The research, published in the journal ACS Nano, describes the new compound which kills gram-negative E. coli, including a multidrug resistant pathogen said to be responsible for millions of antibiotic resistant infections worldwide annually.
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
AI detects new class of genetic mutations behind autism
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
Artificial blood made from stem cells
Artificial blood made from stem cells could save thousands of lives, Do you have anything to say? Researches claimed that this blood is more efficient for medical use than blood collected from donors. Patients with rare blood types will benefit the most.
Drug compound to kill antibiotic resistant superbugs found
Drug compound to kill antibiotic resistant superbugs found
Researchers
have discovered a new drug compound which kills antibiotic resistant
gram-negative bacteria that can cause infections including pneumonia,
...
Drug compound to kill antibiotic resistant superbugs found
IANS |
London
Last Updated at May 28, 2019 19:50 IST
2
The research, published in the journal ACS Nano, describes the new compound which kills gram-negative E. coli, including a multidrug resistant pathogen said to be responsible for millions of antibiotic resistant infections worldwide annually.
"This breakthrough could lead to vital new treatments to life-threatening superbugs and the growing risk posed by antimicrobial resistance," Thomas added.
The studies at Sheffield and RAL have shown the compound seems to have several modes of action, making it more difficult for resistance to emerge in the bacteria.
In a recent report on antimicrobial resistant pathogens, the World Health Organisation put several gram-negative bacteria at the top of its list, stating that new treatments for these bacteria were "Priority 1 Critical" because they cause infections with high death rates, are rapidly becoming resistant to all present treatments and are often picked up in hospitals.
The next step of the research will be to test it against other multi-resistant bacteria.
--IANS
gb/bg
(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Fully Zwitterionic Nanoparticle Antimicrobial ... - ACS Publications
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.6b04207
Engineered Polymer Nanoparticles with Unprecedented Antimicrobial Efficacy and Therapeutic Indices against Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria and Biofilms.
by PV Baptista - 2018 - Cited by 17 - Related articles
may circumvent drug resistance
mechanisms in bacteria and, associated with ... However, the use of
nanoparticles still presents a challenge to therapy and much ...... This
article was submitted to Antimicrobials, Resistance and Chemotherapy, a
section of the journal Frontiers in Microbiology .... ACS Nano 9, 9097–9105.
Front Microbiol. 2018; 9: 1441.
Published online 2018 Jul 2. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01441
PMCID: PMC6036605
PMID: 30013539
Nano-Strategies to Fight Multidrug Resistant Bacteria—“A Battle of the Titans”
Pedro V. Baptista,1,* Matthew P. McCusker,2,† Andreia Carvalho,1 Daniela A. Ferreira,3 Niamh M. Mohan,3,4 Marta Martins,3,* and Alexandra R. Fernandes1,*
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Abstract
Infectious
diseases remain one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality
worldwide. The WHO and CDC have expressed serious concern regarding the
continued increase in the development of multidrug resistance among
bacteria. Therefore, the antibiotic resistance crisis is one of the most
pressing issues in global public health. Associated with the rise in
antibiotic resistance is the lack of new antimicrobials. This has
triggered initiatives worldwide to develop novel and more effective
antimicrobial compounds as well as to develop novel delivery and
targeting strategies. Bacteria have developed many ways by which they
become resistant to antimicrobials. Among those are enzyme inactivation,
decreased cell permeability, target protection, target overproduction,
altered target site/enzyme, increased efflux due to over-expression of
efflux pumps, among others. Other more complex phenotypes, such as
biofilm formation and quorum sensing do not appear as a result of the
exposure of bacteria to antibiotics although, it is known that biofilm
formation can be induced by antibiotics. These phenotypes are related to
tolerance to antibiotics in bacteria. Different strategies, such as the
use of nanostructured materials, are being developed to overcome these
and other types of resistance. Nanostructured materials can be used to
convey antimicrobials, to assist in the delivery of novel drugs or
ultimately, possess antimicrobial activity by themselves. Additionally,
nanoparticles (e.g., metallic, organic, carbon nanotubes, etc.) may
circumvent drug resistance mechanisms in bacteria and, associated with
their antimicrobial potential, inhibit biofilm formation or other
important processes. Other strategies, including the combined use of
plant-based antimicrobials and nanoparticles to overcome toxicity
issues, are also being investigated. Coupling nanoparticles and
natural-based antimicrobials (or other repurposed compounds) to inhibit
the activity of bacterial efflux pumps; formation of biofilms;
interference of quorum sensing; and possibly plasmid curing, are just
some of the strategies to combat multidrug resistant bacteria. However,
the use of nanoparticles still presents a challenge to therapy and much
more research is needed in order to overcome this. In this review, we
will summarize the current research on nanoparticles and other
nanomaterials and how these are or can be applied in the future to fight
multidrug resistant bacteria.
Keywords: antimicrobial
resistance, multidrug resistance, nanomaterials, nanoparticles,
plant-based compounds, novel antimicrobial agents, nanotheranostics
Introduction
Multidrug
resistant (MDR) bacteria remain the greatest challenge in public health
care. The numbers of infections produced by such resistant strains are
increasing globally. This acquired resistance of pathogens presents a
key challenge for many antimicrobial drugs. Recent advances in
nanotechnology offer new prospects to develop novel formulations based
on distinct types of nanoparticles (NPs) with different sizes and shapes
and flexible antimicrobial properties.
NPs may offer a
promising solution as they can not only combat bacteria themselves but
can also act as carriers for antibiotics and natural antimicrobial
compounds (Wang et al., 2017a).
While various materials have been explored from liposomal to polymer
based nano-drug carriers, metallic vectors, such as gold NPs, are
attractive as core materials due to their essentially inert and nontoxic
nature (Burygin et al., 2009).
Arguably the most attractive aspect of NPs drug delivery systems is
their ability to introduce a wide range of therapeutics, either bound to
their large surface area or contained within the structure, to the site
of infection effectively and safely by having a controlled rate of
targeted delivery (Pissuwan et al., 2011; Gholipourmalekabadi et al., 2017).
By improving the pharmacokinetic profile and therapeutic index of
encapsulated drugs compared to free drug equivalents, the dose required
to achieve clinical effects can be dramatically decreased (Gao et al., 2018).
This in turn, can reduce the toxicity and the adverse side effects
associated with high systemic drug concentrations and frequent dosing
(Liu et al., 2009).
This
review covers the latest approaches in the development of new
nanobiotechnology approaches that may challenge the medical practice to
fight bacteria and particularly MDR bacteria.
Nanomaterials against bacteria
Nanomaterials
have at least one dimension in the nanometer scale range (1–100 nm)
that convey particular physical and chemical properties considerably
different from those of bulk materials (Wang et al., 2017a).
Among the wide range of nanomaterials, particular interest has been
directed toward NPs. NPs have a number of features, which make them
favorable as vectors for drugs to combat disease-causing pathogens.
These include their enhancement of drug solubility and stability (Huh
and Kwon, 2011); their ease of synthesis (Gholipourmalekabadi et al., 2017);
their biocompatibility with target agents; and their modulated release,
which can be controlled by stimuli, such as light, pH and heat (Wang Z.
et al., 2017).
Their distinctive functionality in drug delivery is achieved by their
ultra-small size and vast surface to volume ratios. This is a key
competitive advantage over conventional therapies in the treatment of
infections caused by intracellular pathogens and MDR strains. Their
functionalization with different (bio)molecules is another important
feature. These comprise NPs containing Ag, Au, Al, Cu, Ce, Cd, Mg, Ni,
Se, Pd, Ti, Zn, and super-paramagnetic Fe (Hemeg, 2017; Slavin et al., 2017).
AgNPs are considered the most effective nanomaterial against bacteria
but other metallic NPs, such as CuONPs, TiONPs, AuNPs, and Fe3O2NPs, have also demonstrated bactericidal effects (Dakal et al., 2016; Hemeg, 2017; Slavin et al., 2017).
While poor membrane transport limits the potency of many antibiotics (Andrade et al., 2013), drug loaded NPs vehicles can enter host cells via endocytosis, facilitating their intracellular entry (Wang Z. et al., 2017).
Membrane penetration can also be achieved through interactions with
surface lipids, for example, using gold NPs in the co-administration of
protein-based drugs (Huang et al., 2010).
The therapeutic appeal of NPs is enhanced by their ability to confer
physical protection against bacterial resistance mechanisms (Huh and
Kwon, 2011).
Furthermore, the potential to load multiple drug combinations into NPs
presents a highly complex antimicrobial mechanism of action, to which,
bacteria are unlikely to develop resistance (Huh and Kwon, 2011).
Although, this is usually believed to be the case, there are some
studies reporting development of bacterial resistance against silver NPs
(Panáček et al., 2018).
There is also evidence that exposure of bacteria to this type of NPs
may increase its antibiotic tolerance (Kaweeteerawat et al., 2017).
NPs can exert their antibacterial activity via
a multitude of mechanisms, such as: (1) direct interaction with the
bacterial cell wall; (2) inhibition of biofilm formation; (3) triggering
of innate as well as adaptive host immune responses; (4) generation of
reactive oxygen species (ROS); and (5) induction of intracellular
effects (e.g., interactions with DNA and/or proteins). Because
they do not present the same mechanisms of action of standard
antibiotics (Figure (Figure1),1), they can be of extreme use against MDR bacteria (Singh K. et al., 2014; Aderibigbe, 2017; AlMatar et al., 2017; Hemeg, 2017; Natan and Banin, 2017; Rai et al., 2017; Slavin et al., 2017; Zaidi et al., 2017; Bassegoda et al., 2018; Katva et al., 2018; Siddiqi et al., 2018).
Besides
the broad-spectrum antibacterial properties that NPs have against
Gram-positive and -negative bacteria, NPs have been used as vectors for
the delivery of antimicrobial moieties that greatly improve their
biocidal properties (Beyth et al., 2015; Rai A. et al., 2016; Singh J. et al., 2016; Esmaeillou et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017a; Zaidi et al., 2017; Hadiya et al., 2018).
Some of the advantages of using NPs as vectors are due to their small
and controllable size; their protective action against enzymes that
would otherwise destroy antimicrobial compounds; their ability to
actively deliver antibiotics; and their capability to combine several
therapeutic modalities onto a single nanomaterial (e.g.,
several antibiotics/compounds onto the same NPs for combined action;
combining silencing agents and drugs, etc.) (Turos et al., 2007; Huh and Kwon, 2011; Mohammed Fayaz et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2013; Qi et al., 2013; Li et al., 2014; Ranghar et al., 2014; Thomas et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014; Payne et al., 2016; Rai A. et al., 2016; Singh J. et al., 2016; Yeom et al., 2016; Esmaeillou et al., 2017; Zaidi et al., 2017; Zong et al., 2017; Hadiya et al., 2018).
NPs
carriers can tackle bacterial threats “passively,” through prolonged
drug retention at the specific infection site, or “actively,” through
surface conjugation with active molecules that bind a certain target
(Wang Z. et al., 2017).
The balance between the surface modification interaction strength, the
compound release rate and the stability of the conjugate should be
carefully considered for the design of an effective “active” delivery
strategy (Burygin et al., 2009; Pissuwan et al., 2011).
In an attempt to overcome their therapeutic limitations, various
research groups have investigated the conjugation of antibiotics to NPs
(Tiwari et al., 2011). For example, Saha et al. describe the direct conjugation of ampicillin, streptomycin and kanamycin to gold NPs (Saha et al., 2007).
The resulting complexes were shown to have lower minimum inhibitory
concentration (MIC) than the free drug counterparts against both Gram
-negative and -positive bacteria. While the detailed mechanism of these
effects are not explained by the authors in the above case, Fayaz et al.
has attempted to uncover how their vancomycin functionalized gold NPs
demonstrated activity against strains which are usually vancomycin
resistant based either on mutations (vancomycin resistant Staphylococcus aureus), or membrane structure (Escherichia coli) (Mohammed Fayaz et al., 2011).
They propose that only when the antibiotic was complexed with the NPs
could this result in nonspecific, multivalent interactions and anchoring
of the carrier to the cell wall synthesis proteins. Based on the
presence of pits in the cells, which was observed using transmission
electron microscopy, the authors concluded that the consequence of the
non-specific binding was compromised membrane integrity, and subsequent
cell death (Mohammed Fayaz et al., 2011; Gao et al., 2018).
Antibacterial mechanism of NPs
The
antibacterial activity of NPs against MDR bacteria and biofilms depends
on a number of factors, namely, their large surface area in contact
with bacteria through electrostatic attraction, van der walls forces or
hydrophobic interactions; on the nanoparticle size and stability;
together with the drug concentration (Chen et al., 2014; Gao et al., 2014; Li et al., 2015).
The interaction of NPs with bacteria generally triggers oxidative
stress mechanisms, enzymatic inhibition, protein deactivation and
changes in gene expression. Still, the most common antibacterial
mechanisms are related to oxidative stress, metal ion release, and
non-oxidative mechanisms (Wang et al., 2017a; Zaidi et al., 2017 see Figure Figure11).
Oxidative
stress induced by ROS is one of the most important mechanisms assisting
the antibacterial activity of NPs (Dwivedi et al., 2014; Rudramurthy et al., 2016).
ROS are natural byproducts of cellular oxidative metabolism and have
significant important roles in the modulation of cell survival and
death, differentiation and cell signaling. In bacteria, ROS are formed
from aerobic respiration, and their production is balanced by the cell
antioxidant machinery but upon an additional ROS insult, oxidation of
biomolecules, and cell components result in severe cellular damage (Li
et al., 2012b).
The excessive production of ROS leads to a disturbed redox homeostasis
resulting in oxidative stress, affecting membrane lipids and altering
the structure of DNA and proteins (Dwivedi et al., 2014). It has been shown that while O−2 and H2O2 can be neutralized by endogenous antioxidants, ·OH and singlet oxygen (1[O2]) lead to acute microbial death (Zaidi et al., 2017). Different NPs may generate distinctive ROS, such as superoxide (O−2 ) or hydroxyl radical (·OH), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and 1[O2]) (Wang et al., 2017a).
In this manner, the level of ROS generated by NPs is dependent on the
chemical nature of the NPs themselves. Application of metallic NPs is
currently being considered to overcome bacterial infections since they
have shown antimicrobial efficacy due to their high surface-to-volume
ratio. An increase ratio is usually accompanied by increased production
of ROS, including free radicals. Zhang et al. (2013)
demonstrated that ROS generation and metal ion release significantly
enhanced the antibacterial activity through uncoated AuNPs in aqueous
suspension under UV irradiation (365 nm). Umamaheswari (Umamaheswari et
al., 2014) demonstrated that the antibacterial activity of AuNPs against E. coli, Salmonella Typhi, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella pneumoniae were due to oxidative stress caused by increased intracellular ROS. A recent study (Zhang et al., 2013) evaluated AuNPs and AuNPs -laser combined therapy against C. pseudotuberculosis
and suggested that the mechanism of action is related with ROS
production, that causes an increase of oxidative stress of microbial
cells in the form of vacuole formation as an indication of potent
activity. This effect was higher with AuNPs-laser, causing a rapid loss
of bacterial cell membrane integrity due to the fact that laser light
enhances at least one fold antimicrobial activity of AuNPs. Several
other studies have addressed the role of metal NPs to induce MDR
bacteria death via oxidative stress (Table (Table1)1) (Foster et al., 2011; Li et al., 2012b; Rai et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2013; Reddy L. S. et al., 2014; Singh R. et al., 2014; Pan et al., 2016; Courtney et al., 2017; Ulloa-Ogaz et al., 2017; Zaidi et al., 2017).
Indeed, titanium dioxide NPs were shown to adhere to the surface of the
bacterial cell and trigger the production of ROS, which in turns lead
to damage of the structure of cellular components and consequent cell
death (Foster et al., 2011).
In another important study using different metal NPs, AgNPs were shown
to generate superoxide radicals and hydroxyl radicals, whereas Au, Ni,
and Si NPs generated only singlet oxygen, which upon entering the cell
produced an antibacterial effect (Zhang et al., 2013). More recently, Reddy and co-workers demonstrated that ZnONPs alone can also act as an effective antibacterial agent via the generation of ROS (Reddy L. S. et al., 2014). Exposure to UV irradiation may also potentiate the action of NPs. Li et al. (2012b)
reported the augmented antibacterial effects of zinc oxide (ZnO) and
titanium oxide (TiO) NPs triggered by UV irradiation as the results of
the increased production of superoxide, hydroxyl and singlet oxygen
radicals that potentiated bacteria mortality by severe oxidative stress.
Graphene oxide–iron oxide NPs have also demonstrated maximum
antibacterial activity due to the generation of hydroxyl radicals and
diffusion into bacterial cells (Pan et al., 2016).
More recently, Ulloa-Ogaz and collaborators demonstrated that copper
oxide NPs interact with bacteria, generating an intracellular signaling
cascade that trigger oxidative stress and, thus, an antibacterial effect
(Ulloa-Ogaz et al., 2017).
Table 1
Type of nanoparticles | Targeted bacteria | Antibiotic resistance type | Mechanisms of antibacterial action | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
AgNPs | Enterococcus faecalis, S. aureus | Vancomycin-resistant | Combination with vancomycin. Bacterial cell death. | Saeb et al., 2014; Esmaeillou et al., 2017 |
Enterococcus | On-going investigations. | Percival et al., 2007 | ||
S. aureus | Methicillin-resistant | Combination with antibiotics. | Brown et al., 2012; Saeb et al., 2014; Esmaeillou et al., 2017 | |
Physical adhesion to the bacterial cell. | Su et al., 2011 | |||
On-going investigations. | Percival et al., 2007 | |||
E. coli, P. aeruginosa | Ampicillin- resistant | Combination with ampicillin leads to entry into the bacterial cell. Inhibition of cell wall synthesis, protein synthesis and nucleic acid synthesis. | Lara et al., 2010; Brown et al., 2012 | |
S. aureus, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, K. pneumoniae, E. faecalis, Salmonella Typhimurium, Bacillus cereus | Erythromycin-resistant | Cell surface damage and loss of the chain integrity. | Otari et al., 2013 | |
S. pneumoniae | Teicoplanin-resistant | ROS generation, cellular uptake of silver ions, cascade of intracellular reaction. | Thapa et al., 2017 | |
E. coli, S. aureus | Ampicillin- resistant | |||
E. coli, S. aureus | Tetracycline-resistant | Combination with tetracycline. | Djafari et al., 2016 | |
P. aeruginosa | Ofloxacin-resistant | Evade multidrug efflux pumps. | Ding et al., 2018 | |
P. aeruginosa, MRSA, VRE, Serratia marcescens | Biofilm formation | Ongoing investigations. | Percival et al., 2007 | |
Enterobacter cloacae, S. mutans | ROS production and membrane disruption. | Kulshrestha et al., 2017 | ||
S. epidermidis, S. aureus | Penetration in the bacterial biofilm using an external magnetic field. | Mahmoudi and Serpooshan, 2012 | ||
E. coli | MDR | ROS generation. | Zhang et al., 2013; Siddiqi et al., 2018 | |
E. coli, P. aeruginosa | Ramalingam et al., 2016 | |||
S. aureus, Enterococcus spp., P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, Enterobacteriaceae | Interaction with components of the cells where chemical and physical properties are modified. | Cavassin et al., 2015 | ||
E. coli | Lok et al., 2007 | |||
S. aureus, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, K. pneumoniae, B. subtilis | Penetration in the bacterial cell wall. | Acharya et al., 2018 | ||
P. aeruginosa | Combined therapy, using blue light. | El Din et al., 2016 | ||
E. coli, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Pseudomonas putida, P. aeruginosa, B. subtilis, S. aureus | Disruption of the bacterial cell wall. | Bondarenko et al., 2013 | ||
A. baumannii | Attach to the cell wall leading to structural changes in the permeability of the cell membrane. | Chang et al., 2017 | ||
P. aeruginosa | Singh K. et al., 2014; Salomoni et al., 2017 | |||
S. aureus, E. coli | Jung et al., 2008; Muniyan et al., 2017 | |||
P. aeruginosa, E. coli | Combination with antibiotics. | Esmaeillou et al., 2017 | ||
E. coli | Karimi et al., 2016 | |||
E. faecalis | Katva et al., 2018 | |||
Salmonella Typhimurium | McShan et al., 2015 | |||
Enterobacteriaceae | Panáček et al., 2016b | |||
S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, E. coli | Panáček et al., 2016a | |||
S. aureus, E. coli | Upregulation of the expression of antioxidant genes and ATP pumps. | Nagy et al., 2011 | ||
S. epidermidis | MDR/Biofilm formation | Conjugation with AMP. | Jaiswal et al., 2015 | |
Mycobacterium smegmatis | Mohanty et al., 2013 | |||
Vibrio fluvialis, P. aeruginosa | Lambadi et al., 2015 | |||
B. subtilis, E. coli | Liu et al., 2013 | |||
E. coli | Pal et al., 2016 | |||
E. coli, Acinetobacter calcoaceticus, Aeromonas bestiarum, B. Subtili, P. fluorescens, Kocuria rhizophila, Micrococcus luteus | Ruden et al., 2009 | |||
AuNPs | S. aureus | Vancomycin-resistant | Combination with vancomycin. | Mohammed Fayaz et al., 2011 |
E. faecalis | Lai et al., 2015 | |||
S. aureus | Methicillin-resistant | Photothermal therapy with ROS generation. | Kuo et al., 2009; Millenbaugh et al., 2015; Mocan et al., 2016; Hu et al., 2017; Ocsoy et al., 2017 | |
Combination with vancomycin. | Lai et al., 2015 | |||
E. coli, K. pneumoniae | Cefotaxime-resistant | Disruption of the bacterial cell wall, DNA damage. | Shaikh et al., 2017 | |
S. aureus, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, Enterobacter aerogenes | Ampicillin-resistant | Combination with ampicillin. Lead to entry into the bacterial cell. | Brown et al., 2012 | |
Streptococcus bovis, S. epidermidis, E. Aerogenes | Kanamycin-resistant | Disruption of the bacterial cell wall. | Payne et al., 2016 | |
K. 45ellular45, Proteus mirabilis, A. baumannii | Carbapenems-resistant | Disturb of osmotic balance and disrupt the integrity of cell bacterial cell wall. | Shaker and Shaaban, 2017 | |
P. aeruginosa | Biofilm formation | Interaction with cell surface. | Yu et al., 2016 | |
S. aureus | Laser excitation of the near IR LSPR lead to an efficient photothermal response with efficient killing of bacteria biofilms. | Pallavicini et al., 2014 | ||
E. coli, P. aeruginosa, S. aureus | Penetration through biofilm layers and interaction with cellular components. | Ramasamy et al., 2017a,b | ||
S. epidermidis, S. haemolyticus | Combination with antibiotics. | Roshmi et al., 2015 | ||
Proteus species | Interaction between proteins and NPs. | Vinoj et al., 2015 | ||
E. coli, P. aeruginosa, S. aureus, B. Subtilis | ROS generation. | Wang Z. et al., 2017 | ||
Gram-negative bacteria | MDR | Automated microarray-based system that identifies Gram-negative pathogens from positive blood cultures and resistance mechanism. | Walker et al., 2016 | |
S. aureus | Photoacoustic detection and photothermal therapy | Galanzha et al., 2012 | ||
E. coli | ROS generation | Zhang et al., 2013 | ||
E. coli | Change of membrane potential and inhibition of ATP synthase; inhibition of the subunit of the ribosome for tRNA binding. | Cui et al., 2012 | ||
E. coli, K. pneumoniae, S. aureus, B. subtilis | Shamaila et al., 2016 | |||
E. coli, K. pneumoniae, E. cloacae | Photodynamic Therapy/ Photothermal therapy. | Khan et al., 2017 | ||
S. aureus, E. coli, E. cloacae, P. aeruginosa | Mocan et al., 2017 | |||
Salmonella Typhimurium | Lin and Hamme, 2015 | |||
S. aureus | Gil-Tomás et al., 2007 | |||
E. coli, S. aureus | Interaction with biomolecules. | Kim D. et al., 2017 | ||
E. coli, K. pneumoniae | Not revealed. | Bresee et al., 2014 | ||
S. aureus, E. coli, P. aeruginosa | Disruption of bacterial cell wall. | Li et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2017 | ||
E. coli | Interaction between lysozyme microbubbles and cell wall. | Mahalingam et al., 2015 | ||
E. coli, S. aureus, Salmonella Typhimurium | Depend of co-existing chemicals that were not removed from AuNPs. | Shareena Dasari et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015a | ||
E. coli, S. aureus, K. pneumoniae | Combination with antibiotics. | Pradeepa et al., 2016 | ||
P. aeruginosa | MDR/Biofilm formation | Conjugation with AMP. | Casciaro et al., 2017 | |
Staphylococci, Enterococci and other bacterial strain | Kuo et al., 2016 | |||
E. coli, S. aureus, K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa | Rai A. et al., 2016 | |||
Salmonella Typhimurium | Yeom et al., 2016 | |||
ZnONPs | K. pneumoniae | Ampicillin- carbenicillin-resistant | ROS generation and disruption of bacterial cell wall. | Reddy L. S. et al., 2014 |
S. aureus | Methicillin-resistant | Enzyme inhibition. | Cha et al., 2015 | |
E. coli | MDR | ROS generation and disruption of bacterial cell wall. | Li et al., 2012b; Tong et al., 2013; Chakraborti et al., 2014; Gelabert et al., 2016; Nagvenkar et al., 2016 | |
B. subtilis | Hsueh et al., 2015 | |||
S. aureus | Lakshmi Prasanna and Vijayaraghavan, 2015; Nagvenkar et al., 2016 | |||
Vibrio cholerae | Sarwar et al., 2016 | |||
S. aureus, E. coli, Proteus, Acinetobacter, P. aeruginosa | Combination with antibiotics. | Ehsan and Sajjad, 2017 | ||
S. aureus, E. coli, S. mutants | Depend on components and structure of the bacteria cell wall. | Yu et al., 2014 | ||
S. aureus, P. aeruginosa | Biofilms formation | ROS generation. | Aswathanarayan and Vittal, 2017 | |
Streptococcus sobrinus | Aydin Sevinç and Hanley, 2010 | |||
CuONPs | E. coli, S. aureus | MDR | ROS generation. | Singh R. et al., 2014; Chakraborty et al., 2015 |
S. aureus, P. aeruginosa | Ulloa-Ogaz et al., 2017 | |||
Paracoccus denitrificans | Modulation of nitrogen metabolism. | Su et al., 2015 | ||
S. aureus | Biofilm formation | Ongoing investigations. | Chen et al., 2014 | |
CuNPs | S. aureus | Methicillin-resistant | Copper ions release and subsequently bind with DNA leading to disorder of helical structure. | Kruk et al., 2015 |
P. aeruginosa | Biofilm formation | Penetrate the cell wall and damage the nucleic acid. | LewisOscar et al., 2015 | |
P. aeruginosa | MDR | Generation of Cu hydrosols. | Zhang et al., 2015b | |
Fe3O4NPs | E. coli | MDR | Radiofrequency (RF) coupled with magnetic core shell nanoparticles lead to RF-mediated physical perturbation of cell membranes and bacterial membrane dysfunction. | Chaurasia et al., 2016 |
S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, E. coli | Penetrate the membrane and interference in the electron transfer. | El-Zowalaty et al., 2015 | ||
Gram-positive and -negative bacteria | ROS generation. | Behera et al., 2012 | ||
Gram-positive and -negative bacteria | Nanotechnology to capture Gram- positive and -negative bacteria. | Reddy P. M. et al., 2014 | ||
S. aureus | Biofilm formation | ROS generation. | Leuba et al., 2013 | |
Al2O3NPs | S. aureus | Methicillin-resistant | Disruption of bacterial cell wall and ROS generation. | Ansari et al., 2013 |
E. coli | MDR | Penetration and accumulation inside bacterial cell wall. | Ansari et al., 2014 | |
TiO2NPs | S. aureus | Methicillin-resistant | Release ions and react with thiol group of proteins present on bacteria surface. | Roy et al., 2010 |
E. coli | MDR | ROS generation and disruption of bacterial cell wall. | Li et al., 2012b | |
E. coli and Gram-positive bacteria | Photocatalytic disinfection. | Foster et al., 2011 | ||
E. coli | Peroxidation and decomposition of membrane fatty acids. | Joost et al., 2015 | ||
Cu/Zn bimetal NPs | S. aureus | Methicillin-resistant | Membrane disruption, DNA damage, inhibition of protein synthesis. | Ashfaq et al., 2016 |
Au/Ag bimetallic NPs | Enterococcus | Vancomycin-resistant | Theranostic system for SERS and aPDT. | Zhou et al., 2018 |
E. coli, S. aureus, E. faecalis, P. aeruginosa | Biofilm formation | Disruption of bacterial cell wall and inactivate the proteins and enzymes for ATP production. | Ramasamy et al., 2016 | |
B. subtilis E. coli, K. pneumoniae, S. aureus | MDR | Combination with antibiotics. | Baker et al., 2017 | |
P. aeruginosa, E. coli, S. aureus, Micrococcus luteus | Fakhri et al., 2017 | |||
E. coli, S. aureus | dos Santos et al., 2012 | |||
Au/Pt bimetallic NPS | E. coli | MDR | Damage of the inner membrane, increase intracellular ATP level. | Zhao et al., 2014 |
Au/ Fe3O4NPs | P. aeruginosa | MDR | Disruption of bacterial cell wall. | Niemirowicz et al., 2014 |
Cu/Ni bimetallic NPs | S. aureus, E. coli, S. mutans | MDR | Adsorption of ions to the bacteria cells. | Argueta-Figueroa et al., 2014 |
MgF2NPs | S. aureus | Biofilm formation | Attach and penetrate cell surface leading to disruption in membrane potential, promotes the lipid peroxidation and DNA binding. | Lellouche et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2014 |
Graphene Oxide NPs | S. aureus | Methicillin-resistant | Combine antibiotics with exposure to NIR. | Pan et al., 2016 |
E. coli, E. faecalis | MDR | UV irradiation lead to generation of ROS. | Govindaraju et al., 2016 | |
E. coli, P. aeruginosa, K. pneumoniae, S. aureus | Multiple toxic mechanisms. | Jankauskaite et al., 2016 | ||
E. cloacae, S. mutans | Biofilm formation | ROS generation, release of ions. | Kulshrestha et al., 2017 | |
SeNPs | S. aureus, E. coli | MDR | Theranostic nanoplatform for selective imaging and targeted therapy: Disruption of the bacteria cell wall. | Huang et al., 2017 |
SiNPs | S. aureus | Methicillin-resistant | Theranostics nanoprobe for near-infrared fluorescence imaging and photothermal therapy: Disruption of the bacteria cell wall. | Zhao et al., 2017 |
Metal
oxides slowly release metal ions that are up taken by the cell,
reaching the intracellular compartment where they can interact with
functional groups of proteins and nucleic acids, such as amino (–NH),
mercapto (–SH), and carboxyl (–COOH) groups (Wang et al., 2017a).
This interaction alters the cell structure, hampers enzymatic activity
and interferes with the normal physiological processes in the bacterial
cell. It has been shown that copper oxide (CuO) NPs cause a significant
alteration of the expression of key proteins and may inhibit
denitrification. Proteomic analysis showed that CuONPs cause an
alteration of proteins involved in nitrogen metabolism, electron
transfer and transport (Su et al., 2015). Also, the interaction of gold–superparamagnetic iron oxide NPs with bacterial proteins via disulfide bonds affects the metabolism and redox system of bacterial cells (Niemirowicz et al., 2014).
NPs may also enter bacteria through absorption, releasing metal ions to
the surrounding medium and/or binding to the negatively charged
functional groups of the bacterial cell membrane. For example, silver
ions (from silver NPs) are adsorbed on the cell membrane, leading to
protein coagulation (Jung et al., 2008). Jankauskaitl and collaborators described the bactericidal effect of graphene oxide/Cu/Ag NPs against E. coli, P. aeruginosa, K. pneumoniae, S. aureus, and Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) through a possible synergy between multiple toxic mechanisms (Jankauskaite et al., 2016).
Non-oxidative
mechanisms involve interaction of the NPs with the cell wall. In
bacteria, the cell wall and membrane behave as defensive barriers that
protect against environmental insults. Cell membrane components provide
different adsorption pathways for the NPs (Lesniak et al., 2013).
The cell wall of Gram-negative bacteria is composed of lipoproteins,
phospholipids and lipid polysaccharides (LPS), which form a barrier only
allowing the entry of certain macromolecules (Zaidi et al., 2017).
In Gram-positive bacteria, the cell wall is composed of a thin layer of
peptidoglycans and abundant pores that allow the penetration of foreign
molecules, leading to covalent binding with proteins and cellular
components, interrupting the proper functioning of the bacterial cell
(Sarwar et al., 2015).
In addition, Gram-positive bacteria have a highly negative charge on
the surface of the cell wall. For example, LPS provides negatively
charged regions on the cell wall of Gram-negative bacteria that attracts
NPs; and, since teichoic acid is only expressed in Gram-positive
bacteria, the NPs are distributed along the phosphate chain. As such,
the antimicrobial effect is more foreshadowed in Gram-positive than
-negative bacteria (Wang et al., 2017a).
Indeed, Yu and colleagues synthesized a novel hydroxyapatite whisker
(HAPw)/zinc oxide (ZnO) NPs and evaluated the antimicrobial effect
against S. aureus, E. coli, and Streptococcus mutans.
The authors demonstrate that the antibacterial effect depends on the
components and structure of the bacterial cell wall. The antibacterial
action of these NPs could be improved for Gram-positive bacteria and
certain components could prevent the adhesion of ZnO NPs to the
bacterial cell barrier (Yu et al., 2014).
Ansari et al. reported that the accumulation on NPs in the bacterial
cell wall causes irregularly shaped pit, perforation and disturbs
metabolic processes (Ansari et al., 2014). In a study carried out by Joost and co-workers, it was demonstrated that a treatment with TiO2 NPs increased the bacterial cell volume, resulting in membrane leakage (Joost et al., 2015).
Biofilm formation and quorum-sensing
Biofilm
formation plays an important role in bacterial resistance protecting
bacteria and allowing then to evade the action of antibiotics (Lebeaux
et al., 2014; Khameneh et al., 2016).
The most active fractions of bacteria are now recognized to occur as
biofilms, where cells are adhered to each other on surfaces within a
self-produced matrix of extracellular polymeric substance (EPS). EPS
provide a barrier allowing to inhibit the penetration of antibiotics and
further promote antibiotic resistance leading to a serious health
threat worldwide since biofilms are resistant to antibiotics penetration
and escape innate immune system by phagocytes (Hall-Stoodley et al., 2004; Bjarnsholt, 2013).
Numerous experimental evidence show that NPs are capable of disrupting
the bacterial membranes and can hinder biofilm formation thus reducing
the survival of the microorganism (Peulen and Wilkinson, 2011; Leuba et al., 2013; Pelgrift and Friedman, 2013; Slomberg et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Miao et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2016; Kulshrestha et al., 2017).
This way, NPs provide an alternative strategy to target bacterial
biofilms with potential to use both antibiotic-free and
antibiotic-coated approaches (Gu et al., 2003; Li et al., 2012a; Sathyanarayanan et al., 2013).
Earlier reports demonstrated that NPs are able to interfere with
biofilm integrity by interacting with EPS and with the bacterial
communication - quorum sensing (QS). The properties of NPs must be
designed to be able to inhibit biofilm formation namely through size and
surface chemistry. The size of NPs is important to it since they must
be able to penetrate the EPS matrix and surface chemistry will command
the amount of interactions with the EPS (Lundqvist et al., 2008).
The majority of the strategies to achieve inhibition of biofilm
formation are to target and interfere with QS molecules (Singh et al., 2017).
QS
systems in bacterial populations act as major regulatory mechanisms of
pathogenesis, namely in the formation of biofilm structures. These
systems help bacteria to “communicate” with each other, through the
production and detection of signal molecules (Rutherford and Bassler, 2012; Papenfort and Bassler, 2016).
Using this cell-to-cell communication, bacterial populations are able
to synchronize the expression of their genes, acquiring competitive
advantage to respond to changes in the environment (Rutherford and
Bassler, 2012).
Therefore, QS systems are known to promote the formation of antibiotic
tolerant biofilm communities. It is known that biofilm structures are a
recalcitrant mode of bacterial growth that increases bacterial
resistance to conventional antibiotics (Reen et al., 2018).
This way, bacterial biofilms pose a significant challenge to the
efficacy of conventional antibiotics being considered an essential
platform for antibiotic resistance (Høiby et al., 2011).
Taking this into account, it isn't surprising that the targeting and
disruption of QS signaling systems and consequently, of the biofilm
production, set the pillar for future next-generation anti-virulence
therapies to be developed (LaSarre and Federle, 2013; Venkatesan et al., 2015; Jakobsen et al., 2017).
Surface-functionalized
NPs with β-cyclodextrin (β-CD) or N-acylated homoserine lactonase
proteins (AiiA) are able to interfere with signaling molecules
preventing these molecules from reaching its cognate receptor, therefore
inhibiting the signal/receptor interaction. This process will “turn
off” QS and obstructing the bacterial communication (Kato et al., 2006; Ortíz-Castro et al., 2008).
Several papers reported inhibition of biofilm formation namely by gold
NPs (AuNPs). Acyl homoserine lactones (AHL) are signaling molecules with
a role in bacterial QS and bind directly to transcription factors to
regulate gene expression Recently, Gopalakrishnan and colleges
synthesized (Vinoj et al., 2015) AuNPs coated AiiA purified from Bacillus licheniformis.
These AiiA AuNPs inhibited EPs production and demonstrated potent
antibiofilm activity against Proteus species at 2–8 μM concentrations
without being harmful for the host cells at the 2μM concentration.
Sathyanarayanan et al. (2013) demonstrated that using AuNPs there is a significant reduction of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa biofilms applied in high concentration (exceeding 50 mg/L). A recent study by Yu et al. (2016) demonstrated that AuNPs were able to strongly attenuate biofilm formation of P. aeruginosa.
The inhibition observed in this study was related with interruption of
adhesin- mediated interaction between the bacteria and the substrate
surface due to electrostatic attractions between the AuNPs and cell wall
surface of P. aeruginosa, instead of QS-related molecules. Positive charge AuNPs inhibited significantly S. aureus and P. aeruginosa biofilm formation (while minimizing mammalian cytotoxicity) (Ramasamy et al., 2016).
The use of NPs demonstrates an exclusive approach to penetrate
infectious biofilms and target bacterial communication, overcoming this
major health issue related with biofilm infections.
Because most of these NPs-based platforms exert their action via
distinct mechanisms/structures/pathways of those used by traditional
antibiotics, combined therapeutic regimens are promising strategies to
tackle the surge of multidrug resistant (MDR) bacteria bypassing their
defense mechanisms (Pelgrift and Friedman, 2013; Singh K. et al., 2014; Hemeg, 2017; Zaidi et al., 2017). Additionally, NPs have been shown to activate macrophages in a dose dependent manner (Patel and Janjic, 2015) which promotes the host defenses (Hemeg, 2017; Jagtap et al., 2017).
This
multi-target action of NPs may overcome multidrug resistance by
circumventing several obstacles encountered by traditional antibiotics
(Pelgrift and Friedman, 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Singh K. et al., 2014; Hemeg, 2017; Jagtap et al., 2017; Rai et al., 2017; Zaidi et al., 2017). Table Table11
highlights several types of NPs that have shown effective bactericidal
activity when administered isolated; combined with standard antibiotics;
and/or radiation or as vectors for biocidal delivery allowing killing
of MDR bacteria, and in some cases also inhibiting biofilm production.
We
will now focus on the different types of metal NPs highlighting their
most relevant mechanism/effects against MDR bacteria and/or biofilms
structures.
Silver nanoparticles (AgNPs)
Since the ancient times, silver has been recognized as having antimicrobial effects (Rai et al., 2009; Reidy et al., 2013).
Based on all the evidence to date, AgNPs are probably one of the most
promising inorganic NPs that can be used for the treatment of bacterial
infections (Natan and Banin, 2017). These NPs may be synthesized by traditional chemical reduction or via “green” chemistry approaches using plant and/or microbial extracts (Iravani et al., 2014; Ribeiro et al., 2018).
Several mechanisms have been proposed to understand how AgNPs mediate cell death, including cell wall disruption (Lok et al., 2007; Bondarenko et al., 2013),
oxidation of cellular components, inactivation of the respiratory chain
enzymes, production of ROS, and decomposition of the cellular
components (Chen et al., 2014; Rizzello and Pompa, 2014; Dakal et al., 2016).
The permeability of the membrane increases after incorporation of AgNPs
into the cell membrane. The adsorption of the NPs leads to the
depolarization of the cell wall, altering the negative charge of the
cell wall to become more permeable. It was demonstrated disruption of
the cell wall with subsequent penetration of the NPs. The entry of AgNPs
induces ROS that will inhibit ATP production and DNA replication (Zhang
et al., 2013; Dakal et al., 2016; Durán et al., 2016; Ramalingam et al., 2016). However, there is evidence that AgNPs can release Ag+,
known to exhibit antimicrobial activity, when interacting with
thiol-containing proteins, which weaken their functions (Durán et al., 2010). The precise method of the antibacterial mechanism of AgNPs is still not completely understood (Franci et al., 2015; Durán et al., 2016).
All the existing data indicates that AgNPs exert several bactericidal
mechanisms in parallel, which may explain why bacterial resistance to
silver is rare (Karimi et al., 2016). Concerns regarding the cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of AgNPs have been raised (Chopra, 2007)
but various authors have conducted clinical trials based on AgNPs and
no important clinical alterations have been detected (Munger et al., 2014a,b; Smock et al., 2014).
Interestingly, AgNPs have been found to exhibit higher antimicrobial
activity than antibiotics like gentamicin or vancomycin against P. aeruginosa and MRSA (Saeb et al., 2014). Lara et al. showed the potential bactericidal effect of AgNPs against MDR P. aeruginosa, ampicillin-resistant E. coli O157:H7 and erythromycin-resistant Streptococcus pyogenes (Lara et al., 2010). Nagy et al., reported that AgNPs were capable of inhibiting the growth of S. aureus and E. coli via the up-regulation of the expression of several antioxidant genes and ATPase pumps (Nagy et al., 2011). Dolman et al.
also showed that the Ag-containing Hydrofiber® dressing and
nanocrystalline Ag-containing dressing are effective agents against
antibiotic sensitive Gram-negative and -positive bacteria as well as
antibiotic resistant bacteria, such as MRSA, Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE) and Serratia marcescens, avoiding the formation of biofilms on biomaterials (Percival et al., 2007).
Su and collaborators showed that AgNPs immobilized on the surface of
nanoscale silicate platelets (AgNP/NSPs) have strong antibacterial
activity against MRSA and silver-resistant E. coli via generation of ROS (Su et al., 2011). Singh and collaborators showed that AgNPs from P. amarus extract exhibited excellent antibacterial potential against MDR strains of P. aeruginosa (Singh K. et al., 2014).
Recently, two different shaped AgNPs (spheres and rods) were used
against Gram-positive and -negative bacteria, both showing promising
antibacterial activity against different strains (Acharya et al., 2018).
An
emerging practice is to combine AgNPs with antibiotics to enhance
antimicrobial potency. Recently, Katya and collaborators showed that the
combination of gentamicin and chloramphenicol with AgNPs has a better
antibacterial effect in MDR E. faecalis than both antibiotics alone (Katva et al., 2018). McShan et al.
described that AgNPs combined with either one of two-different class of
antibiotics (tetracycline and neomycin) can exhibit a synergistic
effect, showing an enhanced antibacterial activity at concentrations
below the MIC of either the NPs or the antibiotic (McShan et al., 2015). Other authors also reported similar results (Thomas et al., 2014; Panáček et al., 2016a,b; Salomoni et al., 2017).
Djafari and collaborators described the synthesis of water-soluble
AgNPs using the antibiotic tetracycline as co-reducing and stabilizing
agent (AgNPs@TC) and demonstrated their effectiveness against
tetracycline-resistant bacteria (Djafari et al., 2016).
Antimicrobial
peptides (AMPs) represent one of the forms of defense strategy against
infections in living organisms and are emerging as essential tools to
kill pathogenic bacteria, since they exhibit broad-spectrum activity and
low resistance development (Yeaman, 2003).
Lytic peptides are AMPs produced by all organisms. In mammals, they are
an innate host defense mechanism against pathogens (Bahar and Ren, 2013).
The mechanism of action of AMPs relies on the ability to interact with
bacterial membranes or the cell wall, thus inhibiting cellular
biochemical pathways and ultimately killing the bacteria (Zhang and
Gallo, 2016).
Defensins and cathelicidin are two of the larger families of lytic
peptides that kill bacteria by disrupting the membrane. Unfortunately,
AMPs have poor enzymatic stability, low permeability across biological
barriers and may be rapidly degraded in the human body by proteases,
which greatly limits their application (Wang, 2014).
Immobilization of the peptides onto NPs can increase their stability,
enhancing the antimicrobial properties of the NPs and therefore, has the
potential to be used as a new tool to tackle antibiotic resistant
bacteria (Brandelli, 2012; Rai A. et al., 2016).
Indeed, the first author to demonstrate that functionalized AgNPs with
peptides increased their antibacterial activity was Ruden and co-workers
(Ruden et al., 2009).
Based on this strategy several researchers functionalized AgNPs with
AMPs (AgNP@AMP) with increases in the antimicrobial activity compared
with free AMPs (Ruden et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2013; Mohanty et al., 2013). Polymyxin B is the most used AMP and exhibits antibacterial activity via interaction with the endotoxin LPS in the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria (Morrison and Jacobs, 1976; Lambadi et al., 2015).
It was proved that AgNPs functionalized with polymyxin-B removed almost
completely endotoxins from solutions and hindered the formation of
biofilm onto surgical blades (Jaiswal et al., 2015; Lambadi et al., 2015). Liu et al.,
demonstrated that the immobilization of peptides with AgNPs enhanced
their antimicrobial activity compared to an unbound peptide and also
minimized toxicity of AgNPs compared to using the AgNPs alone (Liu et
al., 2013). A recent study by Pal et al.
describes a system consisting of a cysteine containing AMP conjugated
with AgNPs, which demonstrated that the Ag-S bonds increased stability
and enhanced antimicrobial activity than conjugation using electrostatic
interactions (Pal et al., 2016).
Other
methods have been used to improve the antibacterial activity of AgNPs.
One of these methods relies on the use of visible blue light, which was
previously shown to exhibit strong antibacterial activity (Dai T. et
al., 2013; Maclean et al., 2014).
El Din and collaborators demonstrated that blue light combined with
AgNPs exhibits therapeutic potential to treat MDR infections and can
represent an alternative to conventional antibiotic therapy, since the
antimicrobial activity of the combination was greater than the
components alone. Moreover, this approach proved to be synergistic in
the treatment of an unresponsive antibiotic-resistant bacteria
responsible for a wound in a horse (El Din et al., 2016).
Spherical shaped thioglycolic acid-stabilized AgNPs (TGA-AgNPs)
conjugated with vancomycin were used as drug delivery systems and
demonstrated to possess increased antimicrobial activity against MDR
bacteria such as MRSA and VRE (Esmaeillou et al., 2017).
Gold nanoparticles (AuNPs)
Metallic
gold is considered inert and non-toxic, which may vary when it shifts
form metallic bulk to oxidation states (I and II) (Merchant, 1998). Gold NPs (AuNPs) may be synthesized by traditional chemical reduction of a gold salt or via “green” chemistry approaches using plant and/or microbial extracts (Shah et al., 2014).
The most used and described method is the chemical synthesis based on
the reduction of chloroauric acid by citrate (Lee and Meisel, 1982; Fernandes and Baptista, 2017).
Some studies have addressed the potential of using AuNPs as
antibacterial agents, but some controversy still exists (Cui et al., 2012; Bresee et al., 2014; Shah et al., 2014; Shareena Dasari et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015a; Shamaila et al., 2016).
According
to Yu H and collaborators, AuNPs are usually not bactericidal at low
concentrations and weakly bactericidal at high concentrations (Shareena
Dasari et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015a).
This is possibly due to the effect of co-existing chemicals, such as
gold ions, surface coating agents, and chemicals involved in the
synthesis that were not completely removed (Shareena Dasari et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015a).
However, other authors describe that the antibacterial mechanism of
AuNPs is associated to (i) the collapse in the membrane potential,
hindering ATPase activity causing a deterioration of the cell
metabolism; (ii) hindering of the binding subunit of the ribosome to
tRNA (Cui et al., 2012);
and (iii) Shamaila and co-workers showed that AuNPs may affect the
bacterial respiratory chain by attacking nicotinamide (Shamaila et al., 2016). Since AuNPs are non-toxic to the host (Conde et al., 2014; Li et al., 2014; Rajchakit and Sarojini, 2017),
the possibility of fine tuning their conjugation chemistry to act as
carriers or delivery vehicles of antibiotics or other antibacterial
moieties may enhance their bactericidal effect and potentiate the effect
of antibiotics (Zhao and Jiang, 2013; Conde et al., 2014; Li et al., 2014; Uma Suganya et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015a; Fernandes et al., 2017).
Cationic
and hydrophobic functionalized AuNPs were shown to be effective against
both Gram-negative and -positive uropathogens, including MRSA. These
AuNPs exhibited low toxicity to mammalian cells (biocompatibility) and
the development of resistance to these NPs was very low (Li et al., 2014). Vinoj et al.
demonstrated that coating AuNPs with N-acylated homoserine lactonase
proteins (AiiA AuNPs) resulted in a nanocomposite with activity against
MDR species compared with AiiA proteins alone (Vinoj et al., 2015).
Other approaches were also studied, as adsorbing AuNPs to PVA-lysozyme
micro bubbles potentiate the antibacterial activity due to the
interaction of AuNPs with cells membranes causing bacterial lysis
(Mahalingam et al., 2015). Galic acid capped AuNPs have also been found to be active against Gram-negative and -positive bacteria (Kim D. et al., 2017).
Recently, Ramasamy and collaborators described the direct one-pot
synthesis of cinnamaldehyde immobilized on gold nanoparticles (CGNPs)
with effective biofilm inhibition of more than 80% against Gram-positive
bacteria (methicillin-sensitive and -resistant strains of S. aureus, MSSA and MRSA, respectively) and Gram-negative (E. coli and P. aeruginosa) in vitro and in vivo (Ramasamy et al., 2017a,b).
Also, the integration of AuNPs with ultrathin graphitic carbon nitride
was described as having high bactericidal performance against both MDR
Gram-negative and -positive bacteria, and a high effectiveness in
eliminating existing MDR-biofilms and preventing the formation of new
biofilms in vitro (Wang Z. et al., 2017).
Also, conjugation of antibiotics to AuNPs, such as vancomycin,
methicillin, etc., increases their intrinsic activity against MDR
strains (Mohammed Fayaz et al., 2011; Lai et al., 2015; Roshmi et al., 2015; Payne et al., 2016).
Recently Payne and collaborators develop a single-step synthesis of
kanamycin-capped AuNPs (Kan-AuNPs) with high antibacterial activity
against both Gram-positive and -negative bacteria, including kanamycin
resistant bacteria. The authors observed a significant reduction in the
MIC against all the bacterial strains tested for Kan-AuNPs when compared
to the free drug. This higher efficacy was due to the disruption of the
bacterial envelope, resulting in leakage of the cytoplasmic content and
consequent cell death (Payne et al., 2016).
Pradeepa and collaborators synthesized AuNPs with bacterial
exopolysaccharide (EPS) and functionalized them with antibiotics
(levofloxacin, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone and ciprofloxacin). They observed
that these AuNPs exhibited excellent bactericidal activity against MDR
Gram-positive and -negative bacteria compared to free drugs. E. coli was the most susceptible MDR bacteria followed by K. pneumoniae and S. aureus (Pradeepa et al., 2016).
Recently, Yang and collaborators described the effect of small molecule
(6-aminopenicillanic acid, APA)-coated AuNPs to inhibit MDR bacteria
(Yang et al., 2017).
They doped AuNPs into electrospun fibers of poly(ε-caprolactone)
(PCL)/gelatin to produce materials that avoid wound infection by MDR
bacteria and demonstrated in vitro and in vivo that APA-AuNPs reduced MDR bacterial infections (Yang et al., 2017).
Shaker and Shaaban evaluated the surface functionalization of AuNPs
with carbapenems [imipenem (Ipm) and meropenem (Mem)] as a delivering
strategy against carbapenem resistant Gram-negative bacteria isolated
from an infected human. Both Ipm-AuNPs and Mem-AuNPs, with 35 nm
diameter showed a significant increase in antibacterial activity against
all the tested isolates (Shaker and Shaaban, 2017).
Also, Shaikh and collaborators described recently the synthesis and
characterization of cefotaxime conjugated AuNPs to target drug-resistant
CTX-M-producing bacteria. The authors could invert resistance in
cefotaxime resistant bacterial strains (i.e., E. coli and K. pneumoniae)
by using cefotaxime-AuNPs. Their results reinforce the efficacy of
conjugating an unresponsive antibiotic with AuNPs to restore its
efficacy against otherwise resistant bacterial pathogens (Shaikh et al.,
2017).
Combination
of AuNPs with other approaches has also been demonstrated. Indeed, one
of the most extraordinary properties of AuNPs is the capability to
transform light into heat under laser irradiation (Mendes et al., 2017; Mocan et al., 2017).
This property is extremely important because it can be exploited to
develop photothermal nanovectors to destroy MDR bacteria at a molecular
level (for a complete review see Mocan et al., 2017).
For example, Khan and collaborators showed that the combination of
Concanavalin-A (ConA) directed dextran capped AuNPs (GNPDEX-ConA)
conjugated with methylene blue (MB) (MB@GNPDEX-ConA) and photodynamic
therapy (PDT) enhanced the efficacy and selectivity of MB induced
killing of MDR clinical isolates, including E. coli, K. pneumoniae, and E. cloacae (Khan et al., 2017).
Gil-Tomas and collaborators described that the functionalization of
AuNPs covalently with toluidine blue O–tiopronin forms an enhanced,
exceptionally potent antimicrobial agent when activated by white light
or 632 nm laser light (Gil-Tomás et al., 2007).
Hu and collaborators prepared a mixed charged zwitterion-modified AuNPs
consisting of a weak electrolytic 11-mercaptoundecanoic acid
(HS-C10-COOH) and a strong electrolytic
(10-mercaptodecyl)trimethylammonium bromide (HS-C10-N4) that exhibited in vivo
and under near-infrared (NIR) light irradiation an enhanced
photothermal ablation of MRSA biofilm with no damage to the healthy
tissues around the biofilm (Hu et al., 2017).
Also, the antibacterial activity of glucosamine-gold
nanoparticle-graphene oxide (GlcN-AuNP-GO) and UV-irradiated
GlcN-AuNP-GO was evaluated against E. coli and E. faecalis.
Results show that UV irradiation of GlcN-AuNP-GO results in higher
antibacterial activity than the standard drug kanamycin (Govindaraju et
al., 2016). Ocsoy et al.
reported the development of DNA aptamer-functionalized AuNPs
(Apt@AuNPs) and gold nanorods (Apt@AuNRs) for inactivation of MRSA with
targeted PTT (Ocsoy et al., 2017).
The authors showed that although both NPs could specifically bind to
MRSA cells, Apt@AuNPs and Apt@AuNRs increased resistant cell death for
5% and for more than 95%, respectively through PTT. This difference in
induction of cell death was based on the relatively high longitudinal
absorption of NIR radiation and strong photothermal conversion
capability for the Apt@AuNRs compared to the Apt@AuNPs. However, with
the new developments of using AuNPs for hyperthermia in the visible
light (Mendes et al., 2017) might additionally potentiate the Apt@AuNPs results observed for these authors (Ocsoy et al., 2017). Recently, Mocan et al.
also described the synthesis of AuNPs by wet chemistry, their
functionalization with IgG molecules following laser irradiation. Their
results indicate that administration of IgG-AuNPs following laser
irradiation provided an extended and selective bacterial death in a dose
dependent manner (Mocan et al., 2016).
In
recent years, a new approach relying on the conjugation of AuNPs with
AMPs has shown interesting results (Rajchakit and Sarojini, 2017).
Indeed, Kuo and collaborators mixed synthetic-peptides containing
arginine, tryptophan and cysteine termini [(DVFLG)2REEW4C and
(DVFLG)2REEW2C], with aqueous tetrachloroauric acid to generate
peptide-immobilized AuNPs [i.e., (DVFLG)2REEW4C-AuNPs and
(DVFLG)2REEW2C-AuNPs] that were effective antibacterial agents against Staphylococci, Enterococci, and antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains (Kuo et al., 2016).
Rai and co-workers demonstrated that the use of cecropin-melittin
(CM-SH) a known peptide with antibacterial properties (Boman et al., 1989),
functionalized in the surface of AuNPs through Au-S bond, showed higher
antimicrobial activity and higher stability in media compared with an in vitro and in vivo infection animal model with the MIC of CM-SH AuNPs four times lower than free CM-SH (Rai A. et al., 2016).
Conjugation of AMP with AuNPs usually involves the formation of the
Au-S coordinate covalent bond, relying on the amine or thiol groups in
peptides or conjugating specific linkers to AMPs with a terminal (N- or
C-terminal) cysteine which helps conjugation with gold (Tielens and
Santos, 2010; Xue et al., 2014). However, there is one example where covalent conjugation of an AMP to AuNPs has been achieved via Au-O bond (Lai et al., 2015).
Other approaches use a linker for the conjugation to AuNPs,
Poly(ethylene glycol) carboxylic acid (PEGCOOH) covalently bound to AMP
showed a significantly increase of the antibacterial and anti-biofilm
activity for resistant Gram-negative bacteria (Casciaro et al., 2017). Yeom and co-workers demonstrated the most advanced in vivo clinical application for AuNPs@AMP using infected mice and resulting in the inhibition of Salmonella Typhimurium colonization in the organs of the animals (Yeom et al., 2016).
The reason behind the increased antimicrobial activity of AuNPs@AMP
over the free components is that AuNPs can get a higher concentration of
the antibiotic at the site of action. These NPs can interact with LPS,
proteins in the membrane of the bacteria and in some cases, penetrate
the bacterial membrane through the porin channel. This way they can
interact with the inner membrane making the AuNPs@AMP conjugate more
efficient than the non-conjugated form (Katz and Willner, 2004; Wangoo et al., 2008; Chen J. et al., 2009).
Bimetallic NPs
Ag
and Au may be used in a single NP to enhance the effects of a drug and
reduce the required dose. Alternatively, they can be used alone since
they possess antimicrobial properties that are enhanced when combined in
the form of bimetallic NPs (Arvizo et al., 2010; Singh R. et al., 2016).
The role of Ag against MDR pathogens has been previously described.
However, AgNPs are difficult to functionalize with biomolecules and
drugs. Such limitation may be circumvented by means of alloy/bimetallic
NPs that excel their monometallic counterparts providing improved
electronic, optical and catalytic properties (Cho et al., 2005; Shah et al., 2012).
As reported above, AuNPs constitute good vectors to the delivery of
pharmacologic compounds. Gold(Au)-silver(Ag) alloys are an optimal
solution since they combine the antimicrobial effect of silver with the
ease of functionalization and improved stability in complex biological
media provided by gold (Doria et al., 2010; dos Santos et al., 2012).
Fakhri and co-workers synthetized and functionalized AgAuNPs with a
tetracycline and concluded that there exists a synergetic effect of the
antibiotic with the bimetallic nanoparticle, with greater bactericidal
activity of this form in detriment of its free forms. The mechanism of
action was established as being the generation of ROS (Fakhri et al., 2017).
Also recently, Baker and collaborators described the synthesis and
antimicrobial activity of bimetallic AgAuNPs from the cell free
supernatant of Pseudomonas veronii strain AS41G inhabiting Annona squamosa L.
The authors showed their synergistic effect with standard antibiotics
with 87.5, 18.5, 11.15, 10, 9.7, and 9.4% fold increased activity with
bacitracin, kanamycin, gentamicin, streptomycin, erythromycin and
chloramphenicol, respectively, against bacitracin resistant strains of Bacillus subtilis, E. coli, and K. pneumoniae (Baker et al., 2017).
Zhao and collaborators have demonstrated the antibacterial activity of
AuPtNPs bimetallic NPs against sensitive and drug-resistant bacteria via the dissipation of the bacterial membrane potential and the elevation of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) levels (Zhao et al., 2014).
Other
types of bimetallic NPs have been studied and their antibacterial
activity explored, but in most cases as coating agents and not as a
delivery approach and antibacterial activity (Argueta-Figueroa et al., 2014).
Metal oxides
Metal
oxides NPs are among one of the most explored and studied family of NPs
and are known to effectively inhibit the growth of a wide range of
sensitive and resistant Gram-positive and -negative bacteria, emerging
as hopeful candidates to challenge antimicrobial resistance (Raghunath
and Perumal, 2017; Reshma et al., 2017; Kadiyala et al., 2018). Iron oxide (Fe3O4), Zinc oxide (ZnO), and Copper oxide (CuO) possess antimicrobial properties and can be applied in clinical care (Sinha et al., 2011).
Due to the intrinsic photocatalytic activity of the metal oxides they
generate ROS and become powerful agents against bacteria (Tong et al., 2013; Singh R. et al., 2014). These will be described in more detail on the following sections.
Iron oxide (Fe3O4)
The synthesis of iron oxide NPs may be achieved via different routes (Babes et al., 1999; Berry and Curtis, 2003).
The antibacterial mechanism of these NPs is mainly attributed to
dissolved metal ions and the generation of ROS (Wang et al., 2017a).
It was shown that superparamagnetic iron oxide NPs interact with
microbial cells by penetrating the membrane and interfering with the
electron transfer (Behera et al., 2012; El-Zowalaty et al., 2015).
Additionally, it has been described that iron oxide NPs can damage
macromolecules, including DNA and proteins, through the formation of ROS
(Leuba et al., 2013). Pan et al. developed a system of reduced graphene oxide (rGO)-iron oxide nanoparticles (rGO-IONP) by the chemical deposition of Fe2+/Fe3+ ions on nanosheets of rGO in aqueous ammonia. The in vivo
results showed maximum antibacterial activity due to the generation of
hydroxyl radicals that can cause physical and chemical damage, which
inactivated MRSA (Pan et al., 2016).
Zinc oxide (ZnO)
ZnO
NPs are often used to restrict microorganism growth, being effective
against planktonic bacteria, and also inhibiting the formation of
biofilms (Hsueh et al., 2015; Sarwar et al., 2016) (Espitia et al., 2012). These NPs can be synthesized by various methods, from green chemistry to sonochemistry (Salem et al., 2015; Ali et al., 2016; Nagvenkar et al., 2016).
The antibacterial mechanism of the NPs is partially attributed to two
principal factors, the dissolution of metal ion and the generation of
ROS (Gelabert et al., 2016; Nagvenkar et al., 2016; Sarwar et al., 2016). ZnO releases Zn2+
in liquid medium and is adsorbed on the surface of bacteria or may
entry the cell, where it interacts with functional groups in proteins
and nucleic acids, hindering enzyme activity and the normal
physiological processes (Yu et al., 2014). However, some authors demonstrated that Zn ions have little antimicrobial activity, implying that dissolution of Zn2+ might not be the main mechanism of action (Aydin Sevinç and Hanley, 2010). Sarwar and co-workers demonstrated that nanosized ZnO caused significant oxidative stress to Vibrio cholera, the damage inflicted was DNA degradation, protein leakage, membrane depolarization and fluidity (Sarwar et al., 2016). Ehsan and Sajjad, described that ZnO NPs impregnated with antibiotics showed good antibacterial activities against S. aureus, Proteus, Acinetobacter, P. aeruginosa, and E. coli,
being that these were resistant to antibiotics but became sensitive in
the presence of these NPs with antibiotics (Ehsan and Sajjad, 2017).
It was also discovered that these NPs induce the production of ROS even
in the dark, and this happens due to the surface defects on the NPs.
The different shapes function as enzyme inhibitors, where nanopyramids
are the most effective (Cha et al., 2015; Lakshmi Prasanna and Vijayaraghavan, 2015).
Recently, Aswathanarayan and Vittal described the antimicrobial effect
of ZnO NPs against MDR Gram-positive and -negative pathogens in
comparison to gold and iron NPs and these could be used at
concentrations less toxic to mammalian cells (Aswathanarayan and Vittal,
2017). ZnO NPs are also known for inhibiting biofilm formation and production of quorum-sensing-dependent virulence factors in P. aeruginosa (Lee et al., 2014; García-Lara et al., 2015).
Copper oxide (CuO)
Copper containing NPs have been shown effective against animal and plant pathogens (LewisOscar et al., 2015), impeding formation of MDR biofilms, and showing the potential to serve as antimicrobial coating agents (LewisOscar et al., 2015). Kruk et al. and Zhang et al. showed that copper NPs are capable of inhibiting the growth of MDR bacteria, namely, P. aeruginosa and MRSA (Zhang et al., 2014, 2015b; Kruk et al., 2015). The antimicrobial activity of these NPs is comparable to that of AgNPs but at a lower cost (Kruk et al., 2015).
Copper oxide NPs generate ROS that often leads to chromosomal DNA
degradation, which seems to highlight a “particle-specific” action
rather than resulting from the release of metallic ions (Chakraborty et
al., 2015).
Su and collaborators investigated the effects of CuONPs on bacterial
denitrification and explored the effect on the expression of
intracellular proteins. When CuONPs entry into bacteria metabolic
functions are affected, such as active transport, electron transfer, and
nitrogen metabolism (Su et al., 2015).
NPs
can also be complexed with other metals, like gallium. Gallium NPs have
been described to facilitate phagosome maturation of macrophages
infected with virulent M. tuberculosis and therefore being able to inhibit growth of this pathogen (Choi et al., 2017).
The potential for nanotheranostics
NPs
applications in biodetection is huge and more insights on pathogen
detection using NPs platforms can be seen in Veigas et al. (2013, 2014, 2015); Costa et al. (2014); Weng et al. (2015); Kim J. et al. (2017); Wang et al. (2017b); Galvan and Yu (2018), and Yang et al. (2018).
Theranostics
is a combination of diagnosis and therapy onto a single platform, which
allow for timely biodetection and/or real-time monitoring of therapy.
By using NPs, this can be translated to the nanoscale—Nanotheranostics.
NPs have been applied for multiplex high-throughput diagnostics to
assist precision therapy. For example, Verigene® is an AuNPs test
commercialized for diagnosis. It is an automated microarray-based system
that identifies Gram-negative pathogens from positive blood cultures.
Verigene® BC-GN also detects key resistance mechanisms (Walker et al., 2016; Claeys et al., 2018).
Others have used, magnetic and functionalized magnetic iron oxide NPs
as affinity probes to capture Gram-positive and -negative bacteria. The
analyses of captured bacteria using matrix-assisted laser
desorption/ionization mass spectrometry was <1 h (Reddy P. M. et al.,
2014). One pioneer work on nanotheranostics against bacterial infection was the development of a method for in vivo photoacoustic detection and photothermal eradication of S. aureus. Two-color gold and multilayer magnetic nanoparticles were functionalized with an antibody cocktail for the targeting of S. aureus. These platform demonstrated ultrasensitive detections for circulating bacterial cells (CBCs), in vivo magnetic enrichment and PT eradication of CBCs (Galanzha et al., 2012).
Recently, Zhou and collaborators developed a silicon
2,3-naphthalocyanine dihydroxide (Nc) and Vancomycin functionalized
silica-encapsulated, silver-coated gold NPs (Au@AgNP@SiO2@Nc-Van) as a
novel theranostic system for surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS)
detection and antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) of vancomycin
(Van)-resistant enterococci (VRE) strains (Zhou et al., 2018). These authors observed a 4–5 logs reduction of bacteria upon in vitro
aPDT of VRE treated with a nanomolar concentration of the
Au@AgNP@SiO2@Nc-Van and an infection regression and even complete
eradication of VRE in vivo using infected mice (Zhou et al., 2018).
A
selenium nanoplatform (Se@PEP-Ru) was designed with excellent
fluorescent properties for imaging bacteria and with high antimicrobial
properties (Huang et al., 2017).
Zhao and co-workers developed an activated theranostics nanoprobe for
near-infrared fluorescence imaging and photothermal therapy of MRSA
infections, based on SiO2/PAH-cypate nanosystems modified with PEG and
Vancomycin-conjugated poly(acrylic acid) molecules (PAAPEG-Van). This
probe is activated by bacteria-responsive polyelectrolyte dissociation
from silica NPs. The authors believe that this concept can be used as an
approach to design and for production of bacteria responsive
multifunctional nanomaterials and constitute their ultimate functions in
the treatment of drug-resistant bacterial infections (Zhao et al., 2017).
Kuo and collaborators developed a nanotheranostics system using Au
nanorods conjugated with a hydrophilic photosensitizer, toluidine blue
O, that acted as dual-function agents in photodynamic inactivation and
hyperthermia against MRSA (Kuo et al., 2009).
Clinical translation
At
present, there are a few metal NPs-based strategies against bacterial
infections undergoing clinical trials. The costs associated to the use
of nanotechnology platforms are very high, and therefore conventional
treatments are preferred. However, these platforms might be preferable
in specific situations, with direct impact on the quality of patients
life (Caster et al., 2017).
Bio-kil®
[3-(Trimethoxysilyl) propyloctadecyldimethyl ammonium chloride]
(Cargico Group, Taiwan) is a patented technology that is based on
affixing nano-sized antimicrobials onto a large surface area through
covalent chemical bonding to form a durable polymer. Bio-kil® eliminates
microorganism through a physical biocide process. This type of
nanomaterial consists in inorganic metal components and organic
quaternary ammonium components. Recently, Bio-Kil® has been shown to
reduce the environmental bacterial burden and MDR organisms (Lee et al.,
2017).
AgTive (NCT00337714)
is a silver-impregnated central venous catheter and has been marketed
with the claim to improved bactericidal activity. AgTive catheters are
made of polyurethanes impregnated with silver NPs, and their interaction
with body fluids and intravenous solutions results in the release of
significantly larger amounts of silver ions from the catheter reducing
bloodstream infection (Antonelli et al., 2012).
Acticoat
is a nanocrystalline silver dressing that acts as an antimicrobial
topical, releasing silver into the wound. This nanoformulation has been
shown to inhibit in vitro biofilms formation in P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii by more than 90% (Potgieter and Meidany, 2017). Madigan Army Medical Center is studying the efficacy of a silver NPs gel SilvaSorb (NCT00659204)
and currently is in phase III of the clinical trials. The aim of this
study is to compare the antimicrobial efficacy of a one-time application
of SilverSorb (AcryMed, Inc., Portland) against the standard
antibacterial hand gel Purell (GoJo Industries, Akron), in reducing
transient bacterial counts isolated from the hands of 40 patients seeded
with S. marcescens.
Nano Silver Fluoride is a
new formulation that combines silver NPs, chitosan and fluoride and was
developed with antimicrobial properties. This nanoformulation has
excellent results as antibacterial agent against S. mutans and Lactobacilli. Currently, is used to prevent dental caries in children (Dos Santos et al., 2014).
Despite
this review do not concern liposomal formulations since it refers to
clinical translation other formulations involving NPs, such as liposomal
formulations, have been also identified as antimicrobial agents. Most
of these formulations rely on the incorporation of traditional
antibiotics into nanoliposomes to improve distribution and circulation
times (Caster et al., 2017). Table Table22 summarizes antimicrobial liposomes, which are undergoing clinical trials. For example, Amikacin (NCT01315691)
is a potent aminoglycoside antibiotic that is useful for the treatment
of MDR Gram-negative bacteria. Arikace is an inhaled liposomal
formulation that encapsulates amikacin composed of
dipalmitoyl-phosphatidylcholine (DPPC) and cholesterol (Meers et al., 2008).
These formulation have high drug loading and stability when
administrated and in phase II trial, there was no notable difference in
toxicity between liposomal drug treatment and placebo (Clancy et al., 2013). Another two-inhaled liposomal formulation are currently in clinical trials. Linhaliq (NCT02104245) is a combination of liposomal and aqueous phase ciprofloxacin, whereas Lipoquin (NCT00889967)
is a liposomal ciprofloxacin that allows prolonged drug release. Both
of these nanoformulation were developed for the treatment of non-cystic
fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFBE) patients with chronic lung infections
with P. aeruginosa. Phase II in patients with both CF and
non-CF bronchiectasis have been completed. After analysis of clinical
data from the two different formulations, Linhaliq showed better
performance. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has designated
Linhaliq as a qualified infection disease product and made it eligible
for Fast track designation. In 2016, Pulmanic completed two phases III
clinical trials, but has not yet been approved by the FDA. The Hadassah
Medical Organization (Jerusalem, Israel) has incorporated quaternary
ammonium polyethyleneimine (QA-PEI) based polymers into dental
composites. The bacterial membrane may be disturbed by the charged
quaternary moiety, it also has potent activity against a series of
Gram-positive and -negative pathogens (Ortega et al., 2015). In 2013, these nanoformulation completed phase II trials but no data on outcome have been released to date.
Table 2
Name | Antimicrobial | Clinical trial phase | Target pathogens | ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier |
---|---|---|---|---|
Arikace | Amikacin | III | Gram-negative bacteria | NCT01315691 |
Lipoquin | Ciprofloxacin | II | Gram-negative bacteria | NCT00889967 |
Pulmaquin | Ciprofloxacin | III | Gram-negative bacteria | NCT02104245 |
Silvasorb | Silver | III | Gram-negative bacteria | NCT00659204 |
MAT2501 | Amikacin | – | Gram-negative bacteria | – |
QA-PEI | Ammonium Polyehtyleneimine | I-II | Gram-negative and -positive bacteria | NCT01167985 |
MAT2501
is designed to targeted delivery of the antibiotic amikacin while
providing an improved safety and tolerability profile. Currently,
Matinas Biopharma has reported positive data from the Phase I study in
healthy volunteers for the treatment of MDR Gram-negative bacterial
infections and is in preparation for a phase II in patients.
Other potential applications of NPs
In
the case of non-antibiotic therapy, combinations of NPs with essential
oils, peptides and other natural compounds have featured as promising
antimicrobial strategies. The therapeutic applications of these
substances are often limited by their toxicity and volatility (Chen F.
et al., 2009; Allahverdiyev et al., 2011).
A recent study has shown that chitosan NPs vectors, modified with
eugenol and carvacrol essential oils on their surface, were active
against E. coli and S. aureus at concentrations better or equal to unmodified NPs versions (Chen F. et al., 2009).
Furthermore, the toxicity of the conjugates toward mouse fibroblasts
was significantly less than the pure oils alone. With regards to
peptides, the active sequences can be vulnerable to denaturation,
aggregation or hydrolysis within end products or in the human body.
Colloidal systems containing NPs are at the forefront of peptide
research, as they can be designed to encapsulate and protect peptides
during biological transit. Water in oil micelles have been successfully
used to increase the potency of antimicrobial peptides against E. coli (Gontsarik et al., 2016).
In another example, liposomes have been used to improve the stability
of encapsulated nisin against pH and temperature extremes thereby
increasing its potential in food processing (Taylor et al., 2007). Popular NPs vehicle materials for peptides include phytoglycogen NPs (Bi et al., 2011), chitosan (Wu et al., 2017), pectin (Krivorotova et al., 2017), and alginate (Khaksar et al., 2014).
NPs
have also been applied with tremendous success in biodetection systems,
namely as sensors and diagnostics platforms with increased sensitivity
and selectivity. Due to the decrease in size of the transduction
mechanisms provided by NPs, most of these platforms have found
applications at point-of-need and/or point-of-care (Costa et al., 2014; Veigas et al., 2014; Weng et al., 2015; Kim J. et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017b; Galvan and Yu, 2018; Yang et al., 2018).
In some cases, diagnostics/sensing and therapeutic properties have been
combined onto single NPs, providing for innovative tools –
Nanotheranostics. Recently, several nanotheranostics strategies against
bacteria have been described (Kuo et al., 2009; DeGrasse, 2012; Dai X. et al., 2013; Khlebtsov et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2013; Gamella et al., 2014; Pei et al., 2014; Setyawati et al., 2014; Patel and Janjic, 2015; Thompson et al., 2015; Jagtap et al., 2017; Mocan et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2017).
Bottlenecks and future challenges of NPs
Despite
the foreseen potential of NPs for medical applications, there are still
several bottlenecks related with their acute and long-term exposure in
humans. Several routes of exposure must be considered when evaluating
NPs exposure, such as oral and gastrointestinal tract, dermal,
respiratory system, and endovenous administration directly to the
bloodstream (De Matteis, 2017).
It is well known also that the physicochemical properties of NPs (e.g.,
size, shape and surface chemistry) affect their interaction with
biological systems, influencing cellular uptake, pharmacokinetics,
biodistribution, all of them with direct impact on final biological
effects (for recent reviews see Bakand and Hayes, 2016; Xia et al., 2016; De Matteis, 2017; Warheit, 2018). These aspects have been addressed over the past years via the evaluation of the in vitro and in vivo toxicity of metal and metal oxide NPs (Dobrovolskaia et al., 2007; Asharani et al., 2010; Li et al., 2010; Baek and An, 2011; Hackenberg et al., 2011; Conde et al., 2012, 2014; Bondarenko et al., 2013; Ivask et al., 2014; Larsen et al., 2016; Sukwong et al., 2016; Rai et al., 2017),
whose conclusions concerning their nanosafety differ depending on the
type of assessment. This poses a major concern to effectively draw
critical conclusions on NPs safety due to the vast number of different
types/shapes/surface modified nanoparticles, the different methods used
to evaluate their safety and environmental effects, and also by the fact
most of these in vitro/in vivo studies present acute studies rather than long-term exposure (Bakand and Hayes, 2016; Xia et al., 2016; De Matteis, 2017; Warheit, 2018). Nevertheless, these in vivo and in vitro
studies have been providing clues to the specific mechanisms by which
NPs trigger an adverse effect enabling future surface modification of
NPs to make them safer and less toxic (De Matteis, 2017). These concerns relating to nanosafety have been addressed and implemented via
European Commission FP7 and H2020-sponsored programs followed by some
relevant conclusions issued by the US National Academy of Science
Committee on Research Progress of Environmental Health and Safety
Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials (Warheit, 2018).
Due to the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) policies of in vivo studies, the future challenge of Regulatory Agencies is the standardization of the in vitro
methodologies to establish the toxicology profile of NPs based on good
laboratory practice (GLP) and the construction of flexible and reliable
databases in which NPs are classified according to the data derived from
these toxicological investigations. Together, these efforts might
provide information on the dosage at which a particular NP can be
considered safe and thus appropriate for medical use.
Challenges of current research
As
mentioned above, nanomaterials have great potential to prevent and
treat bacterial infection, but several challenges remain for the
translation to the clinics. Some of these include assessing the
interactions of nanoantibiotics with cells, tissues and organs, for dose
recalibration and identification of appropriate routes of
administration (Sandhiya et al., 2009). The biocompatibility of NPs is generally evaluated through in vitro
assays, using cell culture. Because NPs, used as antimicrobial agents
can enter through skin contact, ingestion, inhalation, oral and
intravenous injection, in vivo models must also be applied to
better understand their effects, including potential toxicity, clearance
and metabolism (Beyth et al., 2015).
Several studies have shown that intravenously injected NPs accumulate
in the colon, lung, bone marrow, liver, spleen and lymphatics (Hagens et
al., 2007).
Inhalation has also been shown to cause cytotoxicity at the lung, and
in the liver, heart and spleen through systemic circulation (Poma and Di
Giorgio, 2008; Leucuta, 2013).
This is of particular relevance for small NPs because of efficient
cellular uptake and transcytosis across epithelial and endothelial cells
into the blood and lymphatic circulation. Several NPs systems have
demonstrated toxicity in multiple organs, such as free radical-mediated
oxidative stress generated by the interaction of antimicrobial NPs with
cell components that can result in hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity (De
Jong and Borm, 2008; Lei et al., 2008).
The
effective translation to the clinics will require appropriate
guidelines for production and scale-up of manufacturing these
nanomaterials, for characterization of the physico-chemical properties
and their impact on biocompatibility, for standardization of
nanotoxicology assays and protocols to assist easy comparison of data
originating from in vitro and in vivo studies, for the evaluation of their metabolism and mode of action (Duncan and Gaspar, 2011; Bertrand and Leroux, 2012; Beyth et al., 2015; Cordeiro et al., 2016; Rai M. et al., 2016; Zazo et al., 2016). Finally, the community still needs to address the economic impact of translation of these nanomaterials to the clinics.
Conclusions
Given
their vast therapeutic potential, it is becoming increasingly important
to understand the mechanisms by which NPs complexes can impact
bacterial viability. While one of the beneficial aspects of NPs drug
carriers involves “macro-targeting,” i.e., specific delivery to
the site of infection, understanding the “micro-targeting” of bacterial
mechanisms is imperative for the widespread future use of these
vectors. Their impact of cell functions such as cell wall permeability,
efflux activity, formation of reactive species, and inhibition of
essential cellular metabolism and reproduction is of utmost importance.
Author contributions
PB
supervision and correction of Nanoparticles part of the manuscript; MPM
supervision and correction of MDR bacteria part of the manuscript; AC
draft Nanoparticles part of the manuscript, figure draw, tables design;
DF draft MDR bacteria part of the manuscript; NM draft MDR bacteria part
of the manuscript; MM coordination of MDR bacteria part of the
manuscript and final correction and integration; AF coordination of
Nanoparticles part of the manuscript and final correction and
integration.
Conflict of interest statement
NM
was employed by the company Nuritas limited. The remaining authors
declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial
or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential
conflict of interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)