The aims of the present study were the determination of antimicrobial and antibiofilm effects of meropenem-loaded mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNs) on carbapenem resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) and cytotoxicity properties in vitro. The meropenem-loaded MSNs had shown antibacterial and biofilm inhibitory activities on all isolates at different levels lower than MICs and BICs of meropenem. The viability of HC-04 cells treated with serial concentrations as MICs and BICs of meropenem-loaded MSNs was 92–100%. According to the obtained results, meropenem-loaded MSNs display the significant antibacterial and antibiofilm effects against carbapenem resistant and biofilm forming P. aeruginosa and low cell toxicity in vitro. Then, the prepared system can be an appropriate option for the delivery of carbapenem for further evaluation in vivo assays.
TredgetEEShankowskyHARennieR, et al. Pseudomonas infections in the thermally injured patient. Burns2004; 30: 3–26.
2.
GuptaPChhibberSHarjaiK.Efficacy of purified lactonase and ciprofloxacin in preventing systemic spread of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in murine burn wound model. Burns2015; 41: 153–162.
3.
TumbarelloMRepettoETrecarichiEM, et al. Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa bloodstream infections: risk factors and mortality. Epidemiol Infect2011; 139: 1740–1749.
4.
OzkurtZErtekMErolS, et al. The risk factors for acquisition of imipenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the burn unit. Burns2005; 31: 870–873.
5.
MemarMYPormehraliRAlizadehN, et al. Colistin, an option for treatment of multiple drug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Physiol Pharmacol2016; 20: 130–136.
6.
GhorbaniHMemarMYSefidanFY, et al. In vitro synergy of antibiotic combinations against planktonic and biofilm Pseudomonas aeruginosa. GMS Hygiene Infect Control2017; 12: 1–7.
7.
WangJZhouJ-YQuT-T, et al. Molecular epidemiology and mechanisms of carbapenem resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from Chinese hospitals. Int J Antimicrob Agents2010; 35: 486–491.
8.
MartisNLeroySBlancV.Colistin in multi-drug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa blood-stream infections: a narrative review for the clinician. J Infect2014; 69: 1–12.
9.
LauplandKBParkinsMDChurchDL, et al. Population‐based epidemiological study of infections caused by carbapenem‐resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the Calgary Health Region: importance of metallo‐β‐lactamase (MBL)–producing strains. J Infect Dis2005; 192: 1606–1612.
10.
PournarasSManiatiMSpanakisN, et al. Spread of efflux pump-overexpressing, non-metallo-β-lactamase-producing, meropenem-resistant but ceftazidime-susceptible Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a region with bla VIM endemicity. J Antimicrob Chemother2005; 56: 761–764.
11.
HuangY-TChangS-CLauderdaleT-L, et al. Molecular epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa carrying metallo-β-lactamase genes in Taiwan. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis2007; 59: 211–216.
12.
KhuntayapornPMontakantikulPSantanirandP, et al. Molecular investigation of carbapenem resistance among multidrug‐resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated clinically in Thailand. Microbiol Immunol2013; 57: 170–178.
13.
GutiérrezOJuanCCercenadoE, et al. Molecular epidemiology and mechanisms of carbapenem resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from Spanish hospitals. AAC2007; 51: 4329–4335.
14.
SauerKCullenMRickardA, et al. Characterization of nutrient-induced dispersion in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 biofilm. J Bacteriol2004; 186: 7312–7326.
15.
LavertyGGormanSPGilmoreBF.Biomolecular mechanisms of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli biofilm formation. Pathogens2014; 3: 596–632.
16.
MahT-FPittsBPellockB, et al. A genetic basis for Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm antibiotic resistance. Nature2003; 426: 306–310.
17.
BarzegariAKheyrolahzadehKKhatibiSMH, et al. The battle of probiotics and their derivatives against biofilms. Infect Drug Resist2020; 13: 659–672.
18.
Sánchez-GómezSJapeljBJeralaR, et al. Structural features governing the activity of lactoferricin-derived peptides that act in synergy with antibiotics against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in vitro and in vivo. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2011; 55: 218–228.
19.
Maleki DizajSSharifiSAhmadianE, et al. An update on calcium carbonate nanoparticles as cancer drug/gene delivery system. Expert Opin Drug Deliv2019; 16: 331–345.
20.
Maleki DizajSSharifiSJahangiriA.Electrospun nanofibers as versatile platform in antimicrobial delivery: current state and perspectives. Pharm Dev Technol2019; 24: 1187–1199.
21.
SharifiSFathiNMemarMY, et al. Anti‐microbial activity of curcumin nanoformulations: new trends and future perspectives. Phytother Res2020; 34: 1926–1946.
22.
GhavimiMAShahabadiABJarolmasjedS, et al. Nanofibrous asymmetric collagen/curcumin membrane containing aspirin-loaded PLGA nanoparticles for guided bone regeneration. Sci Rep2020; 10: 15.
23.
NegahdariRBohlouliSSharifiS, et al. Therapeutic benefits of rutin and its nanoformulations. Phytother Res. Epub ahead of print 15 October 2020. DOI: 10.1002/ptr.6904.
24.
HamidiASharifiSDavaranS, et al. Novel aldehyde-terminated dendrimers; synthesis and cytotoxicity assay. BioImpacts2012; 2: 97.
25.
Zununi VahedSFathiNSamieiM, et al. Targeted cancer drug delivery with aptamer-functionalized polymeric nanoparticles. J Drug Target2019; 27: 292–299.
26.
Molina-MansoDManzanoMDoadrioJC, et al. Usefulness of SBA-15 mesoporous ceramics as a delivery system for vancomycin, rifampicin and linezolid: a preliminary report. Int J Antimicrob Agents2012; 40: 252–256.
27.
BraunKPochertALindénM, et al. Membrane interactions of mesoporous silica nanoparticles as carriers of antimicrobial peptides. J Colloid Interface Sci2016; 475: 161–170.
28.
Hanafi-BojdMYJaafariMRRamezanianN, et al. Surface functionalized mesoporous silica nanoparticles as an effective carrier for epirubicin delivery to cancer cells. Eur J Pharm Biopharm2015; 89: 248–258.
29.
MemarMYYekaniMGhanbariH, et al. Biocompatibility, cytotoxicity and antibacterial effects of meropenem-loaded mesoporous silica nanoparticles against carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae, artificial cells. Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol2020; 48: 1354–1361.
30.
WeinsteinMP.Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 2018. ISBN: 156238080X.
31.
MagiorakosA-PSrinivasanACareyRt, et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect2012; 18: 268–281.
32.
Rodríguez-MartínezJ-MPoirelLNordmannP.Molecular epidemiology and mechanisms of carbapenem resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2009; 53: 4783–4788.
33.
GoliHRNahaeiMRRezaeeMA, et al. Contribution of mexAB-oprM and mexXY (-oprA) efflux operons in antibiotic resistance of clinical Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates in Tabriz, Iran. Infect Genet Evol2016; 45: 75–82.
34.
KhaliliYMemarMYFarajniaS, et al. Molecular epidemiology and carbapenem resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from patients with burns. J Wound Care2021; 30: 135–141.
35.
PoirelLWalshTRCuvillierV, et al. Multiplex PCR for detection of acquired carbapenemase genes. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis2011; 70: 119–123.
36.
GhadaksazAFooladiAAIHosseiniHM, et al. The prevalence of some pseudomonas virulence genes related to biofilm formation and alginate production among clinical isolates. J Appl Biomed2015; 13: 61–68.
37.
WayneP.Performance standard for antimicrobial susceptibility testing: twenty-fourth international supplement. CLSI document M100-S24. Westminster: Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute, 2014.
38.
VoorAFSeverinJALesaffreEM, et al. A systematic review and meta-analyses show that carbapenem use and medical devices are the leading risk factors for carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2014; 58: 2626–2637.
39.
MemarMYGhotaslouRSamieiM, et al. Antimicrobial use of reactive oxygen therapy: current insights. Infect Drug Resist2018; 11: 567–576.
40.
MemarMYAdibkiaKFarajniaS, et al. Biocompatibility, cytotoxicity and antimicrobial effects of gentamicin-loaded CaCO3 as a drug delivery to osteomyelitis. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol2019; 54: 101307.
41.
KoneruBShiYWangY-C, et al. Tetracycline-containing MCM-41 mesoporous silica nanoparticles for the treatment of Escherichia coli. Molecules2015; 20: 19690–19698.
42.
GounaniZAsadollahiMAMeyerRL, et al. Loading of polymyxin B onto anionic mesoporous silica nanoparticles retains antibacterial activity and enhances biocompatibility. Int J Pharm2018; 537: 148–161.
43.
SeleemMNMunusamyPRanjanA, et al. Silica-antibiotic hybrid nanoparticles for targeting intracellular pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2009; 53: 4270–4274.
44.
SunFQuFLingY, et al. Biofilm-associated infections: antibiotic resistance and novel therapeutic strategies. Future Microbiol2013; 8: 877–886.
45.
AkturkEOliveiraHSantosSB, et al. Synergistic action of phage and antibiotics: parameters to enhance the killing efficacy against Mono and dual-species biofilms. Antibiotics2019; 8: 103.
46.
RiberaABenaventEEl-HajC, et al. Comparative antibiofilm efficacy of meropenem alone and in combination with colistin in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model by extended-spectrum-β-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2019; 63: 19, e01230.
47.
RădulescuDVoicuGOpreaAE, et al. Mesoporous silica coatings for cephalosporin active release at the bone-implant interface. Appl Surf Sci2016; 374: 165–171.
48.
WangJWuGLiuX, et al. A decomposable silica-based antibacterial coating for percutaneous titanium implant. Int J Nanomed2017; 12: 371–379.
49.
WuHMoserCWangH-Z, et al. Strategies for combating bacterial biofilm infections. Int J Oral Sci2015; 7: 1–7.
50.
HwangI-sHwangJHChoiH, et al. Synergistic effects between silver nanoparticles and antibiotics and the mechanisms involved. J Med Microbiol2012; 61: 1719–1726.
51.
Martínez-CarmonaMGun’koYKVallet-RegíM.Mesoporous silica materials as drug delivery: “the nightmare” of bacterial infection. Pharmaceutics2018; 10: 279.
52.
XuCHeYLiZ, et al. Nanoengineered hollow mesoporous silica nanoparticles for the delivery of antimicrobial proteins into biofilms. J Mater Chem B2018; 6: 1899–1902.
53.
PedrazaDDíezJColillaM, et al. Amine-functionalized mesoporous silica nanoparticles: a new nanoantibiotic for bone infection treatment. Biomedical Glasses2018; 4: 1–12.
54.
MurashovVHarperMDemchukE.Impact of silanol surface density on the toxicity of silica aerosols measured by erythrocyte haemolysis. J Occup Environ Hyg2006; 3: 718–723.
55.
YuTMaluginAGhandehariH.Impact of silica nanoparticle design on cellular toxicity and hemolytic activity. ACS Nano2011; 5: 5717–5728.
56.
MenonNLeongDT.Cytotoxic effects of phosphonate-functionalized mesoporous silica nanoparticles. ACS Appl Mater Interf2016; 8: 2416–2422.
57.
ChenYChenHZhangS, et al. Multifunctional mesoporous nanoellipsoids for biological bimodal imaging and magnetically targeted delivery of anticancer drugs. Adv Funct Mater2011; 21: 270–278.
58.
BhartiCNagaichUPalAK, et al. Mesoporous silica nanoparticles in target drug delivery system: a review. Int J Pharm Investig2015; 5: 124–133.
