| Literature DB >> 35294434 |
Nancy Abd-Elkader Hagras1, Nermine Mogahed Fawzy Hussein Mogahed2, Eman Sheta3, Amira Abd-Elfattah Darwish1, Mohamed Ali El-Hawary1, Moaaz Tarek Hamed4, Bassma Hassan Elwakil1.
Abstract
The novel formula of spiramycin/propolis loaded chitosan (CS)/alginate (Alg) nanoparticles (NPs) was assessed for Toxoplasma gondii (T. gondii) treatment in comparison with the commercially available spiramycin regarding tissue penetration and blood brain barrier (BBB) passage. Swiss Albino mice were inoculated intraperitoneally by 2500 tachyzoites of the virulent T. gondii RH strain. The experimental groups were treated with oral spiramycin, propolis, CS/Alg NPs, spiramycin loaded CS/Alg NPs, propolis loaded CS/Alg NPs, and spiramycin/propolis loaded CS/Alg NPs. The results demonstrated that spiramycin/propolis loaded CS/Alg NPs exerted the longest survival time with no mortality on the sacrifice day (8th) in addition to representing the highest significant parasite percent reduction of (≥96% reduction) in liver, spleen and brain designating successful tissue penetration and BBB passage. Tachyzoites treated with spiramycin/propolis loaded CS/Alg NPs demonstrated the most disfigured rapturing organism via scanning electron microscope examination along with representing an overall remarkable improvement of the histopathological pictures of liver, spleen and brain. In conclusion, spiramycin/propolis loaded CS/Alg NPs showed the uppermost efficacy in the treatment of acute murine toxoplasmosis. The safe nature and the anti-parasitic effect of each of CS, Alg, spiramycin and propolis encourage the synergistic use of spiramycin/propolis loaded CS/Alg NPs as a potent treatment for human toxoplasmosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35294434 PMCID: PMC8926208 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010268
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Fig 2SEM micrographs of the prepared NPs showing regular, smooth and spherical shape.
(A) CS/Alg NPs (X 35,000). (B) Spiramycin loaded CS/Alg NPs (X 55,000). (C) Propolis loaded CS/Alg NPs (X 55,000). (D) Spiramycin/propolis loaded CS/Alg NPs (X 55,000).
Fig 3TEM micrographs of the prepared NPs revealing increase in particle size upon drug loading (X 55,000).
(A) CS/Alg NPs. (B) Spiramycin loaded CS/Alg NPs. (C) Propolis loaded CS/Alg NPs. (D) Spiramycin/propolis loaded CS/Alg NPs.
Zeta-potential (ζ) and entrapment efficiency (EE) of the prepared nano formulae.
| Formulations | ζ potential (mV) | EE% |
|---|---|---|
| CS/Alg NPs | -25.7 | - |
| Spiramycin loaded CS/Alg NPs | +35.1 | 79.3 |
| Propolis loaded CS/Alg NPs | +38.7 | - |
| Spiramycin/propolis loaded CS/Alg NPs | +35.6 | 85.1 |
Comparison between all subgroups regarding mice mean survival time and mortality rate on the eighth day post-infection.
| Subgroup Ia (Uninfected control) | Subgroup Ib (Infected untreated control) | Subgroup IIa (Spiramycin) | Subgroup IIb (Propolis) | Subgroup IIc (CS/Alg NPs) | Subgroup IId (Spiramycin loaded CS/Alg NPs) | Subgroup IIe (Propolis loaded CS/Alg NPs) | Subgroup IIf (Spiramycin/propolis loaded CS/Alg NPs) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Mean ± SD. | 30.0 ± 0.0 | 6.4±0.55 | 7.6±0.89 | 7.8± 0.84 | 9.8±0.45 | 14.0±1.41 | 13.8±1.3 | 19.8±1.3 |
| 75.581 | ||||||||
|
| 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.003 | |
|
| 0.031 | 0.018 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | ||
|
| 0.770 | 0.004 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | |||
|
| 0.005 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | ||||
|
| 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.003 | |||||
|
| 0.637 | 0.003 | ||||||
|
| 0.003 | |||||||
| 0.0 | 100.0 | 80.0 | 80.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| 28.551 | ||||||||
|
| 0.008 | 0.048 | 0.048 | – | – | – | – | |
|
| 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.008 | 0.008 | 0.008 | 0.008 | ||
|
| 1.000 | 0.048 | 0.048 | 0.048 | 0.048 | |||
|
| 0.048 | 0.048 | 0.048 | 0.048 | ||||
|
| – | – | – | |||||
|
| – | – | ||||||
|
| – | |||||||
χ2: Chi square test MC: Monte Carlo FE: Fisher Exact
p: p value for Log rank test from Kaplan-Meier for comparing between the studied groups
p0: p value for comparing between the studied groups
p1: p value for comparing between Subgroup Ia and each other group
p2: p value for comparing between Subgroup Ib and each other group
p3: p value for comparing between Subgroup IIa and each other group
p4: p value for comparing between Subgroup IIb and each other group
p5: p value for comparing between Subgroup IIc and each other group
p6: p value for comparing between Subgroup IId and each other group
p7: p value for comparing between Subgroup IIe and Subgroup IIf
*: Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05
Fig 4Kaplan-Meier overall survival curve for all subgroups.
Parasite count and percent reduction in liver, spleen and brain among the different studied subgroups.
| Subgroup Ib (Infected untreated control) | Subgroup IIa (Spiramycin) | Subgroup IIb (Propolis) | Subgroup IIc (CS/Alg NPs) | Subgroup IId (Spiramycin loaded CS/Alg NPs) | Subgroup IIe (Propolis loaded CS/Alg NPs) | Subgroup IIf (Spiramycin/propolis loaded CS/Alg NPs) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mean | 10.88 | 5.60 | 4.40 | 6.28 | 1.06 | 0.50 | 0.43 |
| ±SD. | 1.78 | 0.96 | 0.42 | 0.19 | 0.74 | 0.43 | 0.24 |
|
| 101.477 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||||||
| Mean | 9.06 | 4.50 | 5.42 | 4.14 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.11 |
| ±SD. | 1.93 | 0.45 | 0.40 | 0.21 | 0.12 | 0.09 | 0.11 |
|
| 97.101 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||||||
| Mean | 3.0 | 2.30 | 1.30#$ | 1.0#$ | 0.11#$ | 0.13#$ | 0.09#$ |
| ±SD. | 0.16 | 0.60 | 0.71 | 0.54 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.08 |
|
| 38.834 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Data was expressed using Mean ± SD.
F: F for ANOVA test, Pairwise comparison bet. each 2 groups was done using Post Hoc Test (Tukey)
p: p value for comparing between the studied groups
*: Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05
#: Significant with Subgroup Ib $: Significant with Subgroup IIa
@: Significant with Subgroup IIb ♦: Significant with Subgroup IIc
♠: Significant with Subgroup IId ♣: Significant with Subgroup IIe
Fig 5Comparison between the different studied subgroups according to the mean parasite count in liver, spleen and brain.
Fig 6Giemsa-stained impression smears of liver, spleen and brain revealing T. gondii tachyzoites.
(A) Toxoplasma tachyzoites in infected untreated control liver (Giemsa stain X 1000). (B) Toxoplasma tachyzoites in infected treated liver (Giemsa stain X 1000). (C) Toxoplasma tachyzoites in infected untreated control spleen (Giemsa stain X 1000). (D) Toxoplasma tachyzoites in infected treated spleen (Giemsa stain X 1000). (E) Toxoplasma tachyzoites in infected untreated control brain (Giemsa stain X 1000). (F) Toxoplasma tachyzoites in infected treated brain (Giemsa stain X 1000).
Fig 7SEM of Toxoplasma tachyzoites.
(A) Tachyzoite from subgroup I b (infected untreated control), revealing crescent shape with apparent conoid (X 10,000). (B) Tachyzoite from subgroup II a, showing evident loss of its smooth surface with erosion and protrusion of the surface. (X 10,000). (C) Tachyzoite from subgroup II b, showing shrunken organism losing its crescent shape, smooth surface, conoid and tapered ends with profound furrows and ridges (X 10,000). (D) Tachyzoite from subgroup II c, showing a shrunken distorted parasite losing the crescent shape, tapered ends and conoid with noticeable surface erosion and ulceration (X 10,000). (E) Tachyzoites from subgroup II d, showing loss in the crescent shape, smooth surface, conoid and tapered ends with multiple blebs on the parasite surface (X 10,000). (F) Tachyzoites from subgroup II e, showing a rupturing parasite losing its smooth surface (X 10,000). (G) and (H) Tachyzoites from subgroup II f, showing disfigured rupturing organism losing its conoid with disorganised lacerated surface (X 10,000).