| Literature DB >> 34947529 |
Ruifang Gao1,2, Linzhu Su2,3, Tianrong Yu2,4, Jian Liu4, Henny C van der Mei2, Yijin Ren5, Gaojian Chen1, Linqi Shi3, Brandon W Peterson2, Henk J Busscher2.
Abstract
Photothermal nanoparticles can be used for non-antibiotic-based eradication of infectious biofilms, but this may cause collateral damage to tissue surrounding an infection site. In order to prevent collateral tissue damage, we encapsulated photothermal polydopamine-nanoparticles (PDA-NPs) in mixed shell polymeric micelles, composed of stealth polyethylene glycol (PEG) and pH-sensitive poly(β-amino ester) (PAE). To achieve encapsulation, PDA-NPs were made hydrophobic by electrostatic binding of indocyanine green (ICG). Coupling of ICG enhanced the photothermal conversion efficacy of PDA-NPs from 33% to 47%. Photothermal conversion was not affected by micellar encapsulation. No cytotoxicity or hemolytic effects of PEG-PAE encapsulated PDA-ICG-NPs were observed. PEG-PAE encapsulated PDA-ICG-NPs showed good penetration and accumulation in a Staphylococcus aureus biofilm. Penetration and accumulation were absent when nanoparticles were encapsulated in PEG-micelles without a pH-responsive moiety. PDA-ICG-NPs encapsulated in PEG-PAE-micelles found their way through the blood circulation to a sub-cutaneous infection site after tail-vein injection in mice, yielding faster eradication of infections upon near-infrared (NIR) irradiation than could be achieved after encapsulation in PEG-micelles. Moreover, staphylococcal counts in surrounding tissue were reduced facilitating faster wound healing. Thus, the combined effect of targeting and localized NIR irradiation prevented collateral tissue damage while eradicating an infectious biofilm.Entities:
Keywords: biofilm; infection; micelles; photothermal nanoparticles; polydopamine; self-targeting
Year: 2021 PMID: 34947529 PMCID: PMC8706488 DOI: 10.3390/nano11123180
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1Characteristics, including photothermal properties, of photothermal nanoparticles before and after micellar encapsulation. (a) Transmission electron micrographs of PDA- and PDA-ICG-NPs. Note aggregation of hydrophobic PDA-ICG-NPs. (b) UV-vis absorption spectra of nanoparticles and PDA-ICG/PEG-PAE and PDA-ICG/PEG micelles (see Figure S1 for a UV-vis absorption spectrum of ICG in water). (c) Diameter distributions of nanoparticles before and after encapsulation in PEG-PAE or PEG micelles, obtained using DLS in PBS. (d) Zeta potentials of nanoparticles in 10 mM phosphate buffer at different pH before and after encapsulation in PEG- and pH-responsive PEG-PAE-micelles. Data represent means ± standard deviation over triplicate experiments. (e) Temperature of nanoparticle suspensions with and without micellar encapsulation in PBS (250 µL, 0.2 mg/mL) as a function of NIR irradiation time (808 nm, 1300 mW/cm2). (f) Photothermal stability of PDA-ICG/PEG-PAE micelles as a function of time during repetitive NIR irradiation. See panel e for conditions applied. ON/OFF refers to the action of turning the NIR-laser on or off.
Figure 2Photothermal killing of planktonic S. aureus Xen36 (3 × 106 CFU/mL) in suspensions with different concentrations of photothermal PDA-NPs and PDA-ICG-NPs after micellar encapsulation. Heat generation occurred in a suspension volume of 250 µL upon 10 min NIR irradiation (808 nm) at 1300 mW/cm2. (a) Log-reduction of staphylococci in suspension due to photothermal killing at pH 5.0 compared to NIR irradiation in absence of nanoparticles or micelles. (b) Log-reduction of staphylococci in suspension due to photothermal killing at pH 7.4 compared to NIR irradiation in absence of nanoparticles or micelles. Data represent means with standard deviations over 3 experiments with separately prepared batches of nanoparticles and bacterial cultures. * indicate statistically significant differences between the data indicated by the spanning bars (two-way ANOVA; * p < 0.05, ** p< 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001).
Figure 3Targeting of S. aureus Xen36 biofilms by photothermal PDA-ICG-NPs after micellar encapsulation at pH 5.0 and 7.4. (a) CLSM micrographs of targeting, penetration and accumulation of encapsulated PDA-ICG-NPs into 48 h grown S. aureus biofilms, exposed for 60 min to PDA-ICG-NPs encapsulated in Nile red-loaded PEG micelles in suspension (0.5 mg/mL) for 60 min at different pH. (b) Same as panel a, now for encapsulation in PEG-PAE micelles. (c) Percentage red-fluorescence intensity upon accumulation of PDA-ICG-NPs encapsulated in Nile red-loaded micelles in S. aureus at pH 5.0 and pH 7.4. The percentage red-fluorescence intensity was expressed relative to the total (red and green) fluorescence intensity. Data represent means with standard deviations over 3 experiments with separately prepared batches of nanoparticles and bacterial cultures. * indicate statistically significant differences between the data indicated by the spanning bars (one-way ANOVA; * p < 0.05).
Figure 4Eradication of a sub-cutaneous S. aureus Xen36 biofilm in mice after tail-vein injection of photothermal PDA-ICG-NPs encapsulated in micelles and in absence and presence of NIR irradiation. (a) Experimental scheme. (b) Time series of bioluminescence images of mice taken after injection of PBS (200 µL) or a suspension of micellar encapsulated photothermal nanoparticles in PBS (1 mg/mL) in absence or presence of NIR irradiation. (c) Bioluminescence intensity arising from the infection sites as a function of time after initiating injection and NIR irradiation. Bioluminescence intensity was expressed in percentages relating to the bioluminescence intensity at t = 0. (d) Same as panel c, now in absence of NIR irradiation. (e) Numbers of CFU/g tissue excised from around the infection site at sacrifice. Data represent means with standard deviations over 6 mice in each group. * indicate statistically significant differences between the data indicated by the spanning bars (one-way ANOVA; ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001).