Evaluation the effects of zinc oxide nanoparticles and Lactobacillus plantarum (Lactiplantibacillus plantarum) biosurfactant on biofilm formationn of pathogenic bacteria

Subject Areas : Applied Microbiology

zahra Hosseini ¹ , Fatemeh Noorbakhsh ² , raheleh safaeijavan ³

1 - Department of Microbiology, Biological Science college,Varamin-pishvabranch,Islamic Azad university, Varamin-Pishva,Iran
2 - Department of Microbiology, Biological Science College, Varamin-pishva branch,Islamic Azad University,Varamin-Pishva,Iran
3 - Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Islamic Azad University, Varamin-Pishva Branch, Varamin, Iran

Received: 2024-09-15 Accepted : 2024-12-02 Published : 2024-12-10

Keywords: anti-biofilm activity, zinc oxide nanoparticles, Lactobacillus plantarum biosurfactant, pathogenic bacteria,

Abstract :

Background and Objectives: Recent advances in nanotechnology, particularly the ability to nanoparticles in various shapes and sizes, along with the use of natural bacterial products like biosurfactants, have led to the development of a broad range of antimicrobial agents. This study aimed to investigate the anti-biofilm activity of zinc oxide nanoparticles and the biosurfactant produced by Lactobacillus plantarum against pathogenic bacteria.

Materials and Methods: This study was conducted on 4 pathogenic bacteria (10 strains of each bacterium) of Escherichia coli, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus. Biosurfactant was extracted from Lactobacillus plantarum bacteria. The minimum inhibitory concentration of the biosurfactant Lactobacillus plantarum and zinc oxide nanoparticles was determined to measure the antimicrobial potential by serial dilution method. Anti-biofilm potential of bacteria was measured using the microtiter plate method.

Results: For S. aureus, no significant difference in biofilm formation was observed between zinc oxide nanoparticles and the biosurfactant. Both exhibited statistically similar anti-biofilm properties. However, significant differences were observed in the inhibition of biofilm formation for E. coli, P. aeruginosa, and A. baumannii. While zinc oxide nanoparticles had limited capability to prevent biofilm formation, the biosurfactant from Lactobacillus plantarum exhibited a remarkable anti-biofilm effect, with statistically significant differences in anti-biofilm properties.

Conclusion: The findings indicated that zinc oxide nanoparticles are less effective than the biosurfactant from Lactobacillus plantarum in inhibiting biofilm formation in E. coli, P. aeruginosa, and A. baumannii. These results highlight the potential of these materials in modulating bacterial biofilm formation and cellular activities.

References:


1.Moraes TM, Kushima H, Moleiro FC, Santos RC, Rocha LRM, Marques MO, et al. Effects of limonene and essential oil from Citrus aurantium on gastric mucosa: role of prostaglandins and gastric mucus secretion. Chemico-Biological Interactions. 2009;180(3):499-505.

2.Ali Akbar Moradian E, Mohammad S, Masumeh Malek J. Antimicrobial activity of rosmarinus officinalis on vancomycin-resistant staphylococcus aureus isolated from Imam Reza Hospital Patients of Mashhad. 2015.

3.Singh S, Datta S, Narayanan KB, Rajnish KN. Bacterial exo-polysaccharides in biofilms: Role in antimicrobial resistance and treatments. Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. 2021;19(1):1-19.

4.Grata K, Nabrdalik M. Antifungal activity of bacterial species Bacillus against Alternaria sp. Proceedings of ECOpole. 2013;7(1):75-80.

5.Vecino X, Rodríguez-López L, Ferreira D, Cruz JM, Moldes AB, Rodrigues LR. Bioactivity of glycolipopeptide cell-bound biosurfactants against skin pathogens. International journal of biological macromolecules. 2018;109:971-9.

6.Satpute SK, Kulkarni GR, Banpurkar AG, Banat IM, Mone NS, Patil RH, et al. Biosurfactant/s from Lactobacilli species: Properties, challenges and potential biomedical applications. Journal of basic microbiology. 2016;56(11):1140-58.

7.Seddik HA, Bendali F, Gancel F, Fliss I, Spano G, Drider D. Lactobacillus plantarum and its probiotic and food potentialities. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins. 2017;9:111-22.

8.Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, Gibson GR, Merenstein DJ, Pot B, et al. Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nature reviews Gastroenterology & hepatology. 2014.
9.Esposito S, Soto-Martinez ME, Feleszko W, Jones MH, Shen K-L, Schaad UB. Nonspecific immunomodulators for recurrent respiratory tract infections, wheezing and asthma in children: a systematic review of mechanistic and clinical evidence. Current opinion in allergy and clinical immunology. 2018;18(3):198.

10.das Neves Selis N, de Oliveira HBM, Leão HF, Dos Anjos YB, Sampaio BA, Correia TML, et al. Lactiplantibacillus plantarum strains isolated from spontaneously fermented cocoa exhibit potential probiotic properties against Gardnerella vaginalis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae. BMC microbiology. 2021;21(1):1-15.

11.Rhee KY, Gardiner DF. Clinical relevance of bacteriostatic versus bactericidal activity in the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections. Clinical infectious diseases. 2004;39(5):755-6.

12.Prabhurajeshwar C, Chandrakanth K. Evaluation of antimicrobial properties and their substances against pathogenic bacteria in-vitro by probiotic Lactobacilli strains isolated from commercial yoghurt. Clinical Nutrition Experimental. 2019;23:97-115.

13.Choudhary M, Shrivastava R, Vashistt J. Acinetobacter baumannii Biofilm Formation: Association with Antimicrobial Resistance and Prolonged Survival under Desiccation. Current Microbiology. 2022;79(12):361.

14.Zhang J, Chen J, Zhang C, Yi H, Liu D, Liu D. Characterization and antibacterial properties of chitosan–polyvinyl alcohol-3-phenyllactic acid as a biodegradable active food packaging. Food Packaging and Shelf Life. 2022;34:100963.

15.Wayne A. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; CLSI. 2011. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing 20th Informational Supplement CLSI document. 2017.

16.Chandra J, Mukherjee PK, Ghannoum MA. Candida biofilms associated with CVC and medical devices. Mycoses. 2012;55:46-57.

17.Humphries R, Bobenchik AM, Hindler JA, Schuetz AN. Overview of changes to the clinical and laboratory standards institute performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, M100. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2021;59(12):10.1128/jcm. 00213-21.

18.O'Toole GA. Microtiter dish biofilm formation assay. Journal of visualized experiments: JoVE. 2011(47).

19.Jefferson KK. What drives bacteria to produce a biofilm? FEMS microbiology letters. 2004;236(2):163-73.

20.Sahoo S, Parveen S, Panda J. The present and future of nanotechnology in human health care. Nanomedicine in Cancer. 2017:775-806.

21.Jameel A, Haider N. Study the antimicrobial and antiadhesive activity of purified biosurfactant produced from Lactobacillus plantarum against pathogenic bacteria. Iraqi Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2021;52(5):1194-206.

22.Madhu AN, Prapulla SG. Evaluation and functional characterization of a biosurfactant produced by Lactobacillus plantarum CFR 2194. Applied biochemistry and Biotechnology. 2014;172:1777-89.

23.Alekish M, Ismail ZB, Albiss B, Nawasrah S. In vitro antibacterial effects of zinc oxide nanoparticles on multiple drug-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli: An alternative approach for antibacterial therapy of mastitis in sheep. Veterinary world. 2018;11(10):1428.

24.Chai Q, Wu Q, Liu T, Tan L, Fu C, Ren X, et al. Enhanced antibacterial activity of silica nanorattles with ZnO combination nanoparticles against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Science bulletin. 2017;62(17):1207-15.

25.Yan X, Gu S, Cui X, Shi Y, Wen S, Chen H, et al. Antimicrobial, anti-adhesive and anti-biofilm potential of biosurfactants isolated from Pediococcus acidilactici and Lactobacillus plantarum against Staphylococcus aureus CMCC26003. Microbial pathogenesis. 2019;127:12-20.

26.Thakur B, Kaur S, Tripathi M, Upadhyay SK. Exploring the potential of lactic acid bacteria and its molecular mechanism of action in the development of biosurfactants: Current finding and future outlook. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews. 2023:1-32.

27.Khalid HF, Tehseen B, Sarwar Y, Hussain SZ, Khan WS, Raza ZA, et al. Biosurfactant coated silver and iron oxide nanoparticles with enhanced anti-biofilm and anti-adhesive properties. Journal of hazardous materials. 2019;364:441-8.

28.Hayat S, Ashraf A, Zubair M, Aslam B, Siddique MH, Khurshid M, et al. Biofabrication of ZnO nanoparticles using Acacia arabica leaf extract and their antibiofilm and antioxidant potential against foodborne pathogens. PLoS One. 2022;17(1):e0259190.

29.Banerjee S, Vishakha K, Das S, Dutta M, Mukherjee D, Mondal J, et al. Antibacterial, anti-biofilm activity and mechanism of action of pancreatin doped zinc oxide nanoparticles against methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Colloids and surfaces B: Biointerfaces. 2020;190:110921.

30.Jafarirad S, Mehrabi M, Divband B, Kosari-Nasab M. Biofabrication of zinc oxide nanoparticles using fruit extract of Rosa canina and their toxic potential against bacteria: A mechanistic approach. Materials Science and Engineering: C. 2016;59:296-302.

31.Sirelkhatim A, Mahmud S, Seeni A, Kaus NHM, Ann LC, Bakhori SKM, et al. Review on zinc oxide nanoparticles: antibacterial activity and toxicity mechanism. Nano-micro letters. 2015;7:219-42.

32.Oussalah M, Caillet S, Saucier L, Lacroix M. Inhibitory effects of selected plant essential oils on the growth of four pathogenic bacteria: E. coli O157: H7, Salmonella typhimurium, Staphylococcus aureus and Listeria monocytogenes. Food control. 2007;18(5):414-20.