| Literature DB >> 32059067 |
Abshar Hasan1,2, Kyueui Lee3, Kunal Tewari2, Lalit M Pandey1, Phillip B Messersmith4,5, Karen Faulds2, Michelle Maclean6, King Hang Aaron Lau2.
Abstract
Microbial surface attachment negatively impacts a wide range of devices from water purification membranes to biomedical implants. Mimics of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) constituted from poly(N-substituted glycine) "peptoids" are of great interest as they resist proteolysis and can inhibit a wide spectrum of microbes. We investigate how terminal modification of a peptoid AMP-mimic and its surface immobilization affect antimicrobial activity. We also demonstrate a convenient surface modification strategy for enabling alkyne-azide "click" coupling on amino-functionalized surfaces. Our results verified that the N- and C-terminal peptoid structures are not required for antimicrobial activity. Moreover, our peptoid immobilization density and choice of PEG tether resulted in a "volumetric" spatial separation between AMPs that, compared to past studies, enabled the highest AMP surface activity relative to bacterial attachment. Our analysis suggests the importance of spatial flexibility for membrane activity and that AMP separation may be a controlling parameter for optimizing surface anti-biofouling.Entities:
Keywords: antimicrobial peptides; bacterial attachment; biointerfaces; click chemistry; peptoids
Year: 2020 PMID: 32059067 PMCID: PMC7318250 DOI: 10.1002/chem.202000746
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chemistry ISSN: 0947-6539 Impact factor: 5.236
Figure 1A) Chemical structures of the (kss)4 antimicrobial sequence as well as its C‐ and N‐modifications. B) Chemical structure of the modified sequence for CuAAC „click“ coupling. The red ball representation is used in Figure 2 A.
Figure 2A) Surface modification schemes for generating PEG‐tethered (kss)4 (i.e. Scheme A: GOPTS‐PEG‐N3‐(kss)4) and (kss)4 immobilized directly on the surface (i.e. Scheme B: APTMS‐N3‐(kss)4). B) Water contact angles measured after successive modification steps.
Figure 3High‐resolution C1s (A) and N1s (B) XPS spectra after each surface modification steps to achieve GOPTS‐PEG‐N3‐(kss)4.
Figure 4Typical confocal microscopy images of live (green) and dead/damaged (red) P. aeruginosa on: A) unmodified glass, B) APTMS, C) APTMS‐N3‐(kss)4, and D) GOPTS‐PEG‐N3‐(kss)4. E) Quantified attachment data corresponding to confocal measurements. Both actual coverage (θ coverage) and coverage normalized to attachment on unmodified glass (θ norm) are shown. # and ## denote p<0.005 and p<0.05, respectively (one‐way ANOVA).
Figure 5A) Live bacterial attachment normalized to levels on unmodified substrate (glass or Ti). B) Ratio of dead/damaged bacterial attachment versus live attachment shown in (A). The inset shows the original dead attachment data. Open squares (□) indicate the present study for P. aeruginosa. Other symbols indicate literature data for P. aeruginosa (▪),23c, 24 E. coli (•),12, 25 S. aureus (⧫),23c L. salivarius (▴),23a, 23b and S. sanguinis (✶).23a, 23b Attachment was measured by either imaging stained cells or re‐culturing of attached bacteria.