| Literature DB >> 33810292 |
Harinash Rao1, Sulin Choo2, Sri Raja Rajeswari Mahalingam3, Diajeng Sekar Adisuri1, Priya Madhavan1, Abdah Md Akim4, Pei Pei Chong2.
Abstract
Biofilms play an essential role in chronic and healthcare-associated infections and are more resistant to antimicrobials compared to their planktonic counterparts due to their (1) physiological state, (2) cell density, (3) quorum sensing abilities, (4) presence of extracellular matrix, (5) upregulation of drug efflux pumps, (6) point mutation and overexpression of resistance genes, and (7) presence of persister cells. The genes involved and their implications in antimicrobial resistance are well defined for bacterial biofilms but are understudied in fungal biofilms. Potential therapeutics for biofilm mitigation that have been reported include (1) antimicrobial photodynamic therapy, (2) antimicrobial lock therapy, (3) antimicrobial peptides, (4) electrical methods, and (5) antimicrobial coatings. These approaches exhibit promising characteristics for addressing the impending crisis of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Recently, advances in the micro- and nanotechnology field have propelled the development of novel biomaterials and approaches to combat biofilms either independently, in combination or as antimicrobial delivery systems. In this review, we will summarize the general principles of clinically important microbial biofilm formation with a focus on fungal biofilms. We will delve into the details of some novel micro- and nanotechnology approaches that have been developed to combat biofilms and the possibility of utilizing them in a clinical setting.Entities:
Keywords: biofilm-related resistance; microtechnology; nanotechnology
Year: 2021 PMID: 33810292 PMCID: PMC8036581 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26071870
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Schematic models of various stages of biofilm development in (a) filamentous fungi, (b) yeasts, and (c) bacteria. Biofilm formation by these three microorganisms share similar processes in terms of their initial attachment to surfaces, the formation of microcolonies, their maturation and dispersal into the surrounding. Initial adhesion is the only reversible step for all these microorganisms.
Fungal biofilms and their matrix components.
| Species | Matrix Components | References |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
|
| Glucose, DNA, small amounts of hexosamine, small amounts of protein, phosphorous, and uronic acid. | [ |
|
| Polysaccharide complex of mannan and glucan. | [ |
|
| High concentration of carbohydrate and less protein than | [ |
|
| High concentration of carbohydrates with less protein. | |
|
| Hexosamine, small amounts of protein, phosphorous, and more uronic acid than | [ |
|
| ||
|
| Glucurunoxylomannan and sugars such as xylose, mannose, glucose, and galactoxylomannan. | [ |
|
| ||
|
| Galactomannan, β-1,3 glucan, monosaccharides, galactose, polyols, melanin, a small amount of protein, | [ |
Efflux pump encoding genes in fungal biofilms.
| Species | ABC Transporters Genes | References | MFS Transporters Genes | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
|
|
| [ |
| [ |
|
|
| [ | - | - |
|
| [ | - | - | |
|
|
| [ |
| [ |
|
|
| [ |
| [ |
|
| ||||
|
| - | - |
| [ |
Figure 2Novel nanomaterials to combat biofilms and as potential drug delivery systems.
Antibiofilm activities of compounds entrapped/immobilized in/on chitosan nanoparticles (CHNPs).
| Chitosan Nanoparticles (CHNPs) Based Formulation | Microorganism(s) Tested | References |
|---|---|---|
| Vancomycin-loaded Carboxymethyl chitosan-2,2′-ethylenedioxy bis ethylamine-folate nanoparticles |
| [ |
| β- | [ | |
| Ferulic acid-encapsulated CHNPs |
| [ |
| RBRBR-CN |
| [ |
| Ciprofloxacin-loaded CHNPs | [ | |
| Fucoidan coated ciprofloxacin-loaded CHPNs | [ | |
| Curcumin-loaded CHNPs |
| [ |
| Chitosan-propolis nanoparticles |
| [ |
| Oxacillin and Deoxyribonuclease I-loaded CHNPs |
| [ |
| Clove oil-loaded CHNPs |
| [ |
| Ferulic acid encapsulated chitosan-tripolyphosphate nanoparticles |
| [ |
| Cinnamaldehyd- encapsulated CHNPs |
| [ |
| Co-amoxiclav embedded CHNPs |
| [ |
| Alginate lyase immobilized low molecular weight CHNPs |
| [ |
| Chitosan-propolis nanoparticles |
| [ |
| Alginate lyase functionalized CHNPs of Ciprofloxacin |
| [ |
| Chrysin-loaded CHNPs |
| [ |
| [ | ||
| Chitosan-propolis nanoparticles |
| [ |
| Mesenchymal stem cells derived |
| [ |
| Cellobiose dehydrogenase and deoxyribonuclease I co-immobilized CHNPs | [ | |
| Glucose oxidase immobilized CHNPs |
| [ |
| Curcumin-loaded CHNPs | [ |
Summary of studies on microparticles with antibiofilm properties.
| Formulation | Matrix Material(s) | Active Ingredient(s) | Microorganism(s) Tested | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| UA-loaded CPLLA MP | Carboxylated poly( | Usnic acid (UA) |
| [ |
| DAP-loaded PCL MP | Poly-epsilon-caprolactone | Daptomycin | MRSA, | [ |
| Ciprofloxacin-loaded PLGA MP | PLGA | Ciprofloxacin |
| [ |
| PTC-loaded Man-Cyst MP | Mannitol | Polyanion tobramycin complex, Cysteamine |
| [ |
| ISMN-loaded PLGA MP | PLGA | Isosorbide mononitrate |
| [ |
| DAP-loaded | Poly (methyl methacrylate) -Eudragit RL 100 | Daptomycin | MRSA, | [ |
| DAP-MP | Poly (methyl methacrylate)-Eudragit RL 100 | Daptomycin | MRSA | [ |
| PBMP-coated | Poly (butyl methacrylate-co-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphate), PLGA | Furanone C-30 |
| [ |
| Chitosan MP | Chitosan | Chitosan |
| [ |
|
| ||||
| CHX-loaded Ca(OH)2 MP | Calcium hydroxide | Chlorhexidine |
| [ |
|
| ||||
| Mino-Ca-DS MP | Calcium chloride, dextran sulfate | Minocycline | [ | |
| SNO MP | Porous organosilica | Nitrosylated thiol groups |
| [ |
|
| ||||
| Tetracycline-loaded chitosan MS | Chitosan | Tetracycline, chitosan |
| [ |
| MCP MS | Chitosan, Pluronic® F127 | Melatonin, chitosan | MRSA | [ |
| Totarol-loaded PLGA MS | PLGA | Totarol |
| [ |
| Chitosan-alginate MS | Chitosan, alginate | Chitosan |
| [ |
| RIF-MOX PLGA MS | PLGA | Rifampicin, moxifloxacin |
| [ |
|
| ||||
| Gentamicin-loaded MCH MS | Mesoporous carbonated hydroxyapatite | Gentamicin |
| [ |
| Gentamicin-loaded MEH MS | Magnetic mesoporous carbonated hydroxyapatite | Gentamicin |
| [ |
|
| ||||
| Ag–HA–Alb MS | Hydroxyapatite, albumin | Silver |
| [ |
|
| ||||
| Alginate, chitosan |
| [ | ||
Abbreviations: MP, microparticle; MS, Microsphere; MC, Microcapsule; UA, Usnic acid; CPLLA, carboxylated poly(l-lactide); DAP, Daptomycin; PCL, Poly-epsilon-caprolactone; PTC, Polyanion tobramycin complex; ISMN, Isosorbide mononitrate; PMMA-EUD, Poly(methyl methacrylate)-Eudragit RL 100; PBMP, Poly(butyl methacrylate-co-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphate); CHX, Chlorhexidine; Ca(OH)2, Calcium hydroxide; SNO, Porous organosilica containing nitrosylated thiol groups; Mino-Ca-DS, Minocycline-calcium-dextran sulfate; MCP, Melatonin-loaded chitosan/Pluronic® F127; RIF-MOX, Rifampicin-moxifloxacin; MCH, Mesoporous carbonated hydroxyapatite; MEH, Magnetic mesoporous carbonated hydroxyapatite; Ag–HA–Alb, Silver–hydroxyapatite–albumin.
Figure 3Novel microtechnology approaches to combat biofilms and as drug delivery systems.
Summary of coatings used with antibiofilm properties.
| Coating Formulation | Coating Surface | Coating Method | Microorganism(s) Tested | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UA loaded-PLA-PVA MS | Titanium | MAPLE |
| [ |
| UA loaded-Magnetic PLGA-PVA MS | Titanium | MAPLE |
| [ |
| Magnetite and eugenol loaded | Glass | MAPLE |
| [ |
| Chitosan loaded with silver-decorated calcium phosphate MS | Titanium | Alkyloxysilane |
| [ |
| P(3HB-3HV)-PEG-Lys MS | Titanium | MAPLE |
| [ |
| P(3HB-3HV)-Lys MS |
Abbreviations: Ref, Reference; MS, Microsphere; MAPLE, Matrix assisted pulsed laser evaporation; UA, Usnic acid; PLA, Polylactic acid; PVA, Polyvinyl alcohol; PLGA, Poly(lactide-co-glycolide); P(3HB-3HV), Poly(3-hydroxybutyricacid-co-3-hydroxyvaleric acid); PEG, polyethylene glycol; Lys, Lysozyme.