| Literature DB >> 35010080 |
Muhammad Nadeem1,2, Rijma Khan1, Nausheen Shah1, Ishrat Rehman Bangash1, Bilal Haider Abbasi2, Christophe Hano3, Chunzhao Liu4,5, Sana Ullah2, Syed Salman Hashmi2, Akhtar Nadhman1, Jonathan Celli6.
Abstract
Nanotechnology is a booming avenue in science and has a multitude of applications in health, agriculture, and industry. It exploits materials' size at nanoscale (1-100 nm) known as nanoparticles (NPs). These nanoscale constituents are made via chemical, physical, and biological methods; however, the biological approach offers multiple benefits over the other counterparts. This method utilizes various biological resources for synthesis (microbes, plants, and others), which act as a reducing and capping agent. Among these sources, microbes provide an excellent platform for synthesis and have been recently exploited in the synthesis of various metallic NPs, in particular iron. Owing to their biocompatible nature, superparamagnetic properties, small size efficient, permeability, and absorption, they have become an integral part of biomedical research. This review focuses on microbial synthesis of iron oxide nanoparticles using various species of bacteria, fungi, and yeast. Possible applications and challenges that need to be addressed have also been discussed in the review; in particular, their antimicrobial and anticancer potentials are discussed in detail along with possible mechanisms. Moreover, some other possible biomedical applications are also highlighted. Although iron oxide nanoparticles have revolutionized biomedical research, issues such as cytotoxicity and biodegradability are still a major bottleneck in the commercialization of these nanoparticle-based products. Addressing these issues should be the topmost priority so that the biomedical industry can reap maximum benefit from iron oxide nanoparticle-based products.Entities:
Keywords: anticancer; antimicrobial; green synthesis; iron oxide; nanoparticles
Year: 2021 PMID: 35010080 PMCID: PMC8746504 DOI: 10.3390/nano12010130
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Bacterial mediated Iron nanoparticles.
| S.no | Species | Location of Synthesis | Characterization | Functional Group | Shape | Size (nm) | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Extracellular | TEM, XRD, and FTIR | Fe–O bond | Crystal | 50 | [ | |
| 2 |
| NR | TEM, XRD, and AFM | NR | Pseudo-hexagonal shape | 11, 30, 99 | [ |
| 3 |
| Extracellular | DLS, TEM, SAXS, and FTIR | NR | Polydispersed | 25–55 | [ |
| 4 |
| Intracellular | TEM | NR | Spherical | 25–50 | [ |
| 5 |
| NR | TEM, FTIR, and UV-Vis | O–H, C–H, CO2NH3, C=O, C=C, and N–H | Spherical | 26.65 | [ |
| 6 |
| Extracellular | PXRD and TEM | NR | NR | 10–50 | [ |
| 7 |
| NR | ---- | NR | NR | 2–5 | [ |
| 8 |
| Intracellular | XRD and TEM | NR | Spherical | 10–15 | [ |
| 9 |
| Intracellular | SEM | NR | NR | 50 | [ |
| 10 |
| NR | XRD, EDX, TEM, UV-Vis, and Zeta sizer | NR | Spherical | 1.44–1.92 | [ |
| 11 |
| Extracellular | FESEM, EDX, TEM, and UV-Vis | NR | Spherical | 23 | [ |
|
| Extracellular | FESEM, EDX, TEM, and UV-Vis | NR | Spherical | 23 | [ | |
| 12 |
| NR | SEM-EDS and XRD | NR | NR | 21 | [ |
| 13 |
| NR | XRD, FTIRUV-Vis, SEM, and TEM | O–H, C–H, Fe–O, C=C, and N–H | NR | 10–20 | [ |
| 14 |
| NR | TEM, XRD, and FTIR | NR | NR | 19 | [ |
| 15 |
| Extracellular | FE-SEM, TEM, XRD, FTIR, DLS, and VSM | O–H, C–H, Fe–O, C=C, and N–H | Rhombohedral | 37–97 | [ |
|
| NR | FE-SEM, TEM, XRD, FTIR, DLS, and VSM | O–H, C–H, Fe–O, C=C, N–H | Rhombohedral | 37–97 | [ | |
|
| NR | FE-SEM, TEM, XRD, FTIR, DLS, and VSM | O–H, C–H, Fe–O, C=C, and N–H | Rhombohedral | 37–97 | [ | |
| 16 |
| Extracellular | SEM, EDX, and XRD | NR | hollow tube | 100 | [ |
| 17 |
| NR | FE-SEM, XRD, AFM, and EDAX | NR | Spherical | 50 | [ |
| 18 |
| NR | XRD, SEM-EDX, TEM-EDX, and ICP-AES | NR | NR | 50–60 | [ |
| 19 |
| NR | EXAFS and XRD | NR | NR | ---- | [ |
| 20 |
| Extracellular | TEM | NR | NR | ---- | [ |
| 21 |
| NR | SDS PAGE Gel | NR | NR | ---- | [ |
| 22 |
| Extracellular | SEM, EDX, and FTIR | HO–NH3 | NR | [ |
Fungus/yeast mediated iron nanoparticles.
| S.no | Species | Location of Synthesis | Characterization | Functional Group | Shape | Size (nm) | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| Extracellular | SEM, TEM, and EDX | NR | Cubic shape | 3–9 | [ |
| 2 |
| Both Extracellular and Intracellular | TEM and FTIR | NR | NR | 20–40 | [ |
|
| Both Extracellular and Intracellular | TEM and FTR | NR | NR | 20–40 | [ | |
| 3 |
| Extracellular | TEM and FTIR | NR | Spherical | 20–40 | [ |
|
| Extracellular | TEM and FTR | NR | Spherical | 20–40 | [ | |
| 4 |
| NR | TEM and FTIR | NR | ---- | 10 and 24.6 | [ |
| 5 |
| Intracellular | TEM and FTR | NR | Spherical | 4–80 | [ |
| 6 |
| Intracellular | TEM and FTIR | OH, NH2, and COOH | NR | ---- | [ |
| 7 |
| Extracellular | TEM and FTR | Amide I and II | Cube | 10–40 | [ |
|
| Extracellular | TEM and FTIR | Amide I and II | Cube | 10–40 | [ | |
| 10 |
| Extracellular | TEM, Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry | NR | NR | 50–20 | [ |
| 11 |
| Extracellular | XRD, SEM, and EDS | NR | Cubic | 60–70 | [ |
| 12 |
| NR | SEM, XRD, EDX, and FTIR | OH, C–H, and Fe–O | Coralline appearance, | 50 | [ |
| 13 |
| UV-Vis and FTIR | C–H, C=O, C≡N, C=H, and OH | NR | ---- | [ | |
| Yeast | |||||||
| 14 |
| NR | TEM and X-rays | NR | Spherical | 8–9 | [ |
| 15 |
| Extracellular | TEM, FTIR, and XRD | COOH | 8.5–4.5 | [ |
Microbial species tested against various microbes mediated IONP.
| S.no | Species | Inhibition Method | Activity Against | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| Disc Diffusion method | [ | |
| 2 | Disc Diffusion method | [ | ||
| 3 |
| Well-diffusion method | [ | |
| 4 |
| Well-diffusion method |
| [ |
| 5 |
| Disc diffusion method | [ | |
| 6 |
| Diffusion agar technique | [ | |
| 7 |
| Disc Diffusion method |
| [ |
Figure 1Antibacterial potential of iron nanoparticles (INPs). (1) Cell wall destruction via interfering the normal homeostasis; (2) Cell membrane damage is caused by disorientation of the lipid bilayer via ROS production; (3) Ion channel misconfiguration occurs when transporter proteins are damaged; (4) Enzyme physiology is disrupted via inhibition of their catalytic domains; (5) Nucleic acid is damaged leading to fragmentation of DNA and RNA; (6) Biomolecules disruption occurs, in particular, in proteins and NPs; (7) Proteins denaturation via ROS; and (8) Organelles damage, in particular, mesomes.
Figure 2Anticancer potential of microbes mediated Nanoparticles. (1), (2), (5), and (6) Iron nanoparticles interfere with organelles and enzymes functioning, particularly in mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, and Golgi bodies via reactive oxygen species (ROS) production and induces apoptosis. (3) Ion channel blockage leads to death of cancerous cells. (4) INPs kills cancerous cells by breaking nucleic acids, particularly in DNA. (8) Membrane polarity is disturbed.