| Literature DB >> 35563610 |
Maria De Luca1, Rosa Gaglione1,2, Bartolomeo Della Ventura3, Angela Cesaro1,4,5,6, Rocco Di Girolamo1, Raffaele Velotta3, Angela Arciello1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: medical device-induced infections affect millions of lives worldwide and innovative preventive strategies are urgently required. Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) appear as ideal candidates to efficiently functionalize medical devices surfaces and prevent bacterial infections. In this scenario, here, we produced antimicrobial polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) by loading this polymer with an antimicrobial peptide identified in human apolipoprotein B, r(P)ApoBLPro.Entities:
Keywords: antimicrobial peptides; antimicrobial resistance; antimicrobial surfaces; bacterial infections; biofilms; host defense peptides; infection prevention; polydimethylsiloxane
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35563610 PMCID: PMC9103716 DOI: 10.3390/ijms23095219
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 6.208
Figure 1FTIR analyses of PDMS alone (upper spectrum) and of PDMS functionalized with r(P)ApoBLPro (lower spectrum) (a). Water contact angle analyses of PDMS alone (upper image) and of PDMS functionalized with r(P)ApoBLPro (lower image) (b).
Minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC) values of r(P)ApoBLPro and PDMS-r(P)ApoBLPro.
| MBC (µM) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Strains | r(P)ApoBLPro | PDMS-r(P)ApoBLPro |
| 5 | 10 | |
| 10–20 | 80 |
Figure 2Time killing curves obtained by incubating E. coli ATCC 25922 cells alone (control) or in the presence of unfunctionalized PDMS or with PDMS-r(P)ApoBLPro (10 µM). Data represent the mean (±SD) of at least two independent experiments, each one carried out with triplicate determinations.
Figure 3Kinetic analyses of r(P)ApoBLPro release from PDMS (a). The obtained red curve is the best fit of the experimental values (black squares) obtained by a logistic function. Evaluation of the antibacterial activity of PDMS functionalized with two different concentrations (30 and 160 μM) of r(P)ApoBLPro peptide and incubated with 0.5X nutrient broth (NB) for 400 min at 37 °C. Upon incubation, both PDMS (b) and the medium containing released peptide (c) were tested for their activity towards E. coli ATCC 25922. Data represent the mean (±SD) of at least two independent experiments, each one carried out with triplicate determinations. Significant differences were indicated as *** (p < 0.001).
Figure 4Evaluation of the ability of PDMS-r(P)ApoBLPro to retain its antimicrobial efficacy over time. Data represent the mean (±SD) of at least three independent experiments, each one carried out with triplicate determinations. Significant differences were indicated as * (p < 0.05).
Figure 5Analysis of the bactericidal activity of PDMS-r(P)ApoBLPro (a). Evaluation of PDMS-r(P)ApoBLPro ability to interfere with bacterial cells adhesion (b). SEM analyses of unfunctionalized PDMS and of PDMS-r(P)ApoBLPro upon incubation with E. coli ATCC 25922 bacterial cells (c). Cells debris (red arrows) is visible. Statistical analyses were performed by using Student’s t-test. Significant differences were indicated as ** (p < 0.01) or **** (p < 0.0001).
Figure 6Evaluation of PDMS-r(P)ApoBLPro anti-biofilm activity by crystal violet assay (a) and SEM analyses (b). Red arrows indicate altered bacterial cells present in the case of functionalized PDMS; cell debris are indicated by green arrows. Statistical analyses were performed by using Student’s t-test. Significant differences were indicated as **** (p < 0.0001).
Figure 7Analysis of the effects of PDMS loaded with increasing concentrations of r(P)ApoBLPro on the viability of human dermal fibroblasts (HDF) (a) and of murine BALB/c-3T3 fibroblasts (b). Cell viability was assessed by MTT assays and expressed as the percentage of viable cells with respect to cells incubated with unfunctionalized PDMS. Experiments were performed three times. Error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean. Significant differences were indicated as * (p < 0.05) for treated vs. control samples.