4.6 Article

Comparative assessment of bacteriocin and bacteriocin capped nanoparticles in mice model

Journal

MATERIALS LETTERS
Volume 313, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.matlet.2022.131740

Keywords

MRSA-methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus; BCSNPs-bacteriocin capped silver; nanoparticles; Cephalexin; Bacteriocin; Haematology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated bacteriocin and bacteriocin capped silver nanoparticles (BCSNPs) for their wound healing properties and compared them with cephalexin antibiotics. The results showed that the wound healing efficacy of bacteriocin and BCSNPs was higher than that of cephalexin. In vivo assessments also indicated no significant changes in serum biochemical analysis and no abnormalities or damages to major organs after treatment with bacteriocin and BCSNPs. Therefore, bacteriocin and BCSNPs have great potential as a safe antimicrobial treatment for MRSA infections.
With the emergence of multidrug-resistant pathogens, the antimicrobial property of silver in colloidal form has become an efficient drug for fighting infectious diseases. However in vivo safety evaluations have been needed to evaluate wound healing, hematological assessment, and toxicity analysis for infection caused by S. aureus. In this study, bacteriocin and bacteriocin capped silver nanoparticles (BCSNPs) were evaluated for 16 days and compared with cephalexin antibiotics for wound healing properties. The wound healing efficacy of antibiotic (cephalexin) treatment was a little bit lower than that of treatment with bacteriocin and BCSNPs at the end of the study. In vivo assessments indicated no significant changes in serum biochemical analysis and no abnormalities or damages to major organs after treatment with bacteriocin and BCSNPs. Taken together bacteriocin and BCSNPs hold a lot of promise as a safe antimicrobial treatment for treating MRSA infections.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available