| Literature DB >> 29594097 |
Samuel M Goodman1,2, Max Levy1,2, Fei-Fei Li1,2, Yuchen Ding2,3, Colleen M Courtney1, Partha P Chowdhury1,2, Annette Erbse3, Anushree Chatterjee1, Prashant Nagpal1,2,4.
Abstract
The rapid emergence of superbugs, or multi-drug resistant (MDR) organisms, has prompted a search for novel antibiotics, beyond traditional small-molecule therapies. Nanotherapeutics are being investigated as alternatives, and recently superoxide-generating quantum dots (QDs) have been shown as important candidates for selective light-activated therapy, while also potentiating existing antibiotics against MDR superbugs. Their therapeutic action is selective, can be tailored by simply changing their quantum-confined conduction-valence band (CB-VB) positions and alignment with different redox half-reactions-and hence their ability to generate specific radical species in biological media. Here, we show the design of superoxide-generating QDs using optimal QD material and size well-matched to superoxide redox potential, charged ligands to modulate their uptake in cells and selective redox interventions, and core/shell structures to improve their stability for therapeutic action. We show that cadmium telluride (CdTe) QDs with conduction band (CB) position at -0.5 V with respect to Normal Hydrogen Electron (NHE) and visible 2.4 eV bandgap generate a large flux of selective superoxide radicals, thereby demonstrating the effective light-activated therapy. Although the positively charged QDs demonstrate large cellular uptake, they bind indiscriminately to cell surfaces and cause non-selective cell death, while negatively charged and zwitterionic QD ligands reduce the uptake and allow selective therapeutic action via interaction with redox species. The stability of designed QDs in biologically-relevant media increases with the formation of core-shell QD structures, but an appropriate design of core-shell structures is needed to minimize any reduction in charge injection efficiency to adsorbed oxygen molecules (to form superoxide) and maintain similar quantitative generation of tailored redox species, as measured using electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS). Using these findings, we demonstrate the rational design of QDs as selective therapeutic to kill more than 99% of a priority class I pathogen, thus providing an effective therapy against MDR superbugs.Entities:
Keywords: core-shell nanoparticles; electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS); electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy; multi-drug resistant bacteria; nanotherapeutics; quantum dot; surface treatment
Year: 2018 PMID: 29594097 PMCID: PMC5861142 DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2018.00046
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Chem ISSN: 2296-2646 Impact factor: 5.221
Figure 1Choice of QD core material and size for superoxide generation. (A) Absorbance (solid curve) and PL emission (dashed curve) spectra for CdTe-2.4. Inset shows band positions on NHE scale. (B) Cyclic voltammetry measurements for CdTe suspensions in PBS before (left) and after (right) bubbling with argon to remove dissolved oxygen. (C) Normalized optical density growth curves of E. coli with and without CdTe-2.4 core treatment in light and dark. Solid lines were added by fitting the data to a version of the Gompertz function. (D) Photo-inhibition as a function of QD concentration. Data shown in C,D is an average of three biological replicates and error bars denote standard deviation.
Figure 2Design of QD ligand and surface charge. (A) Optical properties of CdTe QDs coated with MPA, Cys, and CA. (B) Optical density (OD) growth curves of E. coli normalized to time t = 0 exposed to CA-CdTe in light and dark. (C) Optical density growth curves of E. coli normalized to time t = 0 exposed to Cys-CdTe and MPA-CdTe in light. (D) Uptake of the MPA, CA, Cys coated QDs into E. coli. Data shown in (B–D) is an average of three biological replicates and error bars denote standard deviation.
Figure 3Core-shell QDs for improved stability. (A) Normalized emission spectra of QDs over time in PBS during illumination, exhibiting decreased intensity, and shifts in the emission maxima. (B) Peak positions as a function of time, exhibiting different regimes of oxidation-instability. (C) Optical spectra and quantum yields of the CdTe cores and CdTe/ZnS core-shells. (D) Degradation profiles of CdTe/ZnS in PBS with and without illumination. (E) Normalized optical density growth curves (with respect to time t = 0) of E. coli exposed to the core-shells in light and dark. (F) Inhibition as a function of QD concentration. (G) Uptake of CdTe/ZnS core-shell QDs compared to CdTe cores. Data shown in (E–G) is an average of three biological replicates and error bars denote standard deviation.
Figure 4Constituent element overcoat for improved stability and therapeutic effect. (A) Optical properties and fluorescence quantum yield of the CdTe/Cd particles compared to cores. (B) Emission peak changes during exposure to PBS in light and dark conditions of the core-shells. (C) Normalized optical density growth curves of E. coli exposed to CdTe/Cd. (D) Photo-inhibition as a function of QD concentration. (E) Uptake of the CdTe/Cd surface treated QDs compared to CdTe cores into E. coli. Data shown in C–E is an average of three biological replicates and error bars denote standard deviation.
Figure 5Electrochemical characterization of QD design. (A) Schematic illustrating EIS measurement and equivalent circuit components for each part. (B) Bode and (C) Nyquist plots used to determine the interfacial parameters reported in Table 1. (D) Open circuit potential decay of the cores with the linearized plot used to extract the rate of charge injection inset.
Charge injection rate for photogenerated electrons (k), interfacial resistance to charge injection (RCT), and capacitance of double layer (due to charge trapping at the interface, CDL), measured using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy.
| k (ms−1) | 0.344 ± 0.001 | 0.317 ± 0.002 | 0.31 ± 0.01 |
| 0.92 ± 0.05 | |||
| RCT (kΩ·cm2) | 1.02 ± 0.02 | 5.03 ± 0.01 | 8.74 ± 0.03 |
| CDL (μF·cm−2) | 73.4 ± 0.4 | 63.5 ± 0.2 | 35.0 ± 0.1 |
Figure 6Superoxide radical characterization via EPR for optimal QD design. (A) EPR spectra of the cores and core-shells before after 30 s of 365 nm irradiation with simulations based on a combination of hydroxyl- and superoxide-DMPO adducts. The dismutation of superoxide radical generated by QDs leads to hydroxyl radical during EPR measurements (Courtney et al., 2017). (B) Integrated radical signal after dark subtraction (IL–ID) and normalization by the sample absorbance at the exciting wavelength.
Figure 7Efficacy of optimal QD design in in vitro cultures. (A) Normalized optical density growth curves (with respect to time t = 0) of E. coli exposed to Cys-CdTe/Cd and MPA-CdTe. (B) Growth inhibition from rationally designed Cys-CdTe/Cd compared to MPA-CdTe. (C) Optical density growth curves of NDM-1 expressing K. pneumoniae exposed to CdTe/Cd in light and dark. (D) Colony forming unit (CFU) analysis of NDM-1 expressing K. pneumoniae cultures at 4 and 8 h of light exposure with respect to CFU at time t = 0. Data in A–D represents average of three biological replicates and error bars denote standard deviation.