Next Article in Journal
Outbreak of NDM-5-Producing Proteus mirabilis During the COVID-19 Pandemic in an Argentine Hospital
Next Article in Special Issue
Novel p-Hydroxybenzoic Acid Derivative Isolated from Bacopa procumbens and Its Antibacterial Activity
Previous Article in Journal
Current Clinical Laboratory Challenges to Widespread Adoption of Phage Therapy in the United States
Previous Article in Special Issue
Use of Haloxylon scoparium Against Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria from Urinary Tract Infections
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Multiple Strategies for the Application of Medicinal Plant-Derived Bioactive Compounds in Controlling Microbial Biofilm and Virulence Properties

1
Department of Biotechnology, School of Bioscience and Technology, College of Natural Sciences, Wollo University, Dessie 1145, Ethiopia
2
Fisheries Postharvest Research and Development Division, National Fisheries Research and Development Institute, Quezon City 1128, Philippines
3
Marine Integrated Biomedical Technology Center, The National Key Research Institutes in Universities, Pukyong National University, Busan 48513, Republic of Korea
4
Research Center for Marine Integrated Bionics Technology, Pukyong National University, Busan 48513, Republic of Korea
5
Interdisciplinary Program of Marine and Fisheries Sciences and Convergent Technology, Pukyong National University, Busan 48513, Republic of Korea
6
Industry 4.0 Convergence Bionics Engineering, Pukyong National University, Busan 48513, Republic of Korea
7
Department of Food Science and Technology, Pukyong National University, Busan 48513, Republic of Korea
8
Major of Biomedical Engineering, Division of Smart Healthcare, College of Information Technology and Convergence and New-Senior Healthcare Innovation Center (BK21 Plus), Pukyong National University, Busan 48513, Republic of Korea
9
Ocean and Fisheries Development International Cooperation Institute, Pukyong National University, Busan 48513, Republic of Korea
10
International Graduate Program of Fisheries Science, Pukyong National University, Busan 48513, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Antibiotics 2025, 14(6), 555; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics14060555
Submission received: 30 April 2025 / Revised: 17 May 2025 / Accepted: 28 May 2025 / Published: 29 May 2025

Abstract

:
Biofilms are complex microbial communities encased within a self-produced extracellular matrix, which plays a critical role in chronic infections and antimicrobial resistance. These enhance pathogen survival and virulence by protecting against host immune defenses and conventional antimicrobial treatments, posing substantial challenges in clinical contexts such as device-associated infections and chronic wounds. Secondary metabolites derived from medicinal plants, such as alkaloids, tannins, flavonoids, phenolic acids, and essential oils, have gained attention as promising agents against biofilm formation, microbial virulence, and antibiotic resistance. These natural compounds not only limit microbial growth and biofilm development but also disrupt communication between bacteria, known as quorum sensing, which reduces their ability to cause disease. Through progress in nanotechnology, various nanocarriers such as lipid-based systems, polymeric nanoparticles, and metal nanoparticles have been developed to improve the solubility, stability, and cellular uptake of phytochemicals. In addition, the synergistic use of plant-based metabolites with conventional antibiotics or antifungal drugs has shown promise in tackling drug-resistant microorganisms and revitalizing existing drugs. This review comprehensively discusses the efficacy of pure secondary metabolites from medicinal plants, both as individuals and in nanoformulated forms or in combination with antimicrobial agents, as alternative strategies to control biofilm-forming pathogens. The molecular mechanisms underlying their antibiofilm and antivirulence activities are discussed in detail. Lastly, the current pitfalls, limitations, and emerging directions in translating these natural compounds into clinical applications are critically evaluated.

1. Introduction

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has emerged as a critical global health threat, recognized by the World Health Organization as one of the top ten public health challenges facing humanity [1]. The widespread misuse and overuse of antibiotics in both human and veterinary medicine have accelerated the emergence and dissemination of resistant microbial strains worldwide, with profound health, economic, and societal consequences [2,3]. Traditional antimicrobial therapies are often ineffective against biofilm-associated infections, highlighting the urgent need for innovative strategies that target biofilm formation, persistence, and virulence [4,5].
Biofilms are structured, multicellular communities of microorganisms encased in a self-produced extracellular matrix, referred to as the matrixome, composed of polysaccharides, proteins, nucleic acids, and lipids [6,7]. This matrix protects embedded cells from host immune responses and antimicrobial agents, thus contributing to chronic and recurrent infections [7,8]. Biofilms exhibit increased antimicrobial tolerance due to limited drug penetration, metabolic heterogeneity, stress adaptation, and enhanced mutation rates [5,9]. Furthermore, they support intercellular communication through quorum sensing (QS) and facilitate horizontal gene transfer (HGT), which further promotes microbial survival, virulence, and resistance [10,11]. These complex microbial communities can form on abiotic surfaces such as medical devices, as well as within host tissues, where they drive persistent infections and complicate therapeutic management [4,5,11,12,13,14].
Medicinal plants have gained increasing attention as promising sources of bioactive compounds with antimicrobial, antibiofilm, and antivirulence activities. Plant-derived secondary metabolites, such as terpenes, flavonoids, alkaloids, and phenolic compounds, have demonstrated the ability to inhibit microbial growth, disrupt biofilm formation, and interfere with virulence factor production and QS pathways [15,16]. Unlike conventional antibiotics, these phytochemicals exhibit diverse mechanisms of action and may reduce the risk of resistance development [17,18]. Some of these compounds also function as antibiotic adjuvants, efflux pump inhibitors, and QS modulators [19,20].
To enhance the therapeutic efficacy of these bioactive compounds, nanotechnology-based delivery systems have been increasingly explored. Nanocarriers, including lipid-based systems, polymeric nanoparticles, and metallic nanoparticles, can improve the solubility, stability, and cellular uptake of phytochemicals, thus boosting their antimicrobial and antibiofilm performance. Green synthesis approaches have also gained interest to formulate eco-friendly and biocompatible nanomedicines [21]. Moreover, combination therapies that pair plant-derived compounds with conventional antibiotics or antifungals have shown synergistic effects against multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens, potentially revitalizing existing antimicrobials [22].
Despite their promise, the clinical application of plant-based compounds faces challenges such as poor aqueous solubility, low bioavailability, and rapid metabolism [23]. Nonetheless, integrating these compounds into advanced drug delivery systems and synergistic treatment strategies offers a promising pathway toward next-generation therapeutics for biofilm-related infections [24,25].
This review provides a comprehensive overview of multiple strategies for utilizing medicinal plant-derived bioactive compounds to control microbial biofilm formation and virulence. It covers (i) the use of pure secondary metabolites and crude plant extracts, (ii) the development and advantages of nanoformulations, (iii) the synergistic effects of combining phytochemicals with conventional antimicrobial agents, and (iv) the current limitations and future research directions to overcome challenges in clinical translation. Understanding and advancing these approaches holds transformative potential to harness plant-derived compounds and redefine strategies for controlling biofilm-associated infections and microbial pathogenicity.

2. Mechanisms of Biofilm Formation and Virulence in Microbial Pathogens

Microbial pathogens have evolved sophisticated survival strategies, among which biofilm formation is a central mechanism contributing to chronic infections and antimicrobial resistance. Biofilm development occurs in various stages, beginning with reversible attachment, followed by irreversible adhesion, EPS production, maturation, and eventual dispersal (Figure 1) [26,27]. The EPS matrix, composed primarily of polysaccharides, proteins, lipids, and extracellular DNA, provides structural integrity, facilitates adhesion, and protects embedded cells from antibiotics, host immune responses, and environmental stressors [7,10,28,29]. This matrix also enhances HGT, enabling rapid adaptation and resistance gene dissemination within the microbial community. In addition, QS, a bacterial communication system based on population density, regulates biofilm formation and virulence gene expression [30,31]. Through QS, bacteria coordinate the production of toxins, adhesins, and enzymes necessary for colonization, immune evasion, and persistence. The failure of conventional antibiotics to eradicate biofilm-related infections underscores the urgent need for alternative therapies targeting QS systems and biofilm integrity [30,32].

2.1. Structural Complexity and Resistance Mechanisms

The complex structure of biofilms, characterized by EPS and cellular heterogeneity, underpins the resilience of microbial communities against host immune defenses and antimicrobial therapies [34,35]. The EPS matrix not only provides mechanical stability but also functions as a physicochemical barrier that impedes the diffusion and efficacy of antimicrobial agents [7,36]. The composition and protective capacity of EPS vary across species, with certain matrix components providing distinct defense mechanisms. In Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the exopolysaccharide Psl plays a key role by sequestering cationic antibiotics such as tobramycin through ionic interactions, thereby restricting drug penetration into deeper biofilm layers [37,38]. Similarly, in Candida albicans, β-glucan produced by the Fks1p enzyme binds and neutralizes antifungal agents, contributing to persistent infections by lowering drug bioavailability [39].
Biofilms also contain phenotypically diverse subpopulations, notably metabolically quiescent persister cells. These cells do not carry resistance-conferring mutations but survive antimicrobial treatment by adopting a dormant physiological state, rendering them tolerant to most antibiotics [40,41]. This phenotypic heterogeneity is driven by nutrient depletion, oxygen gradients, and stress responses within biofilm microenvironments, creating zones of differential metabolic activity that enhance overall community survival [42,43].
In addition, biofilms serve as hotspots for HGT, including conjugation, transformation, and transduction, facilitating the spread of antibiotic resistance genes among cohabiting microorganisms [44,45,46]. The high cell density and close physical proximity within the matrix accelerate this genetic exchange. More importantly, biofilm-associated resistance is often mediated not by permanent genetic changes but by the regulated expression of wild-type genes in response to environmental signals and QS pathways [47].

2.2. Virulence Factor Expression and Quorum Sensing

Microbial biofilms elevate pathogenicity through the coordinated expression of virulence factors and the protective structure of the biofilm matrix. Key virulence determinants include toxins, proteolytic enzymes, adhesins, and immune-modulating molecules, which collectively facilitate colonization, host invasion, and immune evasion [48,49,50]. The regulation of these factors is tightly controlled by QS, a cell-density-dependent communication system that relies on the production and detection of signaling molecules such as autoinducing peptides (AIPs) in Gram-positive bacteria and N-acyl homoserine lactones (AHLs) in Gram-negative species [51,52]. QS not only governs virulence gene expression but also orchestrates biofilm development, maturation, and dispersal, while simultaneously modulating resistance-associated pathways [53,54]. This makes QS a central node in the pathophysiology of biofilm-associated infections.
Given its pivotal role, quorum quenching or the disruption of QS signaling, has emerged as a promising antivirulence strategy that circumvents the selective pressure imposed by conventional antibiotics [30,55]. The mechanisms include the enzymatic degradation of QS signals, inhibition of signal synthesis, and antagonism of QS receptors. In P. aeruginosa, a model organism for QS studies, the las and rhl systems tightly regulate both biofilm formation and virulence expression (Figure 2) [56,57,58,59]. A notable example of plant-derived quorum quenching is andrographolide, a diterpenoid lactone from Andrographis paniculata, which downregulates lasR gene expression. This disruption attenuates QS-regulated phenotypes, including biofilm formation, protease activity, and swarming motility in P. aeruginosa, demonstrating the potential of phytochemicals as QS inhibitors [60].

3. Plant Metabolites as Natural Antibiofilm and Virulence Agents

The bioactive secondary metabolites found in medicinal plants exhibit potent antibacterial and antibiofilm properties. Alkaloids, tannins, terpenes, and flavonoids are among the key compounds that inhibit microbial growth and biofilm formation through diverse mechanisms [61,62,63]. In addition, essential oils (EOs) from medicinal plants have shown promising antibiofilm activity against various pathogens [64,65]. These metabolites can alter biofilm structure and disrupt QS pathways, underscoring their potential as natural alternatives to conventional antimicrobial agents. The specific activities and molecular mechanisms of plant-derived metabolites in preventing biofilm formation and reducing microbial pathogenicity are elucidated in Figure 3.
Table 1 provides an overview of plant-derived compounds with strong antibiofilm and anti-QS activities, detailing their chemical structures, plant sources, target microorganisms, effective concentrations, and specific mechanisms of action. The listed compounds demonstrate the ability to interfere with QS signaling and biofilm development in major pathogens such as P. aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli, among others.

3.1. Alkaloids

Alkaloids derived from medicinal plants exhibit strong antivirulence and antibiofilm activities through diverse mechanisms. Notably, compounds such as piperine and berberine inhibit biofilm formation by disrupting QS pathways, compromising biofilm structural integrity via the suppression of EPS production, and reducing microbial virulence by downregulating genes involved in toxin synthesis and bacterial motility [66,67,68,69,70]. 1,3,4-oxadiazole derivatives isolated from plants have been shown to inhibit the production of P. aeruginosa toxin pyocyanin and its QS precursor, 2-heptyl-4-quinolone (HHQ), effectively interfering with QS-mediated pathogenicity. Similarly, 7-hydroxyindole modulates the expression of multiple virulence-associated genes and inhibits swarming motility, a critical factor for surface colonization and biofilm expansion [71,72]. Another promising phytochemical hordenine—a dietary alkaloid found in barley—functions as a QS inhibitor and synergizes with aminoglycoside antibiotics against P. aeruginosa. Hordenine reduces the production of acyl-homoserine lactones (AHLs), the primary signaling molecules in Gram-negative QS systems, resulting in decreased biofilm biomass, bacterial motility, and the secretion of virulence factors including elastase, protease, rhamnolipids, pyoverdine, and pyocyanin. These factors are essential for tissue damage, immune evasion, and iron acquisition, underscoring the therapeutic potential of alkaloids in combating biofilm-associated infections [73].

3.2. Tannins

Tannins, a class of polyphenolic compounds derived from medicinal plants, have demonstrated antibiofilm and antivirulence activities through multiple interconnected mechanisms [74]. These compounds are primarily classified into two groups, hydrolyzable tannins, which are esters of gallic acid, and condensed tannins, commonly known as proanthocyanidins (PACs), which are polymers composed of polyhydroxyflavan-3-ol units [75]. A well-studied hydrolyzable tannin, tannic acid, found in sources such as gallnuts and tea, exerts its antibiofilm effects by chelating essential metal ions within the EPS matrix. Since metal ions are critical for maintaining the biofilm structure and facilitating bacterial adhesion, their sequestration destabilizes the biofilm architecture [76,77,78]. Additionally, tannic acid targets bacterial cell wall proteins, disrupts QS pathways, and downregulates adhesion genes such as agrA, icaA, and icaD in S. aureus [79]. Proanthocyanidins extracted from plants like Anadenanthera colubrina and Caesalpinia leptophloeos have also been reported to inhibit microbial biofilm adhesion, while hydrolyzable tannins from Myracrodruon urundeuva display bacteriostatic and anti-adhesive effects against P. aeruginosa [80]. Some tannins, such as hamamelitannin, specifically inhibit QS by suppressing the RNAIII regulator, thus modulating virulence expression [81].

3.3. Flavonoids

Flavonoids are a diverse group of polyphenolic compounds abundantly present in fruits, vegetables, and plant-derived beverages [82]. These secondary metabolites, often responsible for the pigmentation of flowers and plant tissues, exert antimicrobial effects by targeting various steps in biofilm development and QS regulation. Quercetin and naringenin disrupt bacterial communication networks and hinder surface adherence, thereby attenuating the virulence of a broad range of pathogens [83,84,85]. Naringenin has been shown to suppress the expression of biofilm-associated genes, compromising the structural cohesion of microbial communities [86,87,88]. In addition to modulating gene expression, flavonoids degrade the EPS matrix through metal ion chelation and antioxidant activity, further destabilizing mature biofilms [29,89].
Some studies have further elucidated flavonoid-mediated biofilm inhibition. Matilla-Cuenca et al. (2020) [90] demonstrated that quercetin, myricetin, and scutellarin suppress S. aureus biofilm formation by targeting Bap, an amyloid surface protein critical for biofilm assembly in certain S. aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci strains, without altering the gene expression profile of the Bap pathway. This highlights a non-genomic mode of action involving interference with protein assembly. Similarly, Pruteanu et al. (2020) [91] reported that flavonoids such as luteolin, morin, myricetin, and quercetin significantly impaired macrocolony biofilms of E. coli, P. aeruginosa, and Bacillus subtilis by disrupting the formation of amyloid curli fibers and cellulose, a critical matrix scaffold, despite limited effects on submerged biofilms. These findings underscore the ability of flavonoids to selectively destabilize biofilm structures through both gene-dependent and structural interference mechanisms, marking them as promising candidates for antivirulence-based therapeutic strategies.

3.4. Essential Oils

The hydrophobic nature of essential oils (EOs), which are volatile compounds derived from aromatic medicinal plants, facilitates penetration into bacterial membranes, compromising membrane integrity and causing the leakage of essential intracellular components, ultimately leading to cell death [92,93,94]. EOs also interfere with QS by modulating regulatory genes such as luxR, luxS, and agrBDCA, thereby regulating the expression of virulence factors and disrupting biofilm coordination [95]. They also impair bacterial motility and adhesion by downregulating genes involved in flagella and fimbriae synthesis, which are essential for initial surface attachment and biofilm expansion [96]. Furthermore, EOs are effective not only at preventing biofilm formation but also at eradicating established biofilms on various surfaces, including medical devices [97]. Importantly, many EOs exhibit low cytotoxicity toward human cells, making them attractive candidates for novel antimicrobial therapies with improved safety profiles [98].
Empirical studies have validated the efficacy of EOs from various plant sources. For example, Melaleuca alternifolia, Melissa officinalis, and Thymus zygis EOs significantly reduced the biofilm biomass in S. aureus and E. coli [64,99]. Tropical plant-derived EOs, such as those from Psiadia arguta and Citrus hystrix, have shown strong antibiofilm activity against S. epidermidis, E. coli, and C. albicans [100]. In the context of oral health, Cymbopogon citratus and Lippia alba EOs were particularly effective against Streptococcus mutans biofilms [101]. Moreover, EOs from Origanum majorana and Rosmarinus officinalis demonstrated potent activity against methicillin-resistant S. aureus [102], while Allium sativum and Cinnamomum zeylanicum EOs exhibited notable efficacy against Candida spp. oral biofilms [103].

3.5. Terpenes

Terpenes and terpenoids are hydrocarbon-based secondary metabolites constructed from repeating five-carbon isoprene units, which represent one of the most structurally diverse and biologically potent classes of natural products found in plants [104]. These molecules have shown remarkable promise in combating biofilm-associated infections due to their broad-spectrum antimicrobial and antivirulence activities. Terpenes such as carvacrol, geraniol, and thymol exhibit potent antibiofilm effects against Candida species by inhibiting early-stage biofilm development, disrupting mature biofilms, and attenuating virulence factors in pathogens like C. albicans, P. aeruginosa, and A. baumannii [15,105,106,107,108]. Notably, carvacrol and terpinen-4-ol retain antibacterial efficacy at sub-inhibitory concentrations without affecting microbial viability, thereby reducing the selective pressure for resistance development [109,110]. Their versatility across surfaces, including polystyrene, stainless steel, and biomedical implants, adds to their clinical potential [111,112].
Mechanistically, these compounds exert their effects through the disruption of QS systems and interference with gene expression involved in virulence and biofilm formation. Carvacrol, for example, downregulates QS and stress response genes such as speB, srtB, luxS, covS, dltA, ciaH, and hasA, impairing bacterial communication, adhesion, and survival [113]. Triterpenoids derived from Inula species have been shown to suppress Chromobacterium violaceum biofilm formation by inhibiting QS circuits [114], while phytochemicals like cassipourol and β-sitosterol block QS-regulated gene expression in P. aeruginosa [107]. In addition, myrtenol enhances antibiotic susceptibility in A. baumannii by downregulating genes critical for biofilm maintenance and resistance [108]. The antibacterial and antifungal efficacy of terpenes is strongly influenced by their physicochemical properties. Amphiphilic compounds with molecular weights ranging between 150 and 550 g/mol are particularly effective due to their ability to penetrate microbial membranes and interact with intracellular targets [115].

3.6. Phenolic Acids

Phenolic acids exhibit significant antivirulence and antibiofilm properties through interfering with the signaling pathway of the QS system [116]. These compounds can interfere with bacterial communication by altering the synthesis or activity of QS signaling molecules, which reduces the formation of virulence factors and biofilms. For instance, it has been demonstrated that the well-known phenolic acid, caffeic acid, which is present in coffee and other plants, inhibits QS-regulated gene expression in P. aeruginosa [117,118]. This results in a decrease in the production of virulence factors like pyocyanin and elastase as well as a decrease in the formation of biofilms. Similarly, ferulic acid is another phenolic acid present in high concentrations in cereal grains, which prohibits S. aureus from forming biofilms by inhibiting QS-controlled pathways involved in adhesion and toxin production [116,119]. Phenolic acids have substantial antioxidant and metal-chelating qualities in addition to their QS-modulating activities. These qualities further disrupt the biofilm matrix, increasing the likelihood that they will be useful agents in the fight against infections linked to biofilms. Phenolic acids are intriguing candidates for therapeutic approaches that target bacterial illnesses linked to biofilms because of these many processes.
Figure 3. Multiple action mechanisms in the inhibitory role of medicinal plant products towards the biofilm (inhibition at the initial stage and eradication of mature biofilm), QS signaling systems, virulence factors, and EPS production. Reprinted with permission [65], Copyright © 2023 by the authors. Published by Elsevier GmbH.
Figure 3. Multiple action mechanisms in the inhibitory role of medicinal plant products towards the biofilm (inhibition at the initial stage and eradication of mature biofilm), QS signaling systems, virulence factors, and EPS production. Reprinted with permission [65], Copyright © 2023 by the authors. Published by Elsevier GmbH.
Antibiotics 14 00555 g003
Table 1. Pure compounds from medicinal plants with antibiofilm and quorum sensing properties.
Table 1. Pure compounds from medicinal plants with antibiofilm and quorum sensing properties.
Name of the CompoundStructure of CompoundsSource Plant SpeciesTarget MicrobesBiofilm Inhibitory Concentration (µg/mL)Mechanism of ActionReferences
14-Deoxy-11,12-didehydroandrographolideAntibiotics 14 00555 i001Andrographis paniculataPseudomonas aeruginosa34.85Inhibits biofilm formation by targeting the quorum sensing pathway, leading to a reduction in extracellular polymeric substances, pyocyanin production, and extracellular protease synthesis.[120]
Andrographolide, 14-deoxyandrographolide, 14-deoxy-12-hydroxyandrographolide, NeoandrographolideAntibiotics 14 00555 i002a
Antibiotics 14 00555 i002b
P. aeruginosa PA22 and PA247310–5000Exert their quorum quenching activity by downregulating lasR gene expression, thereby disrupting quorum sensing and leading to reduced biofilm formation, protease production, and swarming motility in P. aeruginosa.[60]
AndrographolideAntibiotics 14 00555 i003Listeria monocytogenes 10403S125–1000Inhibits the Agr QS system by downregulating agrBDCA genes and P2 promoter activity, leading to reduced biofilm formation, virulence gene expression, hemolytic activity, and host cell invasion.[121]
Licochalcone A (LAA)Antibiotics 14 00555 i004Glycyrrhiza inflateSalmonella typhimurium62.5Downregulates sdiA gene expression, disrupting AHLs and affecting the
expression of QS-controlled virulence factors, thus decreasing motility,
fimbria formation, bacterial invasion, biofilm production.
[122]
Epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG)Antibiotics 14 00555 i005Camellia sinensisS. typhimurium3.125Downregulates luxS gene expression, affecting QS system and some other genes involved in virulence.
Magnolol, HonokiolAntibiotics 14 00555 i006Magnolia officinalisAcinetobacter baumannii-Inhibit biofilm formation, disperse mature biofilms, suppress pellicle formation and surface motilities.[123]
VerbascosideAntibiotics 14 00555 i007Forsythia spp.Staphylococcus aureus USA300≥8Inhibits sortase A, blocking MSCRAMM anchoring to the cell wall; reduces adhesion, invasion, and biofilm formation.[124]
EchinacosideAntibiotics 14 00555 i008Echinacea angustifoliaP. aeruginosa0.125–44Inhibits diguanylate cyclase SiaD, reducing intracellular c-di-GMP levels, thereby inhibiting autoaggregation and enhancing tobramycin efficacy against biofilm aggregates.[125]
ScutellareinAntibiotics 14 00555 i009Scutellaria baicalensis and Erigeron breviscapusA. baumannii ATCC 1797832–64Inhibits biofilm formation, motility, and bacterial persistence by targeting and inhibiting polyphosphate kinase 1 (PPK1).[126]
BaicalinAntibiotics 14 00555 i010Scutellaria baicalensisP. aeruginosa64–256Inhibits quorum sensing by downregulating lasI/R, rhlI/R, pqsA/R genes; suppresses production of QS signals (3-oxo-C12-HSL, C4-HSL); reduces biofilm, virulence factors, and motility.[127]
S. saprophyticus31.25–250Inhibits MsrA efflux pump; reduces ATP and pyruvate kinase activity; downregulates agrA, agrC, RNAIII, sarA; inhibits biofilm formation and quorum sensing system.[128]
S. aureus 1754632 and 64Inhibits quorum sensing by downregulating agrA, RNAIII, sarA, and ica genes; reduces virulence factors (SEA, hla); prevents and disrupts biofilm formation.[129]
WogoninAntibiotics 14 00555 i011Agrimonia pilosaP. aeruginosa PAO115–30Inhibits the PQS quorum sensing system by targeting pqsA and pqsR genes; reduces PQS signal production; suppresses virulence factors; inhibits swimming, swarming, and twitching motility; attenuates biofilm formation and bacterial pathogenicity.[130]
VitexinAntibiotics 14 00555 i012Vitex peduncularisS. aureus (MTCC 96)26–126Reduces cell surface hydrophobicity, membrane depolarization, and EPS production; downregulates biofilm genes (icaAB, dltA) and QS genes (agrAC).[131]
P. aeruginosa (MTCC 2488)110Inhibits quorum sensing by targeting LuxR, LasA, LasI, and motility-related proteins (PilY1, PilT); reduces EPS, biofilm protein, pyocyanin, protease, LasA/B activity.[132]
MorinAntibiotics 14 00555 i013Fig, almond, guavaMethicillin-resistant S. aureus and Vancomycin-resistant S. aureus282
398
Inhibits biofilm formation, disrupts established biofilms, reduces sliding motility, reduces EPS production, binds to SarA (global regulator), inhibiting its DNA-binding activity and thereby interfering with quorum sensing-regulated biofilm and virulence gene expression.[133]
Naringin, Neohesperidin, HesperidinAntibiotics 14 00555 i014CitrusYersinia enterocolitica100–400Inhibit quorum sensing by reducing AHL (3-oxo-C6-HSL and C6-HSL) production, inhibit biofilm formation, inhibit swimming motility, alter the expression of QS-related genes (yenR, fliA, flhDC).[134]
Diosmin, myricetin, NeohesperidinAntibiotics 14 00555 i015aAntibiotics 14 00555 i015bCitrus fruitsP. aeruginosa50–400Inhibit biofilm formation, reduce EPS and eDNA production, interfere with quorum sensing by downregulating genes such as lasI, pvdS, and rhlC.[135]
GlabridinAntibiotics 14 00555 i016Glycyrrhiza glabraL. monocytogenes3.91–15.63Reduces motility and hemolytic activity, decreases intracellular survival, inhibits hly gene expression, induces ROS in macrophages without affecting biofilm formation.[136]
β-Glycyrrhetinic acid (BGA)Antibiotics 14 00555 i017Glycyrrhiza spp.Streptococcus mutans, S. sobrinus, S. gordonii, Porphyromonas gingivalis128–256Inhibits bacterial growth, biofilm formation, and bacterial coaggregation; suppresses plaque biofilm maturation by affecting early colonizers and preventing P. gingivalis adhesion.[137]
GlycyrrhizinAntibiotics 14 00555 i018Glycyrrhiza uralensisP. plecoglossicida60–100Inhibits biofilm formation, increases bacterial membrane permeability, suppresses bacterial growth, enhances phagocytosis and bactericidal capacity of host immune cells.[138]
Carnosic acidAntibiotics 14 00555 i019Salvia rosmarinusS. aureus50Inhibits quorum sensing by downregulating agrA and rnaIII genes, reduces virulence genes (hla, psmα), prevents biofilm formation, enhances intracellular killing by macrophages without bactericidal effects, directly binds AgrA DNA-binding site.[139]
Ursolic acidAntibiotics 14 00555 i020Rosmarinus officinalisS. aureus39Disrupts bacterial cell wall and membrane integrity, inhibits protein synthesis, reduces biofilm formation, induces intracellular ROS production, leading to bacterial death.[140]
Betulinic acidAntibiotics 14 00555 i021Ludwigia grandifloraS. aureus, Candida albicans25Disrupts cell membranes and surface hydrophobicity, reduces biofilm biomass and early adhesion, downregulates sasF (S. aureus) gene expression, inhibits yeast-to-hyphae transition in C. albicans without microbicidal effects.[141]
Betulin,
Betulinic acid
Antibiotics 14 00555 i022Betula species (birch trees), Trochodendron aralioides, Ziziphus vulgaris var. spinosusP. aeruginosa PAO1125Inhibit quorum sensing by competitive binding to LasR and RhlR receptors; suppress virulence factors (pyocyanin, elastase, protease, rhamnolipid, chitinase); inhibit biofilm formation; reduce EPS, alginate, eDNA production, and surface hydrophobicity; impair motility.[142]
3,5-di-O-galloylquinic acid, myricetinAntibiotics 14 00555 i023Myrtus communisChromobacterium violaceum 6267,
P. aeruginosa PAO1
31.25–125Inhibit quorum sensing by binding to QS receptor CviR; downregulate lasI, lasR, rhlI, rhlR, pqsA genes; inhibit biofilm formation, pyocyanin production, swarming motility, and protease activity.[143]
Methyl gallate, Pyrogallol, Betulin, Epicatechin gallate, Dehydroabietic acidAntibiotics 14 00555 i024aAntibiotics 14 00555 i024bAcacia nilotica podsC. violaceum, P. aeruginosa, Serratia marcescens250–500Inhibit quorum sensing by binding QS receptors (LasI, LasR, RhlR, CviR) and biofilm proteins (PilY1, PilT); suppress violacein, pyocyanin, protease, swarming, and biofilm formation; promote oxidative stress that disrupts bacterial communication and biofilm stability.[144]
Taxifolin, quercetin, Silybin, SilychristinAntibiotics 14 00555 i025aAntibiotics 14 00555 i025bSilybum marianumVibrio campbellii, S. aureus, P. aeruginosa<10 µMInhibit AI-1 and AI-2 quorum sensing by interfering with bacterial communication signals, prevent early bacterial surface colonization (biofilm initiation), enhance antibiotic sensitization in resistant strains.[145]
Tormentic acid, 23-Hydroxycorosolic acidAntibiotics 14 00555 i026aAntibiotics 14 00555 i026bSarcochlamys pulcherrimaS. aureus20
25
Depolarize bacterial membrane, inhibit biofilm formation, reduce exopolysaccharide production, suppress motility and protease activity, downregulate virulence gene expression, bind strongly to biofilm and quorum sensing proteins (TarO for TA, AgrA for HCA).[146]
Ellagic acid, gallic acid, Methyl gallate, Chlorogenic acid, naringenin, ApigeninAntibiotics 14 00555 i027aAntibiotics 14 00555 i027bDioon spinulosumP. aeruginosa, C. violaceum250–1000Inhibits quorum sensing by downregulating lasI, lasR, rhlI, rhlR genes; reduces EPS production, cell surface hydrophobicity, violacein production.[147]
Alpha-copaene, Caryophyllene, NerolidolAntibiotics 14 00555 i028Psidium guajavaC. violaceum 12742, P. aeruginosa PAO1500–1000Inhibit quorum sensing by binding to QS receptors (RhlR, CviR’, LasI, LasR), suppress AHL production, reduce virulence factors (pyoverdin, pyocyanin, rhamnolipid), inhibit biofilm formation in a concentration-dependent manner.[148]
CurcuminAntibiotics 14 00555 i029Curcuma longaEscherichia coli, P. aeruginosa PAO1, Proteus mirabilis, Serratia marcescens0.125–600Inhibits biofilm formation and disrupts mature biofilms by interfering with quorum sensing systems, reduces EPS and alginate production, and suppresses swimming and swarming motility.[149]
Oleanolic aldehyde coumarateAntibiotics 14 00555 i030Dalbergia trichocarpaP. aeruginosa PAO1117Inhibits quorum sensing systems (las and rhl), reduces AHL production, inhibits QS-regulated virulence factors, inhibits biofilm formation and maintenance, reduces extracellular polysaccharides, enhances antibiotic (tobramycin) activity against biofilm-encapsulated bacteria.[150]
Apigenin, Acacetin, Genistein, Biochanin A, DaidzeinAntibiotics 14 00555 i031aAntibiotics 14 00555 i031bLegumesP. aeruginosa PAO10.4875–45Inhibit quorum sensing by downregulating lasI, lasR, rhlI, rhlR pathways; suppress virulence factors (biofilm, pyocyanin, pyoverdin, rhamnolipid, alginate, protease, exopolysaccharide); inhibit swimming and swarming motility.[151]
Isoliquiritin, EGCG, Eugenol, Luteolin, ChrysinAntibiotics 14 00555 i032Various plantsP. aeruginosa95–500Inhibit quorum sensing by targeting LasI, LasR, RhlI, and RhlR systems; inhibit biofilm formation; reduce exopolysaccharide production, aggregation, and hydrophobicity.[152]

4. Medicinal Plant Compound-Derived Nanoparticles with Antibiofilm and Virulence Properties

Nanoparticles have emerged as a powerful tool in the fight against biofilm-associated infections and the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance [153,154]. Their nanoscale dimensions and high surface area-to-volume ratio enable efficient penetration into biofilms and improved interactions with microbial cells and extracellular matrix components [155,156]. Various types of nanoparticles, such as metal-based, lipid-based, and polymeric nanoparticles, have demonstrated antibiofilm activity through mechanisms like disrupting the biofilm structure, interfering with bacterial metabolism, and delivering antimicrobial agents more effectively [157,158]. Nanoparticles can also be used to functionalize surfaces, thereby preventing biofilm formation on medical devices [159]. The interaction between nanoparticles and biofilm components, including polysaccharides, proteins, and nucleic acids, plays a crucial role in their antimicrobial efficacy [156]. As such, nanotechnology provides innovative strategies to overcome the limitations of conventional therapeutics in managing chronic and resistant infections [160].
Recent advances have focused on the green synthesis of nanoparticles using medicinal plant-derived compounds, which offer biocompatibility and additional therapeutic value. For instance, silver, gold, and zinc oxide nanoparticles synthesized from Crataeva nurvala bark extract and phloroglucinol, respectively, have been shown to effectively inhibit both biofilm formation and virulence traits in P. aeruginosa [161,162]. Tetramethylpyrazine-coated gold nanoparticles have also been reported to reduce biofilm biomass and suppress virulence factors [163]. Other studies have reported the effectiveness of silver nanoparticles synthesized from various medicinal plants against multiple bacterial pathogens [164]. In another study, eugenol-functionalized magnetite nanoparticles effectively modulated virulence expression and persistence in clinical strains of P. aeruginosa [165].
The mechanisms underlying the antimicrobial activity of plant-derived nanoparticles are multifaceted, including the disruption of bacterial membranes, generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), and downregulation of genes associated with QS, biofilm maturation, and virulence expression [166,167]. These unique features not only enhance their antimicrobial efficacy but also reduce the likelihood of resistance development compared to traditional antibiotics [153,168]. These findings underscore the immense potential of medicinal plant compound-derived nanoparticles as next-generation therapeutics for managing biofilm-related infections. The following sections explore specific nanomaterial formulations and their applications in regulating biofilm development and virulence across bacterial and fungal pathogens.

4.1. Nanomaterials for Effective Delivery of Plant Compounds

Compounds derived from medicinal plants usually encounter challenges in their application, such as low bioavailability, rapid degradation, and poor solubility [169]. Nanotechnology has shown great promise in overcoming these limits by developing enhanced delivery systems that improve the stability, solubility, and selective distribution of bioactive chemicals. To improve the therapeutic efficacy of plant-derived compounds, nanocarriers such as metal nanoparticles, polymeric nanoparticles, and lipid-based systems have been extensively studied [170,171,172]. These innovative delivery systems enhance the compounds’ antibacterial and antivirulence properties by preventing degradation and allowing their efficient transfer to the intended site of action. These nanocarriers enable targeted, regulated release, thereby enhancing the therapeutic efficacy of plant-derived bioactive chemicals.

4.1.1. Lipid-Based Nanocarriers

Lipid-based nanocarriers, including solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs), liposomes, and nanoemulsions, are sophisticated drug delivery methods frequently employed to encapsulate hydrophobic substances [173,174,175]. These lipid carriers help to increase the bioavailability of the encapsulated drugs and shield them from enzymatic breakdown. Liposomes provide greater biocompatibility by mimicking natural cellular membranes through the use of lipid bilayers [176,177]. At physiological temperatures, solid lipid nanoparticles remain solid, providing stability and regulated release characteristics. Drugs that are hydrophobic can be made more soluble with the help of nanoemulsions [178,179,180]. These lipid-based nanocarriers work together to efficiently transport bioactive chemicals across biological membranes, ensuring customized delivery to specific organs or tissues. This modified distribution is critical for minimizing side effects while increasing the effectiveness of treatments. Recent studies have highlighted the potential of rhamnolipids (RLs) and other antimicrobial compounds in combating S. aureus infections, including drug-resistant strains (Figure 4). RL–chitosan nanoparticles demonstrated significant antimicrobial activity against S. aureus, with a minimal inhibitory concentration of 130 μg/mL [181].

4.1.2. Polymeric Nanoparticles

Polymeric nanoparticles are composed of biodegradable and biocompatible polymers, making them suitable for the controlled and regulated release of bioactive compounds, particularly those found in medicinal plants [182,183,184]. The efficiency of medicinal medications can be enhanced by engineering these nanoparticles with specific sizes, surface properties, and release patterns to ensure that the proper amount is delivered at the right time. To optimize the release kinetics, one must modify the polymer’s content or structure. Surface modifications with ligands or antibodies can be used to target specific cells or tissues, decreasing off-target effects and maximizing therapeutic potential [185,186]. Polymeric nanoparticles are an effective and versatile method for pharmaceutical delivery, particularly for treating localized infections or chronic conditions. Some polymeric nanoparticles, such as chitosan-based and poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) nanoparticles, effectively break down bacterial biofilms [187]. Polymeric micelles and polymersomes are also utilized to deliver antivirulence drugs, such as bacterial toxin blockers or QS inhibitors, to lower pathogenicity [188,189]. Furthermore, poly-N-vinyl-caprolactam (PNVCL) nanoparticles can modify virulence factor expression, lowering bacterial pathogenicity [190]. These techniques have a high potential for treating chronic disorders caused by biofilms and those that are resistant to many medicines. Nanogels, particularly those based on carrageenan, show promise as antifouling and antibacterial coatings for various applications, including food packaging [191]. These smart nanohydrogels can be designed for the controlled release of preservatives and antimicrobial compounds. The antibiofilm inhibition role of the smart nanogel carrageenan nanogels (CAR NGs) based on carrageenan and green coffee extract exhibited potential antibiofilm activity against E. coli, S. enterica, S. aureus, and L. monocytogenes (Figure 5) [192].

4.1.3. Metal Nanoparticles

Metal nanoparticles are becoming more and more popular in drug delivery systems because of their inherent antibacterial qualities, particularly those derived from gold and silver (Figure 6) [193,194,195]. By facilitating the efficient adsorption of bioactive chemicals and enhancing their contact with microbial cells, their high surface area-to-volume ratio can improve the therapeutic benefits of substances obtained from medicinal plants. Apart from their antibacterial properties, these nanoparticles can also serve as drug carriers, enhancing the stability and bioavailability of medications [196,197]. Metal nanoparticles (MNPs) including silver, gold, and zinc oxide inhibit microbial adhesion, QS, and biofilm development, resulting in significant antibiofilm and antivirulence properties [198,199]. Because of their small size, they can penetrate biofilms and produce ROS, which damage microbial cells. MNPs inhibit virulence factors such as toxins and proteases by interfering with essential proteins and enzymes [200,201,202]. Furthermore, they disrupt bacterial membranes, resulting in leakage and cell death. Because of these qualities, MNPs hold great promise in the fight against antibiotic-resistant illnesses [203]. At greater quantities, metal nanoparticles can be detrimental to human cells, which is why their use raises questions about cytotoxicity [204]. Thus, it is critical to carefully optimize their size, shape, and surface coating in order to strike a balance between therapeutic efficacy and safety while ensuring that the benefits outweigh the risks.
The exploration of novel therapeutic approaches has been prompted by the emergence of chronic biofilm-associated infections and antibiotic resistance. Nanoparticles provide flexible frameworks to counteract pathogenic threats through a variety of ways and have become a game-changing option [205]. These nanoscale agents are produced via scalable processes such as chemical reduction, biological synthesis, and hybrid approaches [206]. They are made from metallic, organic, and composite materials. Their design places a strong emphasis on balancing environmental and biocompatibility factors and efficacy. NPs facilitate the therapeutic penetration of the rigid biofilm through targeting EPS as well as facilitating the medication delivery [207]. Their action mechanisms include Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, fungi, and other drug-resistant organisms. Innovations such as light-responsive activation and pH regulation enable more precise, spatiotemporal control over microbial eradication [208]. Moreover, NPs reduce microbial viability in a variety of ways, including physical damage to cell structures, the production of ROS, and interference with bacterial communication mechanisms such as QS. Despite NPs’ enormous promise, there are still challenges in enhancing their biocompatibility, scalable manufacture, and targeted dispersion [209].
Various parts of medicinal plants, such as leaves, roots, bark, flowers, and fruits, contain phytochemicals that act as natural reducing and stabilizing agents in the green synthesis of NPs. This sustainable method has been widely used to generate metallic NPs, including silver, gold, copper, and zinc oxide, with antimicrobial and antibiofilm properties. Table 2 summarizes recent developments in the use of medicinal plants for the green synthesis of NPs with antibiofilm and antivirulence properties. It outlines the types of NPs synthesized; the specific plant species and parts used; their biofilm inhibitory concentrations, underlying mechanisms of action; and the target microbial pathogens.

5. Synergy of Plant Compounds with Nanocarriers

The combination of plant-derived chemicals and nanocarriers is a novel strategy for fighting microbial diseases. The ability of chemicals derived from medicinal plants to reduce microbial pathogenicity and biofilm growth has received a lot of interest, especially when synthesized as nanoparticles [250,251,252]. Nanoformulations improve the bioavailability, stability, and targeted dispersion of bioactive compounds, making them more effective against treatment-resistant illnesses. This nanoencapsulation permits a controlled release at the infection site in addition to shielding the active components from early deterioration. Numerous plant-based compounds, such as berberine, curcumin, eugenol, and quercetin, have been successfully introduced as nanocarriers to metal nanoparticles, polymeric nanoparticles, and liposomes to improve their antimicrobial activity [253,254]. These nanoformulations target important microbiological processes such as QS suppression, EPS disruption, and biofilm adhesion and maturation [255,256,257]. In Gram-negative bacteria, the synergistic effect can inhibit receptor-mediated signaling pathways by sequestering or degrading QS molecules such as N-acyl homoserine lactones [258,259]. As a result, this disruption hinders the activation of virulence factors and biofilm-associated gene expression. Nanocarriers also disrupt the polymerization process, which is required to maintain the structural integrity of biofilms, by targeting enzymes involved in the production of extracellular polymeric compounds [260,261]. Because of this interference, the biofilm matrix is unable to adhere, mature, or consolidate, weakening the bacteria’s defenses and making them more susceptible to antimicrobial treatments.

6. Exploring the Potential and Pitfalls of Medicinal Plant Compounds

Medicinal plants have long been a source of bioactive compounds with antibiofilm and antivirulence characteristics that could potentially have therapeutic properties. On the contrary, the variety of phytochemical profiles within the medicinal plants poses a significant barrier to broad utilization. A variety of factors, including cultivation methods, extraction processes, ambient conditions, and geographic origin, contribute to differences in the function and chemical constituents of the plant compounds [262,263]. This disparity makes it more difficult to standardize formulations and obtain consistent results. Their therapeutic usage is further complicated by concerns about the stability, bioavailability, and safety of plant-derived compounds [264,265]. To fully utilize medicinal plants for therapeutic applications, these challenges must be addressed through sophisticated formulation techniques, rigorous safety investigations, and regulatory coordination.

6.1. Changes in Phytochemical Profiles

The variation in the phytochemical profiles of medicinal plant-derived substances is a significant barrier to their use for antivirulence and antibiofilm activities. The chemical compounds found in plants, also called phytochemicals, fluctuate significantly depending upon a number of variables, such as the plant’s origin, environment, and growth methods [266,267]. For instance, light exposure significantly alters the accumulation of scutellarin in Erigeron breviscapus, while the concentration of trans-cinnamaldehyde in Cinnamomum cassia varies non-linearly with plant age, peaking in mature bark but declining thereafter [268]. Similarly, in Scutellaria baicalensis, although the total flavonoid content remains stable, individual compounds such as baicalin fluctuate depending on the growth stage, with maximum levels observed just before full bloom [269].
Environmental stressors such as drought, salinity, and temperature extremes also influence secondary metabolite biosynthesis. In Artemisia annua, for example, stress can alter the production of artemisinin [270], while in Glycyrrhiza glabra, glycyrrhizin levels are similarly affected by abiotic conditions [271]. Moreover, even within the same cultivation area, as observed in Panax notoginseng, microenvironmental variation leads to inconsistencies in saponin profiles, impacting therapeutic reproducibility [272].
Furthermore, the concentration and composition of these phytochemicals can be further influenced by the extraction techniques used to separate bioactive substances [273,274,275]. The consistency and reproducibility of experimental results are affected by this variation, resulting in efforts to standardize formulations for therapeutic use being challenging.
To overcome these challenges, researchers must carefully choose and describe plant extracts. Standardizing plant extracts needs strict quality control procedures, such as determining the concentration of bioactive compounds, identifying chemical profiles using sophisticated methods (such as chromatography and spectrometry), and confirming the extracts’ stability under various storage conditions [276,277]. In clinical settings, this assures uniformity, reliability, and repeatability, ensuring that treatment outcomes remain uniform across trials and implementations. All of these features enhance the therapeutic potential of medicinal plant constituents in antiviral and antibiofilm therapy.

6.2. Concerns with Stability and Bioavailability

Many secondary metabolites found in medicinal plants are unstable and poorly bioavailable due to their susceptibility to physiological degradation [278,279,280]. This issue becomes especially problematic when attempting to transport these compounds efficiently to target sites within the body. Several factors contribute to reduced therapeutic efficacy, including enzymatic degradation in the gastrointestinal tract, rapid hepatic metabolism, and poor water solubility. For instance, curcumin, a polyphenol from Curcuma longa, exhibits potent therapeutic properties but demonstrates extremely low oral bioavailability, with up to 75% being excreted unchanged, with only trace amounts detected in systemic circulation. Even intravenous administration results in rapid biliary excretion, severely limiting its clinical utility. Other compounds, such as berberine and quercetin, similarly suffer from instability in aqueous environments and rapid metabolic clearance, which hinders their consistent therapeutic performance [281]. Nanoformulations provide an effective strategy to address these limitations. Through encapsulating plant-derived bioactives in nanoscale carriers, such as nanoparticles, nanoemulsions, or liposomes, researchers have achieved improvements in solubility, stability, and targeted release profiles [282,283,284]. For example, nanoemulsified curcumin has demonstrated significantly enhanced systemic retention and therapeutic efficacy compared to its crude form [281]. However, the development of these delivery systems brings new challenges. Optimizing the interaction between phytochemicals and nanocarriers requires careful physicochemical characterization, and understanding the altered pharmacokinetics of nanoencapsulated compounds remains a critical research priority. Future efforts should focus on refining nanoformulation platforms to minimize potential cytotoxicity while maximizing the bioavailability and therapeutic impact of medicinal plant-derived compounds.

6.3. Profiles of Safety and Toxicology

Since therapeutic plant components come from natural sources, they are frequently assumed to be inherently safe. However, this assumption should not take precedence over the necessity for comprehensive toxicological evaluation [285,286,287]. Extensive studies are required to assess both efficacy and potential adverse effects, especially when plant-derived compounds are used at high concentrations or in combination with other therapeutic agents [288]. Despite their promising medicinal potential, several phytochemicals have demonstrated organ-specific toxicity in preclinical studies. For instance, β-asarone, a neuroactive compound from Acorus calamus, has shown hepatotoxic effects in rodent models at higher doses [289], while vincristine, an alkaloid from Catharanthus roseus, is known to induce nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and infertility [290]. Similarly, oleandrin from Nerium oleander has been associated with cardiotoxicity and renal impairment even at moderate doses, and tomentogenin, a pregnane glycoside from Caralluma dalzielii, caused hepatocellular distortion in vivo [291,292,293]. Other widely used botanicals, such as Ginkgo biloba, contain ginkgotoxin, which has been linked to neurotoxicity and potential hepatocarcinogenic effects [294]. Likewise, safranal from Crocus sativus has been shown to induce nephrotoxicity and metabolic disturbances in animal models [295].
Therefore, it is critical to conduct thorough preliminary studies on the cytotoxicity, immunogenicity and long-term safety of these compounds. Toxicological assessments must extend beyond the isolated phytochemicals to include the complete formulation, especially in nano-enabled delivery systems, and evaluate interactions with human biological systems [296,297]. A comprehensive understanding of their risk–benefit profile, including organ-specific toxicity, allergic potential, and genotoxic effects, is essential. Only after such rigorous safety validation can medicinal plant compounds be confidently employed in treating biofilm-associated infections or mitigating microbial virulence in clinical settings.

6.4. Challenges in Regulation and Commercialization

Significant scientific and regulatory constraints prevent the commercialization of bioactive chemicals derived from medicinal plants for therapeutic purposes [264,287,298]. The process of turning laboratory-based discoveries into clinically approved treatments is complex and resource-intensive, requiring thorough validation at several stages. These includes comprehensive preclinical and clinical research to support pharmacological activity and safety profiles, the standardization of plant extracts to guarantee batch-to-batch consistency, and the optimization of nanoformulation methods to improve bioavailability and therapeutic efficacy [299,300,301]. Before authorizing a product for sale, regulatory bodies like the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) require a great deal of empirical data, including toxicological and pharmacokinetic evaluations [302]. These strict regulations add to the length of time and high expenses involved in the clinical translation of medicines produced from plants.
In addition to regulatory obstacles, the commercialization of bioactives derived from medicinal plants is further complicated by intellectual property (IP) issues [303,304,305]. The origin of many of these drugs can be found in the traditional therapeutic knowledge that is commonly found in indigenous societies. Concerns with equitable ownership and fair pay are brought up by the complicated legal and ethical issues regarding bioprospecting, benefit-sharing plans, and patentability. Frameworks like the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing are being implemented in an effort to address these problems [306], but there are still difficulties in coordinating global laws and guaranteeing adherence.
To successfully negotiate these commercialization and regulatory obstacles, a multidisciplinary strategy is essential. Regulatory scientists, pharmacologists, nanotechnologists, ethnobotanists, and lawmakers working together can help design standardized processes for the extraction, formulation, and validation of compounds made from medicinal plants [307,308]. Through this partnership, conventional knowledge and contemporary scientific discoveries are effectively integrated. Additionally, using state-of-the-art biotechnological developments like synthetic biology and CRISPR-based genetic changes may improve the scalability and repeatability of the manufacture of bioactive compounds [309,310]. It will be easier to commercialize compounds derived from medicinal plants for antivirulence and antibiofilm applications if regulatory and intellectual property issues are addressed through scientific and policy-driven interventions. This will make it easier to get into the market and utilize these bioactive compounds more widely.

7. Future Prospects and Emerging Directions

The future of antimicrobial medicine is being shaped by significant advances in high-throughput screening (HTS) and omics technologies, which provide exclusive prospects for identifying and characterizing bioactive compounds in medicinal plants [311,312,313]. HTS is an effective technique that enables researchers to instantly test thousands of compounds for antimicrobial properties utilizing automated equipment and modern analytical tools. These technologies allow for the quick identification of plant-derived compounds and provide insights into their molecular mechanisms, particularly for battling microbial biofilms and related pathogenicity [314,315]. The combination of customized medicine, along with targeted medicines, promises to increase the efficacy of plant-based treatments. Overall, interdisciplinary teamwork and translational research are essential to moving these findings from the laboratory to clinical settings and opening the door for new treatments for infections that are resistant to drugs [316,317,318]. The following section of this review covers the integration of modern advancements into the potential usage of medicinal plant components for a variety of therapeutic purposes.

7.1. Advances in Omics and High-Throughput Screening Technologies

HTS and omics technologies, such as proteomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics, and genomics, are transforming the search for compounds derived from medicinal plants [311,319,320]. These developments provide more effective characterization, which speeds up the production of new therapeutic medications. Large compound libraries may be quickly screened via HTS, making it possible to identify bioactive compounds from plants that might otherwise go undetected [321,322]. By evaluating gene expression, protein interactions, and metabolic pathways, omics technologies provide a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms behind the antivirulence and antibiofilm properties of plant substances.
Systems biology techniques can be used with multi-omics technologies to provide a comprehensive approach. This integration aids in clarifying the molecular processes that underlie interactions between phytochemicals and microbes. Using mass spectrometry and HTS, scientists may map protein–protein interactions, metabolic fluxes impacted by bioactive plant compounds, and global gene expression profiles [323,324]. This systems-level study contributes to the discovery of significant microbial pathways and regulatory networks that are influenced by phytochemicals, such as those implicated in QS, biofilm formation, and virulence expression.
In addition to improving prediction capacities, sophisticated computational modeling and machine learning algorithms make it easier to identify new drug targets and resistance mechanisms [325,326,327]. Synergistic phytochemical combinations can be logically designed to improve antimicrobial activity using network-based pharmacology techniques. Moreover, the identification of conserved microbial targets across a variety of pathogenic species is made possible by comparative multi-omics investigations, which raises the possibility for translation of phytochemical-based therapies. In addition to speeding up the screening of antimicrobial medicines derived from plants, this comprehensive method helps guide precision medicine tactics for fighting infections that are resistant to many drugs [328,329]. In the end, combining these state-of-the-art techniques transforms the creation of next-generation antimicrobials based on phytochemicals with increased potency, specificity, and sustainability.

7.2. Targeted Therapies and Personalized Medicine

The advent of customized medicine opens up new avenues for the focused therapeutic use of compounds produced from medicinal plants. In targeted therapies, individual patient profiles, including genetic composition, microbiota composition, and the particular pathogen causing the infection, may allow for the customization of treatments to optimize effectiveness and minimize negative effects [330,331]. Personalized nanoformulation approaches enhance therapeutic efficacy by tailoring nanoparticle characteristics to a patient’s physiological needs and increasing drug delivery [332,333,334]. These formulations reduce toxicity and off-target effects while boosting the bioavailability, stability, and targeted release of plant-derived compounds. Advanced research improves therapy outcomes by combining biomarker-driven approaches to identify treatment responses unique to each patient.
Using nano-delivery methods, combination treatments can co-administer many bioactive drugs to fight microbial resistance in a synergistic manner [335,336]. In order to combat multidrug-resistant microbes, these tactics are essential since they improve drug penetration and retention at infection sites. Overall, personalized nanoformulations have the potential to provide safer and more efficient antimicrobial medications.

8. Conclusions

The growing threat of biofilm-related problems and antibiotic resistance highlights the crucial need for new therapeutic techniques. Secondary metabolites derived from medicinal plants provide a promising solution to these problems. Some of these bioactive compounds, such as flavonoids, alkaloids, tannins, and essential oils, have potent antivirulence and antibiofilm properties. They reduce pathogenicity, degrade the extracellular polymeric matrix, and interfere with quorum sensing pathways. Nanoformulations, such as metal nanoparticles, polymeric nanoparticles, and lipid-based carriers, facilitate the target compounds stability and bioavailabilities. In addition, the targeted administration of phytochemicals is important for minimizing their inherent disadvantages, such as low solubility and quick disintegration. Synergistic combinations with conventional antibiotics improve their efficacy against infections that are resistant to several treatments. However, concerns about safety, phytochemical variety, and regulatory complexity require interdisciplinary collaboration as well as using front-line technologies such as high-throughput screening, multi-omics, and competitional modellings coupled with standardized clinical translation protocols. The future of antimicrobial interventions could be revolutionized by combining traditional understanding with nanotechnology and customized medicine to create long-term and precision-based therapies for persistent infections.

Author Contributions

M.M.: conceptualization, literature search, writing—original draft and editing; R.J.S.B.: literature search, writing—review and editing; N.T.: literature search, writing—review and editing; A.J.: literature search, writing—review and editing; A.K.: writing—review and editing; G.-J.J.: writing—review and editing; Y.-M.K.: writing—review and editing, supervision, resources; W.-K.J.: writing—review and editing; F.K.: supervising, funding, literature search, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), funded by the Ministry of Education (RS-2023-00241461 and RS-2021-NR060118).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Department of Biotechnology and Wollo University for their invaluable assistance in the preparation of this publication. This effort was made possible in large part by their support and the provision of plenty of time. The materials and support from the organization were much appreciated. We are also grateful for our colleagues’ contributions and insights. The quality and completion of this study have been significantly improved by their support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

EGCGEpigallocatechin-3-gallate
ΒBeta
QSQuorum sensing
EPSExtracellular polymeric substance

References

  1. EclinicalMedicine. Antimicrobial resistance: A top ten global public health threat. EClinicalMedicine 2021, 41, 101221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ferri, M.; Ranucci, E.; Romagnoli, P.; Giaccone, V. Antimicrobial resistance: A global emerging threat to public health systems. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57, 2857–2876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Dhingra, S.; Rahman, N.A.A.; Peile, E.; Rahman, M.; Sartelli, M.; Hassali, M.A.; Islam, T.; Islam, S.; Haque, M. Microbial Resistance Movements: An Overview of Global Public Health Threats Posed by Antimicrobial Resistance, and How Best to Counter. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 535668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Høiby, N.; Bjarnsholt, T.; Givskov, M.; Molin, S.; Ciofu, O. Antibiotic resistance of bacterial biofilms. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2010, 35, 322–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. De la Fuente-Núñez, C.; Reffuveille, F.; Fernández, L.; Hancock, R.E. Bacterial biofilm development as a multicellular adaptation: Antibiotic resistance and new therapeutic strategies. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2013, 16, 580–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Böhning, J.; Tarafder, A.K.; Bharat, T.A.M. The role of filamentous matrix molecules in shaping the architecture and emergent properties of bacterial biofilms. Biochem. J. 2024, 481, 245–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Karygianni, L.; Ren, Z.; Koo, H.; Thurnheer, T. Biofilm Matrixome: Extracellular Components in Structured Microbial Communities. Trends Microbiol. 2020, 28, 668–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gebreyohannes, G.; Nyerere, A.; Bii, C.; Sbhatu, D.B. Challenges of intervention, treatment, and antibiotic resistance of biofilm-forming microorganisms. Heliyon 2019, 5, e02192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Uruén, C.; Chopo-Escuin, G.; Tommassen, J.; Mainar-Jaime, R.C.; Arenas, J. Biofilms as Promoters of Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance and Tolerance. Antibiotics 2020, 10, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hobley, L.; Harkins, C.; MacPhee, C.E.; Stanley-Wall, N.R. Giving structure to the biofilm matrix: An overview of individual strategies and emerging common themes. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2015, 39, 649–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Marsh, P.D. Dental plaque: Biological significance of a biofilm and community life-style. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2005, 32 (Suppl. S6), 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Kostakioti, M.; Hadjifrangiskou, M.; Hultgren, S.J. Bacterial biofilms: Development, dispersal, and therapeutic strategies in the dawn of the postantibiotic era. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2013, 3, a010306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Otto, M. Staphylococcal Biofilms. Microbiol. Spectr. 2018, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Hall, C.W.; Mah, T.-F. Molecular mechanisms of biofilm-based antibiotic resistance and tolerance in pathogenic bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2017, 41, 276–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Guzzo, F.; Scognamiglio, M.; Fiorentino, A.; Buommino, E.; D’Abrosca, B. Plant Derived Natural Products against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus: Antibiofilm Activity and Molecular Mechanisms. Molecules 2020, 25, 5024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Borges, A.; Saavedra, M.J.; Simões, M. Insights on antimicrobial resistance, biofilms and the use of phytochemicals as new antimicrobial agents. Curr. Med. Chem. 2015, 22, 2590–2614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Abdel-Mawgoud, A.M.; Lépine, F.; Déziel, E. Rhamnolipids: Diversity of structures, microbial origins and roles. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 86, 1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Abdulbaqi, H.R.; Himratul-Aznita, W.H.; Baharuddin, N.A. Evaluation of Salvadora persica L. and green tea anti-plaque effect: A randomized controlled crossover clinical trial. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2016, 16, 493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Borges, A.; Abreu, A.C.; Dias, C.; Saavedra, M.J.; Borges, F.; Simões, M. New Perspectives on the Use of Phytochemicals as an Emergent Strategy to Control Bacterial Infections Including Biofilms. Molecules 2016, 21, 877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shamim, A.; Ali, A.; Iqbal, Z.; Mirza, M.A.; Aqil, M.; Kawish, S.M.; Siddiqui, A.; Kumar, V.; Naseef, P.P.; Alshadidi, A.A.F.; et al. Natural Medicine a Promising Candidate in Combating Microbial Biofilm. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. de Melo, A.L.F.; Rossato, L.; Barbosa, M.d.S.; Palozi, R.A.C.; Alfredo, T.M.; Antunes, K.A.; Eduvirgem, J.; Ribeiro, S.M.; Simionatto, S. From the environment to the hospital: How plants can help to fight bacteria biofilm. Microbiol. Res. 2022, 261, 127074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Mickymaray, S. Efficacy and Mechanism of Traditional Medicinal Plants and Bioactive Compounds against Clinically Important Pathogens. Antibiotics 2019, 8, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Lu, L.; Hu, W.; Tian, Z.; Yuan, D.; Yi, G.; Zhou, Y.; Cheng, Q.; Zhu, J.; Li, M. Developing natural products as potential anti-biofilm agents. Chin. Med. 2019, 14, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Roy, R.; Monalisa, T.; Gianfranco, D.; Tiwari, V. Strategies for combating bacterial biofilms: A focus on anti-biofilm agents and their mechanisms of action. Virulence 2018, 9, 522–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Deryabin, D.; Galadzhieva, A.; Kosyan, D.; Duskaev, G. Plant-Derived Inhibitors of AHL-Mediated Quorum Sensing in Bacteria: Modes of Action. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 5588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Li, P.; Yin, R.; Cheng, J.; Lin, J. Bacterial Biofilm Formation on Biomaterials and Approaches to Its Treatment and Prevention. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 11680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mann, E.E.; Wozniak, D.J. Pseudomonas biofilm matrix composition and niche biology. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2012, 36, 893–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Singh, S.; Datta, S.; Narayanan, K.B.; Rajnish, K.N. Bacterial exo-polysaccharides in biofilms: Role in antimicrobial resistance and treatments. J. Genet. Eng. Biotechnol. 2021, 19, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rather, M.A.; Gupta, K.; Mandal, M. Microbial biofilm: Formation, architecture, antibiotic resistance, and control strategies. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2021, 52, 1701–1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Juszczuk-Kubiak, E. Molecular aspects of the functioning of pathogenic bacteria biofilm based on quorum sensing (QS) signal-response system and innovative non-antibiotic strategies for their elimination. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 2655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zeng, X.; Zou, Y.; Zheng, J.; Qiu, S.; Liu, L.; Wei, C. Quorum sensing-mediated microbial interactions: Mechanisms, applications, challenges and perspectives. Microbiol. Res. 2023, 273, 127414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Xu, Q.; Hu, X.; Wang, Y. Alternatives to conventional antibiotic therapy: Potential therapeutic strategies of combating antimicrobial-resistance and biofilm-related infections. Mol. Biotechnol. 2021, 63, 1103–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Che, J.; Shi, J.; Fang, C.; Zeng, X.; Wu, Z.; Du, Q.; Tu, M.; Pan, D. Elimination of Pathogen Biofilms via Postbiotics from Lactic Acid Bacteria: A Promising Method in Food and Biomedicine. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Almatroudi, A. Investigating biofilms: Advanced methods for comprehending microbial behavior and antibiotic resistance. Front. Biosci.-Landmark 2024, 29, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Joshi, S.; Lahiri, D.; Ray, R.R.; Davoodbasha, M. Microbial Biofilms: Challenges and Advances in Metabolomic Study; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  36. Salama, Y.; Chennaoui, M.; Sylla, A.; Mountadar, M.; Rihani, M.; Assobhei, O. Characterization, structure, and function of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) of microbial biofilm in biological wastewater treatment systems: A review. Desalination Water Treat. 2016, 57, 16220–16237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Billings, N.; Millan, M.; Caldara, M.; Rusconi, R.; Tarasova, Y.; Stocker, R.; Ribbeck, K. The extracellular matrix Component Psl provides fast-acting antibiotic defense in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. PLoS Pathog. 2013, 9, e1003526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhao, K.; Tseng, B.S.; Beckerman, B.; Jin, F.; Gibiansky, M.L.; Harrison, J.J.; Luijten, E.; Parsek, M.R.; Wong, G.C.L. Psl trails guide exploration and microcolony formation in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Nature 2013, 497, 388–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nett, J.E.; Sanchez, H.; Cain, M.T.; Andes, D.R. Genetic basis of Candida biofilm resistance due to drug-sequestering matrix glucan. J. Infect. Dis. 2010, 202, 171–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Soares, A.; Alexandre, K.; Etienne, M. Tolerance and persistence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in biofilms exposed to antibiotics: Molecular mechanisms, antibiotic strategies and therapeutic perspectives. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 2057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sadiq, F.A.; Flint, S.; Li, Y.; Ou, K.; Yuan, L.; He, G.Q. Phenotypic and genetic heterogeneity within biofilms with particular emphasis on persistence and antimicrobial tolerance. Future Microbiol. 2017, 12, 1087–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Almatroudi, A. Biofilm Resilience: Molecular Mechanisms Driving Antibiotic Resistance in Clinical Contexts. Biology 2025, 14, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Azeem, K.; Fatima, S.; Ali, A.; Ubaid, A.; Husain, F.M.; Abid, M. Biochemistry of Bacterial Biofilm: Insights into Antibiotic Resistance Mechanisms and Therapeutic Intervention. Life 2025, 15, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Michaelis, C.; Grohmann, E. Horizontal gene transfer of antibiotic resistance genes in biofilms. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Brito, I.L. Examining horizontal gene transfer in microbial communities. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2021, 19, 442–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Li, W.; Zhang, G. Detection and various environmental factors of antibiotic resistance gene horizontal transfer. Environ. Res. 2022, 212, 113267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mah, T.F. Biofilm-specific antibiotic resistance. Future Microbiol. 2012, 7, 1061–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pugazhendhi, A.S.; Wei, F.; Hughes, M.; Coathup, M. Bacterial adhesion, virulence, and biofilm formation. In Musculoskeletal Infection; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 19–64. [Google Scholar]
  49. Sarkar, P.; Issac, P.K.; Raju, S.V.; Elumalai, P.; Arshad, A.; Arockiaraj, J. Pathogenic bacterial toxins and virulence influences in cultivable fish. Aquac. Res. 2021, 52, 2361–2376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wang, X.; Liu, M.; Yu, C.; Li, J.; Zhou, X. Biofilm formation: Mechanistic insights and therapeutic targets. Mol. Biomed. 2023, 4, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Milly, T.A.; Tal-Gan, Y. Targeting peptide-based quorum sensing systems for the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections. Pept. Sci. 2023, 115, e24298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Haque, S.; Yadav, D.K.; Bisht, S.C.; Yadav, N.; Singh, V.; Dubey, K.K.; Jawed, A.; Wahid, M.; Dar, S.A. Quorum sensing pathways in Gram-positive and-negative bacteria: Potential of their interruption in abating drug resistance. J. Chemother. 2019, 31, 161–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Huang, Y.; Qin, F.; Li, S.; Yin, J.; Hu, L.; Zheng, S.; He, L.; Xia, H.; Liu, J.; Hu, W. The mechanisms of biofilm antibiotic resistance in chronic rhinosinusitis: A review. Medicine 2022, 101, e32168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Mitra, A. Combatting biofilm-mediated infections in clinical settings by targeting quorum sensing. Cell Surf. 2024, 12, 100133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Paluch, E.; Rewak-Soroczyńska, J.; Jędrusik, I.; Mazurkiewicz, E.; Jermakow, K. Prevention of biofilm formation by quorum quenching. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 104, 1871–1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wagner, V.E.; Gillis, R.J.; Iglewski, B.H. Transcriptome analysis of quorum-sensing regulation and virulence factor expression in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Vaccine 2004, 22, S15–S20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Duan, K.; Surette Michael, G. Environmental Regulation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 Las and Rhl Quorum-Sensing Systems. J. Bacteriol. 2007, 189, 4827–4836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhu, X.; Chen, W.-J.; Bhatt, K.; Zhou, Z.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, L.-H.; Chen, S.; Wang, J. Innovative microbial disease biocontrol strategies mediated by quorum quenching and their multifaceted applications: A review. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 13, 1063393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tu, Y.; Li, H.; Huo, J.; Gou, L.; Wen, X.; Yu, X.; Zhang, X.; Zeng, J.; Li, Y. Disrupting the bacterial language: Quorum quenching and its applications. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2025, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Tan Lim, A.M.; Oyong, G.G.; Tan, M.C.S.; Chang Shen, C.; Ragasa, C.Y.; Cabrera, E.C. Quorum quenching activity of Andrographis paniculata (Burm f.) Nees andrographolide compounds on metallo-β-lactamase-producing clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA22 and PA247 and their effect on lasR gene expression. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Khanashyam, A.C.; Shanker, M.A.; Thomas, P.E.; Babu, K.S.; Nirmal, N.P. Phytochemicals in biofilm inhibition. In Recent Frontiers of Phytochemicals; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 397–412. [Google Scholar]
  62. Zhang, M.; Han, W.; Gu, J.; Qiu, C.; Jiang, Q.; Dong, J.; Lei, L.; Li, F. Recent advances on the regulation of bacterial biofilm formation by herbal medicines. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 1039297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jubair, N.; Rajagopal, M.; Chinnappan, S.; Abdullah, N.B.; Fatima, A. Review on the antibacterial mechanism of plant-derived compounds against multidrug-resistant bacteria (MDR). Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2021, 2021, 3663315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Budzyńska, A.; Wieckowska-Szakiel, M.; Sadowska, B.; Kalemba, D.; Rozalska, B. Antibiofilm activity of selected plant essential oils and their major components. Pol. J. Microbiol. 2011, 60, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Silva, E.; Teixeira, J.A.; Pereira, M.O.; Rocha, C.M.; Sousa, A.M. Evolving biofilm inhibition and eradication in clinical settings through plant-based antibiofilm agents. Phytomedicine 2023, 119, 154973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. De, A.; Sarkar, A.; Mukherjee, S.; Das, A.; Banerjee, T.; Paul, P.; Bhowmik, R.; Karmakar, S.; Ghosh, N. The Potential of Phytomolecules in Countering Biofilm Formation and Quorum Sensing. Curr. Indian Sci. 2025, 3, e2210299X2355078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lu, L.; Wang, J.; Wang, C.; Zhu, J.; Wang, H.; Liao, L.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, X.; Yang, C.; He, Z. Plant-derived virulence arresting drugs as novel antimicrobial agents: Discovery, perspective, and challenges in clinical use. Phytother. Res. 2024, 38, 727–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Roy, M.; Adhikari, M.; Tiwary, B. Phytocompound-Mediated Inhibition of Quorum-Sensing Cascade in Pathogenic Bacteria. In Natural Products; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2024; pp. 79–101. [Google Scholar]
  69. Yan, Y.; Li, X.; Zhang, C.; Lv, L.; Gao, B.; Li, M. Research progress on antibacterial activities and mechanisms of natural alkaloids: A review. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Huang, W.; Wang, Y.; Tian, W.; Cui, X.; Tu, P.; Li, J.; Shi, S.; Liu, X. Biosynthesis investigations of terpenoid, alkaloid, and flavonoid antimicrobial agents derived from medicinal plants. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Morkunas, B.; Gal, B.; Galloway, W.R.; Hodgkinson, J.T.; Ibbeson, B.M.; Tan, Y.S.; Welch, M.; Spring, D.R. Discovery of an inhibitor of the production of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa virulence factor pyocyanin in wild-type cells. Beilstein J. Org. Chem. 2016, 12, 1428–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lee, J.; Attila, C.; Cirillo, S.L.G.; Cirillo, J.D.; Wood, T.K. Indole and 7-hydroxyindole diminish Pseudomonas aeruginosa virulence. Microb. Biotechnol. 2009, 2, 75–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zhou, J.W.; Luo, H.Z.; Jiang, H.; Jian, T.K.; Chen, Z.Q.; Jia, A.Q. Hordenine: A Novel Quorum Sensing Inhibitor and Antibiofilm Agent against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 1620–1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Rudrapal, M.; Sarkar, B.; Deb, P.; Bendale, A.; Nagar, A. Addressing antimicrobial resistance by repurposing polyphenolic phytochemicals with novel antibacterial potential. In Polyphenols: Food Nutraceutical Nanotherapeutic Applications; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 260–289. [Google Scholar]
  75. Han, X.; Shen, T.; Lou, H. Dietary Polyphenols and Their Biological Significance. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2007, 8, 950–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Tong, Z.; He, W.; Fan, X.; Guo, A. Biological function of plant tannin and its application in animal health. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 8, 803657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. 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] [PubMed]
  78. Nouh, H.S.; El-Zawawy, N.A.; Halawa, M.; Shalamesh, E.M.; Ali, S.S.; Korbecka-Glinka, G.; Shala, A.Y.; El-Sapagh, S. Endophytic Penicillium oxalicum AUMC 14898 from Opuntia ficus-indica: A Novel Source of Tannic Acid Inhibiting Virulence and Quorum Sensing of Extensively Drug-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 11115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Lee, J.H.; Park, J.H.; Cho, H.S.; Joo, S.W.; Cho, M.H.; Lee, J. Anti-biofilm activities of quercetin and tannic acid against Staphylococcus aureus. Biofouling 2013, 29, 491–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ta, C.A.; Arnason, J.T. Mini Review of Phytochemicals and Plant Taxa with Activity as Microbial Biofilm and Quorum Sensing Inhibitors. Molecules 2015, 21, E29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Vermote, A.; Brackman, G.; Risseeuw, M.D.; Vanhoutte, B.; Cos, P.; Van Hecke, K.; Breyne, K.; Meyer, E.; Coenye, T.; Van Calenbergh, S. Hamamelitannin Analogues that Modulate Quorum Sensing as Potentiators of Antibiotics against Staphylococcus aureus. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2016, 55, 6551–6555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Panche, A.N.; Diwan, A.D.; Chandra, S.R. Flavonoids: An overview. J. Nutr. Sci. 2016, 5, e47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Liu, Y.; Zhu, J.; Liu, Z.; Zhi, Y.; Mei, C.; Wang, H. Flavonoids as Promising Natural Compounds for Combating Bacterial Infections. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 2455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Chadha, J.; Harjai, K.; Chhibber, S. Repurposing phytochemicals as anti-virulent agents to attenuate quorum sensing-regulated virulence factors and biofilm formation in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Microb. Biotechnol. 2022, 15, 1695–1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Samrot, A.V.; Abubakar Mohamed, A.; Faradjeva, E.; Si Jie, L.; Hooi Sze, C.; Arif, A.; Chuan Sean, T.; Norbert Michael, E.; Yeok Mun, C.; Xiao, Q.N.; et al. Mechanisms and impact of biofilms and targeting of biofilms using bioactive compounds—A review. Medicina 2021, 57, 839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Lal, A.F.; Singh, S.; Franco, F.C.; Bhatia, S. Potential of polyphenols in curbing quorum sensing and biofilm formation in Gram-negative pathogens. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2021, 11, 231–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Donadio, G.; Mensitieri, F.; Santoro, V.; Parisi, V.; Bellone, M.L.; De Tommasi, N.; Izzo, V.; Dal Piaz, F. Interactions with microbial proteins driving the antibacterial activity of flavonoids. Pharmaceutics 2021, 13, 660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Nguyen, A.N.X.; Thirapanmethee, K.; Audshasai, T.; Khuntayaporn, P.; Chomnawang, M.T. Insights into molecular mechanisms of phytochemicals in quorum sensing modulation for bacterial biofilm control. Arch. Microbiol. 2024, 206, 459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Joseph, J.; Boby, S.; Muyyarikkandy, M.S. Phytochemicals: A Promising Strategy to Combat Biofilm-Associated Antimicrobial Resistance; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  90. Matilla-Cuenca, L.; Gil, C.; Cuesta, S.; Rapún-Araiz, B.; Žiemytė, M.; Mira, A.; Lasa, I.; Valle, J. Antibiofilm activity of flavonoids on staphylococcal biofilms through targeting BAP amyloids. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 18968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Pruteanu, M.; Hernández Lobato, J.I.; Stach, T.; Hengge, R. Common plant flavonoids prevent the assembly of amyloid curli fibres and can interfere with bacterial biofilm formation. Environ. Microbiol. 2020, 22, 5280–5299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Imam, M.W.; Luqman, S. Unveiling the mechanism of essential oil action against skin pathogens: From ancient wisdom to modern science. Arch. Microbiol. 2024, 206, 347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Rasheed, H.A.; Rehman, A.; Chen, X.; Aziz, T.; Al-Asmari, F.; Alhomrani, M.; Alamri, A.S.; Cui, H.; Lin, L. Unveiling the anti-listerial effect of Citrus bergamia essential oil: Mechanism of membrane disruption and anti-hemolytic activity. Food Biosci. 2024, 61, 104742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Nasaj, M.; Chehelgerdi, M.; Asghari, B.; Ahmadieh-Yazdi, A.; Asgari, M.; Kabiri-Samani, S.; Sharifi, E.; Arabestani, M. Factors influencing the antimicrobial mechanism of chitosan action and its derivatives: A review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2024, 277, 134321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Maggio, F.; Rossi, C.; Serio, A.; Chaves-Lopez, C.; Casaccia, M.; Paparella, A. Anti-biofilm mechanisms of action of essential oils by targeting genes involved in quorum sensing, motility, adhesion, and virulence: A review. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2025, 426, 110874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Rossi, C.; Chaves-López, C.; Serio, A.; Casaccia, M.; Maggio, F.; Paparella, A. Effectiveness and mechanisms of essential oils for biofilm control on food-contact surfaces: An updated review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 62, 2172–2191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Millezi, A.F.; Piccoli, R.H.; Oliveira, J.M.; Pereira, M.O. Anti-biofim and antibacterial effect of essential oils and their major compounds. J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants 2016, 19, 624–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Alibi, S.; Ben Selma, W.; Ramos-Vivas, J.; Smach, M.A.; Touati, R.; Boukadida, J.; Navas, J.; Ben Mansour, H. Anti-oxidant, antibacterial, anti-biofilm, and anti-quorum sensing activities of four essential oils against multidrug-resistant bacterial clinical isolates. Curr. Res. Transl. Med. 2020, 68, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Lagha, R.; Ben Abdallah, F.; AL-Sarhan, B.O.; Al-Sodany, Y. Antibacterial and Biofilm Inhibitory Activity of Medicinal Plant Essential Oils Against Escherichia coli Isolated from UTI Patients. Molecules 2019, 24, 1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Aumeeruddy-Elalfi, Z.; Ismaël, I.S.; Hosenally, M.; Zengin, G.; Mahomoodally, M.F. Essential oils from tropical medicinal herbs and food plants inhibit biofilm formation in vitro and are non-cytotoxic to human cells. 3 Biotech 2018, 8, 395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Milho, C.; Silva, J.; Guimarães, R.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R.; Barros, L.; Alves, M.J. Antimicrobials from Medicinal Plants: An Emergent Strategy to Control Oral Biofilms. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. 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]
  103. Guimarães, R.; Milho, C.; Liberal, Â.; Silva, J.; Fonseca, C.; Barbosa, A.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R.; Alves, M.J.; Barros, L. Antibiofilm Potential of Medicinal Plants against Candida spp. Oral Biofilms: A Review. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Cox-Georgian, D.; Ramadoss, N.; Dona, C.; Basu, C. Therapeutic and medicinal uses of terpenes. In Medicinal Plants: From Farm to Pharmacy; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 333–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Raut, J.S.; Shinde, R.; Chauhan, N.; Karuppayil, S.M. Terpenoids of plant origin inhibit morphogenesis, adhesion, and biofilm formation by Candida albicans. Biofouling 2013, 29, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Braga, P.C.; Culici, M.; Alfieri, M.; Dal Sasso, M. Thymol inhibits Candida albicans biofilm formation and mature biofilm. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2008, 31, 472–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Rasamiravaka, T.; Ngezahayo, J.; Pottier, L.; Ribeiro, S.O.; Souard, F.; Hari, L.; Stévigny, C.; Jaziri, M.E.; Duez, P. Terpenoids from Platostoma rotundifolium (Briq.) A. J. Paton Alter the Expression of Quorum Sensing-Related Virulence Factors and the Formation of Biofilm in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Selvaraj, A.; Valliammai, A.; Sivasankar, C.; Suba, M.; Sakthivel, G.; Pandian, S.K. Antibiofilm and antivirulence efficacy of myrtenol enhances the antibiotic susceptibility of Acinetobacter baumannii. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 21975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Burt, S.A.; Ojo-Fakunle, V.T.A.; Woertman, J.; Veldhuizen, E.J.A. The Natural Antimicrobial Carvacrol Inhibits Quorum Sensing in Chromobacterium violaceum and Reduces Bacterial Biofilm Formation at Sub-Lethal Concentrations. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e93414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Maquera Huacho, P.M.; Esteban, R.H.; Tim, V.; Martine, P.; Elcio, M.J.; Madalena, P.S.D.; Teughels, W. Terpinen-4-ol and carvacrol affect multi-species biofilm composition. Biofouling 2019, 35, 561–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Walczak, M.; Michalska-Sionkowska, M.; Olkiewicz, D.; Tarnawska, P.; Warżyńska, O. Potential of Carvacrol and Thymol in Reducing Biofilm Formation on Technical Surfaces. Molecules 2021, 26, 2723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Soni, K.A.; Oladunjoye, A.; Nannapaneni, R.; Schilling, M.W.; Silva, J.L.; Mikel, B.; Bailey, R.H. Inhibition and Inactivation of Salmonella typhimurium Biofilms from Polystyrene and Stainless Steel Surfaces by Essential Oils and Phenolic Constituent Carvacrol. J. Food Prot. 2013, 76, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Wijesundara, N.M.; Lee, S.F.; Rupasinghe, H.P.V. Carvacrol inhibits Streptococcus pyogenes biofilms by suppressing the expression of genes associated with quorum-sensing and reducing cell surface hydrophobicity. Microb. Pathog. 2022, 169, 105684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Dimitrova, P.D.; Ivanova, V.; Trendafilova, A.; Paunova-Krasteva, T. Anti-Biofilm and Anti-Quorum-Sensing Activity of Inula Extracts: A Strategy for Modulating Chromobacterium violaceum Virulence Factors. Pharmaceuticals 2024, 17, 573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Wiart, C.; Kathirvalu, G.; Raju, C.S.; Nissapatorn, V.; Rahmatullah, M.; Paul, A.K.; Rajagopal, M.; Sathiya Seelan, J.S.; Rusdi, N.A.; Lanting, S.; et al. Antibacterial and Antifungal Terpenes from the Medicinal Angiosperms of Asia and the Pacific: Haystacks and Gold Needles. Molecules 2023, 28, 3873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Juárez, C.; Contreras Rodolfo, G.; López Macrina, P.; Cazares Naybi, M.; Castillo Juárez, I. Phenolic Compounds with Anti-virulence Properties. In Phenolic Compounds-Biological Activity; Soto-Hernández, M., Palma-Tenango, M., García-Mateos, R., Eds.; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  117. Li, Q.; Mao, S.; Wang, H.; Ye, X. The Molecular Architecture of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Quorum-Sensing Inhibitors. Mar. Drugs 2022, 20, 488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Kang, N.J.; Lee, K.W.; Shin, B.J.; Jung, S.K.; Hwang, M.K.; Bode, A.M.; Heo, Y.S.; Lee, H.J.; Dong, Z. Caffeic acid, a phenolic phytochemical in coffee, directly inhibits Fyn kinase activity and UVB-induced COX-2 expression. Carcinogenesis 2009, 30, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Borges, A.; Saavedra, M.J.; Simões, M. The activity of ferulic and gallic acids in biofilm prevention and control of pathogenic bacteria. Biofouling 2012, 28, 755–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Majumdar, M.; Misra, T.K.; Roy, D.N. In vitro anti-biofilm activity of 14-deoxy-11, 12-didehydroandrographolide from Andrographis paniculata against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2020, 51, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Yu, T.; Jiang, X.; Xu, X.; Jiang, C.; Kang, R.; Jiang, X. Andrographolide inhibits biofilm and virulence in Listeria monocytogenes as a quorum-sensing inhibitor. Molecules 2022, 27, 3234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Hosseinzadeh, S.; Saei, H.D.; Ahmadi, M.; Zahraei-Salehi, T. Anti-quorum sensing effects of licochalcone A and epigallocatechin-3-gallate against Salmonella typhimurium isolates from poultry sources. Vet. Res. Forum 2020, 11, 273–279. [Google Scholar]
  123. Khadke, S.K.; Lee, J.-H.; Woo, J.-T.; Lee, J. Inhibitory effects of honokiol and magnolol on biofilm formation by Acinetobacter baumannii. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 2019, 24, 359–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Li, X.; Hou, Y.; Zou, H.; Wang, Y.; Xu, Y.; Wang, L.; Wang, B.; Yan, M.; Leng, X. Unraveling the efficacy of verbascoside in thwarting MRSA pathogenicity by targeting sortase A. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2024, 108, 360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Cai, Y.-M.; Hong, F.; De Craemer, A.; Malone, J.G.; Crabbé, A.; Coenye, T. Echinacoside reduces intracellular c-di-GMP levels and potentiates tobramycin activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm aggregates. npj Biofilms Microbiomes 2025, 11, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Song, Y.; Lv, H.; Xu, L.; Liu, Z.; Wang, J.; Fang, T.; Deng, X.; Zhou, Y.; Li, D. In vitro and in vivo activities of scutellarein, a novel polyphosphate kinase 1 inhibitor against Acinetobacter baumannii infection. Microb. Cell Factories 2024, 23, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Luo, J.; Dong, B.; Wang, K.; Cai, S.; Liu, T.; Cheng, X.; Lei, D.; Chen, Y.; Li, Y.; Kong, J. Baicalin inhibits biofilm formation, attenuates the quorum sensing-controlled virulence and enhances Pseudomonas aeruginosa clearance in a mouse peritoneal implant infection model. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0176883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Wang, J.; Jiao, H.; Meng, J.; Qiao, M.; Du, H.; He, M.; Ming, K.; Liu, J.; Wang, D.; Wu, Y. Baicalin inhibits biofilm formation and the quorum-sensing system by regulating the MsrA drug efflux pump in Staphylococcus saprophyticus. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Chen, Y.; Liu, T.; Wang, K.; Hou, C.; Cai, S.; Huang, Y.; Du, Z.; Huang, H.; Kong, J.; Chen, Y. Baicalein inhibits Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation and the quorum sensing system in vitro. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0153468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Wang, S.; Feng, Y.; Han, X.; Cai, X.; Yang, L.; Liu, C.; Shen, L. Inhibition of virulence factors and biofilm formation by wogonin attenuates pathogenicity of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 via targeting pqs quorum-sensing system. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 12699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Das, M.C.; Samaddar, S.; Jawed, J.J.; Ghosh, C.; Acharjee, S.; Sandhu, P.; Das, A.; Daware, A.V.; De, U.C.; Majumdar, S. Vitexin alters Staphylococcus aureus surface hydrophobicity to obstruct biofilm formation. Microbiol. Res. 2022, 263, 127126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Das, M.C.; Sandhu, P.; Gupta, P.; Rudrapaul, P.; De, U.C.; Tribedi, P.; Akhter, Y.; Bhattacharjee, S. Attenuation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm formation by Vitexin: A combinatorial study with azithromycin and gentamicin. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 23347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Chemmugil, P.; Lakshmi, P.; Annamalai, A. Exploring Morin as an anti-quorum sensing agent (anti-QSA) against resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus. Microb. Pathog. 2019, 127, 304–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Truchado, P.; Giménez-Bastida, J.-A.; Larrosa, M.; Castro-Ibáñez, I.; Espín, J.C.; Tomás-Barberán, F.A.; García-Conesa, M.T.; Allende, A. Inhibition of quorum sensing (QS) in Yersinia enterocolitica by an orange extract rich in glycosylated flavanones. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 8885–8894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Carević, T.; Kolarević, S.; Kolarević, M.K.; Nestorović, N.; Novović, K.; Nikolić, B.; Ivanov, M. Citrus flavonoids diosmin, myricetin and neohesperidin as inhibitors of Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Evidence from antibiofilm, gene expression and in vivo analysis. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2024, 181, 117642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Liao, C.; Yu, C.; Guo, J.; Guan, M. Subinhibitory concentrations of glabridin from Glycyrrhiza glabra L. reduce Listeria monocytogenes motility and hemolytic activity but do not exhibit antimicrobial activity. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1388388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Dewake, N.; Ma, X.; Sato, K.; Nakatsu, S.; Yoshimura, K.; Eshita, Y.; Fujinaka, H.; Yano, Y.; Yoshinari, N.; Yoshida, A. Β-Glycyrrhetinic acid inhibits the bacterial growth and biofilm formation by supragingival plaque commensals. Microbiol. Immunol. 2021, 65, 343–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Tao, F.; Cao, J.-F.; Liu, Y.-J.; Chen, R.-Y.; Shi, J.-J.; Li, C.-Y.; Lu, J.-F.; Yang, G.-J.; Chen, J. Evaluation on the antibacterial activity of glycyrrhizin against Pseudomonas plecoglossicida in ayu fish (Plecoglossus altivelis). Aquaculture 2025, 595, 741520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. 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] [PubMed]
  140. Liu, G.; Qin, P.; Cheng, X.; Wu, L.; Zhao, W.; Gao, W. Evaluation of the mechanistic basis for the antibacterial activity of ursolic acid against Staphylococcus aureus. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1389242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Hamion, G.; Aucher, W.; Mercier, A.; Tewes, F.; Menard, M.; Bertaux, J.; Girardot, M.; Imbert, C. Insights into betulinic acid as a promising molecule to fight the interkingdom biofilm Staphylococcus aureusCandida albicans. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2024, 63, 107166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Rajkumari, J.; Borkotoky, S.; Murali, A.; Suchiang, K.; Mohanty, S.K.; Busi, S. Attenuation of quorum sensing controlled virulence factors and biofilm formation in Pseudomonas aeruginosa by pentacyclic triterpenes, betulin and betulinic acid. Microb. Pathog. 2018, 118, 48–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Khadraoui, N.; Essid, R.; Damergi, B.; Fares, N.; Gharbi, D.; Forero, A.M.; Rodríguez, J.; Abid, G.; Kerekes, E.-B.; Limam, F. Myrtus communis leaf compounds as novel inhibitors of quorum sensing-regulated virulence factors and biofilm formation: In vitro and in silico investigations. Biofilm 2024, 8, 100205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Qais, F.A.; Ahmad, I. Anti-quorum sensing and biofilm inhibitory effect of some medicinal plants against gram-negative bacterial pathogens: In vitro and in silico investigations. Heliyon 2022, 8, e11113. [Google Scholar]
  145. Hurtová, M.; Káňová, K.; Dobiasová, S.; Holasová, K.; Čáková, D.; Hoang, L.; Biedermann, D.; Kuzma, M.; Cvačka, J.; Křen, V. Selectively halogenated flavonolignans—Preparation and antibacterial activity. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 15121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Ghosh, C.; Das, M.C.; Acharjee, S.; Bhattacharjee, S.; Sandhu, P.; Kumari, M.; Bhowmik, J.; Ghosh, R.; Banerjee, B.; De, U.C.; et al. Combating Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation: The inhibitory potential of tormentic acid and 23-hydroxycorosolic acid. Arch. Microbiol. 2024, 206, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Elekhnawy, E.; Negm, W.A.; El-Aasr, M.; Kamer, A.A.; Alqarni, M.; Batiha, G.E.-S.; Obaidullah, A.J.; Fawzy, H.M. Histological assessment, anti-quorum sensing, and anti-biofilm activities of Dioon spinulosum extract: In vitro and in vivo approach. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. 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]
  149. Packiavathy, I.A.S.V.; 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] [PubMed]
  150. Rasamiravaka, T.; Vandeputte, O.M.; Pottier, L.; Huet, J.; Rabemanantsoa, C.; Kiendrebeogo, M.; Andriantsimahavandy, A.; Rasamindrakotroka, A.; Stévigny, C.; Duez, P. Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm formation and persistence, along with the production of quorum sensing-dependent virulence factors, are disrupted by a triterpenoid coumarate ester isolated from Dalbergia trichocarpa, a tropical legume. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0132791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Pachaiappan, R.; Rajamuthu, T.P.; Sarkar, A.; Natrajan, P.; Krishnan, N.; Sakthivelu, M.; Velusamy, P.; Ramasamy, P.; Gopinath, S.C. N-acyl-homoserine lactone mediated virulence factor(s) of Pseudomonas aeruginosa inhibited by flavonoids and isoflavonoids. Process Biochem. 2022, 116, 84–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Fakhar, M.; Ahmed, M.; Sabri, A.N. Computational and experimental strategies for combating MBL P. aeruginosa (MBLPA) biofilms using phytochemicals: Targeting the quorum sensing network. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2024, 31, 104001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Tungare, K.; Gupta, J.; Bhori, M.; Garse, S.; Kadam, A.; Jha, P.; Jobby, R.; Amanullah, M.; Vijayakumar, S. Nanomaterial in controlling biofilms and virulence of microbial pathogens. Microb. Pathog. 2024, 192, 106722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Han, C.; Romero, N.; Fischer, S.; Dookran, J.; Berger, A.; Doiron, A.L. Recent developments in the use of nanoparticles for treatment of biofilms. Nanotechnol. Rev. 2017, 6, 383–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Zhang, L.; Pornpattananangku, D.; Hu, C.M.; Huang, C.M. Development of nanoparticles for antimicrobial drug delivery. Curr. Med. Chem. 2010, 17, 585–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Joshi, A.S.; Singh, P.; Mijakovic, I. Interactions of Gold and Silver Nanoparticles with Bacterial Biofilms: Molecular Interactions behind Inhibition and Resistance. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 7658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Qayyum, S.; Khan, A.U. Nanoparticles vs. biofilms: A battle against another paradigm of antibiotic resistance. MedChemComm 2016, 7, 1479–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Jabber Al-Saady, M.A.A.; Aldujaili, N.H.; Rabeea Banoon, S.; Al-Abboodi, A. Antimicrobial properties of nanoparticles in biofilms. Bionatura 2022, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Malaekeh-Nikouei, B.; Fazly Bazzaz, B.S.; Mirhadi, E.; Tajani, A.S.; Khameneh, B. The role of nanotechnology in combating biofilm-based antibiotic resistance. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 2020, 60, 101880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Blecher, K.; Adnan, N.; Friedman, A. The growing role of nanotechnology in combating infectious disease. Virulence 2011, 2, 395–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Ali, S.G.; Ansari, M.A.; Khan, H.M.; Jalal, M.; Mahdi, A.A.; Cameotra, S.S. Crataeva nurvala nanoparticles inhibit virulence factors and biofilm formation in clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Basic Microbiol. 2017, 57, 193–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Khan, F.; Kang, M.-G.; Jo, D.-M.; Chandika, P.; Jung, W.-K.; Kang, H.W.; Kim, Y.-M. Phloroglucinol-Gold and -Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles: Antibiofilm and Antivirulence Activities towards Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1. Mar. Drugs 2021, 19, 601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Tabassum, N.; Jeong, G.-J.; Jo, D.-M.; Khan, F.; Kim, Y.-M. Attenuation of biofilm and virulence factors of Pseudomonas aeruginosa by tetramethylpyrazine-gold nanoparticles. Microb. Pathog. 2024, 191, 106658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Mohanta, Y.K.; Biswas, K.; Jena, S.K.; Hashem, A.; Abd_Allah, E.F.; Mohanta, T.K. Anti-biofilm and Antibacterial Activities of Silver Nanoparticles Synthesized by the Reducing Activity of Phytoconstituents Present in the Indian Medicinal Plants. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Mohammed, H.B.; Rayyif, S.M.I.; Curutiu, C.; Birca, A.C.; Oprea, O.-C.; Grumezescu, A.M.; Ditu, L.-M.; Gheorghe, I.; Chifiriuc, M.C.; Mihaescu, G.; et al. Eugenol-Functionalized Magnetite Nanoparticles Modulate Virulence and Persistence in Pseudomonas aeruginosa Clinical Strains. Molecules 2021, 26, 2189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Das, P.; Ghosh, S.; Nayak, B. Phyto-fabricated Nanoparticles and Their Anti-biofilm Activity: Progress and Current Status. Front. Nanotechnol. 2021, 3, 739286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Nwafor, I.R.; Alhassan, Y.; Udoh, J.I.; Odanibeh, D.; Oyaniyi, J.; Efoli-Bam, V.K.; Azubuike, E.O.; Ojobor, J.-F.C.; Nwokafor, C.V. Plant-derived Bioactive Compounds and Their Mechanistic Roles in Combating Microbial Biofilms. Microbiol. Res. J. Int. 2024, 34, 74–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Damyanova, T.; Dimitrova, P.D.; Borisova, D.; Topouzova-Hristova, T.; Haladjova, E.; Paunova-Krasteva, T. An Overview of Biofilm-Associated Infections and the Role of Phytochemicals and Nanomaterials in Their Control and Prevention. Pharmaceutics 2024, 16, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. 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] [PubMed]
  170. Kothapalli, P.; Vasanthan, M. Lipid-based nanocarriers for enhanced delivery of plant-derived bioactive molecules: A comprehensive review. Ther. Deliv. 2024, 15, 135–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Saadh, M.J.; Mustafa, M.A.; Kumar, S.; Gupta, P.; Pramanik, A.; Rizaev, J.A.; Shareef, H.K.; Alubiady, M.H.S.; Al-Abdeen, S.H.Z.; Shakier, H.G. Advancing therapeutic efficacy: Nanovesicular delivery systems for medicinal plant-based therapeutics. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Arch. Pharmacol. 2024, 397, 7229–7254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Gali, L.; Pirozzi, A.; Donsì, F. Biopolymer-and lipid-based carriers for the delivery of plant-based ingredients. Pharmaceutics 2023, 15, 927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Ranjbar, S.; Emamjomeh, A.; Sharifi, F.; Zarepour, A.; Aghaabbasi, K.; Dehshahri, A.; Sepahvand, A.M.; Zarrabi, A.; Beyzaei, H.; Zahedi, M.M. Lipid-based delivery systems for flavonoids and flavonolignans: Liposomes, nanoemulsions, and solid lipid nanoparticles. Pharmaceutics 2023, 15, 1944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Plaza-Oliver, M.; Santander-Ortega, M.J.; Lozano, M.V. Current approaches in lipid-based nanocarriers for oral drug delivery. Drug Deliv. Transl. Res. 2021, 11, 471–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Jain, V.; Kumar, H.; Chand, P.; Jain, S.; Preethi, S. Lipid-Based Nanocarriers as Drug Delivery System and Its Applications. In Nanopharmaceutical Advanced Delivery Systems; Scrivener Publishing LLC: Beverly, MA, USA, 2021; pp. 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  176. Tang, S.; Davoudi, Z.; Wang, G.; Xu, Z.; Rehman, T.; Prominski, A.; Tian, B.; Bratlie, K.M.; Peng, H.; Wang, Q. Soft materials as biological and artificial membranes. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2021, 50, 12679–12701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Yang, L.; Lin, X.; Zhou, J.; Hou, S.; Fang, Y.; Bi, X.; Yang, L.; Li, L.; Fan, Y. Cell membrane-biomimetic coating via click-mediated liposome fusion for mitigating the foreign-body reaction. Biomaterials 2021, 271, 120768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Preeti; Sambhakar, S.; Malik, R.; Bhatia, S.; Al Harrasi, A.; Rani, C.; Saharan, R.; Kumar, S.; Geeta; Sehrawat, R. Nanoemulsion: An emerging novel technology for improving the bioavailability of drugs. Scientifica 2023, 2023, 6640103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Ameta, R.K.; Soni, K.; Bhattarai, A. Recent advances in improving the bioavailability of hydrophobic/lipophilic drugs and their delivery via self-emulsifying formulations. Colloids Interfaces 2023, 7, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Modi, D.; Jonnalagadda, S.; Campbell, G.A.; Dalwadi, G. Enhancing oil solubility of BCS class II drug phenytoin through hydrophobic ion pairing to enable high drug load in injectable nanoemulsion to prevent precipitation at physiological pH with a potential to prevent phlebitis. J. Pharm. Sci. 2023, 112, 2427–2443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  181. Bettencourt, A.F.; Tomé, C.; Oliveira, T.; Martin, V.; Santos, C.; Gonçalves, L.; Fernandes, M.H.; Gomes, P.S.; Ribeiro, I.A.C. Exploring the potential of chitosan-based particles as delivery-carriers for promising antimicrobial glycolipid biosurfactants. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021, 254, 117433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Pecorini, G.; Ferraro, E.; Puppi, D. Polymeric systems for the controlled release of flavonoids. Pharmaceutics 2023, 15, 628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Gulati, S.; Ansari, N.; Moriya, Y.; Joshi, K.; Prasad, D.; Sajwan, G.; Shukla, S.; Kumar, S.; Varma, R.S. Nanobiopolymers in cancer therapeutics: Advancing targeted drug delivery through sustainable and controlled release mechanisms. J. Mater. Chem. B 2024, 12, 11887–11915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Palani, N.; Vijayakumar, P.; Monisha, P.; Ayyadurai, S.; Rajadesingu, S. Electrospun nanofibers synthesized from polymers incorporated with bioactive compounds for wound healing. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2024, 22, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Rodà, F.; Caraffi, R.; Picciolini, S.; Tosi, G.; Vandelli, M.A.; Ruozi, B.; Bedoni, M.; Ottonelli, I.; Duskey, J.T. Recent advances on surface-modified GBM targeted nanoparticles: Targeting strategies and surface characterization. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 2496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Khalili, L.; Dehghan, G.; Sheibani, N.; Khataee, A. Smart active-targeting of lipid-polymer hybrid nanoparticles for therapeutic applications: Recent advances and challenges. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2022, 213, 166–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Shariati, A.; Chegini, Z.; Ghaznavi-Rad, E.; Zare, E.N.; Hosseini, S.M. PLGA-based nanoplatforms in drug delivery for inhibition and destruction of microbial biofilm. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 926363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Cetin, F.N.; Mignon, A.; Van Vlierberghe, S.; Kolouchova, K. Polymer-and Lipid-Based Nanostructures Serving Wound Healing Applications: A Review. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2025, 14, 2402699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Murugaiyan, J.; Kumar, P.A.; Rao, G.S.; Iskandar, K.; Hawser, S.; Hays, J.P.; Mohsen, Y.; Adukkadukkam, S.; Awuah, W.A.; Jose, R.A.M. Progress in alternative strategies to combat antimicrobial resistance: Focus on antibiotics. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Bordbar-Khiabani, A.; Gasik, M. Smart hydrogels for advanced drug delivery systems. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 3665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  191. Keskin, D. Functional Nanogel Coatings as Antifouling and Antibacterial Surfaces; University of Groningen: Groningen, The Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  192. Khalaf, M.M.; Gouda, M.; Abou Taleb, M.F.; Heakal, F.E.-T.; Abd El-Lateef, H.M. Fabrication of smart nanogel based on carrageenan and green coffee extract as a long-term antifouling agent to improve biofilm prevention in food production. Food Chem. 2024, 461, 140719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Chandrakala, V.; Aruna, V.; Angajala, G. Review on metal nanoparticles as nanocarriers: Current challenges and perspectives in drug delivery systems. Emergent Mater. 2022, 5, 1593–1615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Rabiee, N.; Ahmadi, S.; Akhavan, O.; Luque, R. Silver and gold nanoparticles for antimicrobial purposes against multi-drug resistance bacteria. Materials 2022, 15, 1799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Karami, M.H.; Abdouss, M.; Maleki, B. The state of the art metal nanoparticles in drug delivery systems: A comprehensive review. Nanomed. J. 2024, 11, 222–249. [Google Scholar]
  196. Kotrange, H.; Najda, A.; Bains, A.; Gruszecki, R.; Chawla, P.; Tosif, M.M. Metal and metal oxide nanoparticle as a novel antibiotic carrier for the direct delivery of antibiotics. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 9596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Joseph, T.M.; Kar Mahapatra, D.; Esmaeili, A.; Piszczyk, Ł.; Hasanin, M.S.; Kattali, M.; Haponiuk, J.; Thomas, S. Nanoparticles: Taking a unique position in medicine. Nanomaterials 2023, 13, 574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Alavi, M.; Karimi, N.; Valadbeigi, T. Antibacterial, antibiofilm, antiquorum sensing, antimotility, and antioxidant activities of green fabricated Ag, Cu, TiO2, ZnO, and Fe3O4 NPs via Protoparmeliopsis muralis lichen aqueous extract against multi-drug-resistant bacteria. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 5, 4228–4243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Sarkar, S.; Roy, A.; Mitra, R.; Kundu, S.; Banerjee, P.; Chowdhury, A.A.; Ghosh, S. Escaping the ESKAPE pathogens: A review on antibiofilm potential of nanoparticles. Microb. Pathog. 2024, 194, 106842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Tiwari, A.K.; Pandey, P.C.; Gupta, M.K.; Narayan, R.J. Nano–Bio Interaction and Antibacterial Mechanism of Engineered Metal Nanoparticles: Fundamentals and Current Understanding. J. Clust. Sci. 2025, 36, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Ribeiro, A.I.; Dias, A.M.; Zille, A. Synergistic effects between metal nanoparticles and commercial antimicrobial agents: A review. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2022, 5, 3030–3064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Ahamad Khan, M.; Lone, S.A.; Shahid, M.; Zeyad, M.T.; Syed, A.; Ehtram, A.; Elgorban, A.M.; Verma, M.; Danish, M. Phytogenically synthesized zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnO-NPs) potentially inhibit the bacterial pathogens: In vitro studies. Toxics 2023, 11, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Wahab, S.; Salman, A.; Khan, Z.; Khan, S.; Krishnaraj, C.; Yun, S.-I. Metallic nanoparticles: A promising arsenal against antimicrobial resistance—Unraveling mechanisms and enhancing medication efficacy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 14897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Sengul, A.B.; Asmatulu, E. Toxicity of metal and metal oxide nanoparticles: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2020, 18, 1659–1683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Bharti, S. Harnessing the potential of bimetallic nanoparticles: Exploring a novel approach to address antimicrobial resistance. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2024, 40, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Khan, Y.; Sadia, H.; Ali Shah, S.Z.; Khan, M.N.; Shah, A.A.; Ullah, N.; Ullah, M.F.; Bibi, H.; Bafakeeh, O.T.; Khedher, N.B. Classification, synthetic, and characterization approaches to nanoparticles, and their applications in various fields of nanotechnology: A review. Catalysts 2022, 12, 1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Mohanta, Y.K.; Chakrabartty, I.; Mishra, A.K.; Chopra, H.; Mahanta, S.; Avula, S.K.; Patowary, K.; Ahmed, R.; Mishra, B.; Mohanta, T.K. Nanotechnology in combating biofilm: A smart and promising therapeutic strategy. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 13, 1028086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Bag, N.; Bardhan, S.; Roy, S.; Roy, J.; Mondal, D.; Guo, B.; Das, S. Nanoparticle-mediated stimulus-responsive antibacterial therapy. Biomater. Sci. 2023, 11, 1994–2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Shahbazi, M.; Jäger, H.; Ettelaie, R.; Chen, J.; Kashi, P.A.; Mohammadi, A. Dispersion strategies of nanomaterials in polymeric inks for efficient 3D printing of soft and smart 3D structures: A systematic review. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2024, 333, 103285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Foroohimanjili, F.; Mirzaie, A.; Hamdi, S.M.M.; Noorbazargan, H.; Hedayati Ch, M.; Dolatabadi, A.; Rezaie, H.; Bishak, F.M. Antibacterial, antibiofilm, and antiquorum sensing activities of phytosynthesized silver nanoparticles fabricated from Mespilus germanica extract against multidrug resistance of Klebsiella pneumoniae clinical strains. J. Basic Microbiol. 2020, 60, 216–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Srinivasan, R.; Vigneshwari, L.; Rajavel, T.; Durgadevi, R.; Kannappan, A.; Balamurugan, K.; Pandima Devi, K.; Veera Ravi, A. Biogenic synthesis of silver nanoparticles using Piper betle aqueous extract and evaluation of its anti-quorum sensing and antibiofilm potential against uropathogens with cytotoxic effects: An in vitro and in vivo approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 10538–10554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  212. Qais, F.A.; Shafiq, A.; Ahmad, I.; Husain, F.M.; Khan, R.A.; Hassan, I. Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles using Carum copticum: Assessment of its quorum sensing and biofilm inhibitory potential against gram negative bacterial pathogens. Microb. Pathog. 2020, 144, 104172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  213. Swidan, N.S.; Hashem, Y.A.; Elkhatib, W.F.; Yassien, M.A. Antibiofilm activity of green synthesized silver nanoparticles against biofilm associated enterococcal urinary pathogens. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 3869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Jalal, M.; Ansari, M.A.; Alshamrani, M.; Ali, S.G.; Jamous, Y.F.; Alyahya, S.A.; Alhumaidi, M.S.; Altammar, K.A.; Alsalhi, A.; Khan, H.M. Crinum latifolium mediated biosynthesis of gold nanoparticles and their anticandidal, antibiofilm and antivirulence activity. J. Saudi Chem. Soc. 2023, 27, 101644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Ali, S.G.; Jalal, M.; Ahmad, H.; Umar, K.; Ahmad, A.; Alshammari, M.B.; Khan, H.M. Biosynthesis of gold nanoparticles and its effect against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Molecules 2022, 27, 8685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Qais, F.A.; Ahmad, I.; Altaf, M.; Alotaibi, S.H. Biofabrication of gold nanoparticles using Capsicum annuum extract and its antiquorum sensing and antibiofilm activity against bacterial pathogens. ACS Omega 2021, 6, 16670–16682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Kamli, M.R.; Malik, M.A.; Srivastava, V.; Sabir, J.S.; Mattar, E.H.; Ahmad, A. Biogenic ZnO nanoparticles synthesized from origanum vulgare abrogates quorum sensing and biofilm formation in opportunistic pathogen Chromobacterium violaceum. Pharmaceutics 2021, 13, 1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Husain, F.M.; Qais, F.A.; Ahmad, I.; Hakeem, M.J.; Baig, M.H.; Masood Khan, J.; Al-Shabib, N.A. Biosynthesized zinc oxide nanoparticles disrupt established biofilms of pathogenic bacteria. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Bai, B.; Saranya, S.; Dheepaasri, V.; Muniasamy, S.; Alharbi, N.S.; Selvaraj, B.; Undal, V.S.; Gnanamangai, B.M. Biosynthesized copper oxide nanoparticles (CuO NPs) enhances the anti-biofilm efficacy against K. pneumoniae and S. aureus. J. King Saud. Univ.-Sci. 2022, 34, 102120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Ansari, M.A.; Al Dhneem, H.N.; Ali, S.G.; Jamous, Y.F.; Alomary, M.N.; Atwah, B.; Alhumaidi, M.S.; Hani, U.; Haider, N.; Asiri, S. Facile, polyherbal drug-mediated green synthesis of CuO nanoparticles and their potent biological applications. Green Process. Synth. 2024, 13, 20230174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Alavi, M.; Karimi, N. Ultrasound assisted-phytofabricated Fe3O4 NPs with antioxidant properties and antibacterial effects on growth, biofilm formation, and spreading ability of multidrug resistant bacteria. Artif. Cells Nanomed. Biotechnol. 2019, 47, 2405–2423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Govindan, R.; Chackaravarthi, G.; Ramachandran, G.; Chelliah, C.K.; Muthuchamy, M.; Quero, F.; Mothana, R.A.; Noman, O.M.; Siddiqui, N.A.; Li, W.-J. Effective removal of biofilm formation in Acinetobacter baumannii using chitosan nanoparticles loaded plant essential oils. J. King Saud. Univ.-Sci. 2022, 34, 101845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. El-Naggar, N.E.-A.; Eltarahony, M.; Hafez, E.E.; Bashir, S.I. Green fabrication of chitosan nanoparticles using Lavendula angustifolia, optimization, characterization and in-vitro antibiofilm activity. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 11127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Salem, S.S.; Badawy, M.S.E.; Al-Askar, A.A.; Arishi, A.A.; Elkady, F.M.; Hashem, A.H. Green biosynthesis of selenium nanoparticles using orange peel waste: Characterization, antibacterial and antibiofilm activities against multidrug-resistant bacteria. Life 2022, 12, 893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Alomary, M.N.; Ansari, M.A. Proanthocyanin-capped biogenic TiO2 nanoparticles with enhanced penetration, antibacterial and ROS mediated inhibition of bacteria proliferation and biofilm formation: A comparative approach. Chem.–A Eur. J. 2021, 27, 5817–5829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Younis, I.Y.; El-Hawary, S.S.; Eldahshan, O.A.; Abdel-Aziz, M.M.; Ali, Z.Y. Green synthesis of magnesium nanoparticles mediated from Rosa floribunda charisma extract and its antioxidant, antiaging and antibiofilm activities. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 16868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Uzair, B.; Akhtar, N.; Sajjad, S.; Bano, A.; Fasim, F.; Zafar, N.; Leghari, S.A.K. Targeting microbial biofilms: By Arctium lappa L. synthesised biocompatible CeO2-NPs encapsulated in nano-chitosan. IET Nanobiotechnol. 2020, 14, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Kulshrestha, S.; Qayyum, S.; Khan, A.U. Antibiofilm efficacy of green synthesized graphene oxide-silver nanocomposite using Lagerstroemia speciosa floral extract: A comparative study on inhibition of gram-positive and gram-negative biofilms. Microb. Pathog. 2017, 103, 167–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Valookolaei, F.-S.G.; Sazegar, H.; Rouhi, L. Limonene encapsulated alginate/collagen as antibiofilm drug against Acinetobacter baumannii. BMC Biotechnol. 2024, 24, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Iadnut, A.; Mamoon, K.; Thammasit, P.; Pawichai, S.; Tima, S.; Preechasuth, K.; Kaewkod, T.; Tragoolpua, Y.; Tragoolpua, K. In Vitro Antifungal and Antivirulence Activities of Biologically Synthesized Ethanolic Extract of Propolis-Loaded PLGA Nanoparticles against Candida albicans. Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2019, 2019, 3715481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Radmand, F.; Baseri, M.; Memar, M.Y.; Ebrahimi, A.; Hamishehkar, H.; Asnaashari, S.; Naseri, A.; Kouhsoltani, M. Anti-biofilm and anti-glucosyltransferase effects of nano liposomal plant extracts against Streptococcus mutans. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 27304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  232. Al-Azawi, M.T.; Hadi, S.; Mohammed, C.H. Synthesis of silica nanoparticles via green approach by using hot aqueous extract of Thuja orientalis leaf and their effect on biofilm formation. Iraqi J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 50, 245–255. [Google Scholar]
  233. Dohare, S.; Dubey, S.D.; Kalia, M.; Verma, P.; Pandey, H.; Singh, N.K.; Agarwal, V. Anti-biofilm activity of Eucalyptus globulus oil encapsulated silica nanoparticles against E. coli biofilm. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Res. 2014, 5, 5011. [Google Scholar]
  234. Saleem, S.; Ahmed, B.; Khan, M.S.; Al-Shaeri, M.; Musarrat, J. Inhibition of growth and biofilm formation of clinical bacterial isolates by NiO nanoparticles synthesized from Eucalyptus globulus plants. Microb. Pathog. 2017, 111, 375–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Zhou, J.-W.; Li, P.-L.; Ji, P.-C.; Yin, K.-Y.; Tan, X.-J.; Chen, H.; Xing, X.-D.; Jia, A.-Q. Carbon quantum dots derived from resveratrol enhances anti-virulence activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Surf. Interfaces 2024, 44, 103662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Hamid, L.L.; Hassan, M.H.; Obaid, A.S. Allium sativum extract mediate the biosynthesis of palladium nanoparticles as potential nanodrug for combating multidrug-resistant bacteria and wound healing. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2024, 321, 129507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Sonbol, H.; Ameen, F.; AlYahya, S.; Almansob, A.; Alwakeel, S. Padina boryana mediated green synthesis of crystalline palladium nanoparticles as potential nanodrug against multidrug resistant bacteria and cancer cells. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 5444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Krishnasamy, N.; Ramadoss, R.; Vemuri, S.; Sujai, G.N.S. Optimizing Desmostachya bipinnata-derived platinum nanoparticles for enhanced antibacterial and biofilm reduction. Microb. Pathog. 2024, 196, 107004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Siddique, M.H.; Hayat, S.; Muzammil, S.; Ashraf, A.; Khan, A.M.; Ijaz, M.U.; Khurshid, M.; Afzal, M. Ecofriendly phytosynthesized zirconium oxide nanoparticles as antibiofilm and quorum quenching agents against Acinetobacter baumannii. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 2022, 48, 502–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Suresh, P.; Doss, A.; Selvi, G.A.; Rani, T.K.P. Antibiofilm, antibacterial and antioxidant activity of biofabricated bimetallic (Ag-ZnO) nanoparticles from Elephantopus scaber L. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2024, 14, 20911–20921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Nagarajan, P.; Subramaniyan, V.; Elavarasan, V.; Mohandoss, N.; Subramaniyan, P.; Vijayakumar, S. Biofabricated aluminium oxide nanoparticles derived from Citrus aurantium L.: Antimicrobial, anti-proliferation, and photocatalytic efficiencies. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Mohmand, N.Z.K.; Ullah, H.; Shah, Y.; Ahmad, S.; Hassan, A.; Ali, L.; Rahman, H.U. Exploration of Antibacterial Activity of Plant-Mediated Green Synthesis of Cadmium Sulfide Nanoparticles. Lett. Appl. NanoBioSci. 2024, 13, 74. [Google Scholar]
  243. Umesh, M.; Choudhury, D.D.; Shanmugam, S.; Ganesan, S.; Alsehli, M.; Elfasakhany, A.; Pugazhendhi, A. Eggshells biowaste for hydroxyapatite green synthesis using extract piper betel leaf-Evaluation of antibacterial and antibiofilm activity. Environ. Res. 2021, 200, 111493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. do Nascimento Filho, C.A.; da Silva Jr, F.A.G.; da Costa, M.M.; de Oliveira, H.P. Antibacterial activity of molybdenum disulfide and green silver nanoparticles reduced by tea tree essential oil compounds. Res. Soc. Dev. 2024, 13, e6713545818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Rashmi, B.; Harlapur, S.F.; Gurushantha, K.; Ravikumar, C.; Kumar, M.A.; Santosh, M.; Kumar, V.D.; Kumar, A.N.; Azad, A.K.; Murthy, H.A. Facile green synthesis of lanthanum oxide nanoparticles using Centella Asiatica and Tridax plants: Photocatalytic, electrochemical sensor and antimicrobial studies. Appl. Surf. Sci. Adv. 2022, 7, 100210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Elkady, F.M.; Badr, B.M.; Saied, E.; Hashem, A.H.; Abdel-Maksoud, M.A.; Fatima, S.; Malik, A.; Aufy, M.; Hussein, A.M.; Abdulrahman, M.S. Green Biosynthesis of Bimetallic Copper Oxide-Selenium Nanoparticles Using Leaf Extract of Lagenaria Siceraria: Antibacterial, Anti-Virulence Activities Against Multidrug-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Int. J. Nanomed. 2025, 20, 4705–4727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  247. Mostafa, H.Y.; El-Sayyad, G.S.; Nada, H.G.; Ellethy, R.A.; Zaki, E. Promising antimicrobial and antibiofilm activities of Orobanche aegyptiaca extract-mediated bimetallic silver-selenium nanoparticles synthesis: Effect of UV-exposure, bacterial membrane leakage reaction mechanism, and kinetic study. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2023, 736, 109539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Ameen, F.; Alown, F.; Dawoud, T.; Sharaf, A.; Sakayanathan, P.; Alyahya, S. Versatility of copper-iron bimetallic nanoparticles fabricated using Hibiscus rosa-sinensis flower phytochemicals: Various enzymes inhibition, antibiofilm effect, chromium reduction and dyes removal. Environ. Geochem. Health 2024, 46, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. Mohammed, N.M.S.; Idrees, S.A. Green synthesis of Co-Zn-Ni trimetallic oxide nanoparticles using Cicer Arietinum leaf extract and their antibiofilm activity: Experimental and computational study. Mater. Sci. Eng. B 2024, 310, 117681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Arunachalam, K.; Krishnan, G.P.; Sethuraman, S.; Abraham, S.V.P.I.; Krishnan, S.T.; Venkateswar, A.; Arunkumar, J.; Shi, C.; MubarakAli, D. Exploring possible ways to enhance the potential and use of natural products through nanotechnology in the battle against biofilms of foodborne bacterial pathogens. Pathogens 2023, 12, 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  251. Habeeb Rahuman, H.B.; Dhandapani, R.; Narayanan, S.; Palanivel, V.; Paramasivam, R.; Subbarayalu, R.; Thangavelu, S.; Muthupandian, S. Medicinal plants mediated the green synthesis of silver nanoparticles and their biomedical applications. IET Nanobiotechnol. 2022, 16, 115–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  252. Luzala, M.M.; Muanga, C.K.; Kyana, J.; Safari, J.B.; Zola, E.N.; Mbusa, G.V.; Nuapia, Y.B.; Liesse, J.-M.I.; Nkanga, C.I.; Krause, R.W. A critical review of the antimicrobial and antibiofilm activities of green-synthesized plant-based metallic nanoparticles. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 1841. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  253. Samantaray, A.; Pradhan, D.; Nayak, N.R.; Chawla, S.; Behera, B.; Mohanty, L.; Bisoyi, S.K.; Gandhi, S. Nanoquercetin based nanoformulations for triple negative breast cancer therapy and its role in overcoming drug resistance. Discov. Oncol. 2024, 15, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  254. Bei, D.; Meng, J.; Youan, B.-B.C. Engineering nanomedicines for improved melanoma therapy: Progress and promises. Nanomedicine 2010, 5, 1385–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. Afrasiabi, S.; Partoazar, A. Targeting bacterial biofilm-related genes with nanoparticle-based strategies. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1387114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Sahli, C.; Moya, S.E.; Lomas, J.S.; Gravier-Pelletier, C.; Briandet, R.; Hémadi, M. Recent advances in nanotechnology for eradicating bacterial biofilm. Theranostics 2022, 12, 2383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  257. Varshan, G.A.; Namasivayam, S.K.R. A Critical Review on Sustainable Formulation of Anti-quorum Sensing Compounds Using Nanotechnology Principles Against Candida albicans. BioNanoScience 2025, 15, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Ampomah-Wireko, M.; Luo, C.; Cao, Y.; Wang, H.; Nininahazwe, L.; Wu, C. Chemical probe of AHL modulators on quorum sensing in Gram-Negative Bacteria and as antiproliferative agents: A review. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2021, 226, 113864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  259. Ratha, B.N.; Lahiri, D.; Ray, R.R. Inhibition of Biofilm Formation. In Biofilm-Mediated Diseases: Causes and Controls; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 209–237. [Google Scholar]
  260. Blackman, L.D.; Qu, Y.; Cass, P.; Locock, K.E. Approaches for the inhibition and elimination of microbial biofilms using macromolecular agents. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2021, 50, 1587–1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  261. Banerjee, A.; Chowdhury, P.; Bauri, K.; Saha, B.; De, P. Inhibition and eradication of bacterial biofilm using polymeric materials. Biomater. Sci. 2023, 11, 11–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  262. Zhang, Y.; Cai, P.; Cheng, G.; Zhang, Y. A brief review of phenolic compounds identified from plants: Their extraction, analysis, and biological activity. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2022, 17, 1934578X211069721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  263. Pant, P.; Pandey, S.; Dall’Acqua, S. The influence of environmental conditions on secondary metabolites in medicinal plants: A literature review. Chem. Biodivers. 2021, 18, e2100345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  264. Chaachouay, N.; Zidane, L. Plant-derived natural products: A source for drug discovery and development. Drugs Drug Candidates 2024, 3, 184–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Singh, M.R.; Pradhan, K.; Pradhan, M.; Yadav, K.; Chauhan, N.S.; Dwivedi, S.D.; Singh, D. Lipid-based particulate systems for delivery of plant actives and extracts: Extraction, prospective carriers, and safety issues. In Phytopharmaceuticals and Herbal Drugs; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 83–114. [Google Scholar]
  266. Palit, P.; Mandal, S.C. Climate change, geographical location, and other allied triggering factors modulate the standardization and characterization of traditional medicinal plants: A challenge and prospect for phyto-drug development. In Evidence Based Validation of Traditional Medicines: A Comprehensive Approach; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 359–369. [Google Scholar]
  267. Hurkul, M.M.; Cetinkaya, A.; Yayla, S.; Ozkan, S.A. Advanced sample preparation and chromatographic techniques for analyzing plant-based bioactive chemicals in nutraceuticals. J. Chromatogr. Open 2024, 5, 100131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  268. Zhou, R.; Su, W.H.; Zhang, G.F.; Zhang, Y.N.; Guo, X.R. Relationship between flavonoids and photoprotection in shade-developed Erigeron breviscapus transferred to sunlight. Photosynthetica 2016, 54, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  269. Xu, J.; Yu, Y.; Shi, R.; Xie, G.; Zhu, Y.; Wu, G.; Qin, M. Organ-Specific Metabolic Shifts of Flavonoids in Scutellaria baicalensis at Different Growth and Development Stages. Molecules 2018, 23, 428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  270. Yin, L.; Zhao, C.; Huang, Y.; Yang, R.; Zeng, Q. Abiotic stress-induced expression of artemisinin biosynthesis genes in Artemisia annua L. Chin. J. Appl. Environ. Biol. 2008, 14, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  271. Hosseini, M.S.; Samsampour, D.; Ebrahimi, M.; Abadía, J.; Khanahmadi, M. Effect of drought stress on growth parameters, osmolyte contents, antioxidant enzymes and glycyrrhizin synthesis in licorice (Glycyrrhiza glabra L.) grown in the field. Phytochemistry 2018, 156, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  272. Hong, D.Y.; Lau, A.J.; Yeo, C.L.; Liu, X.K.; Yang, C.R.; Koh, H.L.; Hong, Y. Genetic diversity and variation of saponin contents in Panax notoginseng roots from a single farm. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 8460–8467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  273. Kumar, A.; Nirmal, P.; Kumar, M.; Jose, A.; Tomer, V.; Oz, E.; Proestos, C.; Zeng, M.; Elobeid, T.; Sneha, K.; et al. Major phytochemicals: Recent advances in health benefits and extraction method. Molecules 2023, 28, 887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  274. Da Silva, R.F.; Carneiro, C.N.; de Sousa, C.B.d.C.; Gomez, F.J.; Espino, M.; Boiteux, J.; Fernández, M.d.l.Á.; Silva, M.F.; Dias, F.d.S. Sustainable extraction bioactive compounds procedures in medicinal plants based on the principles of green analytical chemistry: A review. Microchem. J. 2022, 175, 107184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  275. Krakowska-Sieprawska, A.; Kiełbasa, A.; Rafińska, K.; Ligor, M.; Buszewski, B. Modern methods of pre-treatment of plant material for the extraction of bioactive compounds. Molecules 2022, 27, 730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  276. Ong, E.S. Extraction methods and chemical standardization of botanicals and herbal preparations. J. Chromatogr. B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2004, 812, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  277. Govindarajan, R.; Tejas, V.; Pushpangadan, P. High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) as a Tool for Standardization of Complex Herbal Drugs. J. AOAC Int. 2019, 102, 986–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  278. Dahiya, D.; Terpou, A.; Dasenaki, M.; Nigam, P.S. Current status and future prospects of bioactive molecules delivered through sustainable encapsulation techniques for food fortification. Sustain. Food Technol. 2023, 1, 500–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  279. Asiminicesei, D.-M.; Fertu, D.I.; Gavrilescu, M. Impact of heavy metal pollution in the environment on the metabolic profile of medicinal plants and their therapeutic potential. Plants 2024, 13, 913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  280. Sharma, A.; Sharma, S.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, V.; Sharma, A.K. Plant secondary metabolites: An introduction of their chemistry and biological significance with physicochemical aspect. In Plant Secondary Metabolites: Physico-Chemical Properties and Therapeutic Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 1–45. [Google Scholar]
  281. Sanjai, C.; Gaonkar, S.L.; Hakkimane, S.S. Harnessing Nature’s Toolbox: Naturally Derived Bioactive Compounds in Nanotechnology Enhanced Formulations. ACS Omega 2024, 9, 43302–43318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  282. Pateiro, M.; Gómez, B.; Munekata, P.E.; Barba, F.J.; Putnik, P.; Kovačević, D.B.; Lorenzo, J.M. Nanoencapsulation of promising bioactive compounds to improve their absorption, stability, functionality and the appearance of the final food products. Molecules 2021, 26, 1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  283. Kyriakoudi, A.; Spanidi, E.; Mourtzinos, I.; Gardikis, K. Innovative delivery systems loaded with plant bioactive ingredients: Formulation approaches and applications. Plants 2021, 10, 1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  284. Cao, J.; Gao, M.; Wang, J.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Ping, Y.; Liu, J.; Chen, G.; Xu, D.; Huang, X. Construction of nano slow-release systems for antibacterial active substances and its applications: A comprehensive review. Front. Nutr. 2023, 10, 1109204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  285. Jităreanu, A.; Trifan, A.; Vieriu, M.; Caba, I.-C.; Mârțu, I.; Agoroaei, L. Current trends in toxicity assessment of herbal medicines: A narrative review. Processes 2022, 11, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  286. Abdallah, E.M.; Alhatlani, B.Y.; de Paula Menezes, R.; Martins, C.H.G. Back to nature: Medicinal plants as promising sources for antibacterial drugs in the post-antibiotic era. Plants 2023, 12, 3077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  287. Aware, C.B.; Patil, D.N.; Suryawanshi, S.S.; Mali, P.R.; Rane, M.R.; Gurav, R.G.; Jadhav, J.P. Natural bioactive products as promising therapeutics: A review of natural product-based drug development. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2022, 151, 512–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  288. Okaiyeto, K.; Oguntibeju, O.O. African herbal medicines: Adverse effects and cytotoxic potentials with different therapeutic applications. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  289. Unger, P.; Melzig, M.F. Comparative study of the cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of alpha- and Beta-asarone. Sci. Pharm. 2012, 80, 663–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  290. Kukula-Koch, W.; Widelski, J. Alkaloids. In Pharmacognosy; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 163–198. [Google Scholar]
  291. Ibrahim, A.; Khalifa, S.I.; Khafagi, I.; Youssef, D.T.; Khan, S.; Mesbah, M.; Khan, I. Microbial metabolism of biologically active secondary metabolites from Nerium oleander L. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 2008, 56, 1253–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  292. Wasfi, I.A.; Zorob, O.; Al Katheeri, N.A.; Al Awadhi, A.M. A fatal case of oleandrin poisoning. Forensic Sci. Int. 2008, 179, e31–e36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  293. Ugwah-Oguejiofor, C.J.; Okoli, C.O.; Ugwah, M.O.; Umaru, M.L.; Ogbulie, C.S.; Mshelia, H.E.; Umar, M.; Njan, A.A. Acute and sub-acute toxicity of aqueous extract of aerial parts of Caralluma dalzielii N. E. Brown in mice and rats. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  294. Al-Yahya, A.A.; Al-Majed, A.A.; Al-Bekairi, A.M.; Al-Shabanah, O.A.; Qureshi, S. Studies on the reproductive, cytological and biochemical toxicity of Ginkgo biloba in Swiss albino mice. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2006, 107, 222–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  295. Bahmani, M.; Rafieian, M.; Baradaran, A.; Rafieian, S.; Rafieian-Kopaei, M. Nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity evaluation of Crocus sativus stigmas in neonates of nursing mice. J. Nephropathol. 2014, 3, 81–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  296. Ahmad, A.; Imran, M.; Sharma, N. Precision nanotoxicology in drug development: Current trends and challenges in safety and toxicity implications of customized multifunctional nanocarriers for drug-delivery applications. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 2463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  297. Lv, Y.; Li, W.; Liao, W.; Jiang, H.; Liu, Y.; Cao, J.; Lu, W.; Feng, Y. Nano-drug delivery systems based on natural products. Int. J. Nanomed. 2024, 19, 541–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  298. Hossain, C.M.; Gera, M.; Ali, K.A. Current status and challenges of herbal drug development and regulatory aspect: A global perspective. Asian J. Pharm. Clin. Res. 2022, 15, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  299. Oliveira da Silva, L.; Assunção Ferreira, M.R.; Lira Soares, L.A. Nanotechnology Formulations Designed with Herbal Extracts and Their Therapeutic Applications–A Review. Chem. Biodivers. 2023, 20, e202201241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  300. Bonifácio, B.V.; Silva, P.B.; Ramos, M.A.; Negri, K.M.; Bauab, T.M.; Chorilli, M. Nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems and herbal medicines: A review. Int. J. Nanomed. 2014, 9, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  301. Anubhav, A.; Preety, G.; Smriti, O. Application of Nanotechnology for Herbal Medicine Development: A Review. Lett. Drug Des. Discov. 2024, 21, 1325–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  302. Shebley, M.; Sandhu, P.; Emami Riedmaier, A.; Jamei, M.; Narayanan, R.; Patel, A.; Peters, S.A.; Reddy, V.P.; Zheng, M.; de Zwart, L.; et al. Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Model Qualification and Reporting Procedures for Regulatory Submissions: A Consortium Perspective. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2018, 104, 88–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  303. Wadekar, R.; Mandal, S.C.; Patil, K. Intellectual Property Rights, Naturally Derived Bioactive Compounds, and Resource Conservation. In Role of Herbal Medicines: Management of Lifestyle Diseases; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 559–571. [Google Scholar]
  304. Raju, S.; Das, M. Medicinal plants industry in India: Challenges, opportunities and sustainability. Med. Plants—Int. J. Phytomedicines Relat. Ind. 2024, 16, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  305. Kapoor, R.K.; Hafeez, A.; Kumar, S.; Mishra, D.; Gupta, M.K. Intellectual property rights of medicinal products. In Medicinal Biotechnology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2025; pp. 327–341. [Google Scholar]
  306. Klymenko, I. Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing: An Effective International Instrument for Safeguarding the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights or Declarative Rhetoric of Double Standards? UiT Norges Arktiske Universitet: Tromsø, Norway, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  307. Indrayanto, G. Chapter Six-Regulation and standardization of herbal drugs: Current status, limitation, challenge’s and future prospective. In Profiles of Drug Substances, Excipients and Related Methodology; Al-Majed, A.A., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2024; Volume 49, pp. 153–199. [Google Scholar]
  308. Dubale, S.; Usure, R.E.; Mekasha, Y.T.; Hasen, G.; Hafiz, F.; Kebebe, D.; Suleman, S. Traditional herbal medicine legislative and regulatory framework: A cross-sectional quantitative study and archival review perspectives. Front. Pharmacol. 2025, 16, 1475297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  309. Elazzazy, A.M.; Baeshen, M.N.; Alasmi, K.M.; Alqurashi, S.I.; Desouky, S.E.; Khattab, S.M. Where Biology Meets Engineering: Scaling Up Microbial Nutraceuticals to Bridge Nutrition, Therapeutics, and Global Impact. Microorganisms 2025, 13, 566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  310. Saifi, M.; Ashrafi, K.; Qamar, F.; Abdin, M. Regulatory trends in engineering bioactive-phytocompounds. Plant Sci. 2024, 346, 112167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  311. Ayon, N.J. High-throughput screening of natural product and synthetic molecule libraries for antibacterial drug discovery. Metabolites 2023, 13, 625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  312. Balderas, I.; Olivares, J. Omics Technologies and Anti-Infective Drug Discovery. In Frontiers in Anti-Infective Drug Discovery: Volume 10; Bentham Science Publishers: Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, 2024; pp. 74–115. [Google Scholar]
  313. Pandita, D.; Pandita, A.; Wani, S.H.; Abdelmohsen, S.A.; Alyousef, H.A.; Abdelbacki, A.M.; Al-Yafrasi, M.A.; Al-Mana, F.A.; Elansary, H.O. Crosstalk of multi-omics platforms with plants of therapeutic importance. Cells 2021, 10, 1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  314. Focht, P. Bioprospecting and Pathovar Profiling of Plant Pathogenic Bacteria Using Novel High Throughput Technology Platforms; Newcastle University: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  315. Ogidi, O.I.; Emaikwu, N.G. Plant Phenolic Compound Isolation and Its Bioinformatics Approaches to Molecular Mechanisms in Antimicrobial Activities and Resistance. In Computational Approaches in Biotechnology and Bioinformatics; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2024; pp. 188–215. [Google Scholar]
  316. Masucci, M.; Karlsson, C.; Blomqvist, L.; Ernberg, I. Bridging the divide: A review on the implementation of personalized cancer medicine. J. Pers. Med. 2024, 14, 561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  317. Dhoundiyal, S.; Srivastava, S.; Kumar, S.; Singh, G.; Ashique, S.; Pal, R.; Mishra, N.; Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. Radiopharmaceuticals: Navigating the frontier of precision medicine and therapeutic innovation. Eur. J. Med. Res. 2024, 29, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  318. Casotti, M.C.; Meira, D.D.; Zetum, A.S.S.; Campanharo, C.V.; da Silva, D.R.C.; Giacinti, G.M.; da Silva, I.M.; Moura, J.A.D.; Barbosa, K.R.M.; Altoé, L.S.C. Integrating frontiers: A holistic, quantum and evolutionary approach to conquering cancer through systems biology and multidisciplinary synergy. Front. Oncol. 2024, 14, 1419599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  319. Prajapati, V.; Verma, M.; Kumar, G.S.; Patel, J. High-Throughput Preclinical Models and Pharmacoproteomics. In Pharmacoproteomics: Recent Trends and Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 429–468. [Google Scholar]
  320. Aborode, A.T.; Awuah, W.A.; Mikhailova, T.; Abdul-Rahman, T.; Pavlock, S.; Kundu, M.; Yarlagadda, R.; Pustake, M.; Correia, I.F.d.S.; Mehmood, Q. OMICs technologies for natural compounds-based drug development. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2022, 22, 1751–1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  321. Ahmad, M.; Tahir, M.; Hong, Z.; Zia, M.A.; Rafeeq, H.; Ahmad, M.S.; Rehman, S.u.; Sun, J. Plant and marine-derived natural products: Sustainable pathways for future drug discovery and therapeutic development. Front. Pharmacol. 2025, 15, 1497668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  322. Wang, Z.; Yang, B. Methods for Rational Design and Discovery of Multitarget Drugs. In Polypharmacology: Principles and Methodologies; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 781–814. [Google Scholar]
  323. Satrio, R.D.; Fendiyanto, M.H.; Miftahudin, M. Tools and techniques used at global scale through genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics to investigate plant stress responses at the molecular level. In Molecular Dynamics of Plant Stress and Its Management; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 555–607. [Google Scholar]
  324. Saini, P.; Mishra, P. Revolution in Microbial Bioprospecting via the Development of Omics-Based Technologies. In Bioprospecting of Microbial Resources for Agriculture, Environment and Bio-Chemical Industry; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 171–191. [Google Scholar]
  325. Qureshi, R.; Zou, B.; Alam, T.; Wu, J.; Lee, V.H.; Yan, H. Computational methods for the analysis and prediction of egfr-mutated lung cancer drug resistance: Recent advances in drug design, challenges and future prospects. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 2022, 20, 238–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  326. Gupta, R.; Srivastava, D.; Sahu, M.; Tiwari, S.; Ambasta, R.K.; Kumar, P. Artificial intelligence to deep learning: Machine intelligence approach for drug discovery. Mol. Divers. 2021, 25, 1315–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  327. Goonetilleke, E.C.; Huang, X. Targeting Bacterial RNA Polymerase: Harnessing Simulations and Machine Learning to Design Inhibitors for Drug-Resistant Pathogens. Biochemistry 2025, 64, 1169–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  328. Ravichandran, S.K.; Keerthanah, S.; Swarna, S.; Gopinath, R. Innovative Approaches in Combating Antimicrobial Resistance: A Comprehensive Review. Int. J. Pharm. Clin. Res. 2024, 16, 245–254. [Google Scholar]
  329. Olatunji, A.O.; Olaboye, J.A.; Maha, C.C.; Kolawole, T.O.; Abdul, S. Next-Generation strategies to combat antimicrobial resistance: Integrating genomics, CRISPR, and novel therapeutics for effective treatment. Eng. Sci. Technol. J. 2024, 5, 2284–2303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  330. Shukla, V.; Singh, S.; Verma, S.; Verma, S.; Rizvi, A.A.; Abbas, M. Targeting the microbiome to improve human health with the approach of personalized medicine: Latest aspects and current updates. Clin. Nutr. ESPEN 2024, 63, 813–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  331. Kamel, M.; Aleya, S.; Alsubih, M.; Aleya, L. Microbiome dynamics: A paradigm shift in combatting infectious diseases. J. Pers. Med. 2024, 14, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  332. Alghamdi, M.A.; Fallica, A.N.; Virzì, N.; Kesharwani, P.; Pittalà, V.; Greish, K. The promise of nanotechnology in personalized medicine. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  333. Mitchell, M.J.; Billingsley, M.M.; Haley, R.M.; Wechsler, M.E.; Peppas, N.A.; Langer, R. Engineering precision nanoparticles for drug delivery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2021, 20, 101–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  334. Hamdy, N.M.; Basalious, E.B.; El-Sisi, M.G.; Nasr, M.; Kabel, A.M.; Nossier, E.S.; Abadi, A.H. Advancements in current one-size-fits-all therapies compared to future treatment innovations for better improved chemotherapeutic outcomes: A step-toward personalized medicine. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2024, 40, 1943–1961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  335. Carvalho, B.G.; Vit, F.F.; Carvalho, H.F.; Han, S.W.; de la Torre, L.G. Recent advances in co-delivery nanosystems for synergistic action in cancer treatment. J. Mater. Chem. B 2021, 9, 1208–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  336. Shaikh, M.A.J.; Afzal, O.; Kazmi, I.; Alzarea, S.I.; Jafar, M.; Altamimi, A.S.A.; Jakhmola, V.; Anand, K.; Singh, S.K.; Dua, K. Harnessing chitosan-adorned liposomes for enhanced drug delivery in cancer. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 2023, 85, 104619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Stages of microbial biofilm formation and the composition of the biofilm matrix. Reprinted from [33], Copyright © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Figure 1. Stages of microbial biofilm formation and the composition of the biofilm matrix. Reprinted from [33], Copyright © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Antibiotics 14 00555 g001
Figure 2. Transcriptomic analysis revealed a complex quorum sensing (QS) system in P. aeruginosa, involving the two well-studied QS systems (las and rhl), which are crucial for producing virulence factors, antibiotic resistance, and biofilm development. Modified figure from [56] with Copyright © 2004 Elsevier Ltd.
Figure 2. Transcriptomic analysis revealed a complex quorum sensing (QS) system in P. aeruginosa, involving the two well-studied QS systems (las and rhl), which are crucial for producing virulence factors, antibiotic resistance, and biofilm development. Modified figure from [56] with Copyright © 2004 Elsevier Ltd.
Antibiotics 14 00555 g002
Figure 4. Antimicrobial activity of RLs-CSp towards S. aureus. RLs can be adsorbed to the surface of RLs-CSp (A2) when encapsulated onto RLs-CSp (A1), which is another option. Through electrostatic attraction (B1,B2), first, the negatively charged S. aureus membranes are drawn to the positively charged RLs-CSp. RLs are discharged from the RLs-CSp delivery system and penetrate membranes over time, ultimately killing and destroying these cells (B3). The experimental in vitro RLs’ cumulative release profile (C) shows that all chemicals can be released from the RLs-CSp. Reprinted with permission [181], Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd.
Figure 4. Antimicrobial activity of RLs-CSp towards S. aureus. RLs can be adsorbed to the surface of RLs-CSp (A2) when encapsulated onto RLs-CSp (A1), which is another option. Through electrostatic attraction (B1,B2), first, the negatively charged S. aureus membranes are drawn to the positively charged RLs-CSp. RLs are discharged from the RLs-CSp delivery system and penetrate membranes over time, ultimately killing and destroying these cells (B3). The experimental in vitro RLs’ cumulative release profile (C) shows that all chemicals can be released from the RLs-CSp. Reprinted with permission [181], Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd.
Antibiotics 14 00555 g004
Figure 5. Antibiofilm inhibition role of the smart nanogel carrageenan nanogels (CAR NGs) based on carrageenan and green coffee extract against (a) E. coli, (b) S. enterica, (c) S. aureus, and (d) L. monocytogenes on the surface of the stainless steel. Reprinted with permission from [192], Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd.
Figure 5. Antibiofilm inhibition role of the smart nanogel carrageenan nanogels (CAR NGs) based on carrageenan and green coffee extract against (a) E. coli, (b) S. enterica, (c) S. aureus, and (d) L. monocytogenes on the surface of the stainless steel. Reprinted with permission from [192], Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd.
Antibiotics 14 00555 g005
Figure 6. Metallic nanoparticles (MNPs) have antibiofilm and antivirulence properties.
Figure 6. Metallic nanoparticles (MNPs) have antibiofilm and antivirulence properties.
Antibiotics 14 00555 g006
Table 2. Medicinal plant-bioinspired nanomaterials in controlling biofilm and virulence properties.
Table 2. Medicinal plant-bioinspired nanomaterials in controlling biofilm and virulence properties.
Name of NanoparticlesPlants and Their Parts Used for NP SynthesisBiofilm Inhibitory Concentration
(µg/mL)
Mechanisms of ActionTarget MicroorganismsReferences
Silver NPs
(AgNPs)
Mespilus germanica extract (phytosynthesis)1.95–100 (MIC values ranged from 6.25 to 100)Disrupts bacterial membrane, produces reactive oxygen species (ROS), downregulates biofilm (mrkA) and quorum sensing (luxS) genes.Klebsiella pneumoniae[210]
Leaf extracts of Semecarpus anacardium, Glochidion lanceolarium, and Bridelia retusa10–100Inhibits exopolysaccharide (EPS) production, interferes with bacterial adhesion, disrupts biofilm matrix formation.Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus[164]
Piper betle aqueous extract3–10Inhibits EPS production, reduces hydrophobicity, inhibits quorum sensing-regulated virulence factors (prodigiosin, protease), downregulates biofilm and motility genes (fimA, fimC, flhD, bsmB, flhB, rsbA).Serratia marcescens, Proteus mirabilis[211]
Carum copticum aqueous extract-Inhibits quorum sensing-controlled virulence factors (violacein, pyocyanin, pyoverdin, protease, elastase, rhamnolipids, prodigiosin), disrupts swimming and swarming motility, inhibits EPS production and biofilm formation.Chromobacterium violaceum, P. aeruginosa, S. marcescens[212]
Zingiber officinale (ginger) and Cinnamomum cassia (cinnamon)Ginger:
15.6–62.5
Cinnamon:
156–1250
Inhibits bacterial adhesion, disrupts biofilm matrix (EPS inhibition), reduces adherent cells on catheter surfaces, with ginger AgNPs also damaging intermolecular forces in biofilms.Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium[213]
Gold NPs
(AuNPs)
Aqueous extract of Crinum latifolium leaves6.25–50Inhibits germ tube formation, suppresses biofilm matrix production, reduces secretion of hydrolytic enzymes (phospholipase, proteinase, esterase, lipase, hemolysin), disrupts cell wall and membrane integrity.Candida spp.[214]
Aqueous stem extract of Tinospora cordifolia1000–1800Inhibits pyocyanin production, reduces swarming and swimming motility, inhibits biofilm formation, reduces EPS secretion.P. aeruginosa PAO1[215]
Aqueous extract of Capsicum annuum25–200Inhibits quorum sensing-mediated virulence factors (pyocyanin, pyoverdin, protease, elastase, rhamnolipid), reduces swimming motility, inhibits EPS production, disrupts biofilm matrix.P. aeruginosa PAO1, Serratia marcescens MTCC 97[216]
Zinc oxide NPs
(ZnO NPs)
Aqueous extract of Origanum vulgare leaves2–8Inhibits quorum sensing (violacein pigment), downregulates QS genes (cviL, vioA, vioB, vioD, vioE), inhibits EPS production, disrupts biofilm formation.Chromobacterium violaceum ATCC12472[217]
Aqueous leaf extract of Cassia siamea0.5–20Inhibits quorum sensing (reduces pyocyanin, pyoverdine, exoprotease, elastase, rhamnolipid), impairs EPS production, inhibits swimming motility, reduces violacein production, disrupts biofilm matrix.P. aeruginosa PAO1, C. violaceum MCC2290[202]
Aqueous root extract of Plumbago zeylanica200–400Inhibits EPS production, disrupts bacterial adhesion, alters biofilm architecture, and eradicates established biofilms.E. coli, P. aeruginosa, S. aureus[218]
Copper Oxide NPs (CuO NPs)Aqueous leaf extract of Moringa oleifera1000Disrupts biofilm matrix, reduces EPS production, inhibits quorum sensing-regulated virulence factors, causes membrane damage and cell lysis.Klebsiella pneumoniae, S. aureus, Acinetobacter baumannii[219]
Polyherbal drug (Septilin) containing plant extracts1–2.5Inhibits biofilm formation, disrupts cell morphology, reduces EPS production, induces membrane damage.P. aeruginosa, MRSA (S. aureus), C. albicans, E. coli[220]
Iron Oxide NPs (Fe₃O₄ NPs)Ultrasound-assisted synthesis using aqueous leaf extract of Artemisia haussknechtii12.5–50Inhibits biofilm formation, reduces EPS secretion, disrupts biofilm architecture, decreases bacterial spreading ability.MRSA (S. aureus), E. coli, S. marcescens[221]
Chitosan NPsEncapsulation of plant essential oils into chitosan nanoparticles25–150Inhibits EPS production, disrupts biofilm matrix, reduces metabolic activity, damages internal and external bacterial structures.A. baumannii[222]
Lavandula angustifolia (lavender) leaf extract10–1500Disrupts EPS production, reduces biofilm biomass and metabolic activity, alters biofilm morphology, decreases viability of biofilm-embedded cells.P. aeruginosa, S. aureus, C. albicans[223]
Selenium NPs (SeNPs)Orange peel waste extractMIC: 62.5–250Inhibits biofilm formation, reduces biofilm biomass, disrupts surface adhesion of biofilm-forming cells.P. aeruginosa PAO1, K. pneumoniae, E. coli, S. aureus[224]
Titanium Dioxide NPs (TiO₂ NPs)Grape seed extract rich in proanthocyanidins-Enhances intracellular uptake, induces intracellular ROS generation, inhibits planktonic cell proliferation, disrupts biofilm formation and biofilm matrix penetration.P. aeruginosa, S. saprophyticus[225]
Magnesium Oxide NPs (MgO NPs)Flower extract of Rosa floribunda charisma7.81–31.25Disrupts biofilm formation, reduces bacterial growth, generates oxidative stress, inhibits bacterial membrane integrity.S. epidermidis, Streptococcus pyogenes, P. aeruginosa[226]
Cerium Oxide NPs (CeO₂ NPs)Arctium lappa (burdock root) aqueous extract, encapsulated in nano-chitosan via sol–gel method10–18Inhibits biofilm formation by disrupting EPS production, induces oxidative stress (ROS generation), disrupts bacterial membrane integrity, reduces bacterial viability.S. aureus, P. aeruginosa[227]
Graphene Oxide–silver NPs (GO-Ag NPs)Floral extract of Lagerstroemia speciosa (Banaba flower)47–94Inhibits biofilm formation, reduces EPS production, induces ROS generation, disrupts cell membrane integrity, downregulates biofilm-associated genes (vicR, spaP, comDE).S. mutans, Enterobacter cloacae[228]
Limonene-loaded alginate/collagen nanoparticles (LAC)Encapsulation of limonene into alginate/collagen nanoparticles0.781–1.56Reduces biofilm formation by inhibiting OmpA and Bap biofilm gene expression, disrupts biofilm matrix integrity, and enhances ROS generation.A. baumannii[229]
PLGA NPsEncapsulation of ethanolic extract of propolis (EEP) into poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) nanoparticles via oil-in-water emulsion solvent evaporation method1.25–2.5Reduces adhesion, hyphal germination, and biofilm formation; downregulates virulence genes (ALS3, HWP1).C. albicans[230]
Liposomal NPsEncapsulation of aqueous extract of Punica granatum into phospholipid-based nanoliposomes2–2048Inhibits biofilm formation, suppresses glucosyltransferase (GTF) activity, and reduces glucan production.S. mutans[231]
Silica NPs (SiO₂ NPs)Hot aqueous leaf extract of Thuja orientalis-Inhibits biofilm, disrupts bacterial adhesion, interaction with bacterial DNA, and membrane.S. aureus, E. coli[232]
Silica nanoparticles (SNPs) loaded with Eucalyptus globulus oilSynthesis of silica nanoparticles using the sol–gel method; eucalyptus oil encapsulated into SNPs50Inhibits biofilm formation by disrupting biofilm matrix, enhances oil penetration into biofilm, yet no direct virulence gene or quorum sensing suppression has been studied.E. coli ATCC 25922[233]
Nickel Oxide NPs (NiO NPs)Eucalyptus globulus leaf extract0.8–1.6Inhibits biofilm formation, increases cell membrane permeability, disrupts cell morphology, generates ROS, damages DNA and proteins.P. aeruginosa, E. coli, S. aureus[234]
Carbon Quantum Dots (CQDs)CQDs are synthesized from resveratrol (a phenolic compound from fruits)100Inhibits chemotaxis, biofilm formation, elastase, pyocyanin, rhamnolipid production; disrupts the pqs quorum sensing system (downregulates virulence genes, reduces PQS signaling).P. aeruginosa PAO1[235]
Palladium NPs (PdNPs)Aqueous extract of Allium sativum (garlic)3.125–50Disrupts bacterial membrane integrity, inhibits biofilm formation, enhances antibiotic efficacy, promotes wound healing in vivo.S. aureus, P. aeruginosa[236]
Padina boryana extract31.25–125Induces ROS generation, disrupts membrane integrity, inhibits biofilm formation, reduces CFU counts.S. aureus, E. fergusonii, A. pittii, P. aeruginosa, A. enteropelogenes, Proteus mirabilis[237]
Platinum NPs (PtNPs)Aqueous extract of Desmostachya bipinnata-Disrupts biofilm matrix, inhibits bacterial adhesion, reduces plaque formation, exerts strong antibacterial activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria.S. aureus, E. coli[238]
Zirconium Oxide NPs (ZrO2 NPs)Aqueous ginger (Zingiber officinale) extract5000–50,000Disrupts membrane integrity (leakage of proteins, DNA, sugars), induces ROS generation, inhibits biofilm formation and quorum quenching via interaction with biofilm-associated proteins.A. baumannii[239]
Ag-ZnO NPsAqueous leaf extract of Elephantopus scaber0.125Disrupts bacterial growth and inhibits biofilm formation; antioxidant properties also confirmed, with possible ROS-mediated mechanism inferred.S. aureus, Bacillus subtilis[240]
Aluminum Oxide NPs (Al₂O₃ NPs)Citrus aurantium (bitter orange) peel extract-Antimicrobial action disrupts microbial growth; antioxidant and anti-proliferative activities noted.P. aeruginosa, S. aureus, S. epidermidis, Klebsiella pneumoniae, C. albicans, A. niger[241]
Cadmium Sulfide NPs (CdS NPs)Green synthesis using Coronopus didymus ethanolic extract30,000–50,000Disrupts bacterial membranes; ROS generation leading to DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis inhibition; cell lysis through interaction with thiol groups.E. coli, K. pneumoniae, S. aureus[242]
Piper betel leaf extract-coated hydroxyapatite nanoparticles (PBL-HAp)Using hydroxyapatite (HAp) derived from eggshells, coated with Piper betel leaf extract using the microwave conversion method-Inhibits bacterial growth, inhibits biofilm formation, disrupts biofilm matrix integrity.S. aureus, E. coli, V. harveyi, P. aeruginosa[243]
AgNPs combined with molybdenum disulfide (AgNPs/MoS₂ Nanocomposite)Tea tree essential oil (Melaleuca alternifolia); combined with exfoliated molybdenum disulfide nanosheets (MoS₂)-Disrupts bacterial membranes, induces DNA leakage, generates ROS, inhibits biofilm formation (99%).S. aureus, E. coli[244]
Lanthanum Oxide NPs (La₂O₃ NPs)Combustion synthesis using Centella asiatica and Tridax plant leaf powders50,000–100,000Antibacterial action via cell membrane damage, moderate antifungal activity, photocatalytic ROS generation.S. aureus, E. coli, C. albicans, A. fumigatus[245]
CuO-Se Bimetallic NPsLagenaria siceraria leaf extract7.8–250Disrupts membrane and ROS generation; inhibits pyocyanin, protease, and pyoverdine production; inhibits biofilm formation via quorum sensing interference.P. aeruginosa[246]
Ag-Se Bimetallic NPsOrobanche aegyptiaca extract with guar gum stabilizer1000Disrupts bacterial and fungal membranes, causes leakage of cytoplasmic content, inhibits biofilm formation, enhances ROS-mediated killing under UV exposure.S. aureus, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, C. albicans[247]
Cu-Fe Bimetallic NPsHibiscus rosa-sinensis flower extract100Disrupts biofilm network structure, induces bacterial cell death, inhibits biofilm formation.S. mutans[248]
Co-Zn-Ni Trimetallic Oxide NPsCicer arietinum leaf extract-Inhibits biofilm formation and binds to DNA Gyrase and surface protein G, suggesting anti-replication and anti-adhesion virulence inhibition.S. aureus[249]
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

Mulat, M.; Banicod, R.J.S.; Tabassum, N.; Javaid, A.; Karthikeyan, A.; Jeong, G.-J.; Kim, Y.-M.; Jung, W.-K.; Khan, F. Multiple Strategies for the Application of Medicinal Plant-Derived Bioactive Compounds in Controlling Microbial Biofilm and Virulence Properties. Antibiotics 2025, 14, 555. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics14060555

AMA Style

Mulat M, Banicod RJS, Tabassum N, Javaid A, Karthikeyan A, Jeong G-J, Kim Y-M, Jung W-K, Khan F. Multiple Strategies for the Application of Medicinal Plant-Derived Bioactive Compounds in Controlling Microbial Biofilm and Virulence Properties. Antibiotics. 2025; 14(6):555. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics14060555

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mulat, Mulugeta, Riza Jane S. Banicod, Nazia Tabassum, Aqib Javaid, Abirami Karthikeyan, Geum-Jae Jeong, Young-Mog Kim, Won-Kyo Jung, and Fazlurrahman Khan. 2025. "Multiple Strategies for the Application of Medicinal Plant-Derived Bioactive Compounds in Controlling Microbial Biofilm and Virulence Properties" Antibiotics 14, no. 6: 555. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics14060555

APA Style

Mulat, M., Banicod, R. J. S., Tabassum, N., Javaid, A., Karthikeyan, A., Jeong, G.-J., Kim, Y.-M., Jung, W.-K., & Khan, F. (2025). Multiple Strategies for the Application of Medicinal Plant-Derived Bioactive Compounds in Controlling Microbial Biofilm and Virulence Properties. Antibiotics, 14(6), 555. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics14060555

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