journal article·2024-01Open access

Antimicrobial and antitumor activities of an alginate-based membrane loaded with bismuth nanoparticles and cetylpyridinium chloride

Claudio Cabral-Romero, Rene Hernández-Delgadillo, Sergio Eduardo Nakagoshi-Cepeda, Rosa Isela Sánchez-Najéra, Erandi Escamilla-García, Juan Manuel Solís-Soto, Claudia María García-Cuellar, Yesennia Sánchez-Pérez, Samantha Maribel Flores-Treviño, Nayely Pineda-Aguilar, Juan Valerio Cauich-Rodríguez, Irene Meester, Shankararaman Chellam

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the antitumor and antimicrobial properties of an alginate-based membrane (ABM) loaded with bismuth lipophilic nanoparticles (BisBAL NPs) and cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) on clinically isolated bacteria and a pancreatic cancer cell line. Material and methods: The BisBAL NP-CPC ABM was characterized using optical and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The antimicrobial potential was measured using the disk-diffusion assay, and antibiofilm activity was determined through the live/dead assay and fluorescence microscopy. The antitumor activity was analyzed on the pancreatic cell line (Panc 03.27) using the MTT assay and live/dead assay with fluorescence microscopy. Results: After a 24-h exposure (37°C, aerobic conditions), 5 µM BisBAL NP reduced the growth of K. pneumoniae by 77.9%, while 2.5 µM BisBAL NP inhibited the growth of Salmonella, E. faecalis and E. faecium by 82.9%, 82.6%, and 78%, respectively ( p < 0.0001). The BisBAL NPs-CPC ABM (at a ratio of 10:1; 500 and 50 µM, respectively) inhibited the growth of all isolated bacteria, producing inhibition halos of 9.5, 11.2, 7, and 10.3 mm for K. pneumoniae, Salmonella, E. faecalis, and E. faecium, respectively, in contrast to the 6.5, 9.5, 8.5, and 9.8 mm obtained with 100 µM ceftriaxone ( p < 0.0001). The BisBAL NPs-CPC ABM also reduced bacterial biofilms, with 81.4%, 74.5%, 97.1%, and 79.5% inhibition for K. pneumoniae, E. faecium, E. faecalis, and Salmonella, respectively. Furthermore, the BisBAL NPs-CPC ABM decreased Panc 03.27 cell growth by 76%, compared to 18% for drug-free ABM. GEM-ABM reduced tumoral growth by 73%. The live/dead assay confirmed that BisBAL NPs-CPC-ABM and GEM-ABM were cytotoxic for the turmoral Panc 03.27 cells. Conclusion: An alginate-based membrane loaded with BisBAL NP and CPC exhibits dual antimicrobial and antitumoral efficacy. Therefore, it could be applied in cancer treatment and to diminish the occurrence of surgical site infections.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Membrane Separation Technologies · Nanoplatforms for cancer theranostics · Cancer Research and Treatments

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Laboratorio de Biología Molecular, Facultad de Odontología, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, UANL, Monterrey, Nuevo León, México

Subdirección de Investigación Básica, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Ciudad de México, México

Servicios de Infectologia, Hospital Universitario, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, UANL, Monterrey, Nuevo León, México

Advanced Materials Research Center, CIMAV Unidad Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico

Centro de Investigación Científica de Yucatán, Unidad de Materiales, Mérida, Yucatán, México

Universidad de Monterrey, Departamento de Ciencias Básicas, San Pedro Garza García, México

Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

Funding

consejo nacional de ciencia y tecnología

References (40)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.canep.2018.12.00110.1016/j.canep.2018.12.001 ↗
2. 10.3322/caac.2166010.3322/caac.21660 ↗
3. 10.3389/fonc.2022.106699010.3389/fonc.2022.1066990 ↗
4. 10.1001/jama.2021.1302710.1001/jama.2021.13027 ↗
5. 10.3390/cancers1513338210.3390/cancers15133382 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.12.01310.1016/j.actbio.2022.12.013 ↗
7. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-015510.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0155 ↗
8. 10.3390/biomedicines1102038910.3390/biomedicines11020389 ↗
9. 10.3390/bios1301010610.3390/bios13010106 ↗
10. 10.2217/nnm-2022-014210.2217/nnm-2022-0142 ↗
11. 10.1021/nn304346310.1021/nn3043463 ↗
12. 10.1007/s12645-013-0046-310.1007/s12645-013-0046-3 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.bioadv.2022.21283110.1016/j.bioadv.2022.212831 ↗
14. 10.4012/dmj.2018-17310.4012/dmj.2018-173 ↗
15. 10.1097/CAD.000000000000086310.1097/CAD.0000000000000863 ↗
16. García-Cuellar CM · J Appl Biomater Funct Mater · 2022 · 20 · 1
17. García-Cuellar CM · J Appl Biomater Funct Mater · 2023 · 21 · 1
18. 10.1016/j.hbpd.2023.04.00410.1016/j.hbpd.2023.04.004 ↗
19. 10.1155/2016/247506710.1155/2016/2475067 ↗
20. 10.1089/sur.2006.7.s2-4910.1089/sur.2006.7.s2-49 ↗
21. 10.1007/s11051-014-2456-510.1007/s11051-014-2456-5 ↗
22. Torres-Betancourt JA · J Appl Biomater Funct Mater · 2022 · 20 · 1
23. 10.1166/jbn.2012.142310.1166/jbn.2012.1423 ↗
24. 10.1177/247263031881110810.1177/2472630318811108 ↗
25. 10.3748/wjg.v24.i43.484610.3748/wjg.v24.i43.4846 ↗
26. 10.1007/s00595-020-02028-010.1007/s00595-020-02028-0 ↗
27. Kolasiński W. · Pol Przegl Chir · 2018 · 91 · 41
28. 10.1089/sur.2017.06210.1089/sur.2017.062 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.suc.2014.08.00810.1016/j.suc.2014.08.008 ↗
30. 10.1186/s12951-021-01134-610.1186/s12951-021-01134-6 ↗
31. 10.7150/thno.6480510.7150/thno.64805 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.12013910.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.120139 ↗
33. 10.1080/15321819.2018.155576510.1080/15321819.2018.1555765 ↗
34. 10.2147/IDR.S20608410.2147/IDR.S206084 ↗
35. 10.1155/2018/295208510.1155/2018/2952085 ↗
36. 10.3762/bjnano.7.17810.3762/bjnano.7.178 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2013.08.03710.1016/j.ijpharm.2013.08.037 ↗
38. 10.1002/mabi.20210041310.1002/mabi.202100413 ↗
39. 10.1021/acsami.3c0086510.1021/acsami.3c00865 ↗
40. 10.2147/IJN.S17909510.2147/IJN.S179095 ↗