| Literature DB >> 35008939 |
Odelia Levana1,2, Soonkook Hong3, Se Hyun Kim4, Ji Hoon Jeong1,2, Sung Sik Hur1, Jin Woo Lee5, Kye-Si Kwon4,6, Yongsung Hwang1,2.
Abstract
Adhesion of bacteria on biomedical implant surfaces is a prerequisite for biofilm formation, which may increase the chances of infection and chronic inflammation. In this study, we employed a novel electrospray-based technique to develop an antibacterial surface by efficiently depositing silica homogeneously onto polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film to achieve hydrophobic and anti-adhesive properties. We evaluated its potential application in inhibiting bacterial adhesion using both Gram-negative Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Gram-positive Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) bacteria. These silica-deposited PET surfaces could provide hydrophobic surfaces with a water contact angle greater than 120° as well as increased surface roughness (root mean square roughness value of 82.50 ± 16.22 nm and average roughness value of 65.15 ± 15.26 nm) that could significantly reduce bacterial adhesion by approximately 66.30% and 64.09% for E. coli and S. aureus, respectively, compared with those on plain PET surfaces. Furthermore, we observed that silica-deposited PET surfaces showed no detrimental effects on cell viability in human dermal fibroblasts, as confirmed by MTT (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5 diphenyl tetrazolium bromide and live/dead assays. Taken together, such approaches that are easy to synthesize, cost effective, and efficient, and could provide innovative strategies for preventing bacterial adhesion on biomedical implant surfaces in the clinical setting.Entities:
Keywords: anti-adhesive properties; antibacterial surface; electrospray; hydrophobicity; silica deposition
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35008939 PMCID: PMC8745460 DOI: 10.3390/ijms23010513
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Fabrication and characterization of the electrosprayed SiO2 surface. (A) A schematic illustration of electrospray SiO2-deposited surface fabrication on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) substrate (created with BioRender.com). (B) A photograph of the experimental set-up.
Figure 2Characterization of the SiO2-electrosprayed surface. (A) Optical images of plain PET and SiO2-deposited PET films (scale bar: 10 mm). (B) SEM images of plain PET and SiO2-deposited PET films (scale bar: 2 μm (left) and 400 nm (right)). (C) EDS analysis of PET and SiO2-deposited PET. (D) FTIR analysis PET and SiO2-deposited PET. (E) Water droplets formed on PET and SiO2-deposited PET. (F) Water contact angles of PET and SiO2-deposited PET surfaces. (G) AFM images of plain PET and SiO2-deposited PET films roughness (n = 5), *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3A schematic illustration of the antibacterial assay—created with BioRender.com (accessed on 25 October 2021).
Figure 4Assessment of the antibacterial properties of electrosprayed SiO2 films against E. coli. (A) Images of agar plates before and after film detachment (scale bar: 20 mm). (B) Images of detached films and agar in LB broth after vortexing for 1 min. (C) Quantitative analysis of the detached films based on absorbance at 600 nm (OD600). ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. (D) Fluorescence images of live E. coli on the surface (scale bar: 200 µm).
Figure 5Assessment of the antibacterial properties of electrosprayed SiO2 films against S. aureus. (A) Images of agar plates before and after film detachment (scale bar: 20 mm). (B) Images of detached films and agar in LB broth after vortexing for 1 min. (C) Quantitative analysis of detached films based on absorbance at 600 nm (OD600). ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. (D) Fluorescence images of live S. aureus on the surface (scale bar: 200 µm).
Figure 6Cytotoxicity tests for PET and SiO2-deposited PET using human dermal fibroblasts (HDFs). (A) Cell viability after 24 h growth. (B) Fluorescence images of live/dead staining of HDFs at passage after 0 h and 24 h of incubation in growth medium or conditioned medium (scale bar: 100 µm). “ns” indicates that there is no statistical difference.