| Literature DB >> 27231933 |
Zora Rukavina1, Željka Vanić2.
Abstract
Biofilm targeting represents a great challenge for effective antimicrobial therapy. Increased biofilm resistance, even with the elevated concentrations of very potent antimicrobial agents, often leads to failed therapeutic outcome. Application of biocompatible nanomicrobials, particularly liposomally-associated nanomicrobials, presents a promising approach for improved drug delivery to bacterial cells and biofilms. Versatile manipulations of liposomal physicochemical properties, such as the bilayer composition, membrane fluidity, size, surface charge and coating, enable development of liposomes with desired pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. This review attempts to provide an unbiased overview of investigations of liposomes destined to treat bacterial biofilms. Different strategies including the recent advancements in liposomal design aiming at eradication of existing biofilms and prevention of biofilm formation, as well as respective limitations, are discussed in more details.Entities:
Keywords: antimicrobial; biofilm; drug delivery; infection; liposomes; physicochemical properties
Year: 2016 PMID: 27231933 PMCID: PMC4932481 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics8020018
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Figure 1Schematic drawing of biofilm formation (adapted from [6,7]).
Figure 2Influence of the liposomal physicochemical properties on the biofilm delivery.
Summary of the different types of liposomes investigated for delivery of antimicrobials to bacterial biofilms.
| Liposome Type | Lipid Composition (Molar Ratio) | Drug | Average Size (nm) | Biofilm | Findings | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DPPC/Chol/SA (1:0.49:0.4) | - | 126 | Strong affinity for biofilm; lipid concentration and ionic strength of medium influenced the liposome adsorption to the biofilm | [ | ||
| DPPC/Chol (1:0.21) DPPC/Chol/DDAB (1:0.28:0.22) | Vancomycin, gentamicin | ~120 | Pronounced biofilm-inhibition effect with cationic liposomes | [ | ||
| DPPC/Chol/SA (variable mol% SA) DPPC/DPPG (variable mol% DPPG) DPPC/PI (variable mol% PI) DPPC/Chol/DDAB (11 mol% DDAB) DPPC/DC-Chol (32.3 mol% DC-Chol) | Triclosan, chlorhexidine | ~100 | Anionic and cationic liposomes superior in bactericide delivery as compared with the free bactericides; diffusion mechanism responsible for the bactericide delivery | [ | ||
| DPPC/Chol/SA (1:0.49:0.20–1.01) DPPC/DC-Chol (1:0.49:0.11–0.65) DPPC/Chol/DDAB (1:0.49:0.17–0.52) | Vancomycin | ~120 | Strong adsorption to the biofilm related to concentration of cationic lipid; DDAB-based liposomes inhibited bacterial growth more effectively than the free drug | [ | ||
| DMPC/Chol/DDAB (58.5:23:18.5) DMPC/PI (82.5:17.5) DPPC/Chol/SA (52.8:26:21.2) | Triclosan | 108–129 | Linear relationship between liposome adsorption and mixed biofilm composition; anionic liposomes more effective than cationic | [ | ||
| DPPC/Chol/DC-Chol (1:0.49:0.43) | Benzyl penicillin G | ~140 | Effective delivery into biofilm at low drug concentrations and short exposure time | [ | ||
| DPPC/Chol (2:1) | Amikacin | ~300 | Penetration into the biofilm and infected sputum; superior | [ | ||
| DMPC/Chol (2:1) | Tobramycin, gentamicin, amikacin | 345–512 | 8–32-fold increased MBECs (non-mucoid strains) and 64–256-fold increased MBECs (mucoid strains), as compared to the corresponding MICs | [ | ||
| DPPC/Chol (6:1) DPPC/Chol/DCP (2:1:4) DPPC/Chol/DDAB (2:1:4) | Clarithro-mycin | 170–220 | Complete biofilm eradication with cationic and anionic liposomes; anionic liposomes superior (encapsulation efficiency, safety profile) | [ | ||
| DPPC/Chol (2:1) DOPC/DPPG (8:1) | Tobramycin | 230–430 | No increased anti-biofilm activity relative to the free drug | [ | ||
| DPPC/Chol (6:1) | Azithromycin | 406 | Significant reduction of bacterial growth in the biofilm and attenuation of virulence factors production | [ | ||
| DPPC/DMPG (15:1; 10:1) | Tobramycin | ~400 | High bactericidal activity
| [ | ||
| DPPC/DMPG (15:1; 18:1) | ~400 | Strong activity at sub-MICs doses; increased penetration attained with dry powder preparations | [ | |||
| DPPC/DMPG (18:1) | ~400 | Confirmed liposome fusion with bacterial cells | [ | |||
| DPPC/DMPG (10:1) | 230–400 | Superior activity
| [ | |||
| DOPE/DPPC/CHEMS (4:2:4) | Vancomycin | ~100 | Enhanced penetration of the drug (adhesion and fusion mechanism) | [ | ||
| DPPC/DMPG liposomes (18:1) PC/DOPE/SA (1:1:0.7) PC/DOTAP/Chol (2.2:1:2.6) | Meropenem | 107–142 | Fluidosomes showed higher MICs than the free drug did; increased activity of cationic liposomes (2–4-fold lower MICs than for the free drug) | [ | ||
| SPC/SCh (9.3:1) | Daptomycin | 55 | Powerful antimicrobial action
| [ | ||
| DMPC/DDAB/DPPE-PEG-2000 (80:20-11:0-9) DPPC/DDAB/DPPE-PEG-2000 (80:20-11:0-9) DSPC/DDAB/DPPE-PEG-2000 (80:20-11:0-9) DSPC/PI/DPPE-PEG-2000 (80:20-11:0-9) | - | ~120 | PEGylation reduced the liposomal anti-biofilm activity | [ | ||
| DPPC/SA/Chol/PEG (1:0.5:0.5:0.02) DPPC/DCP/Chol/PEG (1:0.5:0.5:0.02) | Vancomycin, rifampin | 120–140 | PEGylation did not reduce liposome anti-biofilm activity; increasing of incubation time enhanced the biofilm eradication effect | [ | ||
| DPPC/PI/DPPEMBS- anti-
| - | ~100 | Immunoliposomes showed greater antimicrobial affinity than the antibody-free liposomes | [ | ||
| DPPC/PI/DPPEMBS- anti-
| - | ~80–120 | Immunoliposomes adsorbed to the surface of | [ | ||
| DPPC/PI/DPPEMBS-anti-
| Triclosan chlorhexidine | ~100 | Greater antibacterial activity than with the free drug; the extent of growth inhibition linearly related to the number of liposomes targeted to biofilm surface | [ | ||
| PC/Chol/SA (2:1:0.1) (PC/Chol/SA)/ConA (0.1):1 | Metronidazole | ~3000 | Targeting the surface “glyco-calyx” of biofilm; inhibition of bacterial growth | [ | ||
| PC/Chol/SA (7:2:1) (PC/Chol/SA)/CHM (5):1 (PC/Chol/SA)/SM (7):1 | 400–450 | Mannosylated liposomes showed increased ability to target biofilms; superior targeting ability with SM-based liposomes | [ | |||
| DPPC/PI (4.85:1) | GO GO+HRP CPO+GO LPO+GO | 97–224 | Inhibition increases with liposome-biofilm and substrate-biofilm incubation time and extent of enzyme encapsulation | [ | ||
| DPPC/DMPG (1:1) | Gentamicin-gallium | ~300 | Eradication of the biofilm and interruption of QS signaling | [ | ||
| DSPC/Chol (2:1) | Tobramycin- BiEDT | ~900 | Eradication of the biofilm at significantly lower concentrations than with the free BiEDT; less toxicity of the liposomal formulation; QS suppressing properties; deeper penetration into the biofilm; attenuation of the alginate production; reduction of bacterial counts in the lungs of infected rats
| [ | ||
| DPPC/PI (PI-14 mol%), DPPC/DDAB/Chol (DDAB-14 mol%) adsorbed on zinc citrate particles | Triclosan, penicillin G | ~100 | Activity affected by the amount of the lipid adsorbed onto zinc citrate particles; no particular advancement in comparison to individual constituents | [ | ||
| DPPC/Chol/SA (1:0.43:0.49), impregated in CS | Gentamicin | n.d. | Significantly increased efficacy as compared to liposomal gentamicin; complete sterilization of bone tissues; prolonged drug release | [ | ||
| DPPC/Chol (3:1), β-TCP | Gentamicin | ~110–5200 | Superior antibiofilm activity achieved with 800 nm-sized liposomes; controlled drug delivery | [ | ||
| SPC/SA/Chol (7:3:1), n-HA/CS/KGM | Vancomycin | ~200 | Successful inhibition of the biofilm formation; sustained release from LLS | [ | ||
| SPC/SA/Chol (7:1:1), β-TCP | Ceftazimide | ~160 | Significant
| [ | ||
| DSPC/Chol/ALN-TEG-Chol | Oxacillin | ~100 | Significantly higher antibacterial effects than with DSPC/Chol liposomes; fast and strong binding to hydroxyapatite | [ | ||
| SPC, chitosan hydrogel | Mupirocin | 920 | Prevention of biofilm formation; reduced cytotoxicity;
| [ | ||
| DPPC/Chol/PEG-DSPE/rhodamine-DPPE (1:1:0.05:0.001), PEG-gelatin hydrogel | Ciprofloxacin | ~100 | Prevention of bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation on urinary catheters; prolonged drug release; improved biocompatibility of coated catheters; effective delay of the bateriuria
| [ |
ALN-TEG-Chol, alendronate-tri(ethyleneglycol)-cholesterol conjugate; BBLs, biomineral-binding liposomes; β-TCP, β-tricalcium phosphate; BiEDT, bismuth-ethanedithiol; CHEMS, cholesterol hemisuccinate; CHM, cholesteryl mannan; Chol, cholesterol; ConA, concanavalin A; CPO, chloroperoxidase; CS, calcium sulfate; DC-Chol, dimethylammonium ethane carbamoyl cholesterol; DCP, dicetylphosphate; DDAB: dimethyldioctadecylammonium bromide; DMPC; dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine; DMPG, dimyristoylphosphatidylglycerol; DOPC, dioleoylphophatidylcholine; DOPE, dioleoylphosphatidylethanolamine; DOTAP, 1,2-oleoyl-3-trimethylammonium-propan; DPPC, dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine; DPPE, diplalmitoylphosphatidylethanolamine; DPPEMBS, maleimidobenzoyl-N-hydroxysuccinimide(MBS) derivative of DPPE; DPPG, dipalmitoylphosphatidylglycerol; DSPC, distearoylphosphatidylcholine; GO, glucose oxidase; GO-HRP, glucose oxidase-horse radish peroxidase; LLSs, liposome loaded scaffolds; LPO, lactoperoxidase; MBEC, minimal biofilm eradication concentration; MIC, minimal inhibitory concentration; n.d., not determined; n-HA/CS/KGM, nano-hydroxyapatite/chitosan/konjac glucomannan; PC, phosphatidylcholine; PEG, poly(ethylene) glycol; PI, phosphatidylinositol; QS, quorum sensing; SA, stearylamine; SCh, sodium cholate; SM, sialo-mannan; SSLs, solid supported liposomes; SPC, soy phosphatidylcholine (lecithin).