Nanoformulated meloxicam and rifampin: inhibiting quorum sensing and biofilm formation in Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

• 1. Bonyadi P, Saleh NT, Dehghani M, Yamini M, Amini K. Prevalence of antibiotic resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Microb. Pathog. 165, 105461 (2022). • Systematic review on antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa, providing a comprehensive overview.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 2. Biondo C. Bacterial antibiotic resistance: the most critical pathogens. Pathogens 12(1), 116 (2023).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 3. Ciofu O, Tolker-Nielsen T. Tolerance and resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms to antimicrobial agents – how P. aeruginosa can escape antibiotics. Front. Microbiol. 10, 913 (2019). • Focuses on biofilm resistance, essential for understanding the challenges faced in combating P. aeruginosa infections.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 4. Singh VK, Mishra A, Jha B. Anti-quorum sensing and anti-biofilm activity of Delftia tsuruhatensis extract by attenuating the quorum sensing-controlled virulence factor production in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 7, 337 (2017). [Corrigendum. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 9, 308 (2019)]. •• Addresses antibiofilm strategies and quorum sensing inhibition, relevant to the article’s theme.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 5. Pachori P, Gothalwal R, Gandhi P. Emergence of antibiotic resistance Pseudomonas aeruginosa in intensive care unit; a critical review. Genes Dis. 6(2), 109–119 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 6. Yin W, Wang Y, Liu L, He J. Biofilms: the microbial ‘protective clothing’ in extreme environments. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20(14), 3423 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 7. Kariminik A, Baseri-Salehi M, Kheirkhah B. Pseudomonas aeruginosa quorum sensing modulates immune responses: an updated review article. Immunol. Lett. 190, 1–6 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 8. Brindhadevi K, Lewisoscar F, Mylonakis E, Shanmugam S, Verma TN, Pugazhendhi A. Biofilm and quorum sensing mediated pathogenicity in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Process Biochem. 96, 49–57 (2020). • Focuses on biofilm and quorum sensing, providing insights into pathogenicity.
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 9. Rossi E, Ghoul M, La Rosa R. Editorial: Pseudomonas aeruginosa pathogenesis: virulence, antibiotic tolerance and resistance, stress responses and host–pathogen interactions. Front. Cell. Infection Microbiol. 12, 860314 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 10. de Nies L, Lopes S, Busi SB et al. PathoFact: a pipeline for the prediction of virulence factors and antimicrobial resistance genes in metagenomic data. Microbiome 9(1), 49 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 11. Casadevall A, Pirofski LA. Host–pathogen interactions: the attributes of virulence. J. Infect. Dis. 184(3), 337–344 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 12. Reynolds D, Kollef M. The epidemiology and pathogenesis and treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections: an update. Drugs 81(18), 2117–2131 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 13. Gellatly SL, Hancock REW. Pseudomonas aeruginosa: new insights into pathogenesis and host defenses. Pathog. Dis. 67(3), 159–173 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 14. Galdino ACM, Branquinha MH, Santos ALS, Viganor L. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and its arsenal of proteases: weapons to battle the host. In: Pathophysiological Aspects of Proteases. Chakraborti SDhalla NS (Eds). Springer, Singapore, 381–397 (2017).
  Google Scholar
• 15. Liao C, Huang X, Wang Q, Yao D, Lu W. Virulence factors of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and antivirulence strategies to combat its drug resistance. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 12, 926758 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 16. Jurado-Martín I, Sainz-Mejías M, McClean S. Pseudomonas aeruginosa: an audacious pathogen with an adaptable arsenal of virulence factors. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22(6), 1–37 (2021).
  Google Scholar
• 17. Karimi-Shahri M, Alalikhan A, Hashemian P, Hashemzadeh A, Javid DH. The applications of epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG)-nanogold conjugate in cancer therapy. Nanotechnology 34(21), 212001 (2022).10.1088/1361-6528/acaca3
  Google Scholar
• 18. Hashemzadeh A, Drummen GP, Avan A et al. When metal–organic framework mediated smart drug delivery meets gastrointestinal cancers. J. Mater. Chem. B 9(19), 3967–3982 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 19. Hashemzadeh A, Amerizadeh F, Asgharzadeh F et al. Magnetic amine-functionalized UiO-66 for oxaliplatin delivery to colon cancer cells: in vitro studies. J. Clust. Sci. 33(5), 2345–2361 (2022).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 20. Hashemzadeh A, Amerizadeh F, Asgharzadeh F et al. Delivery of oxaliplatin to colorectal cancer cells by folate-targeted UiO-66-NH₂. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 423, 115573 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 21. Asgharzadeh F, Hashemzadeh A, Yaghoubi A et al. Therapeutic effects of silver nanoparticle containing sulfasalazine on DSS-induced colitis model. J. Drug. Deliv. Sci. Technol. 61, 102133 (2021).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 22. Gulla S, Lomada D, Srikanth VV et al. Recent advances in nanoparticles-based strategies for cancer therapeutics and antibacterial applications. Methods Microbiol. 46, 255–293 (2019).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 23. Harish V, Tewari D, Gaur M et al. Review on nanoparticles and nanostructured materials: bioimaging, biosensing, drug delivery, tissue engineering, antimicrobial, and agro-food applications. Nanomaterials 12(3), 457 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 24. Raza A, Sime FB, Cabot PJ, Maqbool F, Roberts JA, Falconer JR. Solid nanoparticles for oral antimicrobial drug delivery: a review. Drug Discov. Today 24(3), 858–866 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 25. Patra JK, Das G, Fraceto LF et al. Nano based drug delivery systems: recent developments and future prospects. J. Nanobiotechnol. 16(1), 1–33 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 26. Wang Y. Liposome as a delivery system for the treatment of biofilm-mediated infections. J. Appl. Microbiol. 131(6), 2626–2639 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 27. Vyas T, Rapalli VK, Chellappan DK, Dua K, Dubey SK, Singhvi G. Bacterial biofilms associated skin disorders: pathogenesis, advanced pharmacotherapy and nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems as a treatment approach. Life Sci. 287, 120148 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 28. Dos Santos Ramos MA, Da Silva PB, Spósito L et al. Nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems for control of microbial biofilms: a review. Int. J. Nanomed. 13, 1179–1213 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 29. Garcês A, Amaral M, Lobo JS, Silva AC. Formulations based on solid lipid nanoparticles (SLN) and nanostructured lipid carriers (NLC) for cutaneous use: a review. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 112, 159–167 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 30. Saini A, Panwar D, Panesar PS, Bera MB. Encapsulation of functional ingredients in lipidic nanocarriers and antimicrobial applications: a review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 19, 1107–1134 (2021).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 31. Yousefi M, Ehsani A, Jafari SM. Lipid-based nano delivery of antimicrobials to control food-borne bacteria. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 270, 263–277 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 32. Radaic A, de Jesus MB, Kapila YL. Bacterial anti-microbial peptides and nano-sized drug delivery systems: the state of the art toward improved bacteriocins. J. Control. Rel. 321, 100–118 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 33. Battisti MA, Caon T, de Campos AM. A short review on the antimicrobial micro- and nanoparticles loaded with Melaleuca alternifolia essential oil. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 63, 102283 (2021).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 34. Wolfmeier H, Pletzer D, Mansour SC, Hancock RE. New perspectives in biofilm eradication. ACS Infect. Dis. 4(2), 93–106 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 35. Nafee N. Nanocarriers against bacterial biofilms: current status and future perspectives. Nanotechnology in Diagnosis, Treatment and Prophylaxis of Infectious Diseases. Academic Press, 167–189 (2015).
  Google Scholar
• 36. Raman G, Avendano EE, Chan J, Merchant S, Puzniak L, Control I. Risk factors for hospitalized patients with resistant or multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 7, 1–14 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 37. Gordillo-Galeano A, Mora-Huertas CE. Solid lipid nanoparticles and nanostructured lipid carriers: a review emphasizing on particle structure and drug release. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 133, 285–308 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 38. Yoon G, Park JW, Yoon I-S. Solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs) and nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs): recent advances in drug delivery. J. Pharm. Investig. 43(5), 353–362 (2013).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 39. Akhoond Zardini A, Mohebbi M, Farhoosh R, Bolurian S. Production and characterization of nanostructured lipid carriers and solid lipid nanoparticles containing lycopene for food fortification. J. Food Sci. Technol. 55(1), 287–298 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 40. Tang C-H, Chen H-L, Dong J-R. Solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs) and nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs) as food-grade nanovehicles for hydrophobic nutraceuticals or bioactives. Appl. Sci. 13(3), 1726 (2023).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 41. Humphries RM, Ambler J, Mitchell SL et al. on behalf of the CLSI Methods Development and Standardization Working Group of the Subcommittee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing 2018. CLSI Methods Development and Standardization Working Group best practices for evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility tests. J. Clin. Microbiol. 56, 01934 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 42. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk Susceptibility Tests; Approved Standard—Eleventh Edition. Available at: www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=58139aa4615e27240754da03&assetKey=AS%3A422233756704774%401477679780485
  Google Scholar
• 43. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. M45Methods for Antimicrobial Dilution and Disk Susceptibility Testing of Infrequently Isolated or Fastidious Bacteria. Available at: https://clsi.org/media/1450/m45ed3_sample.pdf
  Google Scholar
• 44. Patel A, Prajapati JB, Holst O, Ljungh A. Determining probiotic potential of exopolysaccharide producing lactic acid bacteria isolated from vegetables and traditional Indian fermented food products. Food Biosci. 5, 27–33 (2014).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 45. Najafi M, Moghaddam MN, Yousefi E. The effect of silver nanoparticles on pyocyanin production of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from clinical specimens. Avicenna J. Med. Biotechnol. 13(2), 98 (2021).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 46. Bauer A. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single diffusion method. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 45, 493–496 (1966).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 47. Stepanović S, Vuković D, Hola V et al. Quantification of biofilm in microtiter plates: overview of testing conditions and practical recommendations for assessment of biofilm production by staphylococci. APMIS 115(8), 891–899 (2007).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 48. Stepanović S, Vuković D, Dakić I, Savić B, Švabić-Vlahović M. A modified microtiter-plate test for quantification of staphylococcal biofilm formation. J. Microbiol. Methods 40(2), 175–179 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 49. Sharma A, Puri V, Kumar P, Singh I, Huanbutta K. Development and evaluation of rifampicin loaded alginate–gelatin biocomposite microfibers. Polymers 13(9), 1514 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 50. Raj R, Nandkishore K. Formulation and evaluation of meloxicam crystals using spherical crystallization for solubility enhancement. Res. Rev. 3, 15–35 (2016).
  Google Scholar
• 51. Ng WS, Lee CS, Cheng S-F, Chuah CH, Wong SF. Biocompatible polyurethane scaffolds prepared from glycerol monostearate-derived polyester polyol. J. Polym. Environ. 26, 2881–2900 (2018).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 52. Seyed YA, Shahidi F, Mohebbi M, Varidi M, Golmohammadzadeh S. The effect of different lipids on physicochemical characteristics and staibility of phycocyanin-loaded solid lipid nanoparticles. 14(67), 83–93 (2017).
  Google Scholar
• 53. Ye K, Zhao D, Shi X, Lu X. Use of caprylic/capric triglyceride in the encapsulation of dementholized peppermint fragrance leading to smaller and better distributed nanocapsules. RSC Adv. 6(87), 84119–84126 (2016).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 54. Ganesan P, Narayanasamy D. Lipid nanoparticles: different preparation techniques, characterization, hurdles, and strategies for the production of solid lipid nanoparticles and nanostructured lipid carriers for oral drug delivery. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 6, 37–56 (2017).
  Google Scholar
• 55. Khairnar SV, Pagare P, Thakre A et al. Review on the scale-up methods for the preparation of solid lipid nanoparticles. Pharmaceutics 14(9), 1886 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 56. Raman G, Avendano EE, Chan J, Merchant S, Puzniak L. Risk factors for hospitalized patients with resistant or multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 7, 1–14 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 57. Wood SJ, Kuzel TM, Shafikhani SH. Pseudomonas aeruginosa: infections, animal modeling, and therapeutics. Cells 12(1), 199 (2023).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 58. Pachori P, Gothalwal R, Gandhi P. Emergence of antibiotic resistance Pseudomonas aeruginosa in intensive care unit: a critical review. Genes Dis. 6(2), 109–119 (2019). • Critical review on antibiotic resistance in P. aeruginosa, providing insights into the challenges.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 59. Gordillo-Galeano A, Mora-Huertas CE. Solid lipid nanoparticles and nanostructured lipid carriers: a review emphasizing on particle structure and drug release. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 133, 285–308 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 60. Chan EWL, Yee ZY, Raja I, Yap JKY. Synergistic effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on antibacterial activity of cefuroxime and chloramphenicol against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 10, 70–74 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 61. She P, Wang Y, Luo Z et al. Meloxicam inhibits biofilm formation and enhances antimicrobial agents efficacy by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. MicrobiologyOpen 7(1), e00545 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 62. Bazzaz BSF, Khameneh B, Zarei H, Golmohammadzadeh S. Antibacterial efficacy of rifampin loaded solid lipid nanoparticles against Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm. Microb. Pathog. 93, 137–144 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 63. Sans-Serramitjana E, Jorba M, Fusté E, Pedraz JL, Vinuesa T, Viñas M. Free and nanoencapsulated tobramycin: effects on planktonic and biofilm forms of Pseudomonas. Microorganisms 5(3), 35 (2017). • Addresses the effects of nanoencapsulated antibiotics on biofilm forms of Pseudomonas.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 64. Vairo C, Basas J, Pastor M et al. In vitro and in vivo antimicrobial activity of sodium colistimethate and amikacin-loaded nanostructured lipid carriers (NLC). Nanomedicine 29, 102259 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 65. Severino P, Silveira EF, Loureiro K et al. Antimicrobial activity of polymyxin-loaded solid lipid nanoparticles (PLX-SLN): characterization of physicochemical properties and in vitro efficacy. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 106, 177–184 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 66. Kariminik A, Baseri-Salehi M, Kheirkhah B. Pseudomonas aeruginosa quorum sensing modulates immune responses: an updated review article. Immunol. Lett. 190, 1–6 (2017). • Discusses the impact of quorum sensing on immune responses, relevant to biofilm formation.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 67. Waters CM, Bassler BL. Quorum sensing: cell-to-cell communication in bacteria. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 21, 319–346 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 68. de Kievit T. Quorum sensing in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Environ. Microbiol. 11(2), 279–288 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 69. Smith RS, Iglewski BH. P. aeruginosa quorum-sensing systems and virulence. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 6(1), 56–60 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar