4.7 Article

Block versus Random Amphiphilic Copolymers as Antibacterial Agents

Journal

BIOMACROMOLECULES
Volume 12, Issue 10, Pages 3581-3591

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/bm200780r

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Global Education and Research Center for Bio-Environmental Chemistry at Osaka University
  2. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan (MEXT)
  3. NSF [DMR-0845592]
  4. Department of Biologic and Materials Sciences, University of Michigan School of Dentistry
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22107006, 22350051, 21550209] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We examined the antibacterial and hemolytic activities in a series of amphiphilic block and random copolymers of poly(vinyl ether) derivatives prepared by base-assisting living cationic polymerization. Block and random amphiphilic copolymers with similar monomer compositions showed the same level of activity against Escherichia coli. However, the block copolymers are much less hemolytic compared to the highly hemolytic random copolymers. These results indicate that the amphiphilic copolymer structure is a key determinant of activity. Furthermore, the block copolymers induced dye leakage from lipid vesicles consisting of E. coli-type lipids, but not mammalian lipids, while the random copolymers disrupted both types-of vesicles. In addition, both copolymers displayed bactericidal and hemolytic activities at concentrations 1 or 2 orders of magnitude lower than their critical (intermolecular) aggregation concentrations (CACs), as determined by light scattering measurements. This suggests that polymer aggregation or macromolecular-assembly is not a requisite for the antibacterial activity and selectivity against bacteria over human red blood cells (RBCs). We speculate that different single-chain conformations between the block and random copolymers play an important role in the antibacterial action and underlying antibacterial mechanisms.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available