| Literature DB >> 35004642 |
Winnie Ntow-Boahene1, David Cook2, Liam Good1.
Abstract
Rising global populations due to medicinal advancements increases the patient population susceptible to superficial and severe fungal infections. Fungi often implicated in these diseases includes the dermatophytes (Microsporum spp., Epidermophtyon spp., Trichophyton spp.) as well as species of the Candida spp., Aspergillosis spp. and Cryptococcus spp. genera. In addition, increasing global populations leads to increasing agricultural demands. Thus, fungal infections of preharvested crops and stored food by plant pathogens such as Magnaporthe oryzae and Fusarium oxysporum can have detrimental socioeconomic effects due to food insecurity. Current antifungal strategies are based mainly on small molecule antifungal drugs. However, these drugs are limited by poor solubility and bioavailability. Furthermore, antifungal resistance against these drugs are on the rise. Thus, antimicrobial polymers offer an alternative antifungal strategy. Antifungal polymers are characterised by cationic and hydrophobic regions where the cationic regions have been shown to interact with microbial phospholipids and membranes. These polymers can be synthetic or natural and demonstrate distinct antifungal mechanisms ranging from fungal cell membrane permeabilisation, cell membrane depolarisation or cell entry. Although the relative importance of such mechanisms is difficult to decipher. Due to the chemical properties of these polymers, they can be combined with other antimicrobial compounds including existing antifungal drugs, charcoals, lipids and metal ions to elicit synergistic effects. In some cases, antifungal polymers and nanocomposites show better antifungal effects or reduced toxicity compared to the widely used small molecule antifungal drugs. This review provides an overview of antimicrobial polymers and nanocomposites with antifungal activity and the current understanding of their antifungal mechanisms.Entities:
Keywords: antifungal; antifungal polymers; antimicrobial polymers; fungal infections; nanocomposites
Year: 2021 PMID: 35004642 PMCID: PMC8740302 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.780328
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
A generalised overview of the advantages and disadvantages of antifungal polymers in comparison to small molecule antifungals.
| Compound | Advantages | Disadvantages | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antifungal polymers | Chitosan | Sustained drug delivery | Expensive to produce |
|
| High mucoadhesion | Poor potencies |
| ||
| Oral delivery |
| |||
| Low toxicity |
| |||
| Biocompatible |
| |||
|
|
| |||
| High aqueous solubility | ||||
| Easily chemically modified for flexible applications | ||||
| Broad spectrum activity | ||||
| PHMB | Sustained drug delivery | Some absorption in kidneys and liver of mice following oral ingestion | Elsztein et al., 2011 | |
| Low toxicity |
| |||
| Biocompatible | ||||
| Most orally ingested PHMB in mice is excreted via urine and faeces | ||||
| High aqueous solubility | ||||
| Flexible applications | ||||
| Broad-spectrum activity | ||||
| No observed acquired resistance | ||||
| No signs of liver | ||||
| poly-ε-lysine (ε-PL) | Low toxicity | Low production yield and high production cost |
| |
| Biocompatible | ||||
| Biodegradable | ||||
| High aqueous solubility | ||||
| Flexible applications | ||||
| Broad-spectrum activity | ||||
| Antifungal drugs | Azole | Some azoles penetrate into the CSF | Poor aqueous solubility |
|
| Topical or systemic delivery | Varying levels of toxicity | |||
| Broad-spectrum activity |
| |||
| Polyenes | Broad-spectrum activity | Poor aqueous solubility |
| |
| Low incidence of resistance | Kidney, liver and infusion related toxicity | |||
| Allylamines | Terbinafine has a high oral absorption and long half-life | Poor aqueous solubility |
| |
| Lipophilic | Associated with recurring infections | |||
| Echinocandins | Low toxicity | Poor aqueous solubility |
| |
| Better patient outcomes compared to azoles | Can only be given intravenously | |||
| Broad-spectrum activity |
| |||
| Nucleoside analogs (5-Flucytosine) | Synergistic in combination with ketoconazole and amphotericin | Poor aqueous solubility |
| |
| Can penetrate the CNS, eye and urinary tract | Limited to yeasts | |||
| Some yeasts are resistant | ||||
| Bone marrow and liver associated toxicity | ||||
| Cannot be used alone |
Summary table of synthetic antifungal polymers and their reported targets.
| Antifungal polymer | Membrane | Cell wall | Intracellular targets | Toxicity | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Synthetic antimicrobial peptides | Does not appear to permeabilise fungal cell membranes | — | Binds to nucleic acids | Dependent on hydrophobic region length |
|
| Synthetic antimicrobial peptides | Membrane permeabilisation | — | Likely | Low haemolytic activity |
|
| (Nylon-3 copolymers) | Membrane permeabilisation | — | — | Low toxicity, dependent on hydrophobic region length |
|
|
| |||||
| PHMB | Membrane permeabilisation | Cell wall target | Nucleus, binds to DNA/RNA | Low | Elsztein et al., 2011 |
| POGH | Membrane permeabilisation likely | — | Likely | Slightly |
|
| PQ-1 | Membrane permeabilisation | Prevents conidia germination | Likely | — | Codling., 2003 |
|
| |||||
| PEI | Membrane permeabilisation | — | Likely | Slightly, dependent on hydrophobic region length |
|
| Cell membrane depolarisation, binds to nucleic acids | |||||
| Chitosan | Membrane permeabilisation | — | Nucleus, binds to DNA/RNA | Low toxicity | Palma-Guerrero et al., 2008 |
| PHMB derivatives (PHMG-P PHMGH) | Membrane permeabilisation | Cell wall target | Likely | Low toxicity but severe toxicity when inhaled |
|
|
| |||||
| (N-(2-hydroxypropyl)-3-trimethylammonium chitosan chlorides) HTCC | Membrane permeabilisation | — | Likely | Low toxicity |
|
| Quaternary ammonium chloride derivatives of chitosan | Membrane permeabilisation | — | Likely | Low toxicity |
|
FIGURE 1Summary of the proposed targets and mechanisms of antifungal polymers and nanocomposites. (A) Cationic polymers and their derivatives disrupt the fungal cell membrane. Upon entry into the fungal cell, they also disrupt organelle membranes and bind to DNA. Some antifungal nanocomposites with membrane disrupting compounds e.g. Chlorhexidine diacetate salt (CDA) also show a similar effect. (B) Some nanocomposites demonstrate an antifungal effect by forming deposits within grooves of the material surface to minimise fungal adhesion. (C) Inert polymers can be functionalised following the addition of antimicrobial compounds. Some functionalised polymers e.g. charcoal polymers inhibit fungal growth by removing essential ions (e.g. Ca2+) necessary for conidia germination. (D) Some antimicrobial polymers e.g. PQ-1 do not permeabilise the fungal cell membrane. Instead, they disrupt the membrane via intercalation.
Summary table of functionalised antifungal polymers and their reported targets.
| Antifungal polymer | Membrane | Cell wall | Other targets | Toxicity | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PMMA-UA | Inhibits lipid biosynthesis | — | — | Toxic |
|
| PMMA- chlorhexidine diacetate salt (CDA) | Membrane permeabilisation | — | — | Low toxicity |
|
| Polymers functionalised with metal ions | — | Cell wall target | Low level Cytoplasmic generation of H2O2, NO | — |
|
| Charcoal polymers | — | — | Binds to Ca2+ prevent fungal growth | — |
|
Summary table of antifungal nanocomposites and their reported targets.
| Class | Antifungal nanocomposite | Membrane | Cell wall | Intracellular | Extracellular | Toxicity | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antimicrobial compounds | Nano diamonds in PMMA | — | — | — | Alters surface to inhibit fungal cell attachment | Low |
|
| Ketoconazole selenium NPs in Hyaluronic acid gel | reduction in ergosterol production | — | ROS production and Cytochrome p450 inhibition | — | Low |
| |
| Metal ions | Ag+ based nanocomposites | Cell membrane damage | Cell wall damage | mitochondria, chromatin and ribosome | — | Low |
|
| Essential oils | Mexican oregano EO, Thyme, oregano, tea tree and peppermint EO | Decrease in ergosterol and altered membrane integrity | Cell wall damage | Endoplasmic reticulum stressor to induce the unfolded protein response, mitochondrial damage, ROS production | — | Low |
|
|
|