Review highlights natural compounds reducing bacterial virulence pathways in UTIs, suggesting new treatment options.
Introduction: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are one of the most common infectious diseases in the world. Widespread antibiotic use promotes antimicrobial resistance, recurrent infections, and microbiome dysbiosis, highlighting the need for sustainable UTI treatments. This review offers a comprehensive mechanistic assessment of plant-, microbial-, animal-, and marine-derived bioactive focusing on the most important virulence pathways in UTIs involving bacterial adhesion, intracellular colonization, quorum sensing, and biofilm formation, rather than on antibiotic resistance or plant remedies. Methods: Research articles and evaluated publications from significant scientific databases were used to create a review article. A literature search of the epidemiology of UTI, bacterial virulence factors (such as adhesion, invasion, biofilm formation, and antibiotic resistance), and the anti-UTI effects of natural products was conducted and compiled. Results: Pathogenesis of UTI involves bacterial adhesion, intravesical colonization, and biofilm formation that contributes to persistence and antibiotic resistance. Natural products derived from plants, microbes, animals, and marine organisms are active against several virulence pathways and seem to have less potential for resistance, making them promising anti-UTI compounds. Discussion: This study examines plant, microbial, animal, and marine natural compounds that target bacterial adhesion, biofilm development, and pathogenicity in UTIs. However, there is a lack of standardization, bioavailability issues, and clinical data, all of which call for more translational and clinical studies. Conclusion: Natural products are promising complementary or alternative treatments of UTI, which may be less toxic. But there is a need for robust preclinical and clinical research to establish their safety, efficacy, and translational applicability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kumari et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: