Impact of nanosystems in Staphylococcus aureus biofilms treatment

Abstract

Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) is considered by the World Health Organization as a high priority pathogen for which new therapies are needed. This is particularly important for biofilm implant-associated infections once the only available treatment option implies a surgical procedure combined with antibiotic therapy. Consequently, these infections represent an economic burden for Healthcare Systems. A new strategy has emerged to tackle this problem: for small bugs, small particles. Here, we describe how nanotechnology-based systems have been studied to treat S. aureus biofilms. Their features, drawbacks and potentialities to impact the treatment of these infections are highlighted. Furthermore, we also outline biofilm models and assays required for preclinical validation of those nanosystems to smooth the process of clinical translation.

Biofilm Production Ability, Virulence and Antimicrobial Resistance Genes in Staphylococcus aureus from Various Veterinary Hospitals

“…This result was similar to the previous studies in China [42,43]. It was reported that S. aureus within the biofilm were poorly responsive to antibiotics and this greatly limited the choice of antibiotics for clinical treatment of S. aureus infections [23]. However, our results revealed that S. aureus with strong biofilm production ability cannot always show more severe resistance.…”

“…The biofilm-producing pathogen S. aureus is notorious for its ability to resist treatment by forming biofilms on indwelling medical devices, resulting in persistent infections [22]. Besides, S. aureus strains within the biofilm usually show poor response to antibiotics and immune system due to an insufficient drug penetration into the biofilm's matrix and hindering the recognizable antigens present in bacterial cells, respectively [23]. The main component of S. aureus biofilm matrix is the poly-N-acetyl β-1, 6 glucosamine surface polysaccharide (PNAG), synthesized by proteins encoded by the intercellular adhesion ica operon [24].…”

Interactions of Gold and Silver Nanoparticles with Bacterial Biofilms: Molecular Interactions behind Inhibition and Resistance

“…Over the last decade, the resistance to almost all classical antibiotics and the lack of availability of novel antimicrobial molecules has directed the efforts of researchers towards exploring nanotechnological measures against microbial infections for therapeutic applications [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. To date, several types of nanoparticles have shown their effectiveness in killing bacteria and eradicating biofilms more efficiently than classical antibiotics.…”

“…To date, several types of nanoparticles have shown their effectiveness in killing bacteria and eradicating biofilms more efficiently than classical antibiotics. In general, antimicrobial nanoparticles can be categorized as (i) metallic nanoparticles (e.g., gold and silver nanoparticles), (ii) polymeric nanoparticles (e.g., chitosan nanoparticles), (iii) carbon-based nanoparticles (e.g., graphene nanosheets), (iv) lipidic nanoparticles (e.g., liposomes), (v) non-metallic inorganic nanoparticles (e.g., silica nanoparticles) and (vi) protein nanoparticles (e.g., albumin nanoparticles) [ 14 , 15 ]. In this article, we have focused on gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) and silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) and their molecular interactions with bacterial biofilms.…”

“…In nanoparticle form, both gold and silver offer several advantages. Briefly, a high surface area to volume ratio, amenability to surface modification, small size (less than 10 nm), inert nature, biocompatibility and biosafety with easy clearance from tissue make these nanoparticles a suitable choice for antimicrobial therapy and drug delivery [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]. Other metallic nanoparticles made of copper, zinc, titanium, cerium and their respective oxides offer similar advantages [ 16 ]; however, their toxic effects in humans and the environment outweigh their advantages [ 17 , 18 ].…”