In Vitro Assessment of the Antimicrobial Efficacy of Chitosan Nanoparticles Against Major Fish Pathogens and Their Cytotoxicity to Fish Cell Lines

Overview

Journal J Fish Dis

Date 2020 Jul 8

PMID 32632933

Citations 10

Authors

Fatma Ahmed

Faiza M Soliman

Mohamed A Adly

Hamdy A M Soliman

Mansour El-Matbouli

Mona Saleh

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Nanotechnology is an emerging avenue employed in disease prevention and treatment. This study evaluated the antimicrobial efficacy of chitosan nanoparticles (CSNPs) against major bacterial and oomycete fish pathogens in comparison with chitosan suspension. Initially, the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC, MIC ) were determined and the per cent inhibition of bacterial growth was calculated. Subsequently, the minimum bactericidal concentrations (MBCs) were determined. The time-dependent disruptions of CSNP-treated pathogens were observed via transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and the effect of CSNPs on the viability of two fish cell lines was assessed. No antimicrobial effect was observed with chitosan, while CSNPs (105 nm) exhibited a dose-dependent and species-specific antimicrobial properties. They were bactericidal against seven bacterial isolates recording MBC values from 1 to 7 mg/ml, bacteriostatic against four further isolates recording MIC values from 0.125 to 5 mg/ml and fungistatic against oomycetes recording MIC values of 3 and 4 mg/ml. TEM micrographs showed the attachment of CSNPs to the pathogenic cell membranes disrupting their integrity. No significant cytotoxicity was observed using 1 mg/ml CSNPs, while low dose-dependent cytotoxicity was elicited by the higher doses. Therefore, it is anticipated that CSNPs are able to compete and reduce using antibiotics in aquaculture.

Citing Articles

Nano-delivery platforms for bacterial gene transformation: suitability and challenges.

Kaur H, Kalia A, Manchanda P, Singh A Int Microbiol. 2024; 28(2):333-353.

PMID: 38902555 DOI: 10.1007/s10123-024-00543-5.

In vitro assessment of the effect of magnetic fields on efficacy of biosynthesized selenium nanoparticles by Alborzia kermanshahica.

Eydelkhani M, Kiabi S, Nowruzi B BMC Biotechnol. 2024; 24(1):27.

PMID: 38725019 PMC: 11080146. DOI: 10.1186/s12896-024-00855-4.

In Vitro Efficacy of Isobutyl Cyanoacrylate Nanoparticles against Fish Bacterial Pathogens and Selection Preference by Rainbow Trout ().

Ahiable M, Matsunaga K, Hokin M, Iida K, Befu F, Oshima S Microorganisms. 2023; 11(12).

PMID: 38138020 PMC: 10745873. DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms11122877.

Recent Updates on Multifunctional Nanomaterials as Antipathogens in Humans and Livestock: Classification, Application, Mode of Action, and Challenges.

Sadiq S, Khan I, Shen Z, Wang M, Xu T, Khan S Molecules. 2023; 28(22).

PMID: 38005395 PMC: 10675011. DOI: 10.3390/molecules28227674.

Therapeutic Intervention with Dietary Chitosan Nanoparticles Alleviates Fish Pathological and Molecular Systemic Inflammatory Responses against Infections.

Saleh M, Essawy E, Shaalan M, Osman S, Ahmed F, El-Matbouli M Mar Drugs. 2022; 20(7).

PMID: 35877718 PMC: 9315998. DOI: 10.3390/md20070425.

References

Pelgrift R, Friedman A . Nanotechnology as a therapeutic tool to combat microbial resistance. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2013; 65(13-14):1803-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2013.07.011. View

Chavez de Paz L, Resin A, Howard K, Sutherland D, Wejse P . Antimicrobial effect of chitosan nanoparticles on streptococcus mutans biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011; 77(11):3892-5. PMC: 3127608. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02941-10. View

Shaalan M, El-Mahdy M, Theiner S, El-Matbouli M, Saleh M . In vitro assessment of the antimicrobial activity of silver and zinc oxide nanoparticles against fish pathogens. Acta Vet Scand. 2017; 59(1):49. PMC: 5521072. DOI: 10.1186/s13028-017-0317-9. View

Du W, Xu Y, Xu Z, Fan C . Preparation, characterization and antibacterial properties against E. coli K(88) of chitosan nanoparticle loaded copper ions. Nanotechnology. 2011; 19(8):085707. DOI: 10.1088/0957-4484/19/8/085707. View

Marchesi J, Sato T, Weightman A, Martin T, Fry J, Hiom S . Design and evaluation of useful bacterium-specific PCR primers that amplify genes coding for bacterial 16S rRNA. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998; 64(2):795-9. PMC: 106123. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.64.2.795-799.1998. View

Raafat D, von Bargen K, Haas A, Sahl H . Insights into the mode of action of chitosan as an antibacterial compound. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008; 74(12):3764-73. PMC: 2446574. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00453-08. View

Tayel A, Moussa S, El-Tras W, Knittel D, Opwis K, Schollmeyer E . Anticandidal action of fungal chitosan against Candida albicans. Int J Biol Macromol. 2010; 47(4):454-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2010.06.011. View

Muzzarelli R, Muzzarelli C, Tarsi R, Miliani M, Gabbanelli F, Cartolari M . Fungistatic activity of modified chitosans against Saprolegnia parasitica. Biomacromolecules. 2001; 2(1):165-9. DOI: 10.1021/bm000091s. View

Ryssel H, Kloeters O, Germann G, Schafer T, Wiedemann G, Oehlbauer M . The antimicrobial effect of acetic acid--an alternative to common local antiseptics?. Burns. 2009; 35(5):695-700. DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2008.11.009. View

10.

Qi L, Xu Z, Jiang X, Hu C, Zou X . Preparation and antibacterial activity of chitosan nanoparticles. Carbohydr Res. 2004; 339(16):2693-700. DOI: 10.1016/j.carres.2004.09.007. View

11.

Kumar S, Ishaq Ahmed V, Parameswaran V, Sudhakaran R, Babu V, Sahul Hameed A . Potential use of chitosan nanoparticles for oral delivery of DNA vaccine in Asian sea bass (Lates calcarifer) to protect from Vibrio (Listonella) anguillarum. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2008; 25(1-2):47-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsi.2007.12.004. View

12.

Ma Z, Garrido-Maestu A, Jeong K . Application, mode of action, and in vivo activity of chitosan and its micro- and nanoparticles as antimicrobial agents: A review. Carbohydr Polym. 2017; 176:257-265. DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.08.082. View

13.

Ahmed F, Soliman F, Adly M, Soliman H, El-Matbouli M, Saleh M . In vitro assessment of the antimicrobial efficacy of chitosan nanoparticles against major fish pathogens and their cytotoxicity to fish cell lines. J Fish Dis. 2020; 43(9):1049-1063. PMC: 7496833. DOI: 10.1111/jfd.13212. View

14.

Breidt Jr F, Hayes J, McFeeters R . Independent effects of acetic acid and pH on survival of Escherichia coli in simulated acidified pickle products. J Food Prot. 2004; 67(1):12-8. DOI: 10.4315/0362-028x-67.1.12. View

15.

Vandersea M, Litaker R, Yonnish B, Sosa E, Landsberg J, Pullinger C . Molecular assays for detecting Aphanomyces invadans in ulcerative mycotic fish lesions. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006; 72(2):1551-7. PMC: 1392884. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.72.2.1551-1557.2006. View

16.

Palma-Guerrero J, Lopez-Jimenez J, Perez-Berna A, Huang I, Jansson H, Salinas J . Membrane fluidity determines sensitivity of filamentous fungi to chitosan. Mol Microbiol. 2010; 75(4):1021-32. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2009.07039.x. View

17.

Chung Y, Su Y, Chen C, Jia G, Wang H, Wu J . Relationship between antibacterial activity of chitosan and surface characteristics of cell wall. Acta Pharmacol Sin. 2004; 25(7):932-6. View

18.

Dodane V, Khan M, Merwin J . Effect of chitosan on epithelial permeability and structure. Int J Pharm. 1999; 182(1):21-32. DOI: 10.1016/s0378-5173(99)00030-7. View

19.

Azizi E, Namazi A, Haririan I, Fouladdel S, Khoshayand M, Shotorbani P . Release profile and stability evaluation of optimized chitosan/alginate nanoparticles as EGFR antisense vector. Int J Nanomedicine. 2010; 5:455-61. PMC: 2950403. DOI: 10.2147/ijn.s9551. View

20.

Ma Z, Lim L . Uptake of chitosan and associated insulin in Caco-2 cell monolayers: a comparison between chitosan molecules and chitosan nanoparticles. Pharm Res. 2003; 20(11):1812-9. DOI: 10.1023/b:pham.0000003379.76417.3e. View