Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41461973›Full record

ReviewCurrent microbiology2025

Natural Anti-Biofilm Agents: A Comprehensive Review and Future Perspectives.

Sivakamavalli Jeyachandran, Sasikala Sekar

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sivakamavalli JeyachandranLab in Biotechnology & Biosignal Transduction, Department of Orthodontics, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Saveetha Dental College & Hospitals, Saveetha University, Chennai, 600077, India. sivakamavalli.sdc@saveetha.com.
Sasikala SekarDepartment of Food and Nutrition, Queens Mary College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biofilms, complex microbial communities embedded in extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), pose significant challenges across medical, industrial and environmental sectors due to their enhanced resistance to antibiotics and chemical agents. Traditional treatments often fail to combat biofilm-associated infections, leading to increased healthcare costs and mortality rates. This comprehensive review explores the potential of natural anti-biofilm agents derived from plants, microorganisms, marine organisms and other natural sources as alternative strategies. Plant-derived compounds, microbial products and marine bioactive substances exhibit promising anti-biofilm properties through various mechanisms, including inhibition of microbial adhesion, quorum sensing (QS) interference and EPS disruption. The review highlights the efficacy of these agents in both in vitro and in vivo studies and discusses their potential applications in industries such as medicine, food processing and water treatment. Despite the promising results, challenges such as standardization, biocompatibility and environmental impact remain. Future research should focus on optimizing these natural agents and exploring synergistic combinations to enhance their efficacy. This review underscores the importance of sustainable and interdisciplinary approaches in developing effective, eco-friendly anti-biofilm strategies for diverse applications.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBiofilmsBiological ProductsAnimalsAquatic OrganismsBacteriaBacterial AdhesionExtracellular Polymeric Substance MatrixHumansQuorum SensingAnti-Bacterial AgentsBiological ProductsAnti-biofilm agentsBiofilmsMarine natural productsMicrobial biofilm disruptionNatural compoundsPlant-derived compounds

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.