| Literature DB >> 33260385 |
Oliwia Metryka1, Daniel Wasilkowski2, Anna Nowak3, Małgorzata Adamczyk-Habrajska4, Agnieszka Mrozik2.
Abstract
Due to the systematic increase in the production of nanomaterials (NMs) and their applications in many areas of life, issues associated with their toxicity are inevitable. In particular, the performance of heterogeneous NMs, such as nanocomposites (NCs), is unpredictable as they may inherit the properties of their individual components. Therefore, the purpose of this work was to assess the biological activity of newly synthesized Cu/TiO2-NC and the parent nanoparticle substrates Cu-NPs and TiO2-NPs on the bacterial viability, antioxidant potential and fatty acid composition of the reference Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis strains. Based on the toxicological parameters, it was found that B. subtilis was more sensitive to NMs than E. coli. Furthermore, Cu/TiO2-NC and Cu-NPs had an opposite effect on both strains, while TiO2-NPs had a comparable mode of action. Simultaneously, the tested strains exhibited varied responses of the antioxidant enzymes after exposure to the NMs, with Cu-NPs having the strongest impact on their activity. The most considerable alternations in the fatty acid profiles were found after the bacteria were exposed to Cu/TiO2-NC and Cu-NPs. Microscopic images indicated distinct interactions of the NMs with the bacterial outer layers, especially in regard to B. subtilis. Cu/TiO2-NC generally proved to have less distinctive antimicrobial properties on B. subtilis than E. coli compared to its parent components. Presumably, the biocidal effects of the tested NMs can be attributed to the induction of oxidative stress, the release of metal ions and specific electrochemical interactions with the bacterial cells.Entities:
Keywords: Cu and TiO2 nanoparticles; Cu/TiO2 nanocomposite; FAME profiling; MARA test; antimicrobial activity; antioxidant enzymes; bacteria
Year: 2020 PMID: 33260385 PMCID: PMC7731063 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21239089
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1TEM micrographs of Cu/TiO2-NC using a two-scale bar: 100 nm (A) and 20 nm (B) and agglomerated Cu-NPs using a two-scale bar: 200 nm (C) and 50 nm (D).
The values of MIC, MBC and IC50 (mg L−1) of the tested NMs against the reference E. coli and B. subtilis strains.
| Type of Nanomaterials | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIC | MBC | IC50 | MIC | MBC | IC50 | |
| Cu/TiO2-NC | 500 | 500 | 100.61 | 525 | 575 | 464.22 |
| Cu-NPs | 575 | 600 | 506.35 | 40 | 50 | 4.84 |
| TiO2-NPs | 500 | 500 | 102.16 | 575 | 1000 | 95.83 |
Figure 2The activities of CAT (A), PER (B), SOD (C) and DEH (D) in E. coli and B. subtilis after treatment with NMs and in the control cells. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) among means between control and NMs treatment.
Figure 3Projection of the individual fatty acids along PC1 and PC2 in the FAME profiles of E. coli (A,B) and B. subtilis (C,D) treated with NMs and in the control cells. The samples with similar PC1 and PC2 values are included in a cluster.
Figure 4The percentages of straight-chain, branched, hydroxyl, cyclopropane and unsaturated fatty acids in the FAME profiles of E. coli (A) and B. subtilis (B) treated with Cu/TiO2-NC, Cu-NPs, TiO2-NPs and in the control cells.
Figure 5SEM-EDS photographs of the E. coli treated with Cu/TiO2 -NC (A); Cu-NPs (D) and TiO2-NPs (F). EDS micrographs of selected elements: Cu (B,E) and Ti (C,G).
Figure 6SEM-EDS photographs of the B. subtilis treated with Cu/TiO2 -NC (A); Cu-NPs (D) and TiO2-NPs (F). EDS micrographs of selected elements: Cu (B,E) and Ti (C,G).
The average MTC values (mg L−1) for the tested NMs in MARA test.
| Type of Nanomaterial | Strain | MTCav. | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ||
| Cu/TiO2-NC | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | 973 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 |
| Cu-NPs | 555 | >1000 | 986 | 683 | 747 | 423 | 463 | 376 | 790 | 97 | >1000 | 559 |
| TiO2-NPs | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 | >1000 |
1—Microbacterium spp., 2—Brevundimonas diminuta, 3—Citrobacter freundii, 4—Comamonas testosterone, 5—Enterococcus casseliflavus, 6—Delftia acidovorans, 7—Kurthia gibsonii, 8—Staphylococcus warneri, 9—Pseudomonas aurantiaca, 10—Serratia rubidaea, 11—Pichia anomala; G+—Gram-positive strain, G—Gram-negative strain.