consequently, this finding suggests that mango extracts are promising compounds for further development, as they are natural antibacterial agents with pharmaceutical and food industry applications. In relation to different human pathogenic bacteria, several studies describe the in vitro antibacterial activity of mango extracts. However, the high diversity of extraction processes (ethanol, methanol, etc. ), cultivars, parts of the plant (stem bark, leaves, rind, seeds, dried pulp, etc. ), fruit ripening conditions and the in vitro evaluation methods (disks, wells, diffusion agar, macro or micro dilution, etc.) used in the different works strongly affect the total polyphenic content as well as the antimicrobial activity potential of the extracts. Consequently, the MIC values for the same bacterial species are very diverse and are expressed in different ways (mm halo, mg, mg/mL, mg GAE/mL, etc. ), which makes cross-data comparisons very difficult. For example, the MIC data for _E. coli_ or _P. aeruginosa_ may range from 1.25 to 100 mg/mL. Another aspect widely reported in different studies and in some cases duly argued [7,13] is the description of the greater susceptibility of the Gram-positive bacteria concerning the Gram-negative bacteria, likely as a result of the barrier effect caused by the outer membrane. Given the results of the present study, we cannot confirm this concept since, from the 10 Gram-negative (AAB and human pathogenic bacteria) and 10 Gram-positive (_Staphylococcus_ spp.) species tested, we observed a wide range of MIC data: 1.7 to >400 mg GAE/mL and 1.0 to 120 mg GAE/mL, respectively. However, although the maximum MIC value recorded for Gram-negative bacteria (>400 mg GAE/mL) was at least 3.3 times higher than for Gram-positive bacteria (120 mg GAE/mL), the range of values in both types of bacteria was widely spread. For this reason, to confirm this general concept, the mode of action of the extracts should be studied in more detail and a greater number of bacterial species and strains should be tested.