4.7 Article

Exploring the potential of chitosan-based particles as delivery-carriers for promising antimicrobial glycolipid biosurfactants

期刊

CARBOHYDRATE POLYMERS
卷 254, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.117433

关键词

Chitosan; Sophorolipids; Rhamnolipids; HPLC-MS; Drugaelivery-systems; Antimicrobial

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (FCT) [PTDC/BTM-SAL/29335/2017, UIDB/04138/2020, UIDP/04138/2020, UIDB/00100/2020, UIDB/50006/2020]
  2. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/BTM-SAL/29335/2017] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study developed chitosan nanoparticles as carriers for antimicrobial glycolipids, which showed high antimicrobial effects against Staphylococcus aureus and did not interfere with the viability and proliferation of human dermal fibroblasts.
Driven by the need to find alternatives to control Staphylococcus aureus infections, this work describes the development of chitosan-based particulate systems as carriers for antimicrobial glycolipids. By using a simple ionic gelation method stable nanoparticles were obtained showing an encapsulation efficiency of 41.1 +/- 8.8 % and 74.2 +/- 1.3 % and an average size of 210.0 +/- 15.7 nm and 329.6 +/- 8.0 nm for sophorolipids and rhamnolipids chitosan-nanoparticles, respectively. Glycolipids incorporation and particle size was correspondingly corroborated by FTIR-ATR and TEM analysis. Rhamnolipids chitosan nanoparticles (RLs-CSp) presented the highest antimicrobial effect towards S. aureus (ATCC 25923) exhibiting a minimal inhibitory concentration of 130 mu g/mL and a biofilm inhibition ability of 99 %. Additionally, RLs-CSp did not interfere with human dermal fibroblasts (AG22719) viability and proliferation under the tested conditions. The results revealed that the RLsCSp were able to inhibit bacterial growth showing adequate cytocompatibility and might become, after additional studies, a valuable approach to prevent S. aureus related infections.

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

4.7
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