Moustafa M Abdelaziz1, Amr Hefnawy2, Asem Anter3, Menna M Abdellatif4, Mahmoud A F Khalil5, Islam A Khalil6. 1. Department of Bioengineering, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, United States. 2. Smyth Laboratory, College of Pharmacy, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, United States. 3. Microbiology Unit, Drug Factory, College of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Drug Manufacturing, Misr University of Science and Technology (MUST), 6th of October, Giza 12582, Egypt. 4. Department of Industrial Pharmacy, College of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Drug Manufacturing, Misr University for Science and Technology, Giza 12582, Egypt. 5. Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Fayoum University, Fayoum 63514, Egypt. 6. Department of Pharmaceutics, College of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Drug Manufacturing, Misr University of Science and Technology (MUST), 6th of October, Giza 12582, Egypt.
Abstract
Drug resistance is a global health challenge with thousands of deaths annually caused by bacterial multidrug resistance (MDR). Efforts to develop new antibacterial molecules do not meet the mounting needs imposed by the evolution of MDR. An alternative approach to overcome this challenge is developing targeted formulations that can enhance the therapeutic efficiency and limit side effects. In this aspect, vancomycin is a potent antibacterial agent that has inherent bacterial targeting properties by binding to the D-Ala-D-Ala moiety of the bacterial peptidoglycan. However, the use of vancomycin is associated with serious side effects that limit its clinical use. Herein, we report the development of vancomycin-conjugated magnetic nanoparticles using a simple conjugation method for targeted antibacterial activity. The nanoparticles were synthesized using a multistep process that starts by coating the nanoparticles with a silica layer, followed by binding an amide linker and then binding the vancomycin glycopeptide. The developed vancomycin-conjugated magnetic nanoparticles were observed to exhibit a spherical morphology and a particle size of 16.3 ± 2.6 nm, with a silica coating thickness of 5 nm and a total coating thickness of 8 nm. The vancomycin conjugation efficiency on the nanoparticles was measured spectrophotometrically to be 25.1%. Additionally, the developed formulation retained the magnetic activity of the nanoparticles, where it showed a saturation magnetization value of 51 emu/g, compared to 60 emu/g for bare magnetic nanoparticles. The in vitro cell biocompatibility demonstrated improved safety where vancomycin-conjugated nanoparticles showed IC50 of 183.43 μg/mL, compared to a much lower value of 54.11 μg/mL for free vancomycin. While the antibacterial studies showed a comparable activity of the developed formulation, the minimum inhibitory concentration was 25 μg/mL, compared to 20 μg/mL for free vancomycin. Accordingly, the reported formulation can be used as a platform for the targeted and efficient delivery of other drugs.
Drug resistance is a global health challenge with thousands of deaths annually caused by bacterial multidrug resistance (MDR). Efforts to develop new antibacterial molecules do not meet the mounting needs imposed by the evolution of MDR. An alternative approach to overcome this challenge is developing targeted formulations that can enhance the therapeutic efficiency and limit side effects. In this aspect, vancomycin is a potent antibacterial agent that has inherent bacterial targeting properties by binding to the D-Ala-D-Ala moiety of the bacterial peptidoglycan. However, the use of vancomycin is associated with serious side effects that limit its clinical use. Herein, we report the development of vancomycin-conjugated magnetic nanoparticles using a simple conjugation method for targeted antibacterial activity. The nanoparticles were synthesized using a multistep process that starts by coating the nanoparticles with a silica layer, followed by binding an amide linker and then binding the vancomycin glycopeptide. The developed vancomycin-conjugated magnetic nanoparticles were observed to exhibit a spherical morphology and a particle size of 16.3 ± 2.6 nm, with a silica coating thickness of 5 nm and a total coating thickness of 8 nm. The vancomycin conjugation efficiency on the nanoparticles was measured spectrophotometrically to be 25.1%. Additionally, the developed formulation retained the magnetic activity of the nanoparticles, where it showed a saturation magnetization value of 51 emu/g, compared to 60 emu/g for bare magnetic nanoparticles. The in vitro cell biocompatibility demonstrated improved safety where vancomycin-conjugated nanoparticles showed IC50 of 183.43 μg/mL, compared to a much lower value of 54.11 μg/mL for free vancomycin. While the antibacterial studies showed a comparable activity of the developed formulation, the minimum inhibitory concentration was 25 μg/mL, compared to 20 μg/mL for free vancomycin. Accordingly, the reported formulation can be used as a platform for the targeted and efficient delivery of other drugs.
Bacterial multidrug resistance
(MDR) is one of the serious challenges
to the public health. Several bacterial species showed resistance
to broad antibiotics such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), which limits the available
options to fight such virulent bacteria.[1] UK authorities estimated the mortality rate due to MDR to reach
700,000 per year, and the number is expected to increase to 10 million
by 2050 if no substantial solution exists.[2] Therefore, there is a necessity for more efficient antibacterial
strategies that can eradicate MDR. Conventional approaches such as
developing new drugs cannot accommodate the steady increase in bacterial
resistance due to its long development time and massive cost. New
strategies have been proposed to circumvent MDR such as nanomaterial-based
drug delivery vehicles which confer the advantage of localizing the
drug administration. Therefore, drug concentration is accumulated
in the infection site, while the off-target toxicity can be averted.[3] In addition, some nanoparticles (NPs) (e.g.,
metal NPs) could overcome the mechanisms of MDR by disrupting the
bacterial membrane and preventing biofilm formation, thereby making
bacteria more susceptible to the loaded antibiotics.[4−7]Glycopeptides (GPs) are a preferred class of antibiotics as
they
induce less bacterial resistance compared to traditional antibiotics
due to exhibiting multiple action modes.[8] Most of the GPs are usually derived from a natural source, which
confers the advantage of biocompatibility and biodegradability.[9,10] The GPs’ bactericidal mode of action relies on their unique
structure, which includes net positive charge residues. Therefore,
GPs could electrostatically interact with the negatively charged bacterial
cell membranes leading to the disruption of bacterial membranes.[11] For instance, vancomycin (VM) is usually used
in surgery practices to reduce the incidence of perioperative bacterial
infections such as MRSA infections.[12−14] VM can inhibit the bacterial
cell wall synthesis by interfering with the bacterial transpeptidase.[15,16] This inhibition is initiated through VM binding to the D-Ala-D-Ala
terminal in peptidoglycans.[17] Recently,
D-Ala-D-Ala binding has been exploited as a targeting moiety for VM
because it is only present in the bacterial cell wall. However, the
free administration of VM was reported to be associated with some
adverse effects including nephrotoxicity,[18] ototoxicity,[19] and red man syndrome.[20] A potential solution to this problem is the
incorporation of VM into a targeted drug delivery vehicle, which can
localize the VM and reduce the associated side effects.Iron
oxide magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) are an example of the
smart vehicles that has been exploited for drug delivery applications.
The unique magnetic properties of these MNPs confer wide use in various
biomedical applications either diagnostically as a contrasting agent,
therapeutically as a hyperthermia agent, or both combined as in the
theranostics approach.[21−23] MNPs can target the loaded drug to the infection
site when guided by an external magnet. MNPs may also contribute to
the overall antibacterial character due to their capability to generate
cytotoxic hyperthermia when induced by an alternating magnetic field.
Moreover, MNPs can be functionalized with a proper antibiotic to confer
both a synergistic efficiency and a selective action.[24] Functionalization was also reported to enhance the biocompatibility
and the colloidal stability of MNPs.[25]Functionalized MNPs are designed to have better selectivity, bactericidal
activity, and biocompatibility while maintaining the magnetic properties.
Such functionalization can be performed either by physically entrapping
VM on properly coated MNPs or chemically conjugating VM on the surface
of MNPs. For instance, Zhang et al. utilized a polymeric coating of
polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) to entrap VM on MNPs.[26] At first, MNPs were stabilized by a silica layer which also allows
for more hydroxyl functional groups. Then, PVA was melted and added
to the silica-coated MNPs. This core–shell system was further
conjugated with a chain of cell penetrating peptides to facilitate
its cellular internalization. The resulting system showed targeted
antibacterial activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial
strains with a lower VM dose than used in its free form. Rashid et
al.[27] have reported the chemical conjugation
of VM on MNPs via ligand exchange and carbodiimide reactions. Briefly,
they first coated MNPs with oleic acid as stabilizer, and then oleic
acid was replaced with the amine-ending dopamine to improve the water
dispersion of MNPs. Then, VM was conjugated to the dopamine-modified
MNPs via a carbodiimide reaction. The resulting conjugate demonstrated
bactericidal activity to Gram-positive and Gram-negative strains with
high affinity to the bacterial cell walls.Herein, we report
the development of VM-conjugated MNPs (VMNPs).
Chemical conjugation allows the dual use of MNPs and VM for targeted
antibacterial activity. On the one hand, an external magnetic field
can be applied to localize the antibacterial formulation at the targeted
organ and minimize the amount leaking into the systemic circulation.
Meanwhile, having VM conjugated to the surface of the MNPs can also
allow targeting of the bacteria on the cellular level due to its binding
affinity to the D-Ala-D-Ala residues in the bacterial cell wall.[28] Thus, VM delivery is localized which can lower
the required VM dose, limit biodistribution, and minimize the VM’s
off-site toxicity. The biocompatibility of the developed VMNPs was
assessed on normal lung cells, while the antibacterial activity was
examined against Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and MRSA (Figure ).
Figure 1
Schematic illustration
of the developed nano-in-micro inhalable
formulation, MNPs: magnetic nanoparticles, TEOS: tetraethyl orthosilicate,
APTMS: (3-aminopropyl)trimethoxysilane, DSS: disuccinimidyl suberate,
and VM: vancomycin.
Schematic illustration
of the developed nano-in-micro inhalable
formulation, MNPs: magnetic nanoparticles, TEOS: tetraethyl orthosilicate,
APTMS: (3-aminopropyl)trimethoxysilane, DSS: disuccinimidyl suberate,
and VM: vancomycin.
Materials and Methods
Materials
Iron(III) chloride anhydrous,
98% (FeCl3) was purchased from Fischer Scientific (Waltham,
MA, USA). (3-Aminopropyl)trimethoxysilane 97% (APTMS), dimethyl sulfoxide
(DMSO), iron(II) chloride anhydrous (FeCl2), and tetraethyl
orthosilicate (TEOS) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Gillingham,
UK). Disuccinimidyl suberate, 97% (DSS), and VM hydrochloride (Molecular
Biology Grade) were obtained from Alfa Aesar (Haverhill, MA, USA).
Ammonia 30–33 wt % solution (NH3) and ethanol absolute
(EtOH) were obtained from Chem-Lab NV (Zedelgem, Belgium).
Synthesis of VM-Conjugated MNPs
The
synthesis procedure of VMNPs is a multi-step process (Figure ) that could be summarized
as follows:
Figure 2
Schematic diagram for the synthetic steps of VM-conjugated MNPs.
MNPs (Fe3O4): magnetic nanoparticles, TEOS:
tetraethyl orthosilicate, APTMS: (3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane, DSS:
disuccinimidyl suberate, and VM: vancomycin.
Schematic diagram for the synthetic steps of VM-conjugated MNPs.
MNPs (Fe3O4): magnetic nanoparticles, TEOS:
tetraethyl orthosilicate, APTMS: (3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane, DSS:
disuccinimidyl suberate, and VM: vancomycin.
Preparation of the MNPs
Following
a co-precipitation method, 5 mol FeCl2 and 10 mol FeCl3 were dissolved in deoxygenated water at 70 °C under
vigorous stirring. Then, ammonia (30–33 wt %) solution was
added (30 mL) at a rate of 6 mL/min to the mixture under bath sonication
and nitrogen flushing. Upon the addition of the ammonia, a black precipitate
of MNPs began to form which was gathered using a strong magnet. Afterward,
the supernatant was removed and MNPs were washed several times with
distilled water and ethanol to ensure the removal of any unreacted
materials.[29]
Coating of the MNPs by a Silica Layer
The coating of MNPs with silica was conducted following a modified
reported procedure.[30] MNPs (1 g) were suspended
in 100 mL of absolute ethanol under bath sonication (ELMA, Germany)
for 30 min. Then, 10 mL of ammonia (30–33 wt %) solution and
80 mL of Milli-Q water were added in a drop-wise manner. TEOS (0.5
mL) was also added to the suspension under sonication for 2 h, soaked
overnight, and sonicated again for 6 h. The TEOS-coated MNPs were
separated using magnetic decantation and washed repeatedly with ethanol
and Milli-Q water.
Functionalization of the Silica-Coated MNPs
The objective of adding APTMS is to functionalize the surface of
the silica layer with NH2 groups that would be used later
to conjugate VM. To do so, TEOS-coated MNPs were dispersed in a mixture
of 50 mL of ethanol and 1 mL of HCl to acidify the media. Then, 5
mL of APTMS was added dropwise to the dispersion under sonication
for 4 h. To separate the APTMS–TEOS-coated MNPs, the dispersion
was centrifuged (refrigerated high-speed centrifuge, Sigma 3-30k,
Germany) at 19,000g for 15 min and the supernatant
was removed. Thereafter, the precipitate was washed multiple times
with ethanol and distilled water, each time was followed by centrifugation
at 19,000g for 15 min.
Conjugation of VM on the Silica-Coated MNPs
The conjugation of VM on APTMS–TEOS-coated MNPs was achieved
with the aid of the double crosslinker DSS.[31] At first, 50 mg of DSS was dissolved in 50 mL of DMSO while stirring.
Then, 50 mg of APTMS–TEOS-coated MNPs was dispersed in the
DSS solution using a homogenizer for 1 h. To separate the product,
the dispersion was centrifuged at 19,000g for 15
min and the product was rinsed 3–4 times with ethanol and distilled
water. DSS-activated-MNPs were dispersed in 50 mL of VM solution (0.5
mg/mL) under homogenization at 4 °C for 12 h. The dispersion
was centrifuged (19,000g, 4 °C, and 15 min)
and washed repeatedly with ethanol and distilled water. In the end,
the freshly prepared VM–DSS–APTMS–TEOS-coated
MNPs (VMNPs) were frozen and lyophilized to get the final product
in a powder form.
Characterization
A Fourier transform
infrared (FTIR) spectrometer (Shimadzu IR-Affinity-1, Japan) was used
to confirm each separate step followed during the synthesis of VMNPs.
High-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HR-TEM) (JEM-2100,
JEOL Ltd. Japan) was utilized to observe the size and crystalline
structure of MNPs, besides the confirmation of the SiO2 layers coating. A vibrating sample magnetometer (VSM) (Lake Shore
model 7410, USA) was used to assess the difference in magnetization
saturation value of MNPs before and after functionalization. The size
and charge of the VMNPs were determined using a zetasizer (Nano-ZS,
Malvern Instruments, Malvern, UK). Regarding the iron content of MNPs,
inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy [Agilent 5100
Synchronous Vertical Dual View (SVDV) ICP-OES, CA, USA] was utilized
to determine such an amount. Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) (SDT,
Q600, TA Instruments, USA) was used to confirm the successful functionalization
of MNPs and to measure their thermal stability. For VM, a UV–vis
spectrophotometer (Shimadzu UV 1650 spectrophotometer, Japan) was
used to determine the conjugation efficiency at 279.8 nm.
Conjugation Efficiency
The amount
of conjugated VM on MNPs was determined indirectly using a UV–vis
spectrophotometer (Shimadzu UV 1650 spectrophotometer, Japan). After
the VMNPs were prepared, centrifuged, washed, and isolated, the supernatant
was taken for the analysis of unconjugated VM at 279.8 nm. The conjugation
efficiency (CE %) of VM was calculated as followswhere minitial expresses the initial mass of VM and msupernatant expresses the amount of VM found in the supernatant. It is worthy
to mention that msupernatant value is
determined from the calibration curve of VM at 279.8 nm.The
loading efficiency (LE %) of VM is also calculated by dividing the
conjugated amount of VM, given from CE % calculation (minitial – msupernatant), over the total VMNP yield.
Cell Biocompatibility Assay
WI-38 Cell Culture Protocol
The
cell line used in this study was WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblast
which was obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (Manassas,
VA, USA). The growth of WI-38 cells was carried out in DMEM (Invitrogen/Life
Technologies) which was supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (Hyclone,
USA), 10 μg/mL insulin (Sigma-Aldrich, USA), and 1% penicillin–streptomycin.
The cells were transferred to a 96-well plate (1.2–1.8 ×
104 cells/well) in which a volume of 100 μL of complete
growth medium and 100 μL of the VMNP suspension was added to
each well for 24 h incubation prior to the MTT assay.
Biocompatibility Assessment Using the MTT
Assay
The biocompatibility profile of the developed VMNPs
was examined in vitro using the MTT assay. The viability of tested
cells could be quantitatively measured from the optical density of
formed blue formazan crystals using an appropriate spectrophotometer.
Briefly, viable cells are particularly capable of cellularly reducing
MTT yellow molecules into the purple formazan crystals. The testing
protocol is performed as reported by the manufacturer’s instructions
(Sigma-Aldrich, MO, USA). In brief, WI-38 cell culture with the testing
VMNPs was moved to a laminar flow hood. Immediately, each vial of
MTT [M-5655] was added to each well with an equivalent amount of 10%
of the well medium volume. The cell culture with MTT was then incubated
for 3 h at 37 °C to allow the reaction to proceed. Afterward,
the combination was transferred out of incubation and the produced
formazan crystals were dissolved with the solubilization solution
[M-8910] using an automated shaker. The formazan solution was analyzed
using ROBONIK P2000 spectrophotometer 450 nm reader, in which the
absorbance of formazan color was detected at 570 nm and the background
absorbance was detected at 690 nm. Cell viability percentage could
be inferred by comparing the optical density values of control cells
and tested cells.
Antibacterial Activity Evaluation
The antimicrobial activity was carried out using agar well diffusion
as previously reported.[32] Briefly, S. aureus and MRSA were subjected to antimicrobial
susceptibility testing to detect antimicrobial activity of the formula
prepared. Profiling was performed by the agar well diffusion method
on a Mueller–Hinton agar according to Clinical and Laboratory
Standards Institute guidelines. An inoculum for each isolate was prepared
by emulsifying colonies from an overnight pure culture in sterile
normal saline (0.85%) in test tubes with the turbidity adjusted to
0.5 McFarland standard (0.5 mL of 1% w/v BaCl2 and 99.5
mL of 1% v/v H2SO4), equivalent to 1.0 ×
108 cfu/mL. The bacterial suspension was uniformly streaked
on Mueller Hinton agar plates using sterile swabs and left for 3 min
prior to introduction of the diluted formula. Then, a hole with a
diameter of 6 to 8 mm is punched aseptically with a sterile cork borer
or a tip, and a volume (20–100 μL) of the antimicrobial
agent or extract solution at desired concentration is introduced into
the well. Then, agar plates are incubated at 35 °C for 24 h.
The antimicrobial agent diffuses in the agar medium and inhibits the
growth of the microbial strain tested, and the diameters of zone of
inhibition were measured and results interpreted according to Clinical
Laboratory Standards Institute.[33] The method
was used to measure the inhibition zones, which were reported in millimeters.
The minimum inhibition diameter represents the minimum inhibitory
concentration (MIC). The test samples were examined against S. aureus (ATCC 25923) and MRSA (ATCC 43300). VM
was used as a positive standard and all measurements were conducted
in a triplicate manner. The followed procedure started with the inoculation
of bacterial strains on nutrient agar plates using a sterile cotton
swab under aseptic conditions. Afterward, 100 μL of VMNP samples
(at concentration range 15–400 μg/mL) was added to a
corresponding well (10 mm) and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. To
depict the antibacterial activity of the samples, the diameter of
each inhibition zone was measured and compared to each other.
Statistical Analysis
Data are expressed
as means ± standard error from three replicate experiments. Significant
differences were examined by one-way analysis of variance followed
by Tukey’s posthoc tests (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 and ****p < 0.0001) using the software GraphPad Prism Software
version 6.
Results and Discussion
The study developed
VM-conjugated formulation to achieve comparable
activity to free VM, while having a better biocompatibility profile.
This was done by conjugating VM to MNPs utilizing the targeting capability
of both components for a localized antibacterial activity. Initially,
we characterized the physicochemical properties of the developed VMNPs
to confirm the suitability of the formulation to the intended application.
These characterization analyses included composition, morphology,
magnetic, and thermal analyses. Afterward, the biocompatibility and
the antibacterial activity of the formulation were evaluated in comparison
to free VM.
Physicochemical Properties of NPs
VM-conjugated MNPs were characterized to ensure the successful chemical
conjugation of VM on MNPs, assess the size and morphology of NPs,
evaluate the thermal behavior of NPs, and study the magnetic property
before and after the conjugation. In addition, the composition of
VMNPs was quantitively determined using the data provided from the
ICP-AES, CE %, and LE %.
Conjugation of VM to MNPs
MNPs
were chemically conjugated with VM via DSS through a multi-step process
including the synthesis of APTMS–TEOS-coated MNPs.[29,31] Generally, solid-state NMR is recommended to evaluate conjugation
efficiency. However, FTIR analysis was used for evaluation due to
the lack of availability of solid-state NMR. The success of MNPs’
functionalization process was assured using the FTIR spectrum of each
constituent step (Figure ). At first, the synthesis of MNPs using the co-precipitation
method was confirmed upon the presence of the characteristic Fe–O
stretching peak at ∼581 cm–1. The MNP spectrum
also showed a peak at ∼3398 cm–1, indicating
the presence of OH surface layer on MNPs because of the high dielectric
constant of deoxygenated water used in dissolving FeCl2 and FeCl3.[34] The formation
of the SiO2 layer on MNPs was confirmed by the presence
of both the Si–O symmetric stretching peak at ∼1070
cm–1 and the Si–O–Si stretching shoulder
at ∼960 cm–1.[35,36] The spectrum
of MNPs–TEOS–APTMS showed characteristic peaks of NH2 groups formed on the SiO2 coating layer. These
peaks include a peak at ∼1525 cm–1 which
is assigned to the N–H bending mode and a sharper peak at ∼1550
cm–1 ascribed to the C–N vibration mode.[37] In addition, the peaks of Fe–O stretching,
Si–O symmetric stretching, and Si–O–Si stretching
are still observed in the MNPs–TEOS–APTMS FTIR spectrum,
which demonstrates the successful conjugation of APTMS on the surface
of SiO2-coated MNPs.
Figure 3
FTIR spectrum of VM, MNPs, TEOS, APTMS,
and DSS, the multi-step
synthesis procedure used on conjugating VM on MNPs.
FTIR spectrum of VM, MNPs, TEOS, APTMS,
and DSS, the multi-step
synthesis procedure used on conjugating VM on MNPs.The next step involves the utilization of the double
cross-linker
DSS on conjugating VM to the system. DSS reacts with NH2 groups on both VM and MNPs–TEOS–APTMS, forming an
amide bond on each side leaving the N-hydroxysuccinimide
group. The FTIR spectrum of MNPs–TEOS–APTMS–DSS
confirmed that conjugation by the presence of a sharp peak at ∼1563
cm–1 which is attributed to the bending and scissoring
of the NH group of the amide bond.[38] The
final spectrum of VMNPs showed characteristic peaks of VM (1062, 1230,
and 1490 cm–1) that were not present in the preceding
steps’ spectra. In addition, the peak shape of VMNPs at ∼3400
cm–1 looked more similar to the MNPs–TEOS–APTMS–DSS
spectrum than the VM one and the peak intensity was in between its
value in the aforementioned spectra supporting the successful conjugation
of VM.[39−41] Those observations align with Jiang et al. (2021)
who conjugated VM on PAMAM dendrimers and got evidence on the successful
conjugation by the appearance of VM characteristic peaks on the conjugated
VM–PAMAM dendrimer and the shape change in the overlapped 3400
cm–1 peak.[42]
Size and Electron Diffraction Analysis
The physicochemical properties of VMNPs were evaluated using different
characterization techniques. The morphology, size, and electron diffraction
of MNPs and VMNPs were investigated using HR-TEM (JEM-2100, JEOL Ltd.
Japan). TEM micrographs showed nearly spherical particles with an
average diameter of 16.3 ± 2.6 nm as analyzed by ImageJ software
(Figure a). It was
also evident that MNPs exhibit a polycrystalline structure with an
interplanar spacing of 0.4 nm as measured by the selected area electron
diffraction (SAED) mode in HR-TEM (Figure b–d). Besides, the micrographs showed
a clear coating by TEOS surrounding MNPs with a 5 nm thickness (Figure e). The silica layer
is crucial as it stabilizes MNPs, prevents particle aggregation, and
confers more functional groups for surface modification.[43] However, if the silica coating is too thick,
it may potentially shield the magnetic character of MNPs. To accomplish
this balance, we used a ratio of 1:2 TEOS to MNPs, respectively, based
on an optimization reported by Thangaraj et al. (2019) where that
ratio did not significantly affect the magnetization of MNPs as showed
by VSM analysis.[30] A polycrystalline structure
was also observed by the SAED mode in HR-TEM (Figure f). Upon completing the whole functionalization,
the coating thickness increased to 8 nm which is possibly attributed
to the addition of the other functionalization components (APTMS,
DSS, and VM) (Figure g). It was also exhibiting a polycrystalline structure by SAED (Figure h).
Figure 4
Functionalization of
MNPs: TEM micrograph and SAED pattern of (a–d)
MNPs, (e,f) TEOS-coated MNPs, and (g,h) VM-conjugated MNPs. Magnetic
behavior (i) hysteresis loop, (j) saturation magnetization values
(emu/g) of MNPs, and TEOS-coated MNPs. (k) TGA thermogram of MNPs
and APTMS–TEOS-coated MNPs (MNPs–TEOS–APTMS).
(*p < 0.05, and n = 3).
Functionalization of
MNPs: TEM micrograph and SAED pattern of (a–d)
MNPs, (e,f) TEOS-coated MNPs, and (g,h) VM-conjugated MNPs. Magnetic
behavior (i) hysteresis loop, (j) saturation magnetization values
(emu/g) of MNPs, and TEOS-coated MNPs. (k) TGA thermogram of MNPs
and APTMS–TEOS-coated MNPs (MNPs–TEOS–APTMS).
(*p < 0.05, and n = 3).
Magnetic Behavior
Coated-MNPs were
examined for their magnetic response by exposure to different external
magnetic fields using VSM (Lake Shore model 7410, USA). The purpose
of the examination is to investigate the impact of the coating on
the inherent magnetic response of MNPs. The hysteresis loop and saturation
magnetization of MNPs and MNPs–TEOS were compared, as shown
in Figure i. MNPs
showed a saturation magnetization value of 60 emu/g, whereas MNPs–TEOS
presented a slightly lower value of around 51 emu/g (Figure j). This result indicates a
15% reduction in the magnetic character for coated-MNPs compared to
free MNPs suggesting that MNPs’ coating had only a mild effect
on the magnetic property. The values of the saturation magnetization
align with previous studies reporting the development of magnetic
responsive systems to be used for therapeutic hyperthermia. For example,
Hayashi et al. reported the development of a hybrid MNP-organic system
for magnetic responsive drug release. This system had a magnetic saturation
value of 51 emu g–1. The system was capable of producing
a hyperthermia effect by increasing the temperature of the medium
by 5.5 °C in 12 min.[44,45] Accordingly, this indicates
the potential of the developed conjugate system to be used for targeted
delivery or therapeutic hyperthermia using external magnetic field.
It is also worth mentioning that MNPs with diameters below 30 nm were
frequently reported to exhibit superparamagnetic properties.[46−48]
Thermal Behavior
TGA was utilized
to examine the difference in the thermal behavior of MNPs and functionalized
MNPs. Around 7 mg of each sample was exposed to a temperature range
from room temperature (25 °C) until 600 °C, with a heating
rate of 10 °C/min under nitrogen conditions. The weight loss
percentage was measured for each corresponding temperature and plotted
for comparison, as shown in Figure k. For MNPs, a single weight loss of 9.70% was observed
around 573 °C which could be ascribed to the adsorbed water molecules
and unreacted residues removal as well.[49,50] Functionalized
MNPs exhibited two-weight losses. The first loss was 7.29% at 253.5
°C, which is ascribed to the breaking apart of aminopropyl groups
on the surface of silica-coated MNPs.[48,51] While the
second began at 409.7 °C and continued to 600 °C with a
loss percentage of 7.55%, which is reported to accompany the decomposition
of the silica layer.[52] These findings confirm
the thermal stability of functionalized MNPs and support the successful
coating of MNPs with a silica layer.
Zeta Potential
The charge of the
different stages of VMNPs was measured using ζ potential (Nano-ZS,
Malvern Instruments, Malvern, UK). As shown in Figure a, MNPs demonstrated a negative charge of
−10.8 ± 0.85 mV which may be attributed to the residual
ammonia used in producing Fe3O4 from the iron
precursor. After the addition of the SiO2 layer, the charge
became more negative (−14.9 ± 1.17 mV) possibly due to
the presence of hydroxyl groups resulting from the high dielectric
constant of the used water.[34] Upon the
conjugation of APTMS, the charge became less negative (−10.9
± 0.85 mV) due to the presence of positive amine groups on the
APTMS end. However, the charge was expected to be more positive than
observed, this may be attributed to low APTMS concentration on the
MNP surface. Shebl et al. (2017) tried a similar procedure to ours,
but for conjugating APTMS directly onto MNPs in two reaction conditions,
cold and hot. They found out that cold conditions were more efficient
in coating MNPs as expressed in the change in the ζ potential
of MNPs (from −18 to +24 for cold compared to −11 for
hot conditions).[53] This might account for
the small change in charge observed with the current study. Although
VM is known to be positively charged at neutral pH,[54] the charge was observed to be almost the same as in MNPs–TEOS–APTMS.
This result aligns with the previous interpretation of low APTMS concentration
on the MNP surface. We plan to work on increasing the APTMS concentration,
and so CE % of VM, in a future study.
Figure 5
Characterization of VM-conjugated MNPs:
(a) ζ-potential of
different synthesis stages of VM-conjugated MNPs, VM, MNPs, DSS, TEOS,
and APTMS. (b) Iron content percentage of MNPs, MNPs–TEOS–APTMS,
VMNPs (MNPs–TEOS–APTMS–DSS–VM), (c) conjugation
efficiency of VM, and (d) composition percentage of VM-conjugated
MNPs (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01,
****p < 0.0001 and n = 3).
Characterization of VM-conjugated MNPs:
(a) ζ-potential of
different synthesis stages of VM-conjugated MNPs, VM, MNPs, DSS, TEOS,
and APTMS. (b) Iron content percentage of MNPs, MNPs–TEOS–APTMS,
VMNPs (MNPs–TEOS–APTMS–DSS–VM), (c) conjugation
efficiency of VM, and (d) composition percentage of VM-conjugated
MNPs (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01,
****p < 0.0001 and n = 3).
Iron Content Analysis
The iron
content was quantitatively determined in MNPs, MNPs–TEOS–APTMS,
and VMNPs using ICP-AES [Agilent 5100 Synchronous Vertical Dual View
(SVDV), CA, USA]. A sample of 2 mg/mL MNPs was analyzed using the
ICP-AES, and the iron concentration was found to be 1.70 ± 0.03
mg/mL representing 85% of the whole MNPs (Figure b). For MNPs–TEOS–APTMS and
VMNPs, the iron content was measured to account for 44.9 and 29.5%,
respectively. This result follows the reported range of iron content
for MNPs. For instance, Wu et al. (2011) reported that the iron content
of MNPs to be around 70% using EDS analysis.[55] There is a clear reduction of the iron content as we go from MNPs
to VMNPs which supports the successful conjugation.
Percent Composition of VM-Conjugated MNPs
The CE % of VM on MNPs was determined indirectly by measuring the
absorbance of VM in the supernatant at 279.8 nm. Using the calibration
curve, the amount of conjugated VM could be figured out by subtracting
the unconjugated from the initial VM amount. CE % was found to be
25.1% (Figure c),
while LE % was calculated to be 5.7% following triplicate measurements
(Figure d). These
low values may be attributed to a small concentration of APTMS on
the MNP surface as discussed before. We plan to optimize the reaction
conditions and CE % in a future study. The percent composition of
VMNPs was determined based on the iron content data and VM LE %, as
shown in Figure b–d.
The predominant species of the particles was the connecting molecules,
which is TEOS–APTMS–DSS with a percentage of 59.6%.
Meanwhile, oxygen represents 5.2%, which is given from its percentage
in the pure MNPs.
Applications
At first, the cytotoxicity
profile of VMNPs was studied against the normal lung cell line, WI-38
human diploid lung fibroblast. The therapeutic efficiency was then
evaluated by measuring the bactericidal activity against two frequent
Gram-positive strains, S. aureus and
MRSA.
In Vitro Cell Biocompatibility Study
The cytotoxicity profile of VMNPs was assessed in vitro against WI-38
human diploid lung fibroblast. Utilizing the MTT assay, the associated
NPs cytotoxicity was demonstrated from studying the change in the
cell viability percentage while varying the compounds and their concentration.
As shown in Figure a, the cell viability showed a moderate decrease as the concentration
of VMNPs increased. The IC50 of VMNPs was measured to be
183.43 μg/mL, compared to a lower value of 54.11 μg/mL
associated with free VM. This difference in IC50 values
reflects that the conjugation of VM helps decrease the cytotoxicity
of the drug. Such an effect was also observed by Gounani et al., where
they loaded VM and polymyxin B to mesoporous silica nanoparticles.
They showed that loading antibiotics to nano drug delivery carrier
enhanced the biocompatibility of those drugs as demonstrated by the
MTT assay.[56] On the other hand, MNPs–TEOS–APTMS
was found to be more cytotoxic with IC50 of 15.29 μg/mL,
which may be attributed to the charged amine groups present on APTMS.
To mitigate this toxicity, it is required to conjugate MNPs–TEOS–APTMS
with opposite-charged molecules such as DSS–VM that are rich
with negative carboxylate groups. Therefore, VMNPs were found to have
much better biocompatibility on WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblast,
which heralded a better safety profile.
Figure 6
In vitro applications:
(a) MTT cytotoxicity assay on WI-38 cells
(fibroblasts human cell line from lung tissue) for VM, APTMS–TEOS-coated
MNPs (MNPs–TEOS–APTMS), VM-conjugated MNPs (MNPs–TEOS–APTMS–DSS–VM).
(b) Antibacterial activity using the agar diffusion method for VM
and VMNPs against S. aureus and MRSA.
(c) MIC for VM and VMNPs against S. aureus and MRSA. Image of the representative agar plate of MNPs–TEOS–APTMS
against (d) MRSA and (e) S. aureus,
VM at 25 μg/mL against (f) MRSA and (g) S. aureus, VMNPs at an equivalent VM concentration of 25 μg/mL against
(h) MRSA and (i) S. aureus.
In vitro applications:
(a) MTT cytotoxicity assay on WI-38 cells
(fibroblasts human cell line from lung tissue) for VM, APTMS–TEOS-coated
MNPs (MNPs–TEOS–APTMS), VM-conjugated MNPs (MNPs–TEOS–APTMS–DSS–VM).
(b) Antibacterial activity using the agar diffusion method for VM
and VMNPs against S. aureus and MRSA.
(c) MIC for VM and VMNPs against S. aureus and MRSA. Image of the representative agar plate of MNPs–TEOS–APTMS
against (d) MRSA and (e) S. aureus,
VM at 25 μg/mL against (f) MRSA and (g) S. aureus, VMNPs at an equivalent VM concentration of 25 μg/mL against
(h) MRSA and (i) S. aureus.
In Vitro Antibacterial Activity Evaluation
The antibacterial activity of VMNPs was assessed by measuring the
inhibition zone diameter of bacterial growth. The developed VMNPs
were examined against two Gram-positive bacterial strains, S. aureus and MRSA. The antibacterial results were
compared to free VM to evaluate the difference in activity, as shown
in Figure b. The results
showed that VM exhibits lower MIC for S. aureus and MRSA (20 μg/mL), compared to 25 μg/mL for VMNPs
against both strains (Figure c). Moreover, functionalized MNPs without VM (MNPs–TEOS–APTMS)
did not show significant activity against either bacterial strain
(Figure d,e). This
observation asserts that the key contributor in the measured bactericidal
activity is VM. Photographic images for agar plates of free VM at
25 μg/mL concentration showed a inhibition zone with 22 mm diameter
and 19 mm diameter against S. aureus and MRSA, respectively (Figure f,g). Meanwhile, the inhibition zone diameter of VMNPs
at equivalent VM concentration of 25 μg/mL was measured to be
16 and 14 mm against S. aureus and
MRSA, respectively (Figure h,i). VM’s mode of action relies on inhibiting the
cell wall synthesis of Gram-positive bacteria through the electrostatic
interaction between the positive amine groups of VM and the negative
groups of the D-Ala-D-Ala terminal in peptidoglycans.[57] This involvement of VM’s amine groups in the antibacterial
activity may interpret the observed difference in activity between
free VM and VMNPs, where VMNPs exhibit less free amine groups given
that some of them were consumed into the conjugation with MNPs. However,
the difference in antibacterial activity was just moderate, suggesting
a comparable antibacterial activity. On the other hand, the biocompatibility
of VMNPs was much better than free VM. These findings impose the promising
use of VMNPs as an alternative for free VM as it provides a comparable
antibacterial activity and better biocompatibility.
Conclusions
In the reported study,
VM was conjugated to the surface of MNPs
using a multistep approach. The NPs were initially coated with a silica
layer, followed by linker addition, and then finally conjugating the
VM peptide. Conjugation of VM on the MNP core provides a dual level
of targeting. The first targeting strategy is the D-Ala-D-Ala binding
moiety, which allows irreversible binding of VM to bacterial cell
walls. Meanwhile, the external magnetic field can be used to localize
the conjugated system to the target organ and minimize the leakage
into systemic circulation. The developed VMNPs showed comparable activity
to free VM but with better biocompatibility, which may minimize the
associated side effects of the systemic administration of VM. A future
study will focus on proving the active targeting of the developed
formulation.