Cargando…

Comparison of antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of bioactive glass compounds S53P4 and 45S5

BACKGROUND: Bone loss and deformation due to damage caused by injury or recurrent invasive infections presents a major clinical obstacle. While bone substitute biomaterials promote osseous tissue regeneration, their application in sites complicated by microbial infections such as osteomyelitis, is l...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhou, Peng, Garcia, Brittny L., Kotsakis, Georgios A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9438227/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36050654
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-022-02617-8
_version_ 1784781781577236480
author Zhou, Peng
Garcia, Brittny L.
Kotsakis, Georgios A.
author_facet Zhou, Peng
Garcia, Brittny L.
Kotsakis, Georgios A.
author_sort Zhou, Peng
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Bone loss and deformation due to damage caused by injury or recurrent invasive infections presents a major clinical obstacle. While bone substitute biomaterials promote osseous tissue regeneration, their application in sites complicated by microbial infections such as osteomyelitis, is limited. Bioactive glass biomaterials (Bioglass) have been shown to have efficient mechanisms of repairing the integrity of bone, while inhibiting growth of a range of bacterial strains. There are several commercially available bioactive glass compounds, each with a unique chemical composition. One compound in particular, S53P4, has demonstrated antimicrobial effects in previous studies but the antimicrobial activity of the parent compound 45S5 has not been investigated. RESULTS: To assess whether antimicrobial activity is common among bioglass compounds, 45S5-the parent compound, was evaluated in comparison to S53P4 for antibacterial and antibiofilm effects against multiple strains of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria associated with various types of osteomyelitis. Experiments of antimicrobial effects in liquid cultures demonstrated that both compounds were antimicrobial against various microbial genera including S. gordonii, V. parvula, P. aeruginosa and MRSA; particles of the smallest size (32–125 µm) invariably showed the most robust antimicrobial capabilities. When employed against biofilms ecological biofilms grown on hydroxyapatite, 45S5 particles produced a stronger reduction in biofilm mass compared to S53P4 particles when considering small particle ranges. CONCLUSION: We found that 45S5 seems to be as effective as S53P4 and possibly even more capable of limiting bacterial infections. The efficacy of bioactive glass was not limited to inhibition of planktonic growth, as it also extended to bacterial biofilms. The increased antibacterial activity of 45S5 compared to S53P4 is true for a variety of size ranges.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9438227
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94382272022-09-03 Comparison of antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of bioactive glass compounds S53P4 and 45S5 Zhou, Peng Garcia, Brittny L. Kotsakis, Georgios A. BMC Microbiol Research BACKGROUND: Bone loss and deformation due to damage caused by injury or recurrent invasive infections presents a major clinical obstacle. While bone substitute biomaterials promote osseous tissue regeneration, their application in sites complicated by microbial infections such as osteomyelitis, is limited. Bioactive glass biomaterials (Bioglass) have been shown to have efficient mechanisms of repairing the integrity of bone, while inhibiting growth of a range of bacterial strains. There are several commercially available bioactive glass compounds, each with a unique chemical composition. One compound in particular, S53P4, has demonstrated antimicrobial effects in previous studies but the antimicrobial activity of the parent compound 45S5 has not been investigated. RESULTS: To assess whether antimicrobial activity is common among bioglass compounds, 45S5-the parent compound, was evaluated in comparison to S53P4 for antibacterial and antibiofilm effects against multiple strains of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria associated with various types of osteomyelitis. Experiments of antimicrobial effects in liquid cultures demonstrated that both compounds were antimicrobial against various microbial genera including S. gordonii, V. parvula, P. aeruginosa and MRSA; particles of the smallest size (32–125 µm) invariably showed the most robust antimicrobial capabilities. When employed against biofilms ecological biofilms grown on hydroxyapatite, 45S5 particles produced a stronger reduction in biofilm mass compared to S53P4 particles when considering small particle ranges. CONCLUSION: We found that 45S5 seems to be as effective as S53P4 and possibly even more capable of limiting bacterial infections. The efficacy of bioactive glass was not limited to inhibition of planktonic growth, as it also extended to bacterial biofilms. The increased antibacterial activity of 45S5 compared to S53P4 is true for a variety of size ranges. BioMed Central 2022-09-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9438227/ /pubmed/36050654 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-022-02617-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Zhou, Peng
Garcia, Brittny L.
Kotsakis, Georgios A.
Comparison of antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of bioactive glass compounds S53P4 and 45S5
title Comparison of antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of bioactive glass compounds S53P4 and 45S5
title_full Comparison of antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of bioactive glass compounds S53P4 and 45S5
title_fullStr Comparison of antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of bioactive glass compounds S53P4 and 45S5
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of bioactive glass compounds S53P4 and 45S5
title_short Comparison of antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of bioactive glass compounds S53P4 and 45S5
title_sort comparison of antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of bioactive glass compounds s53p4 and 45s5
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9438227/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36050654
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-022-02617-8
work_keys_str_mv AT zhoupeng comparisonofantibacterialandantibiofilmactivityofbioactiveglasscompoundss53p4and45s5
AT garciabrittnyl comparisonofantibacterialandantibiofilmactivityofbioactiveglasscompoundss53p4and45s5
AT kotsakisgeorgiosa comparisonofantibacterialandantibiofilmactivityofbioactiveglasscompoundss53p4and45s5