Next Article in Journal
Species Distribution of Candida Isolates in Amniotic Fluid, Vaginal Discharge, and Lochial Cultures in Obstetric and Gynecological Patients: A Retrospective Single-Center Study
Previous Article in Journal
District-Level Risk Mapping of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Poultry in Kazakhstan Using a Multi-Criteria Decision Model
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Prevention and Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms Using Promising Agr-QS-Targeting Anti-Biofilm Agents

1
Department of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
2
Medical School, Twin Cities Campus, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
3
School of Life Sciences, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Pathogens 2026, 15(8), 795; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens15080795
Submission received: 10 June 2026 / Revised: 20 July 2026 / Accepted: 20 July 2026 / Published: 27 July 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Bacterial Pathogens)

Abstract

Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), a leading cause of nosocomial infections, contributes significantly to increased morbidity and mortality, especially when it forms biofilms on medical devices. This pathogen, specifically methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), remains a challenge to treat due to its ability to form biofilms and rapidly develop resistance against antibiotics. Biofilm formation allows bacteria to adhere to biotic and abiotic surfaces, creating a protective matrix that shields them from immune responses and antibiotic therapies. The widespread prevalence of multidrug-resistant S. aureus biofilms poses a significant therapeutic challenge in clinical settings. Several novel therapeutic strategies have been developed to combat S. aureus biofilm-associated infections. Accumulating evidence suggests that natural plants and their derivatives possess antimicrobial and chemo preventive properties that can disrupt established biofilms. Several plant-derived compounds with anti-biofilm activities have been reported to target the regulatory proteins involved in the Agr quorum sensing (Agr-QS) system, underscoring their potential as therapeutic candidates for the prevention and treatment of biofilm-associated infections. However, despite these encouraging findings, clinical validation of these plant-based agents is essential to ensure their efficacy, safety, and optimal application in treating S. aureus biofilm infections. The continued exploration of natural biofilm inhibitors anticipates the urgent need for new treatments to combat biofilm-associated infections and multidrug-resistant pathogens like MRSA. This review provides a detailed overview of preventive and therapeutic interventions to eradicate biofilm-forming S. aureus infections.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), a Gram-positive bacterium, is a major human pathogen in both inpatient and outpatient settings and contributes significantly to morbidity and mortality [1]. About 30–50% of healthy individuals in the United States have S. aureus, and one in a hundred of these people is colonized with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Therefore, this antibiotic-resistant pathogen can easily be transmitted through direct contact, exposing a large population to infection [2]. In recent years, the cases of MRSA infections in hospitalized patients have reduced in several countries, but the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on antimicrobial resistance, resulting in a 15% increase in nosocomial MRSA infections in the United States [3]. S. aureus colonizes indwelling medical devices, including catheters, implants, joints, and artificial heart valves, and produces biofilms [4,5]. The infections associated with S. aureus biofilms are difficult to treat, as biofilms provide a phenotypic resistance mechanism that further protects the pathogen from antibiotics and host defense [6].
The antibiotic resistance of S. aureus is primarily mediated through its ability to evade the host’s immune system. This is achieved through the bacterium’s ability to invade the epithelial cell linings and form recalcitrant biofilms [7,8]. Key cell wall components, such as teichoic acid polymers, and the production of virulence factors, including coagulase and toxins, play crucial roles in the adhesion and invasion processes [7,8].
Though antibiotics are the first choice to combat bacterial infections, resistance to last-resort antibiotics like vancomycin by vancomycin-resistant S. aureus (VRSA) has led to the emergence of multidrug-resistant strains, posing a major concern [9]. The infections caused by antibiotic-resistant S. aureus strains increase hospital stays and mortality, resulting in a substantial financial burden on the medical industry. Over the past decade, the total hospital costs to treat S. aureus infection have been estimated at $450 million [10,11]. Research on S. aureus biofilm formation has improved our understanding of the intricacy of S. aureus pathogenesis and advanced the development of therapies to prevent and treat biofilm infections. Recently, natural plants and their extracted phytochemicals have gained significant attention for their potential antimicrobial and anti-biofilm properties [12]. These green alternatives consist of complex mixtures of various compounds, making it difficult for bacteria to develop resistance to these multi-component treatments [13].
A thorough understanding of the cellular communication mechanisms within a biofilm matrix can lead to the development of new strategies and targets for identifying novel therapies against biofilm-associated S. aureus infections. This review outlines the mechanisms of S. aureus biofilm formation and highlights recent advances in the use of various natural compounds as alternative therapeutic approaches.

2. Prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus

S. aureus is a persistent resident of the human nasal passages and epidermal surfaces and substantially increases the risk of invasive infection. As an opportunistic pathogen, it can colonize various sites, including the skin, blood, soft tissues, lungs, bones, brain, and heart valves, causing diseases ranging from superficial skin infections to life-threatening bacteremia, endocarditis, pneumonia, and sepsis (Table 1). The two most prevalent strains, MRSA and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA), are known to cause mild skin infections that can progress to life-threatening sepsis and even death [14].
MSSA infections can be treated using beta-lactam antibiotics, whereas MRSA infections are commonly treated with sulfamethoxazole–trimethoprim, daptomycin, telavancin, clindamycin, linezolid, tigecycline, quinupristin–dalfopristin, and vancomycin [21,22]. However, the effectiveness of conventional antibiotics has substantially reduced due to increasing prevalence of antimicrobial resistance (Figure 1, Table 2), highlighting the urgent need to develop alternative therapeutics.
The clinical persistence of S. aureus is mostly attributed to the biofilm-mediated protection from antimicrobial agents that helps maintain chronic infection. Beyond humans, S. aureus is also a significant cause of mastitis in bovine, ovine, and caprine species, leading to a notable decrease in milk production and quality, resulting in substantial economic losses for the dairy industry [23]. Consequently, understanding the mechanisms regulating biofilm formation and virulence in S. aureus can pave a path in the development of effective strategies.
Table 2. Therapeutic limitations and emerging resistance associated with antibiotics used against S. aureus.
Table 2. Therapeutic limitations and emerging resistance associated with antibiotics used against S. aureus.
InfectionAntibioticClinical ImplicationsMajor Therapeutic
Limitations
Emerging ResistanceReferences
EndocarditisLinezolidTo treat MRSA-like cases when IV access or oral step-down is neededMyelosuppression, especially thrombocytopenia, dose- and duration-dependent toxicityLinezolid resistance[24,25,26,27]
Severe community-
acquired pneumonia
DaptomycinTo treat MRSA, but generally not recommended for pneumoniaInactivated by pulmonary surfactantIncreased daptomycin resistance[26,28,29]
Bacteremia and
vertebral
osteomyelitis
To treat MRSA bacteremia and deep infectionsIncreased CPK levels, myopathy risk, need for higher dosing in severe infectionIn vivo-acquired resistance and treatment failures in MRSA bacteremia[30,31,32]
Sepsis and septic shockVancomycinStandard therapy for severe MRSA infectionNephrotoxicity; infusion reactions (red man syndrome)Increasing vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (VISA) prevalence and rare VRSA. Recent sepsis guidelines highlighted reduced efficacy with elevated MICs[33,34,35]
Chronic skin ulcersUsed for susceptible isolates but often limited in biofilm-rich chronic diseaseToxicity limits prolonged courses, poor penetration, and tolerance in biofilmsIncreasing prevalence of VISA/VRSA along with reduced vancomycin susceptibility[35,36,37]
Skin and soft tissue
infections
ClindamycinCommonly used for susceptible MSSA/MRSA SSTIsGastrointestinal toxicity kills beneficial bacteria and allows harmful C. difficile to growSubstantial inducible clindamycin resistance in MRSA and MSSA[38,39,40]
Mixed (samples taken from hospital)Quinupristin–
dalfopristin
Used for highly resistant Gram-positive infections onlyInfusion-related pain, arthralgia/myalgia, limited routine use Plasmid-mediated resistance in S. aureus and other staphylococci[26,41,42]
Mixed (samples taken from hospital)Trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX)Useful for selected MRSA SSTIs and some invasive infectionsHypersensitivity; hematologic toxicityTMP–SMX resistance in MRSA and MSSA[42,43]
Mixed (samples taken from hospital)TigecyclineAlternative for complicated skin/soft tissue and intra-abdominal infectionsNausea/vomiting, low serum levels unsuitable for bacteremiaEmergence of tigecycline resistance in S. aureus and other Gram-positive pathogens[26]
Note: All abbreviations are listed at the end of the manuscript.

3. Virulence Potential of Staphylococcus aureus

Among all staphylococcal bacteria, S. aureus is the most lethal pathogen, causing frequent outbreaks over the years. This is primarily due to its wide array of virulence factors, with biofilm formation being a significant contributor to its pathogenicity (Table 3) [44]. In addition, the key feature of highly recalcitrant S. aureus infections is their strong adherence and invasion capabilities [45,46]. The rise in multidrug-resistant strains, along with the presence of antibiotic residues in food products such as dairy and meat, further intensifies the challenge.

4. Biofilm Formation by Staphylococcus aureus

Biofilm Development—Attachment, Proliferation, and Detachment

Biofilms are complex, structured communities formed by sessile microbes, allowing the bacteria to adhere and synthesize an organic matrix. The development of S. aureus biofilm can be divided into three phases: bacterial attachment to the host, proliferation leading to a mature biofilm formation, and detachment to initiate a new biofilm cycle (Figure 2). During initial attachment, MSCRAMM adhesions aid in host tissue colonization [47,48,57]. The LPXTG motifs in MSCRAMM adhesins form strong covalent bonds with various human matrix proteins, initiating biofilm formation at the infection site [58]. Other surface proteins, including Sdr proteins (Serin-aspartate repeat family), autolysins (Atl), and accumulation-associated proteins (Aap), are also involved during the initial stages of biofilm formation [57,59]. During maturation, the synthesis and excretion of polysaccharide intercellular adhesins (PIAs/PNAG), regulated by the icaADBC operon-coded enzyme, provide adhesion between the cells (Figure 2) [49,50,60]. PIA plays a vital role in determining the structure of the growing biofilm during the infection. Its expression is significantly upregulated by the sarA and sigB genes; luxS negatively regulates the expression of PIA and associated genes [60]. The expression of the ica operon is regulated by the activation of SarA and Pur proteins. N-acetyl-glucosaminyl transferase, a transmembrane protein produced by the expression of icaAD genes, is required to produce N-acetyl-glucosamine oligomers [52]. Additionally, the co-expressed IcaC gene is responsible for the elongation and translocation of the growing polysaccharide to the cell surface. Finally, the deacetylation of this poly-N-acetylglucosamine occurs through the action of a surface protein, IcaB, contributing to PIA development. However, PIA is not present in all S. aureus isolates. Other adhesion proteins, such as Aap (accumulation-associated protein), fibrinogen-binding proteins (FnbpA and FnbpB), protein A, extracellular matrix-binding protein (Embp), and surface protein G (SasG), are involved in biofilm formation and maturation [60,61].
In addition to PIA/PNAG, many clinical S. aureus isolates form biofilms whose matrices are predominantly proteinaceous or eDNA-rich rather than polysaccharide [62,63]. Protein-dependent biofilms are mediated by surface adhesins and secreted proteins, including SasG, protein A, fibronectin-binding proteins (FnBPA/FnBPB), clumping factor B, serine–aspartate repeat proteins, and biofilm-associated protein (Bap), which can drive robust biofilm formation even in ica-negative or PIA-independent strains [64,65,66]. Recent genetic and biochemical studies further showed that secondary messenger signaling and global regulators also contribute to these non-PIA biofilms. For example, the changes in the secondary messenger cyclic-di-AMP (mediated by the phosphodiesterase GdpP) and regulators like SarA and SigB determine how much eDNA is released and how the matrix is assembled, underscoring that PIA-independent, protein/eDNA-dominated biofilms are common and clinically relevant in S. aureus [50,67].
Biofilm-associated protein (Bap) promotes biofilm formation and proliferation, even in the absence of exopolysaccharides. Bap was first discovered in the S. aureus strain responsible for bovine mastitis [68]. The expression of both the ica operon and the bap gene significantly enhances the biofilm formation and invasion capabilities of S. aureus isolates. In clinical S. aureus strains, increased expression of the rbf gene activates the ica operon. However, the rbf gene has not been observed in any bovine S. aureus isolates [69].
Detachment, the final step in biofilm formation, involves the disruption of non-covalent interactions between biofilm cells and the supportive matrix [53].

5. Biofilm Development and Its Relation to Quorum Sensing

Within the biofilm matrix, bacteria use certain chemical signaling molecules to communicate with one another, a process known as quorum sensing (QS). The QS system plays an intriguing role in the development of biofilm resistance against different antimicrobial agents [50]. The QS system allows the bacteria to sense and respond to the accumulation of various signaling auto-inducing peptides (AIPs) secreted within the matrix [70,71]. During biofilm maturation and dispersion, the kinase receptors on the bacterial surface bind to high concentrations of these AIPs in the matrix and transmit signals to trigger the expression of sarA and an accessory gene regulator, Agr [53]. The S. aureus Agr system is essential for the production of several virulence factors, including toxins and degradative exoenzymes [56].

5.1. Role of Agr System in Biofilm Dispersal

In S. aureus isolates, the biofilm maturation and dispersal processes are tightly regulated by the Agr-QS system. Repression of agr operon genes contributes to biofilm formation, while activation of the agr system triggers the detachment of mature biofilms [53]. The Agr system is a highly integrated signaling network that regulates virulence by sensing the concentration of signaling molecules and bacterial cell density in the matrix [55]. The agr operon comprises two divergent promoters, P2 and P3, which drive the transcription of two distinct RNA molecules, RNAII and RNAIII (Figure 2) [54]. RNAII is a polycistronic mRNA that codes for four Agr proteins, including AgrC, AgrA, AgrB, and AgrD. A histidine kinase, AgrC, along with response regulator AgrA, forms a two-component signal transduction system [55]. AgrB is a multifunctional protein that functions both as an endopeptidase and a chaperone, aiding in the maturation and export of AIPs. AgrD serves as a precursor of the AIP pheromone, which is proteolytically processed by AgrB to form a thiolactone intermediate, as shown in Figure 2. This intermediate is subsequently exported across the membrane, where it is cleaved to generate a mature AIP pheromone. S. aureus strains can be divided into four different groups based on the polymorphic variant produced by the arg locus: agrI, agrII, agrIII, and agrIV (Figure 2) [72]. Species-specific variants have been widely reported; some studies have also reported the association of agr variants with different S. aureus features (Table 4). Notably, isolates with the agrI variant exhibit an increased tendency to invade MAC-T cells, while the isolates with agrII showed a greater reliance on biofilm formation [73].
When the level of mature AIP reaches its threshold, it activates AgrC. Upon activation, AgrC initiates a phospho-relay cascade that results in AgrA phosphorylation. Phosphorylated AgrA binds to the P2 promoter, and upregulates the transcription of RNAII (positive feedback mechanism) and the P3 operon. The P3 operon, which is an AgrA-dependent operon located adjacent to P2, encodes RNAIII (hld), a posttranscriptional regulator that controls the expression of multiple virulence factors, including proteases, nucleases, the biofilm dispersal gene (hla), toxins, and surfactants. This ultimately leads to biofilm dispersal as depicted in Figure 2 [74]. Activated AgrA also regulates the psm-mec gene in an RNAIII-independent manner, leading to the production of phenol-soluble modulins (PSMs). PSMs such as δ-hemolysin, PSMα1-4, PSMmec, and PSMβ1-2 contribute to the degradation of exopolysaccharides (EPSs), facilitating biofilm dispersal and promoting host cell perturbations. During the dispersal phase, mature biofilm ruptures, releasing bacterial aggregates that can seed the formation of new biofilms [48,61].
Table 4. Characteristic features of different Agr variants and their role in biofilm regulation.
Table 4. Characteristic features of different Agr variants and their role in biofilm regulation.
Agr
Variant
Characteristic FeaturesBiofilm RegulationReference
agrIPredominantly reported in CA-MRSA and methicillin-resistant bovine isolatesRegulates a broad set of toxins, proteases, and adhesins; agrI dysfunction is linked to prolonged bacteremia and altered biofilm behavior. [75,76]
High prevalence of resistance towards beta-lactamase, glycopeptides, fluoroquinolones, aminoglycosides, tetracyclines, macrolides, lincomycins, and sulphonamides[77]
agrIIPredominantly causes nosocomial MRSA and MRSA bloodstream infectionsagrII activity influences biofilm maturation and dispersal. It is associated with distinct toxin/adhesin profiles. [54,75]
Toxic shock syndrome
Prolific biofilm producers[78]
agrIIIPredominantly causes CA-MRSALinked with toxin-mediated virulence, agrIII mutants show altered biofilm and persistence phenotypes.[75,79]
Potent biofilm producers[80]
agrIVPredominantly reported in swine farm isolates and generalized exfoliative syndromesRegulates virulence and biofilm, but detailed functional data are limited. [54,77]
High prevalence of resistance to fluoroquinolones, aminoglycosides, tetracyclines, macrolides, lincomycins, and sulphonamides[77]
High prevalence of enterotoxin genes[54]
Note: All abbreviations are listed at the end of the manuscript.

5.2. Alternative Anti-Biofilm Strategies

The global rise in MRSA and VRSA is significantly undermining the effectiveness of nearly all reported antibiotics [81]. Unfortunately, no vaccines have been approved to treat S. aureus infections. In addition, recalcitrant S. aureus biofilms require surgical debridement and prolonged antimicrobial therapy. The global market for antibiotics to treat S. aureus infections, especially MRSA, was valued at 984.6 million US dollars in the year 2020, with a projected Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 4.4%, expected to reach approximately 1327.9 million US dollars by 2027 [82]. Consequently, various natural and synthetic anti-biofilm agents are being explored as an alternative to conventional antibiotics. These include the metabolites extracted from other prokaryotes to target the Agr-QS system or to degrade the biofilm matrix (Table 5), as well as “green synthesized” nanoparticles and bacteriophages to combat S. aureus biofilms [83,84].

5.3. Green Alternatives as Potential Medicinal Therapeutic Agents

To combat this growing threat, it is crucial to explore unconventional therapies with antimicrobial and anti-biofilm properties. While approaches like bacteriophages, synthetic compounds, and nanotechnologies hold potential, they often face limitations such as cytotoxicity and high cost (Table 5). This dire situation urges us to reconsider “traditional” green alternatives, though for most biofilm applications the current reports are largely limited to in vitro and early preclinical studies. Plants, for instance, serve as a huge reservoir for secondary metabolites (phytochemicals) with known medicinal properties. Over 80% of commercialized medicines are derived directly or indirectly from natural sources, with more than 50% containing active compounds isolated from plants, herbs, and minerals [13]. These compounds play an important role in modern healthcare. However, some remedies still require experimental validation, and clinical trials are needed to commercialize their use.
Plants produce two types of active metabolites: primary and secondary metabolites. Primary metabolites are the building blocks of an organism undergoing various metabolic processes to produce secondary metabolites. Secondary metabolites assist them in surviving and reproducing [129]. These metabolites play a crucial role in chemical defense, protecting plants from abiotic stress while also contributing to floral scents and pigments. The most indispensable benefit, however, is their role as a source of medicines and industrial additives. Based on their biosynthetic pathways, secondary metabolites can be classified into several categories, including alkaloids, glycosides, steroids, phenols, terpenoids, and tannins. These compounds exhibit biodynamic medicinal properties, applicable to both human and animal health [129,130].
Phenols and polyphenols are the most potent compounds, extensively reported for their antimicrobial activities. They have a unique ability to bind to a wide range of proteins and glycoproteins and are often used to enhance the antimicrobial properties of antibiotics [131,132]. Tannins, which are polymeric phenolic compounds, have demonstrated antibacterial and anti-biofilm-forming properties due to their ability to inhibit enzymes involved in adhesion and transport [133,134,135]. Flavonoids, the most diverse group of metabolites, are well-known for their antibacterial effects. Based on their chemical structure, they are classified as flavones, isoflavones, flavonols, flavanonols, flavanones, chalcones, and anthocyanides. Flavonoids are known to induce oxidative stress and block the transport of electrons during respiration [136]. Quinones, particularly anthraquinones, are another class of highly reactive compounds that can form irreversible complexes with bacterial adhesins, leading to biofilm dysfunction [132]. Plants also produce terpenes and terpenoids, which interact with other species. Most essential oils, rich in terpenoids, exhibit both antibacterial and anti-biofilm activities [137,138].
Alkaloids are well-known nitrogen-containing natural bioactive compounds that are a rich source for drug discovery. These compounds inhibit bacterial growth by interfering with DNA intercalation and suppress bacterial proliferation and accumulation during biofilm formation [131,132,136]. Numerous alkaloids extracted from medicinal plants and herbs contribute to several biological and pharmacological uses. Compared to commonly used antibiotics, alkaloids provide enhanced resistance, which has led to cutting-edge research aimed at exploring novel therapeutic approaches [132,136]. Phytochemicals represent a complex reservoir of active compounds with a broad though often vague spectrum of activity. Many plant-based anti-biofilm targets mainly interfere with adhesion, attachment, formation of a polymer matrix, or blocking the QS system, which ultimately leads to biofilm inhibition (Figure 3).
Numerous medicinal plants and plant-derived phytochemicals have been reported to inhibit S. aureus biofilm formation. This protection is achieved by inhibiting initial bacterial adhesion, membrane disruption, and modulating the regulatory genes (agr, sarA, and ica) [52,53]. Table 6 summarizes major findings of the most reported plants, including major bioactive constituents, proposed targets, anti-biofilm mechanisms, experimental models, and developmental stage.

5.4. Camellia sinensis

Camellia sinensis (C. sinensis) is a flowering plant of the Theaceae family with evergreen shrubs whose leaves and leaf buds are used to make green tea. This tea plant is a hub of beneficial theophylline, flavonoids, saponins, and several polyphenol derivatives including epicatechin (EC), epigallocatechin (EGC), epicatechin gallate (ECG), and epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) [165,166]. Tea leaf extract is reported to inhibit the growth of various bacterial species, including S. aureus, and possesses antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-biofilm properties [166,167]. Green tea extract contains a putative anti-adhesive component that inhibits bacterial attachment and development of biofilms, and disperses pre-existing biofilms at concentrations even lower than MIC, suggesting the potential for pharmaceutical applications [140,141,168,169].

5.5. Moringa oleifera

Moringa oleifera (M. oleifera), commonly known as drumstick or Miracle tree, is a fast-growing Moringaceae family tree particularly valued for its rich nutritional content, including fatty acids, carotenoids, minerals, and vitamins [170]. M. oleifera has been shown to possess significant antimicrobial and anti-biofilm properties, especially against S. aureus. Leaves and seeds of M. oleifera are reported to inhibit biofilm formation, with an inhibition rate of up to 99% [171,172]. Further research, particularly in animal models, is needed to better understand its full therapeutic potential.

5.6. Rosmarinus officinalis

Rosmarinus officinalis (rosemary) is a well-known medicinal plant. Experimental studies have demonstrated that methanol extracts of rosemary effectively inhibit S. aureus biofilm formation, with significant reductions in the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values, indicating its potential as an antimicrobial agent [173,174,175,176]. Recent studies using NMR and MS fragmentation identified bioactive metabolites from rosemary extracts, such as micromeric acid and oleanolic acid. These compounds demonstrated complete inhibition of MRSA biofilm formation, supporting the plant’s potential as a treatment for biofilm-related infections [177].

5.7. Psidium guajava

Psidium guajava is a fruiting plant known for its broad range of therapeutic activities, including antimicrobial effects [178,179,180,181]. Several studies have reported that the methanol extract of P. guajava leaves inhibits biofilm formation by downregulating the expression of critical biofilm formation genes such as icaAD, sarA, and agr [151,182]. Ultra-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC) and GC-MS analyses identified compounds like L-5-Propylthiomethylhydantoin and several phenolics that inhibit biofilm formation without causing cytotoxicity. Therefore, their pharmaceutical use may be a justification for clinical trials [182,183].

5.8. Eucalyptus

Eucalyptus is particularly known for its medicinal, commercial, and ornamental applications [184]. Eucalyptus globulus (E. globulus) is a prominent evergreen tree whose leaves are used to produce essential oils with antimicrobial, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory properties [185,186,187]. Studies have shown that the essential oil, aqueous and methanolic leaf extracts of E. globulus significantly inhibit the initial attachment and adhesion of S. aureus and lead to decreased virulence and biofilm inhibition [130,187,188]. The Eucalyptus sideroxylon (E. sideroxylon) species is well-known for antibacterial and anti-fungal properties [156,189]. It has been reported that the flower extract of E. sideroxylon possesses potent anti-biofilm activity against S. aureus isolates at sublethal doses (95.9% inhibition) in a dose-dependent manner [156,190].

5.9. Azadirachta indica

Azadirachta indica (A. indica) is a well-known medicinal plant that has been extensively studied for its antimicrobial and anti-biofilm properties against S. aureus [178,179,191]. Crude extracts of A. indica showed a 60–70% reduction in MRSA and MSSA biofilm formation and up to 80% when used in combination with Ocimum sanctum [192,193]. These studies underline the need for further research and clinical trials to explore the full therapeutic potential of A. indica.

5.10. Curcuma longa

Curcuma longa (C. longa) is widely recognized for its broad medicinal applications [194,195,196]. Recent research has highlighted significant antibacterial and anti-biofilm properties of C. longa rhizome extracts (containing curcumin) against biofilm-producing S. aureus isolates [168]. MRSA isolates were completely eradicated at 20 μM curcumin combined with light, with lower doses also significantly reducing survival rates, highlighting curcumin’s potential in photodynamic therapy [197,198]. These findings suggest the fact that C. longa derivatives can be used as potential anti-biofilm agents against S. aureus infections.

5.11. Sanguisorba officinalis

Sanguisorba officinalis (S. officinalis) is commonly known in traditional Chinese medicine for treating wounds and stopping bleeding [199]. The root extract of S. officinalis is rich in triterpenoid saponins and tannins, compounds known for significantly inhibiting the growth of Gram-positive bacteria as compared to Gram-negative bacteria [200,201,202]. Further studies identified that the reduction in biofilm-forming ability is due to the interaction of triterpenoid saponins with the ica locus and agr system genes [163,203,204].

5.12. Others

Natural products have been one of the most important sources of novel antimicrobial agents for the past decade because of their structural diversity [205]. Recent advances in isolation and separation technologies have led to the discovery of various novel metabolites that can serve as potential candidates to cure persistent bacterial infections all over the world. The screening of natural anti-biofilm agents has consistently widened. In addition to the above-mentioned anti-biofilm agents, several other plants are also reported for their role in the inhibition of biofilms, including Allium sativum [206], Annona senegalensis [207], Jatropha curcas L. [208], Orostachys japonicus [209], Moringa stenopetala [205,210], Spondias purpurea [211], Juglans regia L. [212], Citrus sinensis [213] and several others enlisted in Table 7.
Most of the above-conducted experiments are pilot studies to evaluate the effectiveness of these anti-biofilm agents against infectious S. aureus isolates. Furthermore, most of these anti-biofilm agents usually alter the metabolic pathways involved in biofilm adhesion and proliferation. Some studies have also identified potential agents that can disperse the pre-established biofilms on biotic and abiotic surfaces by inhibiting the agr-QS system and related proteins. However, the molecular mechanisms underlying the inhibition of biofilm formation and proliferation need further experimental validation and clinical trials.

5.13. Translational Challenges in the Clinical Development of Natural Anti-Biofilm Agents

Despite the potential in vitro activity, plant-derived anti-biofilm agents have several translational challenges that limit their progression toward clinical use [284]. This translational gap reflects a series of interconnected challenges other than effectiveness of antibiotics. In addition to being a potent biofilm inhibiting agent, these phytochemicals require several standardization and quality control checks to be marked. The lack of phytochemical standardization is the major limitation in clinical development. The chemical composition of these plant extracts can vary depending on the cultivar, species, harvesting season, extraction method, storage conditions, and geographic origin, thereby reducing reproducibility across studies [285]. This variability resulted in inconsistent batch-to-batch activity and variability in dosage and therapeutic efficiency across different studies [286]. Furthermore, most studies rely on crude plant extracts rather than chemically characterized active constituents, which further limits reproducibility and regulatory approval.
Limited understanding of the pharmacokinetic properties of many phytochemicals is another major constraint [285]. Several plant-derived compounds have suboptimal pharmacokinetic properties, including limited aqueous solubility, poor intestinal absorption, rapid metabolism, low systemic bioavailability, and inadequate tissue penetration, thereby limiting their in vivo efficacy [284]. The reported studies do not reflect these physiological characteristics accurately leading to the reduced translation of in vitro findings.
The toxicity and safety evaluation of phytochemicals also remains understudied specifically regarding long-term exposure, high dose administration, and use of combination therapies for systemic treatment [284,287]. The stability of plant-derived phytochemicals is another hurdle, as several bioactive compounds are prone to degradation when exposed to light, temperature, pH, or oxidation, thereby reducing their bioactivity and stability during administration and storage [286]. To overcome these challenges, advanced delivery approaches such as nano formulations, encapsulation, and surface-targeted delivery systems may improve the stability and bioavailability of these phytochemicals. Although these approaches seem promising, they require rigorous safety, toxicological, and pharmacological validations before clinical use [288].
The lack of well-designed clinical trials remains one of the most significant challenges, because most available evidence for plant-derived anti-biofilm agents is still limited to in vitro studies or early preclinical models [289]. Consequently, future development should prioritize standardized extract characterization, identification of active principles, pharmacokinetic and toxicological profiling, optimized formulation, and controlled clinical evaluation for realistic therapeutic options.

6. Conclusions and Future Prospects

S. aureus is included in the World Health Organization’s list of antibiotic-resistant priority pathogens that pose a hazard to human health. Biofilm production is one of the most effective survival strategies used by S. aureus and is extremely difficult to treat using conventional antibiotics. S. aureus biofilm infections are usually managed by either removing the lesions or by administering high doses of systemic/topical antibiotics, necessitating repetitive hospitalization and multiple surgical operations, which ultimately increases the cost and risks of treatment. These challenges highlight the critical importance of finding alternative therapeutics to treat and prevent staphylococcal biofilms. The identification of effective bioactive drugs provides a feasible and cost-effective approach to address the overwhelming threat of antibiotic resistance. Several innovative therapeutic strategies have been proposed to combat these infections, but only a handful have been tested in clinical trials. Most anti-biofilm agents reported in vitro require additional in vivo validation because many of these compounds have significant disadvantages and safety concerns.
Quorum sensing, specifically through the agr system in S. aureus, operates as a genetic “see-saw”. This agr activation triggers virulence toxins (e.g., hemolysins, proteases) for tissue invasion and these proteases also facilitate biofilm dispersal. The downstream effector RNAIII acts as a master regulator of the Agr system by shifting the bacteria from a biofilm-forming state to a tissue-invasive state. Inhibiting the agr system blocks the production of these matrix-degrading enzymes, allowing the biofilm to become thicker, denser, and more resistant to mechanical or chemical clearance. This trade-off often creates a dilemma in clinical settings; while anti-virulence therapies reduce acute toxicity, they can inadvertently promote long-term bacterial persistence. Most of the phytochemicals discussed in this study, including quercetin, ferulic acid, carvacrol, curcumin, tea polyphenols, and salicylic acid derivatives, act directly on the Agr-QS system. These phytochemicals have been shown to downregulate agr and RNAIII expression, resulting in reduced virulence and biofilm formation in preclinical studies. However, disruption of the Agr-locus has been reported to enhance adherence, increase biofilm formation, bacterial persistence, and adaptation to chronic infection. Clinical and experimental studies show that isolates with agr-dysfunction form thicker and robust biofilms, indicating that indiscriminate inhibition of Agr system could be detrimental during chronic stage infections. The therapeutic outcome is highly dependent on the host, infection site, and stage of infection. Recent in vivo studies reported that Agr primarily contributes to virulence rather than biofilm formation, highlighting the complexity of targeting this regulatory system. Nevertheless, phytochemicals that modulate Agr-QS signaling not only attenuate virulence but also disrupt biofilms, providing a more balanced therapeutic strategy to combat S. aureus infections and requiring further validation. Several in vitro studies reported inhibition of both MRSA and MSSA infections in response to treatment with these bioactive derivatives. Additionally, they can also synergistically work with several antibiotics or photodynamic therapies to enhance biofilm disruption in experimental models. Although inhibiting agr alone can promote biofilm stabilization, phytochemicals in combination with traditional antibiotics have been reported with increasing frequency to be effective against treating S. aureus biofilms. By pairing a QS inhibitor with an antibiotic, clinicians aim to achieve virulence attenuation alongside the clearance of persistent, non-dispersing biofilm cells.
Despite substantial progress, several limitations impede the clinical translation and therapeutic applications of plant-derived anti-biofilm compounds. The clinical application of many phytochemicals is restricted due to unfavorable pharmacokinetic properties such as low oral bioavailability, poor aqueous solubility, rapid metabolism, and limited stability under physiological conditions. Moreover, the effective in vitro concentrations required to inhibit biofilm formation may not be achievable in vivo due to potential cytotoxicity. In addition, poor standardization, batch-to-batch variability, and the lack of pharmacokinetic and toxicological studies of plant extracts pose significant challenges to clinical development. Consequently, optimization of active compounds, improved drug delivery systems, and rigorous preclinical validations are needed before these agents can be used as viable therapeutic candidates to prevent and treat S. aureus biofilm-associated infections.

Author Contributions

S.W.S., A.A. (Ahmad Ali), and T.X. conceived the original ideas and manuscript plans. S.W.S., A.A. (Ahmad Ali), and A.A. (Asma Ahsan) wrote the manuscript and generated all the figures and tables in the manuscript. L.G., T.X., F.S., S.W.S., A.A. (Ahmad Ali), and A.A. (Asma Ahsan) reviewed and edited the manuscript. T.X. provided supervision. L.G. provided supervision and resources. S.W.S. and A.A. (Ahmad Ali) are currently graduate students at Texas Tech University. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. The APC was funded by Texas Tech University Association of Biologists and TechASM.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations were used in the manuscript.
MRSAMethicillin-resistant S. aureus
MSSAMethicillin-susceptible S. aureus
CPKCreatine phosphokinase
PVLPanton–Valentine leucocidin
EVDExternal ventricular drains
MSCRAMMsMicrobial surface components recognizing adhesive matrix molecules
TSST-1Toxic shock syndrome toxin 1
ETsExfoliative toxins
MTSSMenstrual toxic shock syndrome
NMTSSNon-menstrual TSS
SSSSStaphylococcal scalded skin syndrome
SFDStaphylococcal food-borne diseases
EPSsExopolysaccharides
PIAPolysaccharide intercellular adhesion
QSQuorum sensing
AIPsAuto-inducing peptides
PSMsPhenol soluble modulins
ORFsOpen reading frames
LA-MRSALivestock-associated methicillin-resistant S. aureus
CA-MRSACommunity-associated methicillin-resistant S. aureus
VRSAVancomycin-resistant S. aureus
CAGRCompound annual growth rate
EDTAEthylenediamine tetraacetic acid
EGTAEthylene glycol tetra acetic acid
TSCTri-sodium citrate
DTTDithiothreitol
ECEpicatechin
EGCEpigallocatechin
ECGEpicatechin gallate
EGCGEpigallocatechin gallate
PVCPolyvinyl Chloride plastic
GC-MSGas chromatography–mass spectrometry
MICMinimum inhibitory concentration
NMRNuclear magnetic resonance
UPLCUltra-performance liquid chromatography
BICBenzyl isocyanate
LC-FTMSLiquid chromatography Fourier transform mass spectrometry
SEMScanning electron microscopy

References

  1. Li, J.; Liu, D.; Tian, X.; Koseki, S.; Chen, S.; Ye, X.; Ding, T. Novel antibacterial modalities against methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus derived from plants. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, S153–S161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  2. Sollid, J.U.E.; Furberg, A.; Hanssen, A.; Johannessen, M. Staphylococcus aureus: Determinants of human carriage. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2014, 21, 531–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  3. Hindieh, P.; Yaghi, J.; Assaf, J.C.; Chokr, A.; Atoui, A.; Tzenios, N.; Louka, N.; Khoury, A.E. Emerging Multimodal Strategies for Bacterial Biofilm Eradication: A Comprehensive Review. Microorganisms 2025, 13, 2796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  4. Kiedrowski, M.R.; Horswill, A.R. New approaches for treating staphylococcal biofilm infections. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2011, 1241, 104–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  5. Høiby, N.; Ciofu, O.; Johansen, H.K.; Song, Z.j.; Moser, C.; Jensen, P.Ø.; Molin, S.; Givskov, M.; Tolker-Nielsen, T.; Bjarnsholt, T. The clinical impact of bacterial biofilms. Int. J. Oral Sci. 2011, 3, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  6. Jamal, M.; Ahmad, W.; Andleeb, S.; Jalil, F.; Imran, M.; Nawaz, M.A.; Hussain, T.; Ali, M.; Rafiq, M.; Kamil, M.A. Bacterial biofilm and associated infections. J. Chin. Med. Assoc. 2018, 81, 7–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  7. Tuchscherr, L.; Löffler, B.; Buzzola, F.R.; Sordelli, D.O. Staphylococcus aureus adaptation to the host and persistence: Role of loss of capsular polysaccharide expression. Future Med. 2010, 5, 1823–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  8. Zaatout, N.; Ayachi, A.; Kecha, M. Interaction of primary mammary bovine epithelial cells with biofilm-forming staphylococci associated with subclinical bovine mastitis. Iran. J. Vet. Res. 2019, 20, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  9. Pietrocola, G.; Nobile, G.; Rindi, S.; Speziale, P. Staphylococcus aureus manipulates innate immunity through own and host-expressed proteases. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2017, 7, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  10. Parvizi, J.; Pawasarat, I.M.; Azzam, K.A.; Joshi, A.; Hansen, E.N.; Bozic, K.J. Periprosthetic joint infection: The economic impact of methicillin-resistant infections. J. Arthroplast. 2010, 25, 103–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  11. Song, X.; Perencevich, E.; Campos, J.; Short, B.L.; Singh, N. Clinical and economic impact of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization or infection on neonates in intensive care units. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2010, 31, 177–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  12. Pesavento, G.; Maggini, V.; Maida, I.; Nostro, A.L.; Calonico, C.; Sassoli, C.; Perrin, E.; Fondi, M.; Mengoni, A.; Chiellini, C.; et al. Essential oil from Origanum vulgare completely inhibits the growth of multidrug-resistant cystic fibrosis pathogens. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2016, 11, 1934578X1601100641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Solórzano-Santos, F.; Miranda-Novales, M.G. Essential oils from aromatic herbs as antimicrobial agents. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2012, 23, 136–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  14. Tuffs, S.W.; Haeryfar, S.M.M.; McCormick, J.K. Manipulation of innate and adaptive immunity by Staphylococcal superantigens. Pathogens 2018, 7, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  15. Kadariya, J.; Smith, T.C.; Thapaliya, D. Staphylococcus aureus and staphylococcal food-borne disease: An ongoing challenge in public health. BioMed Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 827965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  16. Hennekinne, J.-A.; De Buyser, M.-L.; Dragacci, S. Staphylococcus aureus and its food poisoning toxins: Characterization and outbreak investigation. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2012, 36, 815–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  17. Rudd, K.E.; Johnson, S.C.; Agesa, K.M.; Shackelford, K.A.; Tsoi, D.; Kievlan, D.R.; Colombara, D.V.; Ikuta, K.S.; Kissoon, N.; Finfer, S.; et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990–2017: Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 2020, 395, 200–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  18. WHO. Sepsis Fact Sheet 2024. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/sepsis (accessed on 12 July 2026).
  19. Tobin, E.H.; Jogu, P.; Koirala, J. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482221/ (accessed on 11 January 2026).
  20. Shoaib, M.; Aqib, A.I.; Muzammil, I.; Majeed, N.; Bhutta, Z.A.; Kulyar, M.F.-e.-A.; Fatima, M.; Zaheer, C.-N.F.; Muneer, A.; Murtaza, M.; et al. MRSA compendium of epidemiology, transmission, pathophysiology, treatment, and prevention within one health framework. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 13, 1067284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  21. Liu, C.; Bayer, A.; Cosgrove, S.E.; Daum, R.S.; Fridkin, S.K.; Gorwitz, R.J.; Kaplan, S.L.; Karchmer, A.W.; Levine, D.P.; Murray, B.E.; et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America for the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections in Adults and Children. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2011, 52, e18–e55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  22. Britt, N.S.; Tirmizi, S.; Ritchie, D.J.; Topal, J.E.; McManus, D.; Nizet, V.; Casabar, E.; Sakoulas, G. Telavancin for refractory MRSA bacteraemia in intermittent haemodialysis recipients. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2018, 73, 764–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  23. Vanderhaeghen, W.; Cerpentier, T.; Adriaensen, C.; Vicca, J.; Hermans, K.; Butaye, P. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) ST398 associated with clinical and subclinical mastitis in Belgian cows. Vet. Microbiol. 2010, 144, 166–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  24. Ha, K.N.Y.; Vu, T.T.T.; Nguyen, T.T.T.; Nguyen, H.Q.N.; Dang, T.N.D. A retrospective study of the risk factors for linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia in hospitalized patients. MedPharmRes 2025, 9, 207–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Muñoz, P.; De la Villa, S.; Martínez-Sellés, M.; Goenaga, M.A.; Reviejo-Jaka, K.; Revillas, F.A.L.; García-Cuello, L.; Hidalgo-Tenorio, C.; Rodríguez-Esteban, M.A.; Antorrena, I.; et al. Linezolid for infective endocarditis: A structured approach based on a national database experience. Medicine 2021, 100, e27597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  26. Shariati, A.; Dadashi, M.; Chegini, Z.; van Belkum, A.; Mirzaii, M.; Khoramrooz, S.S.; Darban-Sarokhalil, D. The global prevalence of Daptomycin, Tigecycline, Quinupristin/Dalfopristin, and Linezolid-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci strains: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2020, 9, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  27. Kobayashi, T.; Ando, T.; Streit, J.; Sekar, P. Current Evidence on Oral Antibiotics for Infective Endocarditis: A Narrative Review. Cardiol. Ther. 2019, 8, 167–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  28. Skiest, D.J. Treatment failure resulting from resistance of Staphylococcus aureus to daptomycin. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2006, 44, 655–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  29. Fiore, M.; Alfieri, A.; Fiore, D.; Iuliano, P.; Spatola, F.G.; Limone, A.; Pezone, I.; Leone, S. Use of Daptomycin to Manage Severe MRSA Infections in Humans. Medicine 2025, 14, 617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  30. Bhavnani, S.M.; Rubino, C.M.; Ambrose, P.G.; Drusano, G.L. Daptomycin exposure and the probability of elevations in the creatine phosphokinase level: Data from a randomized trial of patients with bacteremia and endocarditis. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 2010, 50, 1568–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  31. Tally, F.P.; DeBruin, M.F. Development of daptomycin for gram-positive infections. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2000, 46, 523–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  32. Marty, F.M.; Yeh, W.W.; Wennersten, C.B.; Venkataraman, L.; Albano, E.; Alyea, E.P.; Gold, H.S.; Baden, L.R.; Pillai, S.K. Emergence of a clinical daptomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolate during treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and osteomyelitis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2006, 44, 595–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  33. Zamoner, W.; Prado, I.R.S.; Balbi, A.L.; Ponce, D. Vancomycin dosing, monitoring and toxicity: Critical review of the clinical practice. Clin. Exp. Pharmacol. Physiol. 2019, 46, 292–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  34. Niforatos, J.D.; Hinson, J.S.; Rothman, R.E.; Cosgrove, S.E.; Dzintars, K.; Klein, E.Y. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Vancomycin Prescribing in the Emergency Department: A Single-center Study Assessing Antibiotic Prescribing. J. Am. Coll. Emerg. Phys. Open 2025, 6, 100021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  35. Keikha, M.; Karbalaei, M. Global distribution of heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus strains (1997–2021): A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2024, 37, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  36. Sievert, D.M.; Rudrik, J.T.; Patel, J.B.; McDonald, L.C.; Wilkins, M.J.; Hageman, J.C. Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the United States, 2002–2006. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 2008, 46, 668–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  37. Zhang, S.; Sun, X.; Chang, W.; Dai, Y.; Ma, X. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the epidemiology of vancomycin-intermediate and heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus isolates. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0136082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  38. Deotale, V.; Mendiratta, D.K.; Raut, U.; Narang, P. Inducible clindamycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus isolated from clinical samples. Indian J. Med. Microbiol. 2010, 28, 124–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  39. Fomda, B.A.; Peer, M.A.; Zahoor, D.; Thokar, M.A.; Nasir, R.A. Phenotypic detection of constitutive and inducible clindamycin resistance in clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase negative Staphylococcus on routine susceptibility plate. J. Commun. Dis. 2010, 42, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  40. Addis, Z.; Aschale, Y.; Fenta, A.; Teffera, Z.H.; Melkamu, A.; Tigab, A.; Dilnessa, T. Methicillin and inducible clindamycin resistance in clinical Staphylococcus aureus isolates: A cross-sectional study from Northwest Ethiopia. Front. Microbiol. 2025, 16, 1569242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  41. Werner, G.; Cuny, C.; Schmitz, F.J.; Witte, W. Methicillin-resistant, quinupristin-dalfopristin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with reduced sensitivity to glycopeptides. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2001, 39, 3586–3590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  42. Pharm, U. ToExamTable Blog Summary with Recent VISA/VRSA Data and Therapeutic Options: “Vancomycin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Emergence and Treatment Options”. 2022. Available online: https://blog.unmc.edu/infectious-disease/2022/11/03/pharmtoexamtable-vancomycin-resistant-staphylococcus-aureus-emergence-and-treatment/ (accessed on 8 June 2026).
  43. Coelho, C.; de Lencastre, H.; Aires-de-Sousa, M. Frequent occurrence of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole hetero-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates in different African countries. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Eur. Soc. Clin. Microbiol. 2017, 36, 1243–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  44. Abd El-Hamid, M.I.; Bendary, M.M.; Merwad, A.M.A.; Elsohaby, I.; Mohammad Ghaith, D.; Alshareef, W.A. What is behind phylogenetic analysis of hospital-, community- and livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus? Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2019, 66, 1506–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Van Acker, H.; Van Dijck, P.; Coenye, T. Molecular mechanisms of antimicrobial tolerance and resistance in bacterial and fungal biofilms. Trends Microbiol. 2014, 22, 326–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  46. McCarthy, H.; Rudkin, J.K.; Black, N.S.; Gallagher, L.; O’Neill, E.; O’Gara, J.P. Methicillin resistance and the biofilm phenotype in Staphylococcus aureus. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2015, 5, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  47. Lewis, K. Multidrug tolerance of biofilms and persister cells. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 2008, 322, 107–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  48. Otto, M. Physical stress and bacterial colonization. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2014, 38, 1250–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  49. Zaatout, N.; Ayachi, A.; Kecha, M. Staphylococcus aureus persistence properties associated with bovine mastitis and alternative therapeutic modalities. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2020, 129, 1102–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  50. Archer, N.K.; Mazaitis, M.J.; Costerton, J.W.; Leid, J.G.; Powers, M.E.; Shirtliff, M.E. Staphylococcus aureus biofilms: Properties, regulation, and roles in human disease. Virulence 2011, 2, 445–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  51. Kraushaar, B.; Fetsch, A. First description of PVL-positive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in wild boar meat. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2014, 186, 68–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  52. Arciola, C.R.; Campoccia, D.; Ravaioli, S.; Montanaro, L. Polysaccharide intercellular adhesin in biofilm: Structural and regulatory aspects. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2015, 5, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  53. Boles, B.R.; Horswill, A.R. Agr-mediated dispersal of Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. PLoS Pathog. 2008, 4, e1000052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  54. Tan, L.; Li, S.R.; Jiang, B.; Hu, X.M.; Li, S. Therapeutic targeting of the Staphylococcus aureus accessory gene regulator (agr) system. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  55. Traber, K.E.; Lee, E.; Benson, S.; Corrigan, R.; Cantera, M.; Shopsin, B.; Novick, R.P. Agr function in clinical Staphylococcus aureus isolates. Microbiology 2008, 154, 2265–2274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  56. Le, K.Y.; Otto, M. Quorum-sensing regulation in staphylococci—An overview. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  57. Reffuveille, F.; Josse, J.; Vallé, Q.; Gangloff, C.; Gangloff, S.C. Staphylococcus aureus biofilms and their impact on the medical field. Rise Virulence Antibiot. Resist. Staphylococcus Aureus 2017, 11, 187. [Google Scholar]
  58. Josse, J.; Velard, F.; Gangloff, S.C. Staphylococcus aureus vs. osteoblast: Relationship and consequences in osteomyelitis. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2015, 5, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  59. Otto, M. Staphylococcal infections: Mechanisms of biofilm maturation and detachment as critical determinants of pathogenicity. Annu. Rev. Med. 2013, 64, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  60. Nguyen, H.T.T.; Nguyen, T.H.; Otto, M. The staphylococcal exopolysaccharide PIA—Biosynthesis and role in biofilm formation, colonization, and infection. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2020, 18, 3324–3334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  61. Lister, J.L.; Horswill, A.R. Staphylococcus aureus biofilms: Recent developments in biofilm dispersal. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2014, 4, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  62. Sugimoto, S.; Sato, F.; Miyakawa, R.; Chiba, A.; Onodera, S.; Hori, S.; Mizunoe, Y. Broad impact of extracellular DNA on biofilm formation by clinically isolated Methicillin-resistant and -sensitive strains of Staphylococcus aureus. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 2254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  63. Rohde, H.; Burandt, E.C.; Siemssen, N.; Frommelt, L.; Burdelski, C.; Wurster, S.; Scherpe, S.; Davies, A.P.; Harris, L.G.; Horstkotte, M.A.; et al. Polysaccharide intercellular adhesin or protein factors in biofilm accumulation of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus isolated from prosthetic hip and knee joint infections. Biomaterials 2007, 28, 1711–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  64. O’Neill, E.; Pozzi, C.; Houston, P.; Humphreys, H.; Robinson, D.A.; Loughman, A.; Foster, T.J.; O’Gara James, P. A Novel Staphylococcus aureus Biofilm Phenotype Mediated by the Fibronectin-Binding Proteins, FnBPA and FnBPB. J. Bacteriol. 2008, 190, 3835–3850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  65. Geoghegan, J.A.; Corrigan, R.M.; Gruszka, D.T.; Speziale, P.; O’Gara, J.P.; Potts, J.R.; Foster, T.J. Role of Surface Protein SasG in Biofilm Formation by Staphylococcus aureus. J. Bacteriol. 2010, 192, 5663–5673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  66. Speziale, P.; Pietrocola, G.; Foster, T.J.; Geoghegan, J.A. Protein-based biofilm matrices in Staphylococci. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2014, 4, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  67. Kavanaugh Jeffrey, S.; Flack Caralyn, E.; Lister, J.; Ricker Erica, B.; Ibberson Carolyn, B.; Jenul, C.; Moormeier Derek, E.; Delmain Elizabeth, A.; Bayles Kenneth, W.; Horswill Alexander, R. Identification of Extracellular DNA-Binding Proteins in the Biofilm Matrix. mBio 2019, 10, 10-1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  68. Lasa, I.; Penadés, J.R. Bap: A family of surface proteins involved in biofilm formation. Res. Microbiol. 2006, 157, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  69. Cue, D.; Lei, M.G.; Luong, T.T.; Kuechenmeister, L.; Dunman, P.M.; O’Donnell, S.; Rowe, S.; O’Gara, J.P.; Lee, C.Y. Rbf promotes biofilm formation by Staphylococcus aureus via repression of icaR, a negative regulator of icaADBC. J. Bacteriol. 2009, 191, 6363–6373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  70. Abisado, R.G.; Benomar, S.; Klaus, J.R.; Dandekar, A.A.; Chandler, J.R. Bacterial quorum sensing and microbial community interactions. mBio 2018, 9, e02331-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  71. Passos da Silva, D.; Schofield, M.C.; Parsek, M.R.; Tseng, B.S. An update on the sociomicrobiology of quorum sensing in gram-negative biofilm development. Pathogens 2017, 6, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  72. Xie, Y.; He, Y.; Gehring, A.; Hu, Y.; Li, Q.; Tu, S.-I.; Shi, X. Genotypes and toxin gene profiles of Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates from China. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e28276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  73. Bardiau, M.; Caplin, J.; Detilleux, J.; Graber, H.; Moroni, P.; Taminiau, B.; Mainil, J.G. Existence of two groups of Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated from bovine mastitis based on biofilm formation, intracellular survival, capsular profile and agr-typing. Vet. Microbiol. 2016, 185, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  74. Fechter, P.; Caldelari, I.; Lioliou, E.; Romby, P. Novel aspects of RNA regulation in Staphylococcus aureus. FEBS Lett. 2014, 588, 2523–2529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  75. Nichol, K.A.; Adam, H.J.; Hussain, Z.; Mulvey, M.R.; McCracken, M.; Mataseje, L.F.; Thompson, K.; Kost, S.; Lagacé-Wiens, P.R.; Hoban, D.J.; et al. Comparison of community-associated and health care-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Canada: Results of the CANWARD 2007-2009 study. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2011, 69, 320–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  76. Mohsenzadeh, M.; Ghazvini, K.; Azimian, A. Frequency of specific agr groups and antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus aureus isolated from bovine mastitis in the northeast of Iran. Vet. Res. Forum Int. Q. J. 2015, 6, 295–299. [Google Scholar]
  77. Zhang, Y.; Xu, D.; Shi, L.; Cai, R.; Li, C.; Yan, H. Association between agr type, virulence factors, biofilm formation and antibiotic resistance of Staphylococcus aureus isolates from pork production. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  78. Cafiso, V.; Bertuccio, T.; Santagati, M.; Demelio, V.; Spina, D.; Nicoletti, G.; Stefani, S. Agr-Genotyping and transcriptional analysis of biofilm-producing Staphylococcus aureus. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 2007, 51, 220–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  79. Ikonomidis, A.; Vasdeki, A.; Kristo, I.; Maniatis, A.N.; Tsakris, A.; Malizos, K.N.; Pournaras, S. Association of biofilm formation and methicillin-resistance with accessory gene regulator (agr) loci in Greek Staphylococcus aureus clones. Microb. Pathog. 2009, 47, 341–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  80. Khoramrooz, S.S.; Mansouri, F.; Marashifard, M.; Malek Hosseini, S.A.; Akbarian Chenarestane-Olia, F.; Ganavehei, B.; Gharibpour, F.; Shahbazi, A.; Mirzaii, M.; Darban-Sarokhalil, D. Detection of biofilm related genes, classical enterotoxin genes and agr typing among Staphylococcus aureus isolated from bovine with subclinical mastitis in southwest of Iran. Microb. Pathog. 2016, 97, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  81. Ventola, C.L. The antibiotic resistance crisis: Part 1: Causes and threats. Pharm. Ther. 2015, 40, 277–283. [Google Scholar]
  82. Seattle. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Market Size Is Estimated to Reach US$ 1,327.9 Million by 2027-Press Release. Available online: https://www.pharmiweb.com/press-release/2021-03-25/methicillin-resistant-staphylococcus-aureus-market-size-is-estimated-to-reach-us-1-3279-million-by (accessed on 22 April 2026).
  83. Manoharadas, S.; Altaf, M.; Alrefaei, A.F.; Devasia, R.M.; Badjah Hadj, A.Y.M.; Abuhasil, M.S.A. Concerted dispersion of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm by bacteriophage and ‘green synthesized’ silver nanoparticles. RSC Adv. 2021, 11, 1420–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  84. Wypij, M.; Jędrzejewski, T.; Trzcińska-Wencel, J.; Ostrowski, M.; Rai, M.; Golińska, P. Green synthesized silver nanoparticles: Antibacterial and anticancer activities, biocompatibility, and analyses of surface-attached proteins. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 632505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  85. Zhou, Y.; Zhao, R.; Ma, B.; Gao, H.; Xue, X.; Qu, D.; Li, M.; Meng, J.; Luo, X.; Hou, Z. Oligomerization of RNAIII-Inhibiting Peptide Inhibits Adherence and Biofilm Formation of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus In Vitro and In Vivo. Microb. Drug Resist. 2016, 22, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  86. Ma, B.; Zhou, Y.; Li, M.; Yu, Q.; Xue, X.; Li, Z.; Da, F.; Hou, Z.; Luo, X. RIP-V improves murine survival in a sepsis model by down-regulating RNAIII expression and α-hemolysin release of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Die Pharm. 2015, 70, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  87. Salam, A.M.; Quave, C.L. Targeting virulence in Staphylococcus aureus by chemical inhibition of the accessory gene regulator system in vivo. mSphere 2018, 3, e00500–e00517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  88. Sully, E.K.; Malachowa, N.; Elmore, B.O.; Alexander, S.M.; Femling, J.K.; Gray, B.M.; DeLeo, F.R.; Otto, M.; Cheung, A.L.; Edwards, B.S.; et al. Selective chemical inhibition of agr quorum sensing in Staphylococcus aureus promotes host defense with minimal impact on resistance. PLoS Pathog. 2014, 10, e1004174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  89. Pant, N.; Miranda-Hernandez, S.; Rush, C.; Warner, J.; Eisen, D.P. Effect of savirin in the prevention of biofilm-related Staphylococcus aureus prosthetic joint infection. Front. Pharmacol. 2022, 13, 989417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  90. Wallis, J.K.; Krömker, V.; Paduch, J.-H. Biofilm challenge: Lactic acid bacteria isolated from bovine udders versus Staphylococci. Foods 2019, 8, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  91. Bouchard, D.S.; Rault, L.; Berkova, N.; Le Loir, Y.; Even, S. Inhibition of Staphylococcus aureus invasion into bovine mammary epithelial cells by contact with live Lactobacillus casei. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 877–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  92. Meroni, G.; Panelli, S.; Zuccotti, G.; Bandi, C.; Drago, L.; Pistone, D. Probiotics as Therapeutic Tools against Pathogenic Biofilms: Have We Found the Perfect Weapon? Microbiol. Res. 2021, 12, 916–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  93. Asli, A.; Brouillette, E.; Ster, C.; Ghinet, M.G.; Brzezinski, R.; Lacasse, P.; Jacques, M.; Malouin, F. Antibiofilm and antibacterial effects of specific chitosan molecules on Staphylococcus aureus isolates associated with bovine mastitis. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0176988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  94. Canovas, J.; Baldry, M.; Bojer, M.S.; Andersen, P.S.; Grzeskowiak, P.K.; Stegger, M.; Damborg, P.; Olsen, C.A.; Ingmer, H. Cross-talk between Staphylococcus aureus and other Staphylococcal species via the agr quorum sensing system. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  95. Wang, B.; Muir, T.W. Regulation of Virulence in Staphylococcus aureus: Molecular Mechanisms and Remaining Puzzles. Cell Chem. Biol. 2016, 23, 214–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  96. O’Flaherty, S.; Ross, R.P.; Flynn, J.; Meaney, W.J.; Fitzgerald, G.F.; Coffey, A. Isolation and characterization of two anti-staphylococcal bacteriophages specific for pathogenic Staphylococcus aureus associated with bovine infections. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2005, 41, 482–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  97. Iwano, H.; Inoue, Y.; Takasago, T.; Kobayashi, H.; Furusawa, T.; Taniguchi, K.; Fujiki, J.; Yokota, H.; Usui, M.; Tanji, Y.; et al. Bacteriophage ΦSA012 has a broad host range against Staphylococcus aureus and effective lytic capacity in a mouse mastitis model. Biology 2018, 7, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  98. Lungren, M.P.; Christensen, D.; Kankotia, R.; Falk, I.; Paxton, B.E.; Kim, C.Y. Bacteriophage K for reduction of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm on central venous catheter material. Bacteriophage 2013, 3, e26825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  99. Herren, S.C.; Karau, M.J.; Guarin Perez, S.F.; Koscianski, C.A.; Mandrekar, J.; Patel, R.; Bedard, N.A. Activity of Phage and Vancomycin in a Murine Staphylococcus aureus Periprosthetic Joint Infection Model Managed With Debridement and Implant Retention. J. Orthop. Res. 2025, 43, 1767–1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  100. Alves, D.R.; Gaudion, A.; Bean, J.E.; Perez Esteban, P.; Arnot, T.C.; Harper, D.R.; Kot, W.; Hansen, L.H.; Enright, M.C.; Jenkins, A.T.A. Combined use of bacteriophage K and a novel bacteriophage to reduce Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 6694–6703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  101. Klein, R.C.; Fabres-Klein, M.H.; de Oliveira, L.L.; Feio, R.N.; Malouin, F.; Ribon Ade, O. A C-type lectin from Bothrops jararacussu venom disrupts Staphylococcal biofilms. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0120514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  102. Mihu, M.R.; Cabral, V.; Pattabhi, R.; Tar, M.T.; Davies, K.P.; Friedman, A.J.; Martinez, L.R.; Nosanchuk, J.D. Sustained nitric oxide-releasing nanoparticles interfere with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus adhesion and biofilm formation in a rat central venous catheter model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016, 61, e02020-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  103. Masurkar, S.A.; Chaudhari, P.R.; Shidore, V.B.; Kamble, S.P. Effect of biologically synthesised silver nanoparticles on Staphylococcus aureus biofilm quenching and prevention of biofilm formation. IET Nanobiotechnol. 2012, 6, 110–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  104. Mu, H.; Tang, J.; Liu, Q.; Sun, C.; Wang, T.; Duan, J. Potent Antibacterial Nanoparticles against Biofilm and Intracellular Bacteria. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 18877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  105. Harris, M.A.; Beenken, K.E.; Smeltzer, M.S.; Haggard, W.O.; Jennings, J.A. Phosphatidylcholine coatings deliver local antimicrobials and reduce infection in a murine model: A preliminary study. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res.® 2017, 475, 1847–1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  106. Lellouche, J.; Friedman, A.; Gedanken, A.; Banin, E. Antibacterial and antibiofilm properties of yttrium fluoride nanoparticles. Int. J. Nanomed. 2012, 7, 5611–5624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  107. Lellouche, J.; Friedman, A.; Lahmi, R.; Gedanken, A.; Banin, E. Antibiofilm surface functionalization of catheters by magnesium fluoride nanoparticles. Int. J. Nanomed. 2012, 7, 1175–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  108. Medina-Estrada, I.; López-Meza, J.E.; Ochoa-Zarzosa, A. Anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial effects of estradiol in bovine mammary epithelial cells during Staphylococcus aureus internalization. Mediat. Inflamm. 2016, 2016, 6120509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  109. Wu, X.; Wang, X.; Kang, J.; Dong, A.; Yang, Y.-W. Autoinducing Peptide-Mediated Bacterial Keratitis Therapy by Camouflaged Staphylococcus aureus. ACS Nano 2025, 19, 33857–33867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  110. Wang, J.; Nong, X.H.; Zhang, X.Y.; Xu, X.Y.; Amin, M.; Qi, S.H. Screening of anti-biofilm compounds from marine-derived fungi and the effects of Secalonic acid D on Staphylococcus aureus biofilm. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2017, 27, 1078–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  111. Craigen, B.; Dashiff, A.; Kadouri, D.E. The use of commercially available alpha-amylase compounds to inhibit and remove Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Open Microbiol. J. 2011, 5, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  112. Kokai-Kun, J.F.; Chanturiya, T.; Mond, J.J. Lysostaphin eradicates established Staphylococcus aureus biofilms in jugular vein catheterized mice. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2009, 64, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  113. Index, N. Lysostaphin Applications for Staphylococcus aureus Infections. Available online: https://www.nature.com/nature-index/topics/l4/lysostaphin-applications-for-staphylococcus-aureus-infections (accessed on 22 June 2026).
  114. Zeng, P.; Zhang, P.; Chan, H.W.; Chow, S.F.; Lam, J.K.W.; Ip, M.; Leung, S.S.Y. Storage stability of lysostaphin solution and its pulmonary delivery. Drug Deliv. Transl. Res. 2024, 14, 2433–2443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  115. Ibberson, C.B.; Parlet, C.P.; Kwiecinski, J.; Crosby, H.A.; Meyerholz, D.K.; Horswill, A.R. Hyaluronan modulation impacts Staphylococcus aureus biofilm infection. Infect. Immun. 2016, 84, 1917–1929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  116. Fenton, M.; Keary, R.; McAuliffe, O.; Ross, R.P.; O’Mahony, J.; Coffey, A. Bacteriophage-Derived Peptidase CHAPK Eliminates and Prevents Staphylococcal Biofilms. Int. J. Microbiol. 2013, 2013, 625341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  117. Gutiérrez, D.; Ruas-Madiedo, P.; Martínez, B.; Rodríguez, A.; García, P. Effective Removal of Staphylococcal Biofilms by the Endolysin LysH5. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e107307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  118. Nasiri Shoeibi, Z.; Rafiee, F.; Akrami, S.; Ghandehari, Z.; Feizabadi, M.M. Endolysins, Depolymerases, Holins, and VALs: Phage-Derived Proteins for Combating Antimicrobial Resistance. Microb. Drug Resist. 2026, 10766294261441705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  119. Suresh, M.K.; Biswas, R.; Biswas, L. An update on recent developments in the prevention and treatment of Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2019, 309, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  120. Mootz, J.M.; Malone, C.L.; Shaw, L.N.; Horswill, A.R. Staphopains modulate Staphylococcus aureus biofilm integrity. Infect. Immun. 2013, 81, 3227–3238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  121. Loughran, A.J.; Atwood, D.N.; Anthony, A.C.; Harik, N.S.; Spencer, H.J.; Beenken, K.E.; Smeltzer, M.S. Impact of individual extracellular proteases on Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation in diverse clinical isolates and their isogenic sarA mutants. Microbiologyopen 2014, 3, 897–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  122. Kaplan, J.B.; LoVetri, K.; Cardona, S.T.; Madhyastha, S.; Sadovskaya, I.; Jabbouri, S.; Izano, E.A. Recombinant human DNase I decreases biofilm and increases antimicrobial susceptibility in staphylococci. J. Antibiot. 2012, 65, 73–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  123. Deng, W.; Lei, Y.; Tang, X.; Li, D.; Liang, J.; Luo, J.; Liu, L.; Zhang, W.; Ye, L.; Kong, J.; et al. DNase inhibits early biofilm formation in Pseudomonas aeruginosa- or Staphylococcus aureus-induced empyema models. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 917038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  124. Kaplan, J.B.; Sukhishvili, S.A.; Sailer, M.; Kridin, K.; Ramasubbu, N. Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans Dispersin B: The Quintessential Antibiofilm Enzyme. Pathogens 2024, 13, 668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  125. Elchinger, P.H.; Delattre, C.; Faure, S.; Roy, O.; Badel, S.; Bernardi, T.; Taillefumier, C.; Michaud, P. Effect of proteases against biofilms of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2014, 59, 507–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  126. Shu, Q.; Wei, T.; Lu, H.; Niu, Y.; Chen, Q. Mannosylerythritol lipids: Dual inhibitory modes against Staphylococcus aureus through membrane-mediated apoptosis and biofilm disruption. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 104, 5053–5064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  127. Abraham, N.M.; Lamlertthon, S.; Fowler, V.G.; Jefferson, K.K. Chelating agents exert distinct effects on biofilm formation in Staphylococcus aureus depending on strain background: Role for clumping factor B. J. Med. Microbiol. 2012, 61, 1062–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  128. Wu, X.; Wang, Y.; Tao, L. Sulfhydryl compounds reduce Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation by inhibiting PIA biosynthesis. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2011, 316, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  129. Mondal, A.; Gandhi, A.; Fimognari, C.; Atanasov, A.G.; Bishayee, A. Alkaloids for cancer prevention and therapy: Current progress and future perspectives. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2019, 858, 172472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  130. Gomes, F.; Martins, N.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R.; Henriques, M. Anti-biofilm activity of hydromethanolic plant extracts against Staphylococcus aureus isolates from bovine mastitis. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  131. Zacchino, S.A.; Butassi, E.; Liberto, M.D.; Raimondi, M.; Postigo, A.; Sortino, M. Plant phenolics and terpenoids as adjuvants of antibacterial and antifungal drugs. Phytomedicine 2017, 37, 27–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  132. Swolana, D.; Kępa, M.; Kabała-Dzik, A.; Dzik, R.; Wojtyczka, R.D. Sensitivity of Staphylococcal biofilm to selected compounds of plant origin. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  133. Dong, G.; Liu, H.; Yu, X.; Zhang, X.; Lu, H.; Zhou, T.; Cao, J. Antimicrobial and anti-biofilm activity of tannic acid against Staphylococcus aureus. Nat. Prod. Res. 2018, 32, 2225–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  134. Maisetta, G.; Batoni, G.; Caboni, P.; Esin, S.; Rinaldi, A.C.; Zucca, P. Tannin profile, antioxidant properties, and antimicrobial activity of extracts from two Mediterranean species of parasitic plant Cytinus. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2019, 19, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  135. Schestakow, A.; Guth, M.S.; Eisenmenger, T.A.; Hannig, M. Evaluation of anti-biofilm activity of mouthrinses containing tannic acid or chitosan on dentin in situ. Molecules 2021, 26, 1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  136. Ze-Feng, W.; Jia, L.; Yong-An, Y.; Hai-Liang, Z. A Review: The anti-inflammatory, anticancer and antibacterial properties of four kinds of licorice flavonoids isolated from licorice. Curr. Med. Chem. 2020, 27, 1997–2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  137. Feng, D.; Zhang, A.; Yang, Y.; Yang, P. Coumarin-containing hybrids and their antibacterial activities. Arch. Pharm. 2020, 353, 1900380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  138. Sayout, A.; Ouarhach, A.; Rabie, R.; Dilagui, I.; Soraa, N.; Romane, A. Evaluation of antibacterial activity of Lavandulapedunculata subsp. atlantica (Braun-Blanq.) romo essential oil and selected terpenoids against resistant bacteria strains–structure–activity relationships. Biochem. Biodivers. 2020, 17, e1900496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  139. Wu, S.-C.; Liu, F.; Zhu, K.; Shen, J.-Z. Natural Products That Target Virulence Factors in Antibiotic-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 13195–13211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  140. Knidel, C.; Pereira, M.F.; Barcelos, D.H.F.; Gomes, D.C.d.O.; Guimarães, M.C.C.; Schuenck, R.P. Epigallocatechin gallate has antibacterial and antibiofilm activity in methicillin resistant and susceptible Staphylococcus aureus of different lineages in non-cytotoxic concentrations. Nat. Prod. Res. 2021, 35, 4643–4647. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  141. Shinde, S.; Lee, L.H.; Chu, T. Inhibition of Biofilm Formation by the Synergistic Action of EGCG-S and Antibiotics. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  142. Hengge, R. Targeting Bacterial Biofilms by the Green Tea Polyphenol EGCG. Molecules 2019, 24, 2403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  143. Nunthanawanich, P.; Sompong, W.; Sirikwanpong, S.; Mäkynen, K.; Adisakwattana, S.; Dahlan, W.; Ngamukote, S. Moringa oleifera aqueous leaf extract inhibits reducing monosaccharide-induced protein glycation and oxidation of bovine serum albumin. Springerplus 2016, 5, 1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  144. Menon, L.; Chouhan, O.; Walke, R.; Shah, S.; Damare, S.; Biswas, S. Disruption of Staphylococcus aureus biofilms with purified Moringa Oleifera leaf extract protein. Protein Pept. Lett. 2023, 30, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  145. Kim, S.; Kim, T.J. Inhibitory Effect of Moringa oleifera Seed Extract and Its Behenic Acid Component on Staphylococcus aureus Biofilm Formation. Antibiotics 2024, 14, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  146. Ali, M.K.; Galut, H.S.; Matar, E.; Mamand, S.F.; Sabrie, L.S.; Mala, S.F.; Jghef, M.M. Exploring the antibacterial and anti-biofilm properties of Rosmarinus officinalis extracts: A natural strategy against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Open Vet. J. 2025, 15, 5549–5561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  147. Iobbi, V.; Parisi, V.; Bernabè, G.; De Tommasi, N.; Bisio, A.; Brun, P. Anti-Biofilm Activity of Carnosic Acid from Salvia rosmarinus against Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Plants 2023, 12, 3679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  148. Nakagawa, S.; Hillebrand, G.G.; Nunez, G. Rosmarinus officinalis L. (Rosemary) Extracts Containing Carnosic Acid and Carnosol are Potent Quorum Sensing Inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus Virulence. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  149. Khan, M.A.; Celik, I.; Khan, H.M.; Shahid, M.; Shahzad, A.; Kumar, S.; Ahmed, B. Antibiofilm and anti-quorum sensing activity of Psidium guajava L. leaf extract: In vitro and in silico approach. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0295524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  150. Akter, F.; Ahmed, S.M.; Jowarder, R.J.; Nahar, S.; Razia, S.; Ferdous, J.; Afrin, M.; Manju, A.M.; Nishat, E.F. Antibacterial Activities of Guava (Psidium guajava) Leaf Aqueous Extract Against Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. Mymensingh Med. J. 2026, 35, 685–691. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  151. Dutta, K.; Karmakar, A.; Jana, D.; Ballav, S.; Shityakov, S.; Panda, A.K.; Ghosh, C. Benzyl isocyanate isolated from the leaves of Psidium guajava inhibits Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation. Biofouling 2020, 36, 1000–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  152. Al-Rimawi, F.; Imtara, H.; Abbadi, J.; Sawalha, S.; Atiya, M.; Mudalal, S.; Mauriello, G. Evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of Psidium guajava L. leaf extract in ketoconazole shampoo. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 39460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  153. Tabti, S.; Boukraâ, D.; Itatahine, A.; Truchado, P.; Miloudi, K.; Erenler, R.; Sami, R.; Abduljawad, S.H.; Basri, A.; Alsulaimani, F.; et al. Targeting QS-mediated virulence in Staphylococcus aureus using Eucalyptus globulus essential oil: From chemistry to molecular docking. Open Chem. 2026, 24, 20250201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  154. Elangovan, S.; Mudgil, P. Antibacterial Properties of Eucalyptus globulus Essential Oil against MRSA: A Systematic Review. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  155. Zhang, H.; Zhang, Z.; Li, J.; Qin, G. New Strategies for Biocontrol of Bacterial Toxins and Virulence: Focusing on Quorum-Sensing Interference and Biofilm Inhibition. Toxins 2023, 15, 570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  156. Okba, M.M.; El-Shiekh, R.A.; Abu-Elghait, M.; Sobeh, M.; Ashour, R.M.S. HPLC-PDA-ESI-MS/MS profiling and anti-biofilm potential of Eucalyptussideroxylon flowers. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  157. Ashour, R.M.S.; Okba, M.M.; Menze, E.T.; El Gedaily, R.A. Eucalyptus Sideroxylon Bark anti-inflammatory potential, its UPLC-PDA-ESI-qTOF-MS profiling, and isolation of a new phloroglucinol. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 2019, 57, 565–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  158. Quelemes, P.V.; Perfeito, M.L.G.; Guimarães, M.A.; dos Santos, R.C.; Lima, D.F.; Nascimento, C.; Silva, M.P.N.; Soares, M.J.d.S.; Ropke, C.D.; Eaton, P.; et al. Effect of neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) leaf extract on resistant Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation and Schistosoma mansoni worms. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2015, 175, 287–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  159. Shil, A.; Shuvo, M.N.; Sultana, H.; Alam, N.; Himel, M.K. Impact of Neem (Azadirachta indica) and Papaya (Carica papaya) Leaves on Staphylococcus aureus Virulence Factors. Res. Perspect. Biol. Sci. 2026, 11, 110–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  160. Ziegert, Z.; Dietz, M.; Hill, M.; McBride, M.; Painter, E.; Elias, M.H.; Staley, C. Targeting quorum sensing for manipulation of commensal microbiota. BMC Biotechnol. 2024, 24, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  161. Packiavathy, I.A.; Priya, S.; Pandian, S.K.; Ravi, A.V. Inhibition of biofilm development of uropathogens by curcumin—An anti-quorum sensing agent from Curcuma longa. Food Chem. 2014, 148, 453–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  162. Adamczak, A.; Ożarowski, M.; Karpiński, T.M. Curcumin, a Natural Antimicrobial Agent with Strain-Specific Activity. Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  163. Pu, Z.; Tang, H.; Long, N.; Qiu, M.; Gao, M.; Sun, F.; Dai, M. Assessment of the anti-virulence potential of extracts from four plants used in traditional Chinese medicine against multidrug-resistant pathogens. BMC Complement. Med. Ther. 2020, 20, 318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  164. Silva, E.; Teixeira, J.A.; Pereira, M.O.; Rocha, C.M.R.; Sousa, A.M. Evolving biofilm inhibition and eradication in clinical settings through plant-based antibiofilm agents. Phytomedicine 2023, 119, 154973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  165. Nair, A.; Debprasad, C.; Bhaskar, S. Plant-derived immunomodulators. In New Look to Phytomedicine; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 435–499. [Google Scholar]
  166. Mahmood, M.S.; Mártinez, J.L.; Aslam, A.; Rafique, A.; Vinet, R.; Laurido, C.; Hussain, I.; Abbas, R.Z.; Khan, A.; Ali, S. Antiviral effects of green tea (Camellia sinensis) against pathogenic viruses in human and animals (a mini-review). Afr. J. Tradit. Complement. Altern. Med. 2016, 13, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  167. Cui, Y.; Oh, Y.J.; Lim, J.; Youn, M.; Lee, I.; Pak, H.K.; Park, W.; Jo, W.; Park, S. AFM study of the differential inhibitory effects of the green tea polyphenol (-)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Food Microbiol. 2012, 29, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  168. Tamfu, A.N.; Ceylan, O.; Kucukaydin, S.; Duru, M.E. HPLC-DAD phenolic profiles, antibiofilm, anti-quorum sensing and enzyme inhibitory potentials of Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze and Curcuma longa L. LWT 2020, 133, 110150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  169. Armstrong, L.; Araújo Vieira do Carmo, M.; Wu, Y.; Antônio Esmerino, L.; Azevedo, L.; Zhang, L.; Granato, D. Optimizing the extraction of bioactive compounds from pu-erh tea (Camellia sinensis var. assamica) and evaluation of antioxidant, cytotoxic, antimicrobial, antihemolytic, and inhibition of α-amylase and α-glucosidase activities. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 109430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  170. Yadav, N.R.; Jain, M.; Sharma, A.; Aggarwal, A.; Pahuja, M.; Mehta, A.; Rawal, A.; Jain, V. Role of a Miracle Tree (Moringa oleifera) in Healthcare. J. Evol. Med. Dent. Sci. 2021, 10, 1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  171. de Oliveira, A.M.; de Abreu Filho, B.A.; de Jesus Bassetti, F.; Bergamasco, R.; Gomes, R.G. Natural extract of moringa oleifera leaves promoting control of Staphylococcus aureus strains biofilm on PVC surface. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2020, 13, 1817–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  172. Enan, G.; Al-Mohammadi, A.-R.; Mahgoub, S.; Abdel-Shafi, S.; Askar, E.; Ghaly, M.F.; Taha, M.A.; El-Gazzar, N. Inhibition of Staphylococcus aureus LC 554891 by Moringa oleifera seed extract either singly or in combination with antibiotics. Molecules 2020, 25, 4583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  173. de Oliveira, J.R.; Camargo, S.E.A.; de Oliveira, L.D. Rosmarinus officinalis L. (rosemary) as therapeutic and prophylactic agent. J. Biomed. Sci. 2019, 26, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  174. Jardak, M.; Elloumi-Mseddi, J.; Aifa, S.; Mnif, S. Chemical composition, anti-biofilm activity and potential cytotoxic effect on cancer cells of Rosmarinus officinalis L. essential oil from Tunisia. Lipids Health Dis. 2017, 16, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  175. de Oliveira, J.R.; de Jesus, D.; Figueira, L.W.; de Oliveira, F.E.; Pacheco Soares, C.; Camargo, S.E.A.; Jorge, A.O.C.; de Oliveira, L.D. Biological activities of Rosmarinus officinalis L. (rosemary) extract as analyzed in microorganisms and cells. Exp. Biol. Med. 2017, 242, 625–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  176. Nasr-Eldin, M.A.; Abdelhamid, A.; Baraka, D. Antibiofilm and antiviral potential of leaf extracts from Moringa oleifera and rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis Lam.). Egypt. J. Microbiol. 2017, 52, 129–139. [Google Scholar]
  177. Khin, M.; Knowles, S.L.; Crandall, W.J.; Jones, D.D.; Oberlies, N.H.; Cech, N.B.; Houriet, J. Capturing the antimicrobial profile of Rosmarinus officinalis against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) with bioassay-guided fractionation and bioinformatics. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2021, 197, 113965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  178. S., L.P.; A, U.; S.J, G.F. Investigation on the biofilm eradication potential of selected medicinal plants against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Biotechnol. Rep. 2020, 28, e00523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  179. Rasool, M.; Malik, A.; Arooj, M.; Alam, M.Z.; Alam, Q.; Awan, M.; Asif, M.; Qazi, M.H.; Zaheer, A.; Khan, S.U. Evaluation of antimicrobial activity of ethanolic extracts of Azadirachta indica and Psidium guajava against clinically important bacteria at varying pH and temperature. Biomed. Res.-India 2017, 28, 134–139. [Google Scholar]
  180. Qaralleh, H.; Al-Limoun, M.; Khlaifat, A.; Khleifat, K.; Al-Tawarah, N.; Alsharafa, K.; Abu-Harirah, H. Antibacterial and antibiofilm activities of a traditional herbal formula against respiratory infection causing bacteria. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2102.04301. [Google Scholar]
  181. Dildar, N.D.; Ali, S.N.; Begum, S.; Andleeb, S.; SIDDIQUI, B.S. Antibiofilm activity and composition of the petroleum ether soluble fraction of Psidium guajava Linn. FUUAST J. Biol. 2020, 10, 71–75. [Google Scholar]
  182. dos Santos, R.M.; Costa, G.; Cerávolo, I.P.; Dias-Souza, M.V. Antibiofilm potential of Psidium guajava and Passiflora edulis pulp extracts against Staphylococcus aureus, cytotoxicity, and interference on the activity of antimicrobial drugs. Future J. Pharm. Sci. 2020, 6, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  183. Penesyan, A.; Nagy, S.S.; Kjelleberg, S.; Gillings, M.R.; Paulsen, I.T. Rapid microevolution of biofilm cells in response to antibiotics. npj Biofilms Microbiomes 2019, 5, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  184. Mohamed, G.A.; Ibrahim, S.R. Eucalyptone G, a new phloroglucinol derivative and other constituents from Eucalyptus Globulus Labill. Arkivoc 2007, 15, 281–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  185. Brooker, M.I.H. Eucalyptus globulus. Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria. Available online: https://vicflora.rbg.vic.gov.au/flora/taxon/1dfdd922-7fa3-4fc4-bb6e-96cfa112337a (accessed on 18 July 2019).
  186. Mota, V.d.S.; Turrini, R.N.; Poveda, V.d.B. Antimicrobial activity of Eucalyptus globulus oil, xylitol and papain: A pilot study. Rev. Esc. Enferm. USP 2015, 49, 216–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  187. Merghni, A.; Noumi, E.; Hadded, O.; Dridi, N.; Panwar, H.; Ceylan, O.; Mastouri, M.; Snoussi, M. Assessment of the antibiofilm and antiquorum sensing activities of Eucalyptus globulus essential oil and its main component 1,8-cineole against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains. Microb. Pathog. 2018, 118, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  188. Kaur, S.; Sharma, N.; Aanchal, A.G.; Sharma, A.; Sharma, A.; Sharma, V. Anti-biofilm potential of aqueous Eucalyptus leaf extract against nosocomial pathogens: Staphylococcus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Pharma Innovtion 2018, 7, 425–432. [Google Scholar]
  189. Santos, B.M.d.; Zibrandtsen, J.F.S.; Gunbilig, D.; Sørensen, M.; Cozzi, F.; Boughton, B.A.; Heskes, A.M.; Neilson, E.H.J. Quantification and localization of formylated phloroglucinol compounds (FPCs) in Eucalyptus species. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  190. Mostafa, I.; Abbas, H.A.; Ashour, M.L.; Yasri, A.; El-Shazly, A.M.; Wink, M.; Sobeh, M. Polyphenols from Salix tetrasperma impair virulence and inhibit quorum sensing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Molecules 2020, 25, 1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  191. Alzohairy, M.A. Therapeutics role of Azadirachta indica (Neem) and their active constituents in diseases prevention and treatment. Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2016, 2016, 7382506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  192. Zihadi, M.A.H.; Rahman, M.; Talukder, S.; Hasan, M.M.; Nahar, S.; Sikder, M.H. Antibacterial efficacy of ethanolic extract of Camellia sinensis and Azadirachta indica leaves on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and shiga-toxigenic Escherichia coli. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res. 2019, 6, 247–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  193. Sood, S.; Davis, J. Anti-biofilm activity of Azadirachta indica and Ocimum sanctum aqueous extract combination against MRSA. Int. J. Pharm. Res. 2020, 12, 514–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  194. Omosa, L.K.; Midiwo, J.O.; Kuete, V. Curcuma longa. In Medicinal Spices and Vegetables from Africa; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 425–435. [Google Scholar]
  195. Kamran, A.; Sadia, S. A comprehensive review on Curcuma longa Linn.: Phytochemical, pharmacological, and molecular study. Int. J. Green Pharm. 2017, 11, S1–S15. [Google Scholar]
  196. Tilak, J.C.; Banerjee, M.; Mohan, H.; Devasagayam, T.P. Antioxidant availability of turmeric in relation to its medicinal and culinary uses. Phytother. Res. PTR 2004, 18, 798–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  197. Ribeiro, A.P.D.; Pavarina, A.C.; Dovigo, L.N.; Brunetti, I.L.; Bagnato, V.S.; Vergani, C.E.; de Souza Costa, C.A. Phototoxic effect of curcumin on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and L929 fibroblasts. Lasers Med. Sci. 2013, 28, 391–398. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  198. Ye, Y.; Li, Y.; Fang, F. Upconversion nanoparticles conjugated with curcumin as a photosensitizer to inhibit methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in lung under near infrared light. Int. J. Nanomed. 2014, 9, 5157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  199. Sanguisorba officinalis L. Plants of the World Online. Available online: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:741402-1 (accessed on 4 April 2025).
  200. Wang, S.; Luo, J.; Liu, X.-Q.; Kang, O.-H.; Kwon, D.-Y. Antibacterial activity and synergy of antibiotics with sanguisorbigenin isolated from Sanguisorba officinalis L. against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2021, 72, 238–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  201. Zhu, H.-l.; Chen, G.; Chen, S.-n.; Wang, Q.-r.; Wan, L.; Jian, S.-p. Characterization of polyphenolic constituents from Sanguisorba officinalis L. and its antibacterial activity. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2019, 245, 1487–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  202. Jang, Y.S.; Mosolygó, T. Inhibition of bacterial biofilm formation by phytotherapeutics with focus on overcoming antimicrobial resistance. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2020, 26, 2807–2816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  203. Chen, X.; Shang, F.; Meng, Y.; Li, L.; Cui, Y.; Zhang, M.; Qi, K.; Xue, T. Ethanol extract of Sanguisorba officinalis L. inhibits biofilm formation of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an ica-dependent manner. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 8486–8491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  204. Jang, E.; Inn, K.-S.; Jang, Y.P.; Lee, K.-T.; Lee, J.-H. Phytotherapeutic activities of Sanguisorba officinalis and its chemical constituents: A Review. Am. J. Chin. Med. 2018, 46, 299–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  205. Manilal, A.; Sabu, K.R.; Shewangizaw, M.; Aklilu, A.; Seid, M.; Merdekios, B.; Tsegaye, B. In vitro antibacterial activity of medicinal plants against biofilm-forming methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Efficacy of Moringa stenopetala and Rosmarinus officinalis extracts. Heliyon 2020, 6, e03303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  206. Mohamed, E.H.; Abdel-Hafez, S.M.; Soliman, M.M.; Alotaibi, S.H.; Alkhedaide, A.; Mostafa, M.A. Characterization and identification of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) producing biofilm: Impacts of garlic extract and Lactobacillus biosurfactants. Biomed. Pharmacol. J. 2020, 13, 1103–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  207. Tamfu, A.N.; Ceylan, O.; Fru, G.C.; Ozturk, M.; Duru, M.E.; Shaheen, F. Antibiofilm, antiquorum sensing and antioxidant activity of secondary metabolites from seeds of Annona senegalensis, Persoon. Microb. Pathog. 2020, 144, 104191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  208. Utami, R.; Aini, S.R.; Wirasisya, D.G. The Antibiofilm Activity of Jatropha curcas L. Latex on Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923. Nat. B J. Health Environ. Sci. 2019, 5, 7–12. [Google Scholar]
  209. Kim, J.-H.; Han, S.-Y.; Kwon, J.-H.; Lee, D.-S. Orostachys japonicus ethyl acetate fraction suppresses MRSA biofilm formation. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2020, 13, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  210. Hadis, M.; Gebreyohannes, Y.; Gemeda, N. Potential therapeutic uses of Moringa stenopetala: A scoping review. J. Glob. Health Sci. 2020, 2, e26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  211. Uc-Cachón, A.H.; Dzul-Beh, A.d.J.; Palma-Pech, G.A.; Jiménez-Delgadillo, B.; Flores-Guido, J.S.; Gracida-Osorno, C.; Molina-Salinas, G.M. Antibacterial and antibiofilm activities of Mayan medicinal plants against methicillin-susceptible and -resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2021, 279, 114369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  212. Acquaviva, R.; D’Angeli, F.; Malfa, G.A.; Ronsisvalle, S.; Garozzo, A.; Stivala, A.; Ragusa, S.; Nicolosi, D.; Salmeri, M.; Genovese, C. Antibacterial and anti-biofilm activities of walnut pellicle extract (Juglans regia L.) against coagulase-negative staphylococci. Nat. Prod. Res. 2021, 35, 2076–2081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  213. M, Z. Antimicrobial and anti-biofilm activities of Citrus sinensis and Moringa oleifera against the pathogenic Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. Cureus 2020, 12, e12337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  214. Parai, D.; Islam, E.; Mitra, J.; Mukherjee, S.K. Effect of Bacoside A on growth and biofilm formation by Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Can. J. Microbiol. 2017, 63, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  215. Diniz, R.C.; Soares, L.W.; Nascimento da Silva, L.C. Virtual screening for the development of new effective compounds against Staphylococcus aureus. Curr. Med. Chem. 2018, 25, 5975–5985. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  216. Huda, N.; Dwiyanti, R.D.; Thuraidah, A. Effectiveness of Cinnamon (Cinnamomum burmannii) ethanol extract against Staphylococcus aureus growth. Trop. Health Med. Res. 2019, 1, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  217. Wijesinghe, G.K.; Feiria, S.B.; Maia, F.C.; Oliveira, T.R.; Joia, F.; Barbosa, J.P.; Boni, G.C.; HÖfling, J.F. In-vitro antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of Cinnamomum verum leaf oil against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus and Klebsiella pneumoniae. An. DA Acad. Bras. DE Ciênc. 2021, 93, e20201507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  218. Nuță, D.C.; Limban, C.; Chiriță, C.; Chifiriuc, M.C.; Costea, T.; Ioniță, P.; Nicolau, I.; Zarafu, I. Contribution of essential oils to the fight against microbial biofilms—A review. Processes 2021, 9, 537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  219. Bazargani, M.M.; Rohloff, J. Antibiofilm activity of essential oils and plant extracts against Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli biofilms. Food Control 2016, 61, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  220. Alexa, E.; Danciu, C.; Radulov, I.; Obistioiu, D.; Sumalan, R.M.; Morar, A.; Dehelean, C.A. Phytochemical screening and biological activity of Mentha × piperita L. and Lavandula angustifolia Mill. extracts. Anal. Cell. Pathol. 2018, 2018, 2678924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  221. Oral, N.B.; Vatansever, L.; Aydin, B.D.; Sezer, C.; Guven, A.; Gumez, M.; Kurkcuoglu, M. Effect of oregano essential oil on biofilms formed by Staphylococci and Escherichia coli. Kafkas Univ. Vet. Fak. Derg. 2010, 16, S23–S29. [Google Scholar]
  222. Quave, C.L.; Plano, L.R.W.; Pantuso, T.; Bennett, B.C. Effects of extracts from Italian medicinal plants on planktonic growth, biofilm formation and adherence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2008, 118, 418–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  223. Przerwa, F.; Kukowka, A.; Uzar, I. Ballota nigra L.—An overview of pharmacological effects and traditional uses. Int. J. 2020, 66, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  224. Mordmuang, A.; Brouillette, E.; Voravuthikunchai, S.P.; Malouin, F. Evaluation of a Rhodomyrtus tomentosa ethanolic extract for its therapeutic potential on Staphylococcus aureus infections using in vitro and in vivo models of mastitis. Vet. Res. 2019, 50, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  225. Mohd Amin, I.; Mohamad Zain, N.; Ahmad, V.N.; Mat Daud, D.N.; Abdullah Sani, N. Antimicrobial and antibiofilm activities of the methanol extracts of Rosa damascena against S. aureus. In Proceedings of the 9th Dental Student’s Scientific Symposium; Universiti Teknologi MARA: Selangor, Malaysia, 2019; Volume 30163, pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  226. Hemmati, F.; Salehi, R.; Ghotaslou, R.; Kafil, H.S.; Hasani, A.; Gholizadeh, P.; Rezaee, M.A. The assessment of antibiofilm activity of chitosan-zinc oxide-gentamicin nanocomposite on Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 163, 2248–2258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  227. Quave, C.L.; Plano, L.R.; Bennett, B.C. Quorum sensing inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus from Italian medicinal plants. Planta Medica 2011, 77, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  228. Mulat, M.; Khan, F.; Pandita, A. Biochemical composition, antibacterial and anti-biofilm activities of Indian medicinal plants. Anti-Infect. Agents 2021, 19, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  229. Utami, P.S.M.; Noorhamdani, N.; Rahayu, M. The extract of kemangi leaves as inhibitor of biofilm from Staphylococcus aureus in vitro. J. Agromedicine Med. Sci. 2020, 6, 168–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  230. Mouwakeh, A.; Kincses, A.; Nové, M.; Mosolygó, T.; Mohácsi-Farkas, C.; Kiskó, G.; Spengler, G. Nigella sativa essential oil and its bioactive compounds as resistance modifiers against Staphylococcus aureus. Phytother. Res. 2019, 33, 1010–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  231. Gawron, G.; Krzyczkowski, W.; Lemke, K.; Ołdak, A.; Kadziński, L.; Banecki, B. Nigella sativa seed extract applicability in preparations against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and effects on human dermal fibroblasts viability. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2019, 244, 112135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  232. Gómez-Sequeda, N.; Cáceres, M.; Stashenko, E.E.; Hidalgo, W.; Ortiz, C. Antimicrobial and antibiofilm activities of essential oils against Escherichia coli O157: H7 and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Antibiotics 2020, 9, 730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  233. Kryvtsova, M.; Salamon, I.; Koscova, J.; Bucko, D.; Spivak, M. Antimicrobial, antibiofilm and biochemichal properties of Thymus vulgaris essential oil against clinical isolates of opportunistic infections. Biosyst. Divers. 2019, 27, 270–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  234. de Oliveira, J.R.; Figueira, L.W.; Sper, F.L.; Meccatti, V.M.; Camargo, S.E.A.; de Oliveira, L.D. Thymus vulgaris L. and thymol assist murine macrophages (RAW 264.7) in the control of in vitro infections by Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Candida albicans. Immunol. Res. 2017, 65, 932–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  235. Cech, N.B.; Junio, H.A.; Ackermann, L.W.; Kavanaugh, J.S.; Horswill, A.R. Quorum quenching and antimicrobial activity of goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis) against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Planta Medica 2012, 78, 1556–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  236. Pervaiz, A.; Khan, R.; Anwar, F.; Mushtaq, G.; A Kamal, M.; Khan, H. Alkaloids: An emerging antibacterial modality against methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2016, 22, 4420–4429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  237. Chemsa, A.E.; Erol, E.; Öztürk, M.; Zellagui, A.; Özgür, C.; Gherraf, N.; Duru, M.E. Chemical constituents of essential oil of endemic Rhanterium suaveolens Desf. growing in Algerian Sahara with antibiofilm, antioxidant and anticholinesterase activities. Nat. Prod. Res. 2016, 30, 2120–2124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  238. Ben Abdallah, F.; Lagha, R.; Gaber, A. Biofilm inhibition and eradication properties of medicinal plant essential oils against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates. Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  239. Endo, E.H.; Costa, G.M.; Makimori, R.Y.; Ueda-Nakamura, T.; Nakamura, C.V.; Dias Filho, B.P. Anti-biofilm activity of Rosmarinus officinalis, Punica granatum and Tetradenia riparia against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and synergic interaction with penicillin. J. Herb. Med. 2018, 14, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  240. Kodi, M.K.; Hassan, M.H.; Nader, M.I. Effect of alcoholic extracts of Rosmarinus officinalis and Propolis on inhibition of Staphylococcus aureus and Klebsiella pneumoniae biofilm isolate from urinary tract infection. J. Univ. Anbar Pure Sci. 2018, 12, 40–53. [Google Scholar]
  241. Craft, K.M.; Nguyen, J.M.; Berg, L.J.; Townsend, S.D. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): Antibiotic-resistance and the biofilm phenotype. MedChemComm 2019, 10, 1231–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  242. Quave, C.L.; Estévez-Carmona, M.; Compadre, C.M.; Hobby, G.; Hendrickson, H.; Beenken, K.E.; Smeltzer, M.S. Ellagic acid derivatives from Rubus ulmifolius inhibit Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation and improve response to antibiotics. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e28737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  243. Chung, P.Y.; Toh, Y.S. Anti-biofilm agents: Recent breakthrough against multi-drug resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Pathog. Dis. 2014, 70, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  244. Kou, J.; Xin, T.Y.; McCarron, P.; Gupta, G.; Dureja, H.; Satija, S.; Mehta, M.; Bakshi, H.A.; Tambuwala, M.M.; Collet, T.; et al. Going beyond antibiotics: Natural plant extracts as an emergent strategy to combat biofilm-associated infections. J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. Oncol. 2020, 39, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  245. Kačániová, M.; Galovičová, L.; Ivanišová, E.; Vukovic, N.L.; Štefániková, J.; Valková, V.; Borotová, P.; Žiarovská, J.; Terentjeva, M.; Felšöciová, S.; et al. Antioxidant, antimicrobial and antibiofilm activity of coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.) essential oil for its application in foods. Foods 2020, 9, 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  246. Yincharoen, K.; Adekoya, A.E.; Chokpaisarn, J.; Kunworarath, N.; Jaisamut, P.; Limsuwan, S.; Chusri, S. Anti-infective effects of traditional household remedies described in the national list of essential medicines, Thailand, on important human pathogens. J. Herb. Med. 2021, 26, 100401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  247. Khan, M.F.; Tang, H.; Lyles, J.T.; Pineau, R.; Mashwani, Z.-u.-R.; Quave, C.L. Antibacterial properties of medicinal plants from Pakistan against multidrug-resistant ESKAPE pathogens. Front. Pharmacol. 2018, 9, 815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  248. Hassan, H.A.; Abdelwahab, S.F.; Desoukey, S.Y.; Mohamed, K.M.; Kamel, M.S. Comparative study of antimicrobial activity of seven ficus species cultivated in Egypt. Indian J. Public Health Res. Dev. 2019, 10, 1938–1943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  249. Awolola, G.V.; Koorbanally, N.A.; Chenia, H.; Shode, F.O.; Baijnath, H. Antibacterial and anti-biofilm activity of flavonoids and triterpenes isolated from the extracts of Ficus sansibarica Warb. subsp. sansibarica (Moraceae) extracts. Afr. J. Tradit. Complement. Altern. Med. 2014, 11, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  250. Haq, A.; Siddiqi, M.; Batool, S.Z.; Islam, A.; Khan, A.; Khan, D.; Khan, S.; Khan, H.; Shah, A.A.; Hasan, F.; et al. Comprehensive investigation on the synergistic antibacterial activities of Jatropha curcas pressed cake and seed oil in combination with antibiotics. AMB Express 2019, 9, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  251. Chusri, S.; Sinvaraphan, N.; Chaipak, P.; Luxsananuwong, A.; Voravuthikunchai, S.P. Evaluation of antibacterial activity, phytochemical constituents, and cytotoxicity effects of Thai household ancient remedies. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 2014, 20, 909–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  252. Triveni, A.; Kumar, M.S.; T Shivannavar, C.; Gaddad, S.M. Antibacterial and antibiofilm activities of crude extracts of Lawsonia inermis against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Asian J. Pharm. Clin. Res. 2016, 9, 263–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  253. Edziri, H.; Jaziri, R.; Chehab, H.; Verschaeve, L.; Flamini, G.; Boujnah, D.; Hammami, M.; Aouni, M.; Mastouri, M. A comparative study on chemical composition, antibiofilm and biological activities of leaves extracts of four Tunisian olive cultivars. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  254. Sidkey, B.A.; Omran, A.H. Evaluation of the antibacterial effects of Eucalyptus camaldulensis L., Glycyrrhiza glabra L. and Morus nigra L. extracts against some pathogenic bacteria in vitro. Iraqi J. Sci. 2017, 58, 1371–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  255. Subramanian, R.; Chandra, M.; Yogapriya, S.; Aravindh, S.; Ponmurugan, K. Isolation of methyl gallate from mango twigs and its anti-biofilm activity. J. Biol. Act. Prod. Nat. 2016, 6, 383–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  256. Al-Gbouri, N.; Hamzah, A. Evaluation of Phyllanthus emblica extract as antibacterial and antibiofilm against biofilm formation bacteria. Iraqi J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 49, 142–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  257. Liu, T.; Wang, J.; Gong, X.; Wu, X.; Liu, L.; Chi, F. Rosemary and tea tree essential oils exert antibiofilm activities in vitro against Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. J. Food Prot. 2020, 83, 1261–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  258. Zhao, X.; Liu, Z.; Liu, Z.; Meng, R.; Shi, C.; Chen, X.; Bu, X.; Guo, N. Phenotype and RNA-seq-based transcriptome profiling of Staphylococcus aureus biofilms in response to tea tree oil. Microb. Pathog. 2018, 123, 304–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  259. Li, K.; Han, X.; Li, R.; Xu, Z.; Pan, T.; Liu, J.; Li, B.; Wang, S.; Diao, Y.; Liu, X. Composition, antivirulence activity, and active property distribution of the fruit of Terminalia chebula Retz. J. Food Sci. 2019, 84, 1721–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  260. Ouyang, P.; He, X.; Yuan, Z.-W.; Yin, Z.-Q.; Fu, H.; Lin, J.; He, C.; Liang, X.; Lv, C.; Shu, G.; et al. Erianin against Staphylococcus aureus infection via inhibiting sortase A. Toxins 2018, 10, 385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  261. Anupam, R.; Bagde, S.; Mondal, R. Antibiofilm and synergistic antibacterial effect of Garlic (Allium sativum) against Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2020, 101, 52–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  262. Zhang, H.; Wang, J. Constituents of the essential oils of garlic and citronella and their vapor-phase inhibition mechanism against S. aureus. Food Sci. Technol. Res. 2019, 25, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  263. Morán, A.; Gutiérrez, S.; Martínez-Blanco, H.; Ferrero, M.; Monteagudo-Mera, A.; Rodríguez-Aparicio, L. Non-toxic plant metabolites regulate Staphylococcus viability and biofilm formation: A natural therapeutic strategy useful in the treatment and prevention of skin infections. Biofouling 2014, 30, 1175–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  264. Zhang, Y.; Wang, J.F.; Dong, J.; Wei, J.Y.; Wang, Y.N.; Dai, X.H.; Wang, X.; Luo, M.J.; Tan, W.; Deng, X.M.; et al. Inhibition of α-toxin production by subinhibitory concentrations of naringenin controls Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. Fitoterapia 2013, 86, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  265. Valliammai, A.; Sethupathy, S.; Ananthi, S.; Priya, A.; Selvaraj, A.; Nivetha, V.; Aravindraja, C.; Mahalingam, S.; Pandian, S.K. Proteomic profiling unveils citral modulating expression of IsaA, CodY and SaeS to inhibit biofilm and virulence in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 158, 208–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  266. Fanin, M.; Fanin, É.L.B.B.; dos Santos, I.C.; de Lima, J.S.; Gonçalves, A.P.P.; de Almeida Martins, L.J.M.V. Métodos alternativos no tratamento de infecções causadas por Staphylococcus aureus. Med. Veterinária 2020, 14, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  267. Seshadri, V.D.; Vijayaraghavan, P.; Kim, Y.-O.; Kim, H.-J.; Al-Ghamdi, A.A.; Elshikh, M.S.; Al-Dosary, M.A.; Alsubaie, Q.D. In vitro antioxidant and cytotoxic activities of polyherbal extracts from Vetiveria zizanioides, Trichosanthes cucumerina, and Mollugo cerviana on HeLa and MCF-7 cell lines. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2020, 27, 1475–1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  268. Kannappan, A.; Gowrishankar, S.; Srinivasan, R.; Pandian, S.K.; Ravi, A.V. Antibiofilm activity of Vetiveria zizanioides root extract against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Microb. Pathog. 2017, 110, 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  269. Song, X.; Liu, T.; Wang, L.; Liu, L.; Li, X.; Wu, X. Antibacterial effects and mechanism of mandarin (Citrus reticulata L.) essential oil against Staphylococcus aureus. Molecules 2020, 25, 4956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  270. Junren, C.; Xiaofang, X.; Mengting, L.; Qiuyun, X.; Gangmin, L.; Huiqiong, Z.; Guanru, C.; Xin, X.; Yanpeng, Y.; Fu, P.; et al. Pharmacological activities and mechanisms of action of Pogostemon cablin Benth: A review. Chin. Med. 2021, 16, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  271. Shahid, A.; Rasool, M.; Akhter, N.; Aslam, B.; Hassan, A.; Sana, S.; Rasool, M.H.; Khurshid, M. Innovative strategies for the control of biofilm formation in clinical settings. In Bacterial Biofilms; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  272. Nadaf, N.H.; Parulekar, R.S.; Patil, R.S.; Gade, T.K.; Momin, A.A.; Waghmare, S.R.; Dhanavade, M.J.; Arvindekar, A.U.; Sonawane, K.D. Biofilm inhibition mechanism from extract of Hymenocallis littoralis leaves. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2018, 222, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  273. Gao, S.; Liu, G.; Li, J.; Chen, J.; Li, L.; Li, Z.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, S.; Thorne, R.F.; Zhang, S. Antimicrobial Activity of Lemongrass Essential Oil (Cymbopogon flexuosus) and Its Active Component Citral Against Dual-Species Biofilms of Staphylococcus aureus and Candida Species. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 603858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  274. da Silva Gündel, S.; de Souza, M.E.; Quatrin, P.M.; Klein, B.; Wagner, R.; Gündel, A.; de Almeida Vaucher, R.; Santos, R.C.V.; Ourique, A.F. Nanoemulsions containing Cymbopogon flexuosus essential oil: Development, characterization, stability study and evaluation of antimicrobial and antibiofilm activities. Microb. Pathog. 2018, 118, 268–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  275. Zheng, X.; Chen, L.; Zeng, W.; Liao, W.; Wang, Z.; Tian, X.; Fang, R.; Sun, Y.; Zhou, T. Antibacterial and anti-biofilm efficacy of Chinese Dragon’s Blood against Staphylococcus aureus isolated from infected wounds. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 672943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  276. Thu, Z.M.; Myo, K.K.; Aung, H.T.; Armijos, C.; Vidari, G. Flavonoids and stilbenoids of the genera Dracaena and Sansevieria: Structures and bioactivities. Molecules 2020, 25, 2608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  277. Akhter, F.; Islam, Q.S.; Adib, M.; Al Faruq, A.; Ibrahim, M. Phytochemical screenings and bioactivities of Duabanga grandiflora (Roxb. ex DC.) Walp. Bangladesh Pharm. J. 2019, 22, 68–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  278. Santiago, C.; Lim, K.-H.; Loh, H.-S.; Ting, K.N. Inhibitory effect of Duabanga grandiflora on MRSA biofilm formation via prevention of cell-surface attachment and PBP2a production. Molecules 2015, 20, 4473–4482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  279. Cunha, B.G.; Duque, C.; Caiaffa, K.S.; Massunari, L.; Catanoze, I.A.; dos Santos, D.M.; de Oliveira, S.H.P.; Guiotti, A.M. Cytotoxicity and antimicrobial effects of citronella oil (Cymbopogon nardus) and commercial mouthwashes on S. aureus and C. albicans biofilms in prosthetic materials. Arch. Oral Biol. 2020, 109, 104577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  280. Hidayah, A.N.; Wasito, E.B.; Debora, K.; Basori, A.; Isnaeni, I.; Utomo, B. Correlation between the bacteriostatic and bactericide effect with antibiofilm and anticolony spreading from javanese citronella oil on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Folia Medica Indones. 2019, 55, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  281. Askarinia, M.; Ganji, A.; Jadidi-Niaragh, F.; Hasanzadeh, S.; Mohammadi, B.; Ghalamfarsa, F.; Ghalamfarsa, G.; Mahmoudi, H. A review on medicinal plant extracts and their active ingredients against methicillin-resistant and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. J. Herbmed Pharmacol. 2019, 8, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  282. Chimnoi, N.; Reuk-Ngam, N.; Chuysinuan, P.; Khlaychan, P.; Khunnawutmanotham, N.; Chokchaichamnankit, D.; Thamniyom, W.; Klayraung, S.; Mahidol, C.; Techasakul, S. Characterization of essential oil from Ocimum gratissimum leaves: Antibacterial and mode of action against selected gastroenteritis pathogens. Microb. Pathog. 2018, 118, 290–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  283. Melo, R.S.; Albuquerque Azevedo Á, M.; Gomes Pereira, A.M.; Rocha, R.R.; Bastos Cavalcante, R.M.; Carneiro Matos, M.N.; Ribeiro Lopes, P.H.; Gomes, G.A.; Soares Rodrigues, T.H.; Santos, H.S.D.; et al. Chemical composition and antimicrobial effectiveness of Ocimum gratissimum L. essential oil against multidrug-resistant isolates of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. Molecules 2019, 24, 3864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  284. Zhou, K.; Shi, M.; Chen, R.; Zhang, Y.; Sheng, Y.; Tong, C.; Cao, G.; Shou, D. Natural phytochemical-based strategies for antibiofilm applications. Chin. Med. 2025, 20, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  285. Vaou, N.; Stavropoulou, E.; Voidarou, C.; Tsigalou, C.; Bezirtzoglou, E. Towards Advances in Medicinal Plant Antimicrobial Activity: A Review Study on Challenges and Future Perspectives. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  286. Aljabali, A.A.A.; Obeid, M.A.; Bashatwah, R.M.; Qnais, E.; Gammoh, O.; Alqudah, A.; Mishra, V.; Mishra, Y.; Khan, M.A.; Parvez, S.; et al. Phytochemicals in Cancer Therapy: A Structured Review of Mechanisms, Challenges, and Progress in Personalized Treatment. Chem. Biodivers. 2025, 22, e202402479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  287. El-Saadony, M.T.T.; Saad, A.M.; Mohammed, D.M.; Korma, S.A.; Alshahrani, M.Y.; Ahmed, A.E.; Ibrahim, E.H.; Salem, H.M.; Alkafaas, S.S.; Saif, A.M.; et al. Medicinal plants: Bioactive compounds, biological activities, combating multidrug-resistant microorganisms, and human health benefits—A comprehensive review. Front. Immunol. 2025, 16, 1491777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  288. Touati, A.; Mairi, A.; Ibrahim, N.A.; Idres, T. Essential Oils for Biofilm Control: Mechanisms, Synergies, and Translational Challenges in the Era of Antimicrobial Resistance. Antibiotics 2025, 14, 503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  289. Idakwoji, P.A.; Tukur, U.; Onwukwe, B.O.; Agboola, J.B.; Onugwu, E.O.; Iyiola, A.T.; Amadi, B.E.; Onoja, A.O.; Ali, A.S.; Ojo, S.S.; et al. Phytochemicals as promising lead compounds for drug discovery: A comprehensive review of mechanisms and pharmacological potentials. Lett. Drug Des. Discov. 2026, 23, 100363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Figure 1. Timeline of antibiotic resistance development in S. aureus isolates and subsequent emergence of corresponding antibiotic-resistant S. aureus strains. The dashed arrows indicate the chronological progression of events, whereas the solid curved arrows indicate the transition from antibiotic introduction to the first reported resistant strain. Matching colors identify each antibiotic and its corresponding resistant phenotype. Original image created in BioRender. Gollahon, L. (2026) https://BioRender.com/dqb4rtl (accessed on 12 July 2026).
Figure 1. Timeline of antibiotic resistance development in S. aureus isolates and subsequent emergence of corresponding antibiotic-resistant S. aureus strains. The dashed arrows indicate the chronological progression of events, whereas the solid curved arrows indicate the transition from antibiotic introduction to the first reported resistant strain. Matching colors identify each antibiotic and its corresponding resistant phenotype. Original image created in BioRender. Gollahon, L. (2026) https://BioRender.com/dqb4rtl (accessed on 12 July 2026).
Pathogens 15 00795 g001
Figure 2. Mechanistic regulation of biofilm attachment, proliferation, maturation, and dispersal in S. aureus. AIP, auto-inducing peptide; MSCRAMMs, microbial surface components recognizing adhesive matrix molecules; PSMs, phenol soluble modulins. Original image created in BioRender. Gollahon, L. (2026) https://BioRender.com/dqb4rtl (accessed on 12 July 2026).
Figure 2. Mechanistic regulation of biofilm attachment, proliferation, maturation, and dispersal in S. aureus. AIP, auto-inducing peptide; MSCRAMMs, microbial surface components recognizing adhesive matrix molecules; PSMs, phenol soluble modulins. Original image created in BioRender. Gollahon, L. (2026) https://BioRender.com/dqb4rtl (accessed on 12 July 2026).
Pathogens 15 00795 g002
Figure 3. Schematic Representation of plant-based anti-biofilm agents that target attachment, adhesion, polymer matrix, or QS System to inhibit biofilm formation and facilitate dispersal of pre-established biofilms. Original image created in BioRender. Gollahon, L. (2026) https://BioRender.com/dqb4rtl (accessed on 12 July 2026).
Figure 3. Schematic Representation of plant-based anti-biofilm agents that target attachment, adhesion, polymer matrix, or QS System to inhibit biofilm formation and facilitate dispersal of pre-established biofilms. Original image created in BioRender. Gollahon, L. (2026) https://BioRender.com/dqb4rtl (accessed on 12 July 2026).
Pathogens 15 00795 g003
Table 1. Selected clinical and epidemiological contexts in which S. aureus infections and biofilms are implicated.
Table 1. Selected clinical and epidemiological contexts in which S. aureus infections and biofilms are implicated.
Clinical Epidemiology PopulationMetric ReportedApproximate Affected PopulationBiofilm ResistanceReferences
Staphylococcal food poisoning (SFP)Outbreak of S. aureus enterotoxin-mediated foodborne diseaseIndividuals exposed to these specific outbreaksUp to ~85% of exposed personsConsumption of enterotoxin-producing S. aureus-contaminated food and contact surfaces contributes to persistence biofilms[15,16]
Sepsis (all causes)Global populationAnnual sepsis cases and deaths, proportion of all global deaths~48.9 million cases and ~11 million deaths in 2017, ~20% of all deaths worldwideMRSA leads to sepsis and bloodstream infection. It forms biofilms on intravascular devices and endovascular tissues[17,18]
Healthcare-associated MRSA infectionsHospitalized patientsProportion of healthcare-associated S. aureus infections due to MRSACommonly 20–50% depending on regionMRSA causes device-related and surgical site infections, frequently associated with biofilm and multidrug resistance[19,20]
Community-associated MRSA skin and soft tissue infectionsPatients with SSTIs in community settingsProportion of purulent SSTIs caused by MRSAOften >50% of purulent SSTIs (high variability reported)MRSA SSTIs frequently involve biofilm on skin and soft tissue surfaces, complicating treatment and recurrence[20,21]
Prosthetic joint and device-related infectionsPatients with orthopedic implants and intravascular cathetersProportion of device-related infections due to S. aureusS. aureus commonly accounts for 20–40% of prosthetic joint infections and many catheter-related bloodstream infectionsBiofilm formation on prosthetic materials and catheters is central to chronic, relapsing infection and antibiotic tolerance[20]
Note: All abbreviations are listed at the end of the manuscript.
Table 3. Virulence factors responsible for recalcitrant S. aureus biofilm infections.
Table 3. Virulence factors responsible for recalcitrant S. aureus biofilm infections.
Virulence FactorsAssociated GenesFunctionClinical SymptomsReferences
MSCRAMMsclfA, clfB, fnbA, fnbB, cna,
sdr, bbp
Adhesion with host tissuesEndocarditis, osteomyelitis,
endoprosthesis
[47,48]
BiofilmLocus ica, arg systemPersistence in the hostChronic infections[49,50]
Leukocidins (e.g., PVL and
toxin γ)
luks-PV, lukF-PVDeceive the host immune responseInvasive skin infections, pneumonia, abscesses[51]
Capsular polysaccharides, protein A, extracellular matrix binding proteinhlg, cap5, cap8, spa, eapDeceive the host immune responseInvasive skin infections, pneumonia, abscesses[52,53]
RNAIII-dependent proteases, lipases, and nucleasesV8, hysA, hla, plc, sepAPenetration into host tissueTissue lesions[54,55]
ToxinsTSST-1, ETs, and
enterotoxins
Biofilm dispersal and virulenceMTSS, NMTSS, SSSS, Bullous
impetigo, SFD
[56]
Note: All abbreviations are listed at the end of the manuscript.
Table 5. Alternative anti-biofilm strategies and their respective limitations.
Table 5. Alternative anti-biofilm strategies and their respective limitations.
CategorySourceTargeted ActionLimitationsLevel of EvidenceReference
Synthetic
Compounds
RNAIII-inhibiting protein and its derivativesInhibit the expression of agr and biofilm-producing genesHigh production cost, limited sustainabilityIn vitro and animal models[85,86]
SavirinInhibits auto-induction and quorum sensingIn vitro and animal models[87,88,89]
ProbioticsLactobacillus casei,
Lactococcus lactis V7,
Lactobacillus rhamnosus ATCC 7469
Inhibit adhesion, invasion, and biofilm formationSide effects on beneficial bacteria of the host and emergence of antimicrobial resistance. Variable colonization efficiency; delivery challengesIn vitro and animal models[90,91,92]
BacterialStreptomyces sp. N174Antimicrobial and
anti-biofilm properties
Survival of live cells during the gastrointestinal transit and their effective delivery to target tissues. Cross-species variabilityIn vitro[93]
Staphylococcus schleiferiInhibits Agr expression In vitro[94]
Marine bacteriaCompetitive inhibitor of AgrCIn vitro[95]
3-oxo-C12-HSL, (HQNO) from Pseudomonas aeruginosaInhibits auto-induction of AIPsIn vitro
BacteriophagesIsolated from farmyard slurry, host: S. aureus DPC5246Inhibits biofilm proliferationBacterial resistance, immunogenicity, co-evolutionary dynamics, narrow host range, and difficulty in phage delivery to the target site. Host specificityIn vitro[96]
ᶲ SA012In vitro[97]
Polyvalent phage KInhibits biofilm formationIn vitro and animal models[98,99]
Bacteriophage K and DRA88Reduced biofilmIn vitro[100]
Snake venom
lectins
Bothrops jararacussuBiofilm disruptionSmall-size peptide hinders its large-scale production and toxicity evaluationIn vitro[101]
NanoparticlesSilver and goldAnti-biofilm propertiesExpensive production, high doses exert cytotoxic and genotoxic effectsIn vitro[83,84]
Silver and Zinc oxide with
nitric oxide
Inhibit biofilm
formation
In vitro[102]
Silver and Zinc oxide nanoparticles in combination with
Antibiotics
Dispersion of biofilmIn vitro[103]
Phosphatidylcholine-decorated gentamicin-loaded gold nanoparticlesAnti-biofilmIn vitro and animal models[104,105]
Magnesium fluoride and
yattrium fluoride
nanomaterials
Reduce colonizationIn vitro[106,107]
Hormones17β-EstradiolInvasionHigh cost,
less sustainability
In vitro [108]
AIP and AIP derivativesTruncated AIP-I, II, III,Inhibits auto-induction of AIPsHigh costIn vitro and animal models[59,109]
Fungal12 compounds from
marine-derived fungi
Inhibit biofilm
formation
High cost,
less sustainability
In vitro [110]
EnzymesLysostaphinDisrupts biofilmsPoor retention, enzymatic stability, and activation of immune responsesIn vitro, animal models, and early clinical evaluation[111,112,113,114]
Cysteine histidine-dependent amidohydrolase/peptidaseDisrupts biofilmsIn vitro [115]
EndolysinsDisrupt biofilmsIn vitro and animal models[116,117,118]
V8 proteaseInhibits biofilm formation and promotes biofilm
detachment
In vitro[119]
StaphopainsAffects biofilm integrityIn vitro[119,120]
AureolysinInhibits biofilm formation and disperses preformed biofilmsIn vitro[121]
Cysteine proteasesAnti-biofilm activityIn vitro[119]
DNasesDisrupting mature biofilmsIn vitro and animal models[122,123]
Dispersin BInhibits adherence and
attachment
In vitro and animal models[116,117,124]
Neutrase from Bacillus
Amyloliquefaciens
Anti-biofilm activityIn vitro[125]
Bio-surfactantsMannosylerythritol lipidsBiofilm disruptionExpensive productionIn vitro[126]
ProkaryotesCochinmicin from
Actinomycetes
Competitive inhibitor of AgrCSurvival of cells during the gastrointestinal transit and their effective delivery to target tissues upon ingestionIn vitro[95]
Avellanin from spongesIn vitro
ChelatorsEDTA, EGTA, and TSCInhibit biofilm
formation
Health hazards, cytotoxic, weakly genotoxic, intracellular metal accumulation,
unsuitable for systemic
applications
In vitro and limited clinical adjunct use[127]
Sulfhydryl
compounds
DTT, betamercaptoethanol, and cysteineInhibit biofilm
formation
Skin irritation, organ
toxicity, unsuitable for
systemic applications
In vitro[52,128]
Note: ᶲ a virus that specifically targets S. aureus. All abbreviations are listed at the end of the manuscript.
Table 6. List of the most reported selected medicinal plants and phytochemicals reported to inhibit S. aureus biofilm formation.
Table 6. List of the most reported selected medicinal plants and phytochemicals reported to inhibit S. aureus biofilm formation.
PlantMain Bioactive Compound(s)Molecular TargetAnti-Biofilm MechanismEffect on
Agr-QS
Experimental Model UsedEffective
Concentration
Stage of
Development
Reference
Camellia sinensisCatechins, especially EGCG and its derivativesBacterial membrane, efflux pumps, amyloid-like biofilm matrixMembrane disruption, anti-adhesion, anti-biofilmInterferes with the AgrA response regulator and downregulates RNAIIIS. aureus and MRSA clinical isolatesReported active at concentrations lower than MIC,
10 μg/mL to 60 μg/mL
Preclinical phase[139,140,141,142]
Moringa oleiferaPhytochemicals, fatty acids, including palmitoleic, linolenic, and oleic acidsQuorum sensing and virulenceInhibits biofilm formation, reduces CFU in biofilms, lowers MICInterferes with agr locus targeting AgrA or AgrCS. aureus and MRSA from PVC-surface biofilm model0.5 to 2.0 mg/mL, resulting in up to 99% inhibitionIn vitro and early animal stage (feed only)[140,143,144,145]
Rosmarinus officinalisDiterpene carnosic acid, camphor, micromeric acid, oleanolic acid, ursolic acidEarly attachment and biofilm formationInhibits initial attachment, formation, and promotes dispersal of preformed biofilmsReduces AgrA and RNAIII expressionS. aureus and MRSA isolates0.05 mg/mL (0.1%) extract reported to inhibit biofilm development by 94%Early preclinical translational stage[146,147,148]
Psidium guajavaBenzyl isocyanate, phenolics, L-5-propylthiomethylhydantoinBiofilm formation and Quorum sensingInhibits biofilm formationDownregulates agr, icaAD, and sarAMRSA, other S. aureus isolates, and BGM cell-line100 μg/mL to 1000 μg/mL (sub-minimal inhibitory concentration)Preclinical phase[149,150,151,152]
Eucalyptus globulusEssential oil, 1,8-cineoleEarly adhesion/attachment Inhibits initial attachment and adhesion, decreases virulence and biofilm formationTargets AgrA-AIP (auto-inducing peptide)MRSA and S. aureus isolates2.5 mg/mL or less Preclinical phase[153,154,155]
Eucalyptus sideroxylonFlower extract enriched in phloroglucinols Biofilm formation and Quorum sensingInhibits biofilm formationTargets Agr system MRSA and S. aureus isolates 0.05 mg/mL achieves up to 95.9% inhibition at sublethal dosesIn vitro[156,157]
Azadirachta indicaCrude and methanolic leaf extractsDisrupting quorum sensing and downregulating virulenceReduces biofilm formationRepressing the Agr systemMRSA/MSSA and S. aureus isolates62.5 µg/mL to 125 µg/mL sub-minimum inhibitory concentrations Preclinical phase[158,159]
Curcuma longaCurcumin; curcuminoids; diacetyl curcuminDisrupting quorum sensing and inhibiting swimming and swarming abilitySuppresses biofilm formation, antibiotic synergy, anti-adhesive effects, and photodynamic killing with blue LEDTargets agrA and agrC operons and RNAIIIMRSA and S. aureus isolates 100% inhibition at 20 μM Curcumin plus blue light,
62.5 μg/mL to 125 μg/mL sub-inhibitory concentrations
Preclinical phase[160,161,162]
Sanguisorba officinalisTriterpenoid saponins; tannins; polyphenolic root extractTargets the ica locus and agr system genesReduces biofilm formation and densityInteracts with ica and agr system genesMRSA and S. aureus isolates 256 μg/mL half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50)Preclinical phase[163,164]
Note: preclinical means in vitro and in vivo studies before human testing.
Table 7. List of plants with their respective phytochemicals targeting the Agr-QS system with potential anti-biofilm properties.
Table 7. List of plants with their respective phytochemicals targeting the Agr-QS system with potential anti-biofilm properties.
Scientific NameCommon NamePart of a PlantBioactive
Component
PhytochemicalFunctionMechanismReference
Bacopa
monnieri
(Plantaginaceae)
Brahmi
(herb)
-Bacoside A and saponinsTerpenoidsInhibits microbial adhesion, biofilm formation, and
ability to disrupt biofilms
Binding with IcaA[214,215]
Cinnamomum spp.
(Lauraceae)
CinnamonEssential oil and bark--Cellular shrinkages, cell wall damages, and decreased biofilm densities-[216,217]
Lavandula
angustifolia
(Lamiaceae)
LavenderEssential oilCamphor, caryophyllene, eucalyptol, lavendulyl acetate, limonene, linalool, linalyl acetate, cis-ocimene, α-pinene, transocimene, terpinen-4-olTerpenoidsInhibits proliferation and biofilm
formation
-[218,219,220]
Origanum onites
and Origanum vulgare
(Lamiaceae)
OreganoSeeds and essential oilCarvacrol, γ-terpinene, p-cymene, and thymolTerpenoidsInhibits biofilm
formation and
disrupts pre-formed biofilms
-[219,221]
Leopoldia comosa
(Asparagaceae)
Tassel
hyacinth
Bulb--Inhibits biofilm
formation
-[222]
Mentha × piperita
(Lamiaceae)
Pepper mintLeavesHCAs, rosmarinic,
1,8-cineole, and menthol
Polyphenol and
terpenoids
Inhibits biofilm
formation
-[219,220]
Ballota nigra
(Lamiaceae)
Black horehoundAerial partsPhenylpropanoid
glycosides and
phenylpropanoid
derivatives
Flavonoids, glycosides, and terpenesInhibits biofilm growth and
adherence
Inhibits δ-hemolysin, a small peptide encoded by RNAIII
transcript
[1,222,223]
Sanguisorba
officinalis L.
(Rosaceae)
Great
burnet
Dried rootsSaponinsTerpenoids and tanninsAnti-biofilm
activity
ica-dependent manner[163,202,203]
Juglans regia L. (Juglandaceae)WalnutImmature fruits and leavesNaphtoquinonesQuinones, polyphenols and flavonoidsAnti-biofilm
activity
-[222]
Rhodomyrtus
tomentosa
(Myrtaceae)
Kemunting, rose,
myrtle
LeafRhodomyrtoneFlavonoidInhibits adherence and biofilm formationsPossible cure for mastitis, even better than
vancomycin
[224]
Rosa damascene
(Rosaceae)
Damask roseFlower--Eradicates biofilms-[225]
Rosa canina
(Rosaceae)
RosehipFruit-Flavonoids and polyphenolsInhibits biofilm
formation
Inhibition of exopolysaccharides[222,226]
Sambucus nigra and Sambucus
ebulus
(Adoxaceae)
Elder and dwarf
elder
Leaves and stems-FlavonoidsInhibits biofilm
formation
Inhibits δ-hemolysin, a small peptide encoded by RNAIII transcript[1,227]
Cyclamen
hederifolium
(Myrsinaceae)
Ivy-leaved cyclamenTubersSaponinsTerpenoidsInhibits biofilm
formation
Inhibits δ-hemolysin, a small peptide encoded by RNAIII transcript[222,227]
Ocimum sanctum
(Lamiaceae)
BasilLeaves-Eugenol and tanninsInhibits biofilm
formation
-[193,228,229]
Lonicera alpigena
(Caprifoliaceae)
Alpine honeysuckleWoody parts and leaves--Inhibits biofilm
formation
Inhibits δ-hemolysin, a small peptide encoded by RNAIII transcript[222,227]
Nigella sativa
(Ranunculaceae)
Black cuminSeed oilThymoquinoneQuinonesInhibits biofilm
formation
-[230,231]
Castanea sativa
(Fagaceae)
European chestnutLeavesUrsene and oleaneneFlavonoids and
terpenoids
Inhibits biofilm
formation
Inhibits the agr system[222,227]
Malva sylvestris
(Malvaceae)
Common mallowStems and flowersMenthol and sorbitolTerpeneAnti-biofilm
activity
Used in commercial and mouth rinses[222,227]
Thymus vulgaris
(Lamiaceae)
Red thymeEssential oilsThymolTerpenoidsAnti-biofilm
activity
-[232,233,234]
Alcea rosea L.
(Malvaceae)
HollyhockLeaves, stems, flowers, and rootsMentholTerpeneAnti-biofilm
activity
Inhibits δ-hemolysin, a small peptide encoded by the RNAIII transcript[1,227]
Hydrastis
canadensis
(Ranunculaceae)
GoldensealLeavesBerberine and Mycopyranone: A 8,8′-binaphthopyranoneAlkaloidsAnti-biofilm
activity
Inhibits the agr QS system by blocking signal transduction of the AgrCA two-component system[235,236]
Solanum nigrum (Solanacae)Black nightshadeLeaves--Anti-biofilm
activity
-[228,230]
Rhanterium
suaveolens
(Asteraceae)
Arfej
(shrub)
Essential oilCarvacrol, linalool, and
citrals
PolyphenolsAnti-biofilm
activity
-[237]
Rosmarinus
officinalis
(Lamiaceae)
RosemaryLeavesPinene, camphor, micromeric acid, oleanolic acid, and ursolic acidTerpenoidsInhibits biofilm formation and disrupts pre-formed biofilms-[174,175,176,238,239,240]
Cananga odorata
(Annonaceae)
Fragrant canangaEssential oilsp-cresyl methyl ether, linalool, geranyl acetate,
geraniol, eucalyptol
Polyphenols and terpenoidsAnti-biofilm
activity
-[218,232]
Rubus ulmifolius
(Rosaceae)
Elm-leaf blackberryLeaves, stem, and rootsEllagic acid derivativesPolyphenols and
glycosides
Anti-biofilm
activity
Inhibits δ-hemolysin, a small peptide encoded by RNAIII transcript[222,227,241,242,243]
Melissa officinalis
(Lamiaceae)
Lemon balmEssential oilCitrals (geranial + neral, citronellal, limonene, geraniol, β-caryophyllene, β-caryophyllene oxide, and germacrene D)TerpenoidsAnti-biofilm
activity
-[218,219]
Cocculus trilobus
(Menispermaceae)
Queen coralbeadRhizomeIsoquinolineAlkaloids and
quinones
Inhibits microbial adhesion and biofilm formation-[244]
Coriandrum
sativum L.
(Apiaceae)
CorianderSeeds and essential oilp-cymene, g-terpinene,
linalool, geranyl acetate
TerpenoidsAnti-biofilm
activity
-[219,220,245,246]
Zanthoxylum
armatum
(Rutaceae)
Winged prickly ashFruit-Alkaloids and othersAnti-biofilm
activity
-[247]
Ficus sansibarica
(Moraceae)
Knobbly figFruits, leaves, and stem bark5,7,4′-trihydroxyflavan-3-ol and isovitexinFlavonoids and
triterpenes
Inhibits microbial adhesion and
biofilm formation
-[248,249]
Marrubium
vulgare
(Lamiaceae)
White horehoundRoots, leaves, stem, and flowers-Terpenes, sterols, and flavonoidsInhibits microbial adhesion and
biofilm formation
Inhibits δ-hemolysin, a small peptide encoded by the RNAIII transcript[222,227]
Jatropha curcas
(Euphorbiaceae)
Purging nutPressed cake of whole plant and seed oilSaponins, linoleic acid, and oleic acidAlkaloids and
polyphenols
Biofilm inhibition and degradation-[208,250]
Pimpinella
anisum L.
(Apiaceae)
AniseSeeds and essential oil(E)-anethole and
estragol
Phenyl
propanoids
Anti-biofilm
activity
-[219,220]
Dischidia
rafflesiana
(Apocynaceae)
Ant plantPolyherbal formulations--Anti-biofilm
activity
-[246,251]
Krameria argentea
(Krameriaceae)
Brazilian RhatanyRootsChelerythrine, sanguinarine, dihydroxybenzofuran, and proanthocyanidinAlkaloids and
quinones
Anti-biofilm
activity
Interferes with the arg-QS system[243]
Lawsonia inermis
(Lythraceae)
Henna treeLeavesLawsoneQuinonesAnti-biofilm
activity
-[246,252]
Olea europaea L.
(Oleaceae)
OlivesLeavesOleuropeinPolyphenols and flavonoidsAnti-biofilm
activity
-[253]
Glycyrrhiza
glabra
(Fabaceae)
LiquoriceRootGlycyrrhizin, triterpinoid saponin, and glabridinTerpenoidsPreventing biofilm
formation and
adherence
Interferes with the arg-QS system and inhibits
exotoxin
production
[246,254]
Leopoldia comosa
(Hyacinthaceae)
Tassel grape
hyacinth
Bulb--Preventing biofilm
formation and
adherence
-[222]
Annona
senegalensis
(Annonaceae)
Wild
custard apple
SeedsN-cerotoyltryptamine, asimicin, and ent-19-carbomethoxykauran-17-oic acidPolyphenolsAnti-biofilm
activity
Interferes with the arg-QS system[207]
Quercus cerris L.,
(Fagaceae)
OakLeaves, stem, and fruit--Anti-biofilm
activity
Inhibits δ-hemolysin, a small peptide encoded by the RNAIII transcript[222,227,255]
Orostachys japonicus
(Crassulaceae)
Rock pineWhole plant-QuinonesInhibits cell-surface attachmentDownregulation of the psm-mec gene[209]
Phyllanthus
emblica
(Phyllanthaceae)
Indian GooseberryFruitsGallic acidPolyphenolsInhibits cell-surface attachment-[246,256]
Melaleuca
alternifolia
(Myrtaceae)
Tea treeEssential oil4-Terpineol and
terpinolene
TerpenoidsInhibits biofilm
adhesion
Alters threonine, purine, pyrimidine, and amino acid
biosynthesis pathways
[257,258]
Terminalia
bellirica
(Combretaceae)
Beleric nut tree (Baheda)FruitTermilignan, thannilignan, and anolignanTanninsInhibits biofilm
formation
-[246,259]
Vanilla planifolia
(Orchidaceae)
VanillaPods and essential oilEthylvanillin, 4-hydroxybenzaldehyde,
methyl anisate,
4-hydroxybenzyl methyl ether, piperonal, vanillic acid, vanillin, carvacrol, and thymol
Terpenoids, flavonoids, and
polyphenols
Inhibits biofilm
formation
Interferes with the agr-QS system[202,218]
Dendrobium chrysotoxum
(Orchidaceae)
Fried-egg orchidWhole plantErianin
isovitexin and
parthenolide
FlavonoidsInhibits biofilm
adhesion
Interferes with the agr-QS system[260]
Allium sativum
(Amaryllidaceae)
GarlicEssential oilAllicinAlkaloidsInhibits biofilm
formation
Downregulates the
expression of icaA and interferes with agr
expression
[261,262]
Vaccinium macrocarpon
(Ericaceae)
American cranberryLeaves and fruitUrell R and
proanthocyanins
Quinones and
polyphenols
Inhibits microbial adhesion and
biofilm formation
Non-toxic, cyto-
compatible
metabolites
[243,263]
Myristica fragrans
(Myristicaceae)
NutmegSeed
essential oil
Eugenol, isoelemicin, isoeugenol, methoxy eugenol, myristic acid, myristicin, kayeassamin A,
surangin C, theraphin B,
Polyphenols and
alkaloids
Inhibits biofilm
formation
-[246]
Arundo donax
(Poaceae)
Giant reedReed nodesBufotenidine and gramineAlkaloidsInhibits biofilm
formation and
disrupts already
established biofilms
-[222]
Citrus × paradisi
(Rutaceae)
GrapefruitSeeds and essential oilNaringeninFlavonoidInhibits microbial
adhesion and biofilm formation
Reduces agrA and hla[264,265]
Spondias
purpurea
(Anacardiaceae)
Spanish PlumLeaves and fruit juice pulp-Terpenoids and
flavonoids,
polyphenols
Inhibits biofilm
formation
Interferes with the agr-QS system[211,266]
Aesculus
hippocastanum
(Sapindaceae)
Horse chestnutWhole plantChelerythrine,
sanguinarine, umbelliferone-3, aesculetin,
dihydroxybenzofuran, and
proanthocyanidin
Quinones and
polyphenols
Inhibits microbial adhesion and
biofilm formation
-[241,243]
Moringa
stenopetala
(Moringaceae)
Cabbage tree/
African horse
radish tree
Leaves and seeds--Inhibits biofilm
formation
-[205,210]
Vetiveria zizanioides
(Poaceae)
Vetiver (Khus)Rootsβ-vetivenene, vetiselinenol, isovalencenol, vetivenic acid, α-vetivone, and β-vetivoneTerpenoids and
polyphenols
Inhibits microbial adhesion and
biofilm formation
Inhibits EPS and α-hemolysin toxin
production via the agr-QS system
[213,267,268]
Citrus sinensis
(Rutaceae)
Sweet
orange
Fruits and essential oils from the peelLimonene, myrcene, α-farnesene, γ-terpinene, α-pinene, and sabineneTerpenesInhibits biofilm
formation
-[213,269]
Pogostemon cablin
(Lamiaceae)
PatchouliWhole plantα-guaiene, β-caryophyllene, δ-cadinene,
pogostol, patchoulol, seychellene, α- and
β-patchoulene
Terpenoids, flavonoids, glycosidesBiofilm eradicationUpregulates biofilm-related bacterial genes luxR (inhibitor for the arg-QS system)[246,270]
Hymenocallis littoralis
(Amaryllidaceae)
Spider lilyLeaves4-methylesculetin, methylisoeugenol, Quercetin 5,7,3′,4′-tetramethyl ether 3-rutinosidePolyphenols and flavonoidsInhibits microbial adhesion and
biofilm formation
Blocks the
active site residues of adhesion proteins
[271,272]
Cymbopogon flexuosus
(Poaceae)
Lemon
grass
Essential oilCitral and β-GeranialAliphatic aldehydesInhibits microbial adhesion and proliferation to disrupt
biofilm matrix
Inhibits PIA and arg-QS system[273,274]
Dracaena cochinchinensis (Asparagaceae)Chinese dragon’s blood (red resin)Resin powderHomo isoflavans and
homo isoflavanones
FlavonoidsDisrupts biofilmDownregulates biofilm regulatory genes saeR, saeS, and hla[275,276]
Duabanga
grandiflora
(Lythraceae)
DuabangaLeavesF-10 fractionAlkaloids, tannins,
saponins, steroids, glycosides, and
flavonoids
Inhibits cell-surface attachment and biofilm formationInterfere with the agr-QS system and competitive inhibitor of PBP2a[277,278]
Cymbopogon
nardus
(Poaceae)
Citronella grassEssential oilGeraniol and citronellalTerpenesInhibits microbial
adhesion and
proliferation
Non-toxic, cytocompatible metabolites as an alternative for future mouthwashes
formulations
[279,280]
Chelidonium
majus
(Papaveraceae)
Great
celandine
Whole plantChelerythrine, sanguinarine, dihydroxybenzofuran, and proanthocyanidinAlkaloidsInhibits cell-surface
attachment and
biofilm formation
-[236,243,281]
Ocimum
gratissimum
(Lamiaceae)
Clove basilEssential oil and leavesEugenol, 1,8-cineole, α-terpineol, γ-terpineneAlkaloids and
terpenes
Inhibits cell-surface
attachment and
biofilm formation
[282,283]
Note: All abbreviations are listed at the end of the manuscript.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sheikh, S.W.; Ali, A.; Ahsan, A.; Shang, F.; Xue, T.; Gollahon, L. Prevention and Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms Using Promising Agr-QS-Targeting Anti-Biofilm Agents. Pathogens 2026, 15, 795. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens15080795

AMA Style

Sheikh SW, Ali A, Ahsan A, Shang F, Xue T, Gollahon L. Prevention and Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms Using Promising Agr-QS-Targeting Anti-Biofilm Agents. Pathogens. 2026; 15(8):795. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens15080795

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sheikh, Salma Waheed, Ahmad Ali, Asma Ahsan, Fei Shang, Ting Xue, and Lauren Gollahon. 2026. "Prevention and Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms Using Promising Agr-QS-Targeting Anti-Biofilm Agents" Pathogens 15, no. 8: 795. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens15080795

APA Style

Sheikh, S. W., Ali, A., Ahsan, A., Shang, F., Xue, T., & Gollahon, L. (2026). Prevention and Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms Using Promising Agr-QS-Targeting Anti-Biofilm Agents. Pathogens, 15(8), 795. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens15080795

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop