A computational model for the effect of surface topography on the antibacterial character of a nanocoating
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Biocidal nanocoatings represent a promising strategy to limit pathogen transmission. Understanding how surface topography influences microbial deposition is, therefore, essential for their rational design. This study established a computational framework in which a pathogen (Staphylococcus aureus) cell is represented by an elastic triangular mesh immersed in a Lattice–Boltzmann fluid and interacting with a nanocoated substrate, also meshed, via a Lennard–Jones potential. Pathogen deposition was simulated across systematically varied surface roughness and dispersion, allowing quantification of both the contact area between cell and substrate and the mechanical load endured by the cell. The results demonstrated a robust inverse relationship between contact area and maximum local stress, revealing how substrate geometry governs the distribution of mechanical loads during deposition. This predictive link provides design-level insight into how nanoscale roughness and dispersion could be used to improve the substrate’s antibacterial potential, establishing a computational pathway for the optimisation of next-generation coatings.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Bacterial biofilms and quorum sensing · Polymer Surface Interaction Studies · Graphene and Nanomaterials Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (35)
Show source-provided references
1. A. Jabłońska-Trypuć et al., Inanimate Surfaces as a Source of Hospital Infections Caused by Fungi, Bacteria and Viruses with Particular Emphasis on SARS-CoV-2. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health vol. 19 Preprint at https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138121 (2022)10.3390/ijerph19138121 ↗
2. J. Hasan et al., Antiviral and Antibacterial Nanostructured Surfaces with Excellent Mechanical Properties for Hospital Applications. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 6, 3608–3618 (2020)10.1021/acsbiomaterials.0c00348 ↗
3. H.Y. Ahmadabadi, K. Yu, J.N. Kizhakkedathu, Surface modification approaches for prevention of implant associated infections. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces. 193, 111116 (2020)10.1016/j.colsurfb.2020.111116 ↗
4. U. Mahanta, M. Khandelwal, A.S. Deshpande, Antimicrobial surfaces: a review of synthetic approaches, applicability and outlook. J. Mater. Sci. 56, 17915–17941 (2021)10.1007/s10853-021-06404-0 ↗
5. N. Vargas-Alfredo et al., Fabrication of biocompatible and efficient antimicrobial porous polymer surfaces by the breath figures approach. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 513, 820–830 (2018)10.1016/j.jcis.2017.11.050 ↗
6. D. Ashok et al., Superhydrophobic surfaces to combat bacterial surface colonization. Adv. Mater. Interfaces 10, 2300324 (2023)10.1002/admi.202300324 ↗
7. Q. Ou et al., High-accuracy physical property prediction for pure organics via molecular representation learning: bridging data to discovery. NPJ Comput. Mater. 11, (2025)10.1038/s41524-025-01720-4 ↗
8. European Commission. Communication From The Commission To The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic And Social Commitee And The Commitee Of The Regions - Advanced Materials for Industrial Leadership, (2024)
9. EMMC ASBL - The European Materials Modelling Council, EMMC Roadmap - Digit. Transformation Mater. Sci. (2023)
10. Innovative Advanced Materials for Europe (IAM4EU). Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA), (2024)
11. S. Angioletti-Uberti, Theory, simulations and the design of functionalized nanoparticles for biomedical applications: A Soft Matter Perspective. npj Computational Materials vol. 3 Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41524-017-0050-y (2017)10.1038/s41524-017-0050-y ↗
12. S.J. Marrink, H.J. Risselada, S. Yefimov, D.P. Tieleman, A.H. de Vries, The MARTINI force field: coarse grained model for biomolecular simulations. J. Phys. Chem. B 111, 7812–7824 (2007)10.1021/jp071097f ↗
13. M.J. Abraham et al., GROMACS: high performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX 1–2, 19–25 (2015)10.1016/j.softx.2015.06.001 ↗
14. I. Mannelli et al., Functionalized Surfaces with Tailored Wettability Determine Influenza A Infectivity. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 8, 15058–15066 (2016)10.1021/acsami.6b02779 ↗
15. R. Sibilo et al., Direct and Fast Assessment of Antimicrobial Surface Activity Using Molecular Dynamics Simulation and Time-Lapse Imaging. Anal. Chem. 92, 6795–6800 (2020)10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00367 ↗
16. I. Jančigová, K. Kovalčíková, R. Weeber, I. Cimrák, PyOIF: Computational tool for modelling of multi-cell flows in complex geometries. PLoS Comput. Biol. 16, e1008249 (2020)10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008249 ↗
17. F. Weik et al., ESPResSo 4.0 – an extensible software package for simulating soft matter systems. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 227, 1789–1816 (2019)10.1140/epjst/e2019-800186-9 ↗
18. I. Jančigová, K. Kovalčíková, A. Bohiniková, I. Cimrák, Spring-network model of red blood cell: from membrane mechanics to validation. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 92, 1368–1393 (2020)10.1002/fld.4832 ↗
19. S. Sen, M.E.S. Akbulut, Bacterial adhesion kinetics and thermodynamics: A stochastic model integrating pili, fimbriae, and surface roughness into extended DLVO theory. Colloids Surf. Physicochem Eng. Asp 742, (2026)10.1016/j.colsurfa.2026.140456 ↗
20. do R.M. Nascimento et al., A 3D physical model predicting favorable bacteria adhesion. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 233, (2024)10.1016/j.colsurfb.2023.113628 ↗
21. S.S. Webster, G.C.L. Wong, G.A. O’Toole, The Power of Touch: Type 4 Pili, the von Willebrand A Domain, and Surface Sensing by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Journal of Bacteriology vol. 204 Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.00084-22 (2022)10.1128/jb.00084-22 ↗
22. M.M. Santore, Interplay of physico-chemical and mechanical bacteria-surface interactions with transport processes controls early biofilm growth: a review. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 304, 102665 (2022)10.1016/j.cis.2022.102665 ↗
23. I. Bellanato, A. Benito Clemente, P. Royo, A model for the interaction of a pathogen and an innovative antimicrobial nanocoating. Emergent Mater. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42247-024-00965-x10.1007/s42247-024-00965-x ↗
24. G. Lazzini, A.H.A. Lutey, L. Romoli, F. Fuso, Molecular dynamics model for the antibactericity of textured surfaces. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces. 199, 111504 (2021)10.1016/j.colsurfb.2020.111504 ↗
25. R.Y. Siddiquie, K. Sharma, A. Banerjee, A. Agrawal, S.S. Joshi, Time-dependent plastic behavior of bacteria leading to rupture. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 145, 106048 (2023)10.1016/j.jmbbm.2023.106048 ↗
26. S. Shyam, S. Misra, S. Mitra, S.K. Mitra, Bacteria–surface interactions: role of impacting bacteria-laden droplets. Soft Matter. 20, 3425–3435 (2024)10.1039/D4SM00196F ↗
27. R.G. Bailey et al., The interplay between cell wall mechanical properties and the cell cycle in Staphylococcus aureus. Biophys. J. 107, 2538–2545 (2014)10.1016/j.bpj.2014.10.036 ↗
28. J. Gu, A. Valdevit, T.-M. Chou, M. Libera, Substrate effects on cell-envelope deformation during early-stage Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation. Soft Matter 13, 2967–2976 (2017)10.1039/C6SM02815B ↗
29. B.N.J. Persson, Relation between interfacial separation and load: a general theory of contact mechanics. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.12550210.1103/PhysRevLett.99.125502 ↗
30. V.A. Yastrebov, G. Anciaux, J.F. Molinari, From infinitesimal to full contact between rough surfaces: evolution of the contact area. Int. J. Solids Struct. 52, 83–102 (2015)10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.09.019 ↗
31. T.J. Foster, J.A. Geoghegan, V.K. Ganesh, M. Höök, Adhesion, invasion and evasion: the many functions of the surface proteins of Staphylococcus aureus. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 12, 49–62 (2014)10.1038/nrmicro3161 ↗
32. P. Herman-Bausier, S. El-Kirat-Chatel, T.J. Foster, J.A. Geoghegan, Y.F. Dufrêne, Staphylococcus aureus fibronectin-binding protein a mediates cell- cell adhesion through low-affinity homophilic bonds. mBio. 6, 1–10 (2015)10.1128/mBio.00413-15 ↗
33. Y. Deng, M. Sun, J.W. Shaevitz, Direct Measurement of Cell Wall Stress Stiffening and Turgor Pressure in Live Bacterial Cells. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 158101 (2011)10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.158101 ↗
34. M. Arnoldi et al., Bacterial turgor pressure can be measured by atomic force microscopy. Phys. Rev. E 62, 1034–1044 (2000)10.1103/PhysRevE.62.1034 ↗
35. C. Spengler, N. Thewes, P. Jung, M. Bischoff, K. Jacobs, Determination of the nano-scaled contact area of staphylococcal cells. Nanoscale. 9, 10084–10093 (2017)10.1039/C7NR02297B ↗