ReviewMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Recent Progress in Terrestrial Biota Derived Antibacterial Agents for Medical Applications.
Review in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deciphering microbial biofilm: mechanism, infection, and advanced approaches for control.Folia microbiologica · 2026Review
- Green synthesis of Rhodobryum roseum-mediated ZnO nanoparticles: a multifunctional evaluation of biomedical activities and agricultural applications.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Biosurfactants as Antibiofilm Agents for Medical Devices: Mechanisms, Evidence and Integration into Infection Prevention and Control.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Probiotics: multifunctional microorganisms for human health and biotechnological applications.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Phenotypic high-content screening identifies plant-derived extracts targeting microbial growth, biofilms and swarming activity.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Recent Progress in Terrestrial Biota Derived Antibacterial Agents for Medical Applications.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Conventional antibiotic and multidrug treatments are becoming less and less effective and the discovery of new effective and safe antibacterial agents is becoming a global priority. Returning to a natural antibacterial product is a relatively new current trend. Terrestrial biota is a rich source of biologically active substances whose antibacterial potential has not been fully utilized. The aim of this review is to present the current state-of-the-art terrestrial biota-derived antibacterial agents inspired by natural treatments. It summarizes the most important sources and newly identified or modified antibacterial agents and treatments from the last five years. It focuses on the significance of plant- animal- and bacteria-derived biologically active agents as powerful alternatives to antibiotics, as well as the advantages of utilizing natural antibacterial molecules alone or in combination with antibiotics. The main conclusion is that terrestrial biota-derived antibacterial products and substances open a variety of new ways for modern improved therapeutic strategies. New terrestrial sources of known antibacterial agents and new antibacterial agents from terrestrial biota were discovered during the last 5 years, which are under investigation together with some long-ago known but now experiencing their renaissance for the development of new medical treatments. The use of natural antibacterial peptides as well as combinational therapy by commercial antibiotics and natural products is outlined as the most promising method for treating bacterial infections. In vivo testing and clinical trials are necessary to reach clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.