Polydimethyl siloxane based nanocomposites with antibiofilm properties for biomedical applications
G. Gomathi Sankar
Bioengineering and Drug Design Lab, Department of Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai, India
Biofouling and Biofilm Processes Section, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Kalpakkam, India
Search for more papers by this authorP. Sriyutha Murthy
Biofouling and Biofilm Processes Section, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Kalpakkam, India
Search for more papers by this authorArindam Das
Surface and Nanoscience Division, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam, India
Search for more papers by this authorS. Sathya
Bioengineering and Drug Design Lab, Department of Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai, India
Biofouling and Biofilm Processes Section, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Kalpakkam, India
Search for more papers by this authorRakesh Nankar
Bioengineering and Drug Design Lab, Department of Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai, India
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
V. P. Venugopalan
Biofouling and Biofilm Processes Section, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Kalpakkam, India
Correspondence to: V. P. Venugopalan, e-mail: [email protected]; M. Doble, e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Mukesh Doble
Bioengineering and Drug Design Lab, Department of Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai, India
Correspondence to: V. P. Venugopalan, e-mail: [email protected]; M. Doble, e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorG. Gomathi Sankar
Bioengineering and Drug Design Lab, Department of Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai, India
Biofouling and Biofilm Processes Section, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Kalpakkam, India
Search for more papers by this authorP. Sriyutha Murthy
Biofouling and Biofilm Processes Section, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Kalpakkam, India
Search for more papers by this authorArindam Das
Surface and Nanoscience Division, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam, India
Search for more papers by this authorS. Sathya
Bioengineering and Drug Design Lab, Department of Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai, India
Biofouling and Biofilm Processes Section, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Kalpakkam, India
Search for more papers by this authorRakesh Nankar
Bioengineering and Drug Design Lab, Department of Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai, India
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
V. P. Venugopalan
Biofouling and Biofilm Processes Section, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Kalpakkam, India
Correspondence to: V. P. Venugopalan, e-mail: [email protected]; M. Doble, e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Mukesh Doble
Bioengineering and Drug Design Lab, Department of Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai, India
Correspondence to: V. P. Venugopalan, e-mail: [email protected]; M. Doble, e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Polydimethyl siloxane (PDMS) is an excellent implant material for biomedical applications, but often fails as it is prone to microbial colonization which forms biofilms. In the present study CuO, CTAB capped CuO, and ZnO nanoparticles were tested as nanofillers to enhance the antibiofilm property of PDMS against Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. In general S. aurues (Gram positive and more hydrophobic) favor PDMS surface than glass while E. coli (Gram negative and more hydrophilic) behaves in a reverse way. Incorporation of nanofillers renders the PDMS surface antibacterial and reduces the attachment of both bacteria. These surfaces are also not cytotoxic nor show any cell damage. Contact angle of the material and the cell surface hydrophobicity influenced the extent of bacterial attachment. Cell viability in biofilms was dependent on the antimicrobial property of the nanoparticles incorporated in the PDMS matrix. Simple regression relationships were able to predict the bacterial attachment and number of dead cells on these nanocomposites. Among the nanocomposites tested, PDMS incorporated with CTAB (cetyl trimethylammonium bromide)-capped CuO appears to be the best antibacterial material with good cyto-compatibility. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 105B: 1075–1082, 2017.
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article.
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| jbmb33650-sup-0001-suppfigs.doc852.5 KB |
FIGURE S1. Raman Spectra of nanoparticles (a) ZnO, (b) CuO FIGURE S2. Number of viable planktonic cells treated with different nanoparticles (5 mg/L) after 24 h incubation. (a) S. aureus, (b) E. coli. FIGURE S3. BATH Assay. FIGURE S4. Epifluorescence micrographs of adhesion of (a) E. coli, (b) S. aureus on glass slides. FIGURE S5. Epifluorescence micrographs showing the adhesion of E. coli and S. aureus on polymeric surfaces with different hydrophobicity after 24 h of incubation. (Stain—Acridine Orange) FIGURE S6. Densities of total cells estimated from acridine orange stained micrographs on different polymer surfaces a) S.aureus b) E. coli. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
REFERENCES
- 1Hook AL, Chang CY, Yang J, Luckett J, Cockayne A, Atkinson S, Mei Y, Bayston R, Irvine DJ, Langer R, Anderson DG, Williams P, Davies MC, Alexander MR. Combinatorial discovery of polymers resistant to bacterial attachment. Nat Biotechnol 2012;9: 868–875.
- 2Darouiche RO. Treatment of infections associated with surgical implants. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 1422–1429.
- 3Teterycz D, Ferry T, Lew D, Stern R, Assal M, Hoffmeyer P, Bernard L, Uçkay I. Outcome of orthopedic implant infections due to different staphylococci. Int J Infect Dis 2010; 14: e913–9188.
- 4Treter J, Macedo AJ. Catheters: A suitable surface for biofilm formation. Sci Microb Pathog Commun Curr Res Technol Adv 2011; 835–842.
- 5Goda T, Konno T, Takai M, Moro T, Ishihara K. Biomimetic phosphorylcholine polymer grafting from polydimethylsiloxane surface using photo-induced polymerization. Biomaterials 2006; 27: 5151–5160.
- 6Tunc M, Humayun M, Cheng X, Ratner BD. A reversible thermosensitive adhesive for retinal implants: In vivo experience with plasma-deposited poly (N-isopropyl acrylamide), Retina 2008;9: 1338–1343.
- 7Siggelkow W, Faridi A, Spiritus K, Klinge U, Rath W, Klosterhalfen B. Histological analysis of silicone breast implant capsules and correlation with capsular contracture. Biomaterials 2003; 24: 1101–1109.
- 8Wu H, Moser C, Wang HZ, Høiby N, Song ZJ. Strategies for combating bacterial biofilm infections. Int J Oral Sci 2015; 7: 1–7.
- 9Bekir K, Abdallah BF, Ellafi A, Bakhrouf A. Adherence assays and slime production of Staphylococcus aureus strains after their incubation in seawater microcosms. Ann. Microbiol 2011; 61: 819–823.
- 10Feldman E, Kontoyiannis D, Sharabi S, Lee E, Kaufman Y, Heller L. Breast implant infections: Is cefazolin enough? Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126: 779–785.
- 11Kohannim O, Rubin Z, Taylor M. Saline breast implant fluid collection and reactive arthritis in a patient with streptococcal toxic shock syndrome. J Clin Rheumatol 2011; 17(2): 89–91.
- 12Stickler DJ. Bacterial biofilms and the encrustation of urethral catheters. Biofouling 1996; 94: 293–305.
- 13Bookstaver PB, Williamson JC, Tucker BK, Raad II, Sherertz RJ. Activity of novel antibiotic lock solutions in a model against isolates of catheter-related bloodstream infections. Ann Pharmacother 2009; 43: 210–219.
- 14Knetsch MLW, Koole LH. New strategies in the development of antimicrobial coatings: The example of increasing usage of silver and silver nanoparticles. Polymers 2011; 3: 340–366.
- 15Klevens RM, Edwards JR, Richards CL Jr, Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Pollock DA, Cardo DM. Estimating health care-associated infections and deaths in U.S. Hospitals. Public Health Rep 2007; 122: 160–166.
- 16Chen M, Yu Q, Sun H. Novel strategies for the prevention and treatment of biofilm related infections. Int J Mol Sci 2013; 14: 18488–18501.
- 17Rai M, Yadav A, Gade A. Silver nanoparticles as a new generation of antimicrobials. Biotechnol Adv 2009; 27: 76–83.
- 18Jena P, Mohanty S, Mallick R, Jacob B, Sonawane A. Toxicity and antibacterial assessment of chitosan-coated silver nanoparticles on human pathogens and macrophage cells. Int J Nanomed 2012; 7: 1805–1818.
- 19Klibanov AM. Permanently microbicidal materials coatings. J Mater Chem 2007; 17: 2479–2482.
- 20Truong VK, Lapovok R, Estrin YS, Rundell S, Wang JY, Fluke CJ, Crawford RJ, Ivanova EP. The influence of nano-scale surface roughness on bacterial adhesion to ultrafine-grained titanium. Biomaterials 2010; 31: 3674–3683.
- 21Xu LC, Siedlecki CA. Submicron-textured biomaterial surface reduces staphylococcal bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation. Acta Biomater 2012; 8: 72–81.
- 22Roosjen A, Norde W, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ. The use of positively charged or low surface free energy coatings versus polymer brushes in controlling biofilm formation. Prog Colloid Polym Sci 2006; 132: 138–144.
- 23Sankar GG, Sathya S, Murthy PS, Das A, Pandiyan R, Venugopalan VP, Doble M. Polydimethyl siloxane nanocomposites: Their antifouling efficacy in vitro and in marine conditions. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 2015; 104: 307–314.
- 24Vani K, Thomas S, Prabhawathi V, Boobalan T, Sawant SN, Doble M. In vitro biocompatiblity of modified polycarbonate as a biomaterial. Colloids Surf B:Biointerfaces 2013; 108: 191–198.
- 25Wu CL, Zhang MQ, Rong MZ, Friedrich K. Tensile performance improvement of low nanoparticles filled-polypropylene composites. Compos Sci Technol 2002; 62: 1327–1340.
- 26Cerqueira L, Oliveira JA, Nicolau A, Azevedo NF, Vieira MJ. Biofilm formation with mixed cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa/Escherichia coli on silicone using artificial urine to mimic urinary catheters. Biofouling J Bioadhesion Biofilm Res 2013, 29: 829–840.
- 27Yang ZH, Xu J, Zhang WX, Liu AP, Tang SP. Controlled synthesis of CuO nanostructures by a simple solution route. J Solid State Chem 2007; 180: 1390–1396.
- 28Velmurugan RK, Selvam, Krishnakumar B, Swaminathan M. An efficient reusable and antiphotocorrosive nano ZnO for the mineralization of reactive orange 4 under UV-A light. Sep Purif Technol 2011; 80: 119–124.
- 29Sudhakar M, Doble M, Murthy PS, Venkatesan R. Marine microbe-mediated biodegradation of low- and high-density polyethylenes. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 2008; 61: 203–213.
- 30Muthukumar T, Aravinthana A, Dineshram R, Venkatesan R, Doble M. Biodegradation of starch blended high density polyethylene using marine bacteria associated with biofilm formation and its isolation characterization. J Microb Biochem Technol 2014; 6(3): 116–122.
10.4172/1948-5948.1000131 Google Scholar
- 31Prabhakar PK, Raj S, Anuradha PR, Sawant SN, Doble M. Biocompatibility studies on polyaniline and polyaniline–silver nanoparticle coated polyurethane composite. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 2011; 86(1): 146–153.
- 32Adams CP, Walker KA, Obare SO, Docherty KM. Size-dependent antimicrobial effects of novel palladium nanoparticles. PLoS One 2014; 9(1): e85981. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085981
- 33Senthilkumar O, Yamauchi K, Senthilkumar K, Yamamae T, Fujita Y, Nishimoto N. J Korean Phys Soc 2008; 53: 46–49.
- 34Das A, Venkataramana B, Partheephan D, Prasad AK, Dhara S, Tyagi AK. Facile synthesis of nanostructured CuO for low temperature NO2 sensing. Physica E 2013; 54: 40–44.
- 35Baek Y, Yu J, Kim SH, Lee S, Yoon J. Effect of surface properties of reverse osmosis membranes on biofouling occurrence under filtration conditions. J Membr Sci 2011; 382: 91–99.
- 36Reifsteck F, Wee S, Wilkinson BJ. Hydrophobicity—Hydrophilicity of staphylococci. J Med Microbiol 1987; 24: 65–73.
- 37Brisset L, Vernet-Garnier V, Carquin J, Burde A, Flament JB, Choisy C. In vivo and in vitro analysis of the ability of urinary catheters to microbial colonization. Pathol Biol 1996; 44: 397–404.
- 38Mah TF, O'Toole GA. Mechanisms of biofilm resistance to antimicrobial agents. Trends Microbiol 2001; 9: 34–39.
- 39Lu C, Brauer MJ, Botstein D. Slow growth induces heat-shock resistance in normal and respiratory-deficient yeast. Mol Biol Cell 2009; 20: 891–903.
