4.6 Article

Distribution and Inhibition of Liposomes on Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilm

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131806

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) [GNT1047576]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa are major pathogens in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and their biofilms have been associated with poorer postsurgical outcomes. This study investigated the distribution and anti-biofilm effect of cationic (+) and anionic (-) phospholipid liposomes with different sizes (unilamellar and multilamellar vesicle, ULV and MLV respectively) on S. aureus and P. aeruginosa biofilms. Method Specific biofilm models for S. aureus ATCC 25923 and P. aeruginosa ATCC 15692 were established. Liposomal distribution was determined by observing SYTO9 stained biofilm exposed to DiI labeled liposomes using confocal scanning laser microscopy, followed by quantitative image analysis. The anti-biofilm efficacy study was carried out by using the alamarBlue assay to test the relative viability of biofilm treated with various liposomes for 24 hours and five minutes. Results The smaller ULVs penetrated better than larger MLVs in both S. aureus and P. aeruginosa biofilm. Except that + ULV and -ULV displayed similar distribution in S. aureus biofilm, the cationic liposomes adhered better than their anionic counterparts. Biofilm growth was inhibited at 24-hour and five-minute exposure time, although the decrease of viability for P. aeruginosa biofilm after liposomal treatment did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion The distribution and anti-biofilm effects of cationic and anionic liposomes of different sizes differed in S. aureus and P. aeruginosa biofilms. Reducing the liposome size and formulating liposomes as positively charged enhanced the penetration and inhibition of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa biofilms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据