Aby wyświetlić tę treść, wymagana jest subskrypcja JoVE. Zaloguj się lub rozpocznij bezpłatny okres próbny.
Method Article
We introduce four methods to evaluate the antimicrobial activities of nanoparticles and nanostructured surfaces using in vitro techniques. These methods can be adapted to study the interactions of different nanoparticles and nanostructured surfaces with a broad range of microbial species.
The antimicrobial activities of nanoparticles and nanostructured surfaces, such as silver, zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, and magnesium oxide, have been explored previously in clinical and environmental settings and in consumable food products. However, a lack of consistency in the experimental methods and materials used has culminated in conflicting results, even amongst studies of the same nanostructure types and bacterial species. For researchers who wish to employ nanostructures as an additive or coating in a product design, these conflicting data limit their utilization in clinical settings.
To confront this dilemma, in this article, we present four different methods to determine the antimicrobial activities of nanoparticles and nanostructured surfaces, and discuss their applicability in different scenarios. Adapting consistent methods is expected to lead to reproducible data that can be compared across studies and implemented for different nanostructure types and microbial species. We introduce two methods to determine the antimicrobial activities of nanoparticles and two methods for the antimicrobial activities of nanostructured surfaces.
For nanoparticles, the direct co-culture method can be used to determine the minimum inhibitory and minimum bactericidal concentrations of nanoparticles, and the direct exposure culture method can be used to assess real-time bacteriostatic versus bactericidal activity resulting from nanoparticle exposure. For nanostructured surfaces, the direct culture method is used to determine the viability of bacteria indirectly and directly in contact with nanostructured surfaces, and the focused-contact exposure method is used to examine antimicrobial activity on a specific area of a nanostructured surface. We discuss key experimental variables to consider for in vitro study design when determining the antimicrobial properties of nanoparticles and nanostructured surfaces. All these methods are relatively low cost, employ techniques that are relatively easy to master and repeatable for consistency, and are applicable to a broad range of nanostructure types and microbial species.
In the US alone, 1.7 million individuals develop a hospital-acquired infection (HAI) annually, with one in every 17 of these infections resulting in death1. In addition, it is estimated that the treatment costs for HAIs range from $28 billion to $45 billion annually1,2. These HAIs are predominated by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)3,4 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa4, which are commonly isolated from chronic wound infections and usually require extensive treatment and time to produce a favorable patient outcome.
Over the past several decades, multiple antibiotic classes have been developed to treat infections related to these and other pathogenic bacteria. For example, rifamycin analogs have been used to treat MRSA, other gram-positive and gram-negative infections, and Mycobacterium spp. infections5. In the 1990s, to effectively treat an increasing number of M. tuberculosis infections, additional drugs were combined with rifamycin analogs to increase their effectiveness. However, approximately 5% of M. tuberculosis cases remain resistant torifampicin5,6, and there is increasing concern regarding multi-drug resistant bacteria7. Currently, the use of antibiotics alone may not be sufficient in the treatment of HAIs, and this has provoked an ongoing search for alternative antimicrobial therapies1.
Heavy metals, such as silver (Ag)8,9,10 and gold (Au)11, and ceramics, such as titanium dioxide (TiO2)12 and zinc oxide (ZnO)13, in nanoparticle (NP) form (AgNP, AuNP, TiO2NP, and ZnONP, respectively) have been examined for their antimicrobial activities and have been identified as potential antibiotic alternatives. In addition, bioresorbable materials, such as magnesium alloys (Mg alloys)14,15,16, magnesium oxide nanoparticles17,18,19,20,21, and magnesium hydroxide nanoparticles [nMgO and nMg(OH)2, respectively]22,23,24, have also been examined. However, the previous antimicrobial studies of nanoparticles used inconsistent materials and research methods, resulting in data that are difficult or impossible to compare and are sometimes contradictory in nature18,19. For example, the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of silver nanoparticles varied significantly in different studies. Ipe et al.25 evaluated the antibacterial activities of AgNPs with an average particle size of ~26 nm to determine the MICs against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. The identified MICs for P. aeruginosa, E. coli, S. aureus, and MRSA were 2 µg/mL, 5 µg/mL, 10 µg/mL, and 10 µg/mL, respectively. In contrast, Parvekar et al.26 evaluated AgNPs with an average particle size of 5 nm. In this instance, the AgNP MIC and a MBC of 0.625 mg/mL were found to be effective against S. aureus. In addition, Loo et al.27 evaluated AgNPs with a size of 4.06 nm. When E. coli was exposed to these nanoparticles, the MIC and MBC were reported at 7.8 µg/mL. Finally, Ali et al.28 investigated the antibacterial properties of spherical AgNPs with an average size of 18 nm. When P. aeruginosa, E. coli, and MRSA were exposed to these nanoparticles, the MIC was identified at 27 µg/mL, 36 µg/mL, 27 µg/mL, and 36 µg/mL, respectively, and the MBC was identified at 36 µg/mL, 42 µg/mL, and 30 µg/mL, respectively.
Although the antibacterial activity of nanoparticles has been extensively studied and reported during recent decades, there is no standard for the materials and research methods used to allow for direct comparisons across studies. For this reason, we present two methods, the direct co-culture method (method A), and the direct exposure method (method B), to characterize and compare the antimicrobial activities of nanoparticles while keeping the materials and methods consistent.
In addition to nanoparticles, nanostructured surfaces have also been examined for antibacterial activities. These include carbon-based materials, such as graphene nanosheets, carbon nanotubes, and graphite29, as well as pure Mg and Mg alloys. Each of these materials has exhibited at least one antibacterial mechanism, including physical damage imposed on cell membranes by carbon-based materials and damage to metabolic processes or DNA through the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) when Mg degrades. In addition, when zinc (Zn) and calcium (Ca) are combined in the formation of Mg alloys, the refinement of the Mg matrix grain size is enhanced, which leads to a reduction in bacterial adhesion to substrate surfaces in comparison to Mg-only samples14. To demonstrate antibacterial activity, we present the direct culture method (method C), which determines bacterial adhesion on and around nanostructured materials over time through the quantification of bacterial colony-forming units (CFUs) with direct and indirect surface contact.
The geometry of nanostructures on surfaces, including the size, shape, and orientation, could influence the bactericidal activities of materials. For example, Lin et al.16 fabricated different nanostructured MgO layers on the surfaces of Mg substrates through anodization and electrophoretic deposition (EPD). After a period of exposure to the nanostructured surface in vitro, the growth of S. aureus was substantially reduced in comparison to non-treated Mg. This indicated a greater potency of the nanostructured surface against bacterial adhesion versus the nontreated metallic Mg surface. To reveal the different mechanisms of the antibacterial properties of various nanostructured surfaces, a focused-contact exposure method (method D) that determines the cell-surface interactions within the area of interest is discussed in this article.
The objective of this article is to present four in vitro methods that are applicable to different nanoparticles, nanostructured surfaces, and microbial species. We discuss key considerations for each method to produce consistent, reproducible data for comparability. Specifically, the direct co-culture method17 and direct exposure method are used for examining the antimicrobial properties of nanoparticles. Through the direct co-culture method, the minimum inhibitory and minimum bactericidal concentrations (MIC and MBC90-99.99, respectively) can be determined for individual species, and the most potent concentration (MPC) can be determined for multiple species. Through the direct exposure method, the bacteriostatic or bactericidal effects of nanoparticles at minimum inhibitory concentrations can be characterized by real-time optical density readings over time. The direct culture14 method is suitable for examining bacteria directly and indirectly in contact with nanostructured surfaces. Finally, the focused-contact exposure16 method is presented to examine the antibacterial activity of a specific area on a nanostructured surface through the direct application of bacteria and the characterization of bacterial growth at the cell-nanostructure interface. This method is modified from the Japanese Industrial Standard JIS Z 2801:200016, and is intended to focus on microbe-surface interactions and exclude the effects of bulk sample degradation in microbial culture on antimicrobial activities.
To present the direct co-culture and direct exposure methods, we use magnesium oxide nanoparticles (nMgO) as a model material to demonstrate bacterial interactions. To present the direct culture and focused-contact exposure methods, we use an Mg alloy with nanostructured surfaces as examples.
1. Sterilization of nanomaterials
NOTE: All the nanomaterials must be sterilized or disinfected prior to microbial culture. The methods that can be used include heat, pressure, radiation, and disinfectants, but the tolerance of the materials for each method must be identified prior to the in vitro experiments.
2. Direct co-culture method (method A)
NOTE: In method A, bacteria in a lag-phase seeding culture are directly mixed with nanoparticles of certain concentrations. For the examination of nanoparticle antimicrobial activities, we follow a protocol described by Nguyen et al.17.
3. Direct exposure method (method B)
NOTE: If the growth rate of the chosen bacteria is unknown, then a standardization of growth curve must be completed prior to implementing this method.
4. Direct culture method (method C)
NOTE: In method C, bacteria in a lag-phase seeding culture are placed directly on the nanostructured surfaces of interest. For examination of the nanostructure antimicrobial activities, we follow a protocol described by Zhang et al.14. To demonstrate this direct culture method, ZC21 (Mg-Zn-Ca Alloy) and Mg pins were used as samples.
5. Focused-contact exposure method (method D)
NOTE: In method D, bacteria on a nitrocellulose filter paper are put in direct contact with an area of interest on the nanostructured surfaces. This method minimizes the interference of bulk sample degradation in bacterial cultures with the bacterial activities. To examine nanosurface antimicrobial activities, we follow a protocol described by Lin et al.16.
6. Post-culture characterization of bacteria and nanomaterials
The identification of the antibacterial activity of magnesium oxide nanoparticles and nanostructured surfaces has been presented using four in vitro methods that are applicable across different material types and microbial species.
Method A and method B examine bacterial activities when exposed to nanoparticles at a lag phase (method A) and log phase (method B) for a duration of 24 h or longer. Method A provides results regarding the MIC and MBC, while method B determines the inhibito...
We have presented four in vitro methods (A-D) to characterize the antibacterial activities of nanoparticles and nanostructured surfaces. While each of these methods quantifies bacterial growth and viability over time in response to nanomaterials, some variation exists in the methods used to measure the initial bacterial seeding density, growth, and viability over time. Three of these methods, the direct co-culture method (A)17, the direct culture method (C)14, and ...
The authors have no conflicts of interest.
The authors appreciate the financial support from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF CBET award 1512764 and NSF PIRE 1545852), the National Institutes of Health (NIH NIDCR 1R03DE028631), the University of California (UC) Regents Faculty Development Fellowship, the Committee on Research Seed Grant (Huinan Liu), and the UC-Riverside Graduate Research Mentorship Program Grant awarded to Patricia Holt-Torres. The authors appreciate the assistance provided by the Central Facility for Advanced Microscopy and Microanalysis (CFAMM) at UC-Riverside for the use of SEM/EDS and Dr. Perry Cheung for the use of XRD. The authors would also like to thank Morgan Elizabeth Nator and Samhitha Tumkur for their assistance with the experiments and data analyses. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health.
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
1.5 mL microcentrifuge tube | Milipore Sigma | Z336777 | |
80 L NTRL Certified Convection Drying Oven | MTI Corporation | BPG-7082 | https://www.mtixtl.com/BPG-7082.aspx |
(hydroxymethyl) aminomethane buffer pH 8.5; Tris buffer | Sigma-Aldrich | 42457 | |
AnaSpec THIOFLAVIN T ULTRAPURE GRADE | Fisher Scientific | 50-850-291 | |
Electron-multiplying charge-coupled device digital camera | Hamamatsu | C9100-13 | |
Falcon 15 mL conical tubes | Fisher Scientific | 14-959-49B | |
Gluteraldehyde | Sigma-Aldrich | G5882 | |
Hemocytometer | Brightline, Hausser Scientific | 1492 | |
Inductively coupled plasma - optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) | PerkinElmer | 8000 | |
Inverse microscope | Nikon | Eclipse Ti-S | |
Luria Bertani Broth | Sigma Life Science | L3022 | |
Luria Bertani Broth + agar | Sigma Life Science | L2897 | |
MacroTube 5.0 | Benchmark Scientific | C1005-T5-ST | |
Magnesium oxide nanoparticles | US Research Nanomaterials, Inc | Stock #: US3310 M | MgO, 99+%, 20 nm |
MS Semi-Micro Balance | Mettler Toledo | MS105D | |
Nitrocellulose paper | Fisherbrand | 09-801A | |
Non-tissue treated 12-well polystyrene plate | Falcon Corning Brand | 351143 | |
Non-tissue treated 48-well polystyrene plate | Falcon Corning Brand | 351178 | |
Non-tissue treated 96-well polystyrene plate | Falcon Corning Brand | 351172 | |
Petri dish 100 mm | VWR | 470210-568 | |
Petri dish, 15 mm | Fisherbrand | FB0875713A | |
pH meter | VWR | SP70P | |
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) | TESCAN | Vega3 SBH | |
Sonicator | VWR | 97043-936 | |
Table top centrifuge | Fisher Scientific | accuSpin Micro 17 | |
Table top centrifuge | Eppendorf | Centrifuge 5430 | |
Tryptic Soy Agar | MP | 1010617 | |
Tryptic Soy Broth | Sigma-Aldrich | 22092-500G | |
UV-Vis spectrophotometer | Tecan | Infinite 200 PRO | https://lifesciences.tecan.com/plate_readers/infinite_200_pro |
VWR Benchmark Incu-shaker 10L | VWR | N/A | |
X-ray power defraction | Panalytical | N/A | PANalytical Empyrean Series 2 |
Zapytaj o uprawnienia na użycie tekstu lub obrazów z tego artykułu JoVE
Zapytaj o uprawnieniaThis article has been published
Video Coming Soon
Copyright © 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone