| Literature DB >> 31703330 |
V A Karetsi1, C N Banti1, N Kourkoumelis2, C Papachristodoulou3, C D Stalikas4, C P Raptopoulou5, V Psycharis5, P Zoumpoulakis6, T Mavromoustakos7, I Sainis8, S K Hadjikakou1.
Abstract
The [Zn3(CitH)2] (1) (CitH4= citric acid), was dispersed in sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) to form the micelle of SLS@[Zn3(CitH)2] (2). This material 2 was incorporated in hydrogel made by hydroxyethyl-methacrylate (HEMA), an ingredient of contact lenses, toward the formation of pHEMA@(SLS@[Zn3(CitH)2]) (3). Samples of 1 and 2 were characterized by UV-Vis, 1H-NMR, FT-IR, FT-Raman, single crystal X-ray crystallography, X-ray fluorescence analysis, atomic absorption and TG/DTA/DSC. The antibacterial activity of 1-3 as well as of SLS against Gram-positive (Staphylococcus epidermidis (St. epidermidis) and Staphylococcus aureus (St. aureus)) and Gram-negative (Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PAO1), and Escherichia coli (E. coli)) bacteria was evaluated by the means of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) and inhibitory zone (IZ). 2 showed 10 to 20-fold higher activity than 1 against the bacteria tested. Moreover the 3 decreases the abundance of Gram-positive microbes up to 30% (St. aureus) and up to 20% (PAO1) the Gram-negative ones. The noteworthy antimicrobial activity of the obtained composite 3 suggests an effective antimicrobial additive for infection-free contact lenses.Entities:
Keywords: antimicrobial material; biological inorganic chemistry; citric acid; hydrogel; sodium lauryl sulphate; zinc(II) complexes
Year: 2019 PMID: 31703330 PMCID: PMC6963967 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics8040213
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6382
Scheme 1Reaction scheme for the preparations of compounds 1–3.
Figure 1Molecular diagram of 1.
Figure 2Spectra of 1–2 and SLS and CitH4 in D2O.
Figure 3Raman spectrum of the micelle of 2 compared to corresponding ones for sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) and 1. The spectra are artificially offset for clarity. The data for 2 was baseline corrected due to fluorescence.
Figure 4DSC thermograms of SLS and 2.
Figure 5A typical XRF spectrum acquired from sample 2, showing the characteristic Zn Kα and Zn Kβ X-ray peaks.
Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations, Bactericidal Concentrations and Inhibition zones of 1, 2, SLS, and CitH4 against St. epidermidis, St. aureus, PAO1, and E. coli.
| Compound | Gram-Positive | Gram-Negative | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||
|
| 119.2 ± 18.1 | 183.3 ± 31.4 | >250 | >250 |
|
| 11.7 ± 2.1 | 8.5 ± 0.3 | 228.5 ± 4.6 | 14.9 ± 0.4 |
|
| 49.7 ± 0.4 | 42.9 ± 6.2 | >250 | 39.8 ± 0.6 |
|
| >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 |
|
| ||||
|
| 201.7 | >250 | >250 | >250 |
|
| 13.4 | 12 | >250 | >250 |
|
| 100 | 60 | >250 | >250 |
|
| >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 |
|
| ||||
|
| 1.69 | ND | ND | ND |
|
| 1.15 | 1.41 | ND | ND |
|
| 2.01 | 1.40 | ND | ND |
|
| ND | ND | ND | ND |
|
| ||||
|
| ND | ND | ND | ND |
|
| 23.0 ± 2.0 | 30.5 ± 5.4 | ND | 26.5 ± 1.3 |
|
| ND | ND | ND | ND |
|
| ND | ND | ND | ND |
|
| 14.0 ± 2.8 | 17.0 ± 1.4 | ND | ND |
ND= No inhibitory zone (IZ) was developed. MIC—minimum inhibitory concentration, MBC—minimum bactericidal concentration.
Figure 6Inhibition zones which were grown in St. epidermidis (A,B), St. aureus (C,D), PAO1 (E,F) and E. coli (G,H) for 1, 2, SLS, and CitH4.
Figure 7Dried discs of 3.
Figure 8Bacteria viability St. epidermidis (A), St. aureus (B), PAO1 (C) and E. coli (D) upon their incubations above discs of pHEMA or 3.
Figure 9Inhibition zones of pHEMA and 3 against St epidermidis (A), St. aureus (B), PAO1 (C), and E. coli (D).