Liposomes-Based Drug Delivery Systems of Anti-Biofilm Agents: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Zinb Makhlouf
,
Amaal Abdulraqeb Ali
,
Mohammad Hussein Al-Sayah

All currently approved antibiotics are being met by some degree of resistance by the bacteria they target. Biofilm formation is one of the crucial enablers of bacterial resistance, making it an important bacterial process to target for overcoming antibiotic resistance. Accordingly, several drug delivery systems that target biofilm formation have been developed. One of these systems is based on lipid-based nanocarriers (liposomes), which have shown strong efficacy against biofilms of bacterial pathogens. Liposomes come in various types, namely conventional (charged or neutral), stimuli-responsive, deformable, targeted, and stealth. This research reviews studies employing liposomal formulations against biofilms of medically salient gram-negative and gram-positive bacterial species reported recently. 

  • liposomes
  • drug delivery
  • antibiotics
  • biofilms
  • antimicrobial
  • Pseudomonas aeruginosa

1. Liposomes: Versatile Drug Delivery Systems

Antibiotics can be delivered to biofilms via conjugation to, or encapsulation within, the nano-drug delivery system. Encapsulation is particularly beneficial as it shelters the enclosed agent from potential inactivation and degradation, and reduces its associated toxicity and side effects. Liposomes are one of the most promising and commonly studied nano-vehicles to carry and deliver antimicrobial agents. This is mainly due to their ability to carry a wide range of antibiotics and infiltrate the extra polymeric matrix [1]. Liposomes are spherical vesicles of diameters typically between 50 and 500 nm with a hydrophilic interior formed by the self-assembly of lipids into a lipid bilayer. Liposomes can carry hydrophilic and hydrophobic cargo within their inner cavity and the bilayer itself, respectively, as shown in Figure 1 [1][2][3].
Antibiotics 12 00875 g001 550
Figure 1. Structure of liposomes to entrap hydrophilic and hydrophobic drugs.
Liposomes can be formulated from a wide range of amphiphilic lipids, including phospholipids and glycolipids, which determine the properties of the liposome. While the surface properties of liposomes are determined by the lipid’s polar heads, the fluidity of the membrane is dictated by the nonpolar portion of the lipid. A major advantage of liposomes for delivery purposes is their similarity to biological cell membranes. In antimicrobial applications, this advantage facilitates the fusion of the liposome to the bacterial membrane, allowing the delivery of the antibiotic into the cytoplasm of the bacteria [1][2][4].
Due to their advantageous properties, different types of liposomes have been explored to perforate bacterial biofilms, improve antibiotic delivery, reverse antibiotic resistance, and inhibit growth in an array of gram-positive and -negative strains [5][6][7][8][9][10]. The liposomal types investigated for biofilm treatment can be classified according to composition into conventional first-generation liposomes (neutral, cationic, or anionic), stealth (PEGylated) liposomes, actively targeted liposomes, stimuli-responsive liposomes, and bubble liposomes [3][11]. In addition, liposomes can also be classified based on their size and number of bilayers into unilamellar vesicles (small and large), multilamellar vesicles, and oligolamellar vesicles [12]—the different types of liposomes and their advantages and disadvantages as delivery systems are discussed below.
Conventional liposomes are non-modified liposomes in which the lipid bilayer comprises cationic, anionic, or neutral phospholipids together with cholesterol (Figure 1). Although proving advantageous in reducing the toxicity of the liposome-encapsulated drug, conventional liposomes as therapeutic drug carriers are limited by their facile clearance from the bloodstream by macrophages of the reticuloendothelial system post-opsonization [11][12]. This elimination is more pronounced for cationic and larger liposomes due to the electrostatic interaction between the positively charged liposomes and the negatively charged biological macromolecules [12][13]. In terms of antibacterial and anti-biofilm activities, cationic liposomes tend to be more effective compared to negative or neutral liposomes of the same size [4]. The cationic antimicrobial particles may reduce bacterial adhesions, thereby disrupting the formation of the biofilm [14]. This is possibly due to the electrostatic attractive forces between the positively charged liposomes and the negative surface of the bacteria/biofilm [1][15]. Furthermore, first-generation liposomes lack any active targeting mechanisms and utilize only passive targeting to localize the vehicle within tissues having a discontinuous endothelial lining [12].
Despite their advantages, the efficiency of conventional liposomes is limited for applications involving skin penetration due to their rigidity. Therefore, deformable (or elastic) liposomes have been developed to enhance drug delivery across the skin membrane. Due to their higher elasticity that surpasses that of conventional liposomes, deformable liposomes are more suitable for skin penetration into deeper layers of the epidermis [16][17].
Furthermore, to prolong their circulation time, sterically stabilized liposomes with longer blood circulation time and protection from macrophages were developed. One of the most commonly studied stabilized liposomes are polyethylene glycol (PEG) liposomes, also called stealth liposomes. PEG is a non-ionic hydrophilic polymer commonly used on the surfaces of drug delivery systems to mask them from opsonization and hence, elimination by the reticuloendothelial system. Furthermore, PEG coating prevents aggregation of the liposomes via steric stabilization [12][18]. PEGylated liposomes have been extensively reported as superior alternatives to conventional liposomes in terms of blood circulation [19][20][21][22][23]. However, stealth liposomes suffer from disadvantages, including their potential hypersensitivity (which depends on several parameters such as size) and their non-biodegradability, which restricts their use to low molecular weight PEGs [18].
To solve the issue of the non-specificity of conventional liposomes, actively targeted liposomes have been established in which the liposome surface is modified with a moiety, such as antibodies that can target a specific tissue or organ in the body. For instance, immunoliposomes (antibody-modified liposomes) have been commonly reported for efficient antibody-mediated targeting for applications including biofilm treatment [24][25][26][27][28][29]. However, bare immunoliposomes without steric stabilization are inefficient due to their rapid elimination. Hence, immunoliposomes are usually modified with PEG to achieve targeting while avoiding rapid clearance from circulation [24]. Other ligands used to target liposomes include aptamers [30][31] and peptides [32].
Stimuli-responsive liposomes are another type of liposome attracting extensive attention due to their ability to respond to certain stimuli and achieve a controlled and targeted drug release. Exploiting stimuli for targeted drug release is especially beneficial as it reduces the risk of off-target drug toxicity [33][34]. Such stimuli responsiveness can be achieved by modifying the lipids making up the bilayer to respond to endogenous or external stimuli [13]. Endogenous (or internal) stimuli include internal conditions and triggers such as redox conditions or pH, while exogenous (or external) stimuli include externally applied triggers such as light and ultrasound [33]. Although endogenous stimuli have been reported with other nanoparticles, none have been used with liposomes. As for exogenous stimuli, the biofilm microenvironment differs from normal tissue environments in its low pH, elevated H2O2 levels, overexpression of some enzymes, and accumulation of the thiol glutathione (GSH). The presence of such distinct environmental features within the biofilm makes it possible to use those internal conditions as triggers for the biofilm-specific release of anti-biofilm agents [35]. To benefit from exogenous stimuli, liposomes have been combined with other nanoparticles that can respond to externally applied triggers. For example, thermo-sensitive liposomes have been combined with gold nanoparticles which respond to near-infrared light by generating heat. The generated heat causes the liposome to undergo a phase transition and become more fluidic, thereby releasing encapsulated cargo [36]. Exogenous stimuli, such as near-infrared irradiation, have been reported to trigger drug release from liposomes for biofilm treatment, as discussed in the upcoming section of this review [37][38][39].
Bubble liposomes utilize ultrasound to burst a gas bubble encapsulated within the liposomes together with the drug(s) to be delivered. Bursting of the bubble post-ultrasound application disrupts the liposome and leads to the controlled release of hosted drug(s) [40]. However, bubble liposomes are challenged by their low gas loading capacity and large sizes (from 500 nm to microns), and their costly and complicated preparation procedures [40]. Bubble liposomes have been explored for biofilm treatment, as reported by Fu, et al. [41] and Zhou, et al. [42].
Despite the advantages provided by each liposomal formulation, they still possess their own limitations. For instance, while conventional liposomes reduce drug-associated toxicities, they still suffer from their rapid removal from circulation [11]. This issue is solved by the introduction of PEG on the surface of liposomes. However, PEG coating is limited by the non-biodegradability of high-molar-mass PEG and the toxicity of low-molar-mass PEG. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the molar mass of PEG does not surpass the limit of renal elimination. Further adding to the issue is the difficulty in determining PEG’s threshold of renal elimination [18]. Due to their rigidity, conventional liposomes also face a challenge in penetrating the skin barrier in the case of topical applications. This issue is overcome using elastic (deformable) liposomes, which have better skin penetration due to their higher elasticity [17]. Nevertheless, deformable liposomes also suffer from limitations due to their prolonged elasticity and deformability; thus, these liposomes are typically unstable over extended storage periods. This, in turn, results in the loss of the liposome content during the storage period, which in turn impedes upscaling of the formulation [17]. Like conventional liposomes, targeted liposomes also suffer from rapid elimination from the bloodstream unless sterically stabilized (e.g., by PEG) [24].
On the other hand, non-specific release by liposomes can limit their therapeutic efficacy by reducing their bioavailability at the target site. To overcome such non-specificity, stimuli-responsive liposomes, which can release their cargo in response to internal and/or external stimuli, can be used [13][33][34]. However, the limitations of stimuli-responsive liposomes vary depending on the type of stimulus used. For instance, ultraviolet-responsive liposomes are limited due to ultraviolet’s poor tissue penetration and damage to cells/tissues [43]. Furthermore, it is important for the liposomes to have a high drug encapsulation efficiency, which can improve the bioavailability of the drug. However, encapsulation efficiency is dependent on the type of phospholipids making up the liposomes [44]. Therefore, it is important to ensure liposomal formulations for drug delivery, including antibiofilm agent delivery, are stable, have high encapsulation efficiency, are not rapidly eliminated from the bloodstream, and have high bioavailability (e.g., by targeting and stimuli-responsivity). The different types of liposomes are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Types and advantages of liposomes for drug delivery purposes.
Liposome Type Description Advantages Limitations Refs.
Conventional (cationic, anionic, neutral) Bilayer composed of neutral, positively or negatively charged phospholipids Reduced drug-associated toxicity Rapid removal from
circulation		 [11][12]
Deformable (elastic) Elastic lipid bilayer Deeper skin penetration for topical applications Cargo release during
prolonged storage times		 [17]
Stealth PEG-coated liposomes Prolonged circulation time Non-biodegradability of high
molar mass PEG and
toxicity of low molar mass
PEG		 [12][18]
Targeted Liposomes surface modified with targeting moieties such as antibodies Specificity Rapid elimination from the
bloodstream		 [24]
Stimuli-responsive Liposomes change conformation and release encapsulated cargo in response to external and internal triggers Reduced off-target toxicity * [13][33][34]
* varies depending on stimuli used.
While other nano-drug delivery vehicles, such as metallic and polymeric nanoparticles, have been developed and studied, liposomes are particularly advantageous. This is due to their ability to carry and deliver hydrophilic and/or hydrophobic cargo, high biocompatibility, biodegradability, lack of immunogenicity and toxicity, and easy modification with targeting moieties. Furthermore, several liposome-based compositions have been approved by the FDA for the clinical treatment of infectious diseases. This indicates the promise of future liposomal formulations [45]. However, as mentioned in the previous paragraph and Table 1, liposomes do possess some limitations that need to be considered when designing a liposomal formulation for drug delivery purposes, including anti-biofilm agent delivery.

2. Liposomal Formulations for the Treatment of Gram-Negative Biofilms

Prominent agents behind global mortality and morbidity, gram-negative bacteria are less susceptible to antibiotic agents than gram-positive bacteria [46]. Unlike their gram-positive counterparts, gram-negative bacteria, except for the lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-deficient strains, are enveloped with LPS [47]. LPS serves as a stimulator of the immune system and a facilitator of antibiotic resistance due to its insulation of the bacterial cell it encapsulates [48]. In fact, LPS-deficient strains are less virulent and more susceptible to antibiotics [47]. Accordingly, it is no surprise that gram-negative bacteria constitute the majority of the WHO antibiotic-resistant pathogens list [46][48]. Some of the prominent gram-negative strains include P. aeruginosa, E. coli, Acinetobacter baumannii (A. baumannii), Salmonella, Klebsiella, Serratia, Aeromonas, and Porphyromonas spp. The following sections summarize recent studies implementing liposomal formulations against medically salient gram-negative bacteria. 

3. Liposomal Formulations for the Treatment of Gram-Positive Biofilms

As with gram-negative bacteria, infections due to gram-positive biofilms present a major health challenge, especially due to the emerging resistance of gram-positive strains to antibiotics [49][50]. Gram-positive bacteria are responsible for the majority of infections in intensive care units in hospitals and are the leading cause of skin, soft tissue, and medical device-associated infections [51][52]. Further adding to the urgency of gram-positive medical infections is their susceptibility to form biofilms, which are generally responsible for the vast majority of clinical chronic infection cases [53][54]. Several types of clinically relevant gram-positive strains that have the tendency to develop biofilms include the Staphylococcus strains: S. aureus, including Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA); S. epidermidis; and Staphylococcus saprophyticus subspecies Bovis, as well as other gram-positive strains, such as Listeria, Mycobacterium, Cutibacterium acnes (C. acnes), and Bacillus subtilis. Various liposomal composites have been developed in efforts to overcome the resistance and treat biofilms of those bacterial strains. The subsequent sections discuss the progress in the use of liposomal formulations for the treatment of gram-positive biofilms. Specific focus is given to therapeutic parameters, including triggered release, biofilm targeting mechanisms, loaded drugs, including antibiotics and their alternatives, and the efficiency of the composite at eradicating the biofilm in vitro and in vivo.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/antibiotics12050875

References

  1. Wang, Y. Liposome as a Delivery System for the Treatment of Biofilm-mediated Infections. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2021, 131, 2626–2639.
  2. Wang, D.-Y.; van der Mei, H.C.; Ren, Y.; Busscher, H.J.; Shi, L. Lipid-Based Antimicrobial Delivery-Systems for the Treatment of Bacterial Infections. Front. Chem. 2020, 7, 872.
  3. Nsairat, H.; Khater, D.; Sayed, U.; Odeh, F.; Al Bawab, A.; Alshaer, W. Liposomes: Structure, Composition, Types, and Clinical Applications. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09394.
  4. Rukavina, Z.; Šegvić Klarić, M.; Filipović-Grčić, J.; Lovrić, J.; Vanić, Ž. Azithromycin-Loaded Liposomes for Enhanced Topical Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphyloccocus Aureus (MRSA) Infections. Int. J. Pharm. 2018, 553, 109–119.
  5. Aiello, S.; Pagano, L.; Ceccacci, F.; Simonis, B.; Sennato, S.; Bugli, F.; Martini, C.; Torelli, R.; Sanguinetti, M.; Ciogli, A.; et al. Mannosyl, Glucosyl or Galactosyl Liposomes to Improve Resveratrol Efficacy against Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Biofilm. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2021, 617, 126321.
  6. Alzahrani, N.M.; Booq, R.Y.; Aldossary, A.M.; Bakr, A.A.; Almughem, F.A.; Alfahad, A.J.; Alsharif, W.K.; Jarallah, S.J.; Alharbi, W.S.; Alsudir, S.A.; et al. Liposome-Encapsulated Tobramycin and IDR-1018 Peptide Mediated Biofilm Disruption and Enhanced Antimicrobial Activity against Pseudomonas Aeruginosa. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 960.
  7. Kluzek, M.; Oppenheimer-Shaanan, Y.; Dadosh, T.; Morandi, M.I.; Avinoam, O.; Raanan, C.; Goldsmith, M.; Goldberg, R.; Klein, J. Designer Liposomic Nanocarriers Are Effective Biofilm Eradicators. ACS Nano 2022, 16, 15792–15804.
  8. Nicolosi, D.; Scalia, M.; Nicolosi, V.M.; Pignatello, R. Encapsulation in Fusogenic Liposomes Broadens the Spectrum of Action of Vancomycin against Gram-Negative Bacteria. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2010, 35, 553–558.
  9. Scriboni, A.B.; Couto, V.M.; de Morais Ribeiro, L.N.; Freires, I.A.; Groppo, F.C.; de Paula, E.; Franz-Montan, M.; Cogo-Müller, K. Fusogenic Liposomes Increase the Antimicrobial Activity of Vancomycin Against Staphylococcus Aureus Biofilm. Front. Pharmacol. 2019, 10, 1401.
  10. Zahra, M.-J.; Hamed, H.; Mohammad, R.-Y.; Nosratollah, Z.; Akbarzadeh, A.; Morteza, M. Evaluation and Study of Antimicrobial Activity of Nanoliposomal Meropenem against Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Isolates. Artif. Cells Nanomed. Biotechnol. 2017, 45, 975–980.
  11. Sercombe, L.; Veerati, T.; Moheimani, F.; Wu, S.Y.; Sood, A.K.; Hua, S. Advances and Challenges of Liposome Assisted Drug Delivery. Front. Pharmacol. 2015, 6, 286.
  12. Vassallo, A.; Silletti, M.F.; Faraone, I.; Milella, L. Nanoparticulate Antibiotic Systems as Antibacterial Agents and Antibiotic Delivery Platforms to Fight Infections. J. Nanomater. 2020, 2020, 6905631.
  13. Antoniou, A.I.; Giofrè, S.; Seneci, P.; Passarella, D.; Pellegrino, S. Stimulus-Responsive Liposomes for Biomedical Applications. Drug Discov. Today 2021, 26, 1794–1824.
  14. Kannan, S.; Solomon, A.; Krishnamoorthy, G.; Marudhamuthu, M. Liposome Encapsulated Surfactant Abetted Copper Nanoparticles Alleviates Biofilm Mediated Virulence in Pathogenic Pseudomonas Aeruginosa and MRSA. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 1102.
  15. Harper, R.A.; Carpenter, G.H.; Proctor, G.B.; Harvey, R.D.; Gambogi, R.J.; Geonnotti, A.R.; Hider, R.; Jones, S.A. Diminishing Biofilm Resistance to Antimicrobial Nanomaterials through Electrolyte Screening of Electrostatic Interactions. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2019, 173, 392–399.
  16. Elsayed, M.M.A.; Abdallah, O.Y.; Naggar, V.F.; Khalafallah, N.M. Deformable Liposomes and Ethosomes: Mechanism of Enhanced Skin Delivery. Int. J. Pharm. 2006, 322, 60–66.
  17. Nayak, D.; Tippavajhala, V.K. A Comprehensive Review on Preparation, Evaluation and Applications of Deformable Liposomes. Iran. J. Pharm. Res. 2021, 20, 186.
  18. Knop, K.; Hoogenboom, R.; Fischer, D.; Schubert, U.S. Poly(Ethylene Glycol) in Drug Delivery: Pros and Cons as Well as Potential Alternatives. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 6288–6308.
  19. Gabizon, A.; Catane, R.; Uziely, B.; Kaufman, B.; Safra, T.; Cohen, R.; Martin, F.; Huang, A.; Barenholz, Y. Prolonged Circulation Time and Enhanced Accumulation in Malignant Exudates of Doxorubicin Encapsulated in Polyethylene-Glycol Coated Liposomes. Cancer Res. 1994, 54, 987–992.
  20. Ghaferi, M.; Raza, A.; Koohi, M.; Zahra, W.; Akbarzadeh, A.; Ebrahimi Shahmabadi, H.; Alavi, S.E. Impact of PEGylated Liposomal Doxorubicin and Carboplatin Combination on Glioblastoma. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 2183.
  21. Maruyama, K.; Yuda, T.; Okamoto, A.; Kojima, S.; Suginaka, A.; Iwatsuru, M. Prolonged Circulation Time in Vivo of Large Unilamellar Liposomes Composed of Distearoyl Phosphatidylcholine and Cholesterol Containing Amphipathic Poly(Ethylene Glycol). Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA) Lipids Lipid Metab. 1992, 1128, 44–49.
  22. McNeeley, K.M.; Annapragada, A.; Bellamkonda, R.V. Decreased Circulation Time Offsets Increased Efficacy of PEGylated Nanocarriers Targeting Folate Receptors of Glioma. Nanotechnology 2007, 18, 385101.
  23. Zhang, L.; Han, L.; Sun, X.; Gao, D.; Qin, J.; Wang, J. The Use of PEGylated Liposomes to Prolong the Circulation Lifetime of Salvianolic Acid B. Fitoterapia 2012, 83, 678–689.
  24. Bendas, G. Immunoliposomes: A Promising Approach to Targeting Cancer Therapy. BioDrugs 2001, 15, 215–224.
  25. Gholizadeh, S.; Dolman, E.M.; Wieriks, R.; Sparidans, R.W.; Hennink, W.E.; Kok, R.J. Anti-GD2 Immunoliposomes for Targeted Delivery of the Survivin Inhibitor Sepantronium Bromide (YM155) to Neuroblastoma Tumor Cells. Pharm. Res. 2018, 35, 85.
  26. Huwyler, J.; Wu, D.; Pardridge, W.M. Brain Drug Delivery of Small Molecules Using Immunoliposomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1996, 93, 14164–14169.
  27. Loureiro, J.A.; Gomes, B.; Fricker, G.; Cardoso, I.; Ribeiro, C.A.; Gaiteiro, C.; Coelho, M.A.N.; do Carmo Pereira, M.; Rocha, S. Dual Ligand Immunoliposomes for Drug Delivery to the Brain. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2015, 134, 213–219.
  28. Robinson, A.M.; Creeth, J.E.; Jones, M.N. The Use of Immunoliposomes for Specific Delivery of Antimicrobial Agents to Oral Bacteria Immobilized on Polystyrene. J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. 2000, 11, 1381–1393.
  29. Zhang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Dong, D.; Li, X.; Li, Z.; Li, S.; Wang, J. Effects of Isosorbide Mononitrate Loaded Nanoparticles Conjugated with Anti-Staphylococcus Aureus A-toxin on Staphylococcus Aureus Biofilms. Exp. Med. 2019, 19, 1267–1274.
  30. Ommen, P.; Hansen, L.; Hansen, B.K.; Vu-Quang, H.; Kjems, J.; Meyer, R.L. Aptamer-Targeted Drug Delivery for Staphylococcus Aureus Biofilm. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 814340.
  31. Wei, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, R.; Wang, J.; Chen, Z. Aptamers as Smart Ligands for Targeted Drug Delivery in Cancer Therapy. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 2561.
  32. Yang, K.; Gitter, B.; Rüger, R.; Wieland, G.D.; Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Albrecht, V.; Fahr, A. Antimicrobial Peptide-Modified Liposomes for Bacteria Targeted Delivery of Temoporfin in Photodynamic Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 2011, 10, 1593–1601.
  33. Ali, A.A.; Al-Othman, A.; Al-Sayah, M.H. Multifunctional Stimuli-Responsive Hybrid Nanogels for Cancer Therapy: Current Status and Challenges. J. Control. Release 2022, 351, 476–503.
  34. Zhao, X.; Bai, J.; Yang, W. Stimuli-Responsive Nanocarriers for Therapeutic Applications in Cancer. Cancer Biol. Med. 2021, 18, 319–335.
  35. Ding, M.; Zhao, W.; Song, L.-J.; Luan, S.-F. Stimuli-Responsive Nanocarriers for Bacterial Biofilm Treatment. Rare Met. 2022, 41, 482–498.
  36. Koga, K.; Tagami, T.; Ozeki, T. Gold Nanoparticle-Coated Thermosensitive Liposomes for the Triggered Release of Doxorubicin, and Photothermal Therapy Using a near-Infrared Laser. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2021, 626, 127038.
  37. Cressey, P.; Bronstein, L.-G.; Benmahmoudi, R.; Rosilio, V.; Regeard, C.; Makky, A. Novel Liposome-like Assemblies Composed of Phospholipid-Porphyrin Conjugates with Photothermal and Photodynamic Activities against Bacterial Biofilms. Int. J. Pharm. 2022, 623, 121915.
  38. Xu, M.; Hu, Y.; Xiao, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, K.; Wu, T.; Lv, N.; Wang, W.; Ding, W.; Li, F.; et al. Near-Infrared-Controlled Nanoplatform Exploiting Photothermal Promotion of Peroxidase-like and OXD-like Activities for Potent Antibacterial and Anti-Biofilm Therapies. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 50260–50274.
  39. Zou, L.; Hu, D.; Wang, F.; Jin, Q.; Ji, J. The Relief of Hypoxic Microenvironment Using an O2 Self-Sufficient Fluorinated Nanoplatform for Enhanced Photodynamic Eradication of Bacterial Biofilms. Nano Res. 2022, 15, 1636–1644.
  40. Alamoudi, K.; Martins, P.; Croissant, J.G.; Patil, S.; Omar, H.; Khashab, N.M. Thermoresponsive Pegylated Bubble Liposome Nanovectors for Efficient SiRNA Delivery via Endosomal Escape. Nanomedicine 2017, 12, 1421–1433.
  41. Fu, Y.-Y.; Zhang, L.; Yang, Y.; Liu, C.; He, Y.-N.; Li, P.; Yu, X. Synergistic Antibacterial Effect of Ultrasound Microbubbles Combined with Chitosan-Modified Polymyxin B-Loaded Liposomes on Biofilm-Producing Acinetobacter Baumannii. Int. J. Nanomed. 2019, 14, 1805–1815.
  42. Zhou, H.; Fang, S.; Kong, R.; Zhang, W.; Wu, K.; Xia, R.; Shang, X.; Zhu, C. Effect of Low Frequency Ultrasound plus Fluorescent Composite Carrier in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Biofilm Infection of Bone Joint Implant. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2018, 11, 799–805.
  43. Raza, A.; Hayat, U.; Rasheed, T.; Bilal, M.; Iqbal, H.M.N. “Smart” Materials-Based near-Infrared Light-Responsive Drug Delivery Systems for Cancer Treatment: A Review. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2019, 8, 1497–1509.
  44. Andra, V.V.S.N.L.; Pammi, S.V.N.; Bhatraju, L.V.K.P.; Ruddaraju, L.K. A Comprehensive Review on Novel Liposomal Methodologies, Commercial Formulations, Clinical Trials and Patents. Bionanoscience 2022, 12, 274–291.
  45. Ferreira, M.; Ogren, M.; Dias, J.N.R.; Silva, M.; Gil, S.; Tavares, L.; Aires-da-Silva, F.; Gaspar, M.M.; Aguiar, S.I. Liposomes as Antibiotic Delivery Systems: A Promising Nanotechnological Strategy against Antimicrobial Resistance. Molecules 2021, 26, 2047.
  46. Breijyeh, Z.; Jubeh, B.; Karaman, R. Resistance of Gram-Negative Bacteria to Current Antibacterial Agents and Approaches to Resolve It. Molecules 2020, 25, 1340.
  47. Zhang, G.; Meredith, T.C.; Kahne, D. On the Essentiality of Lipopolysaccharide to Gram-Negative Bacteria. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2013, 16, 779–785.
  48. Bertani, B.; Ruiz, N. Function and Biogenesis of Lipopolysaccharides. EcoSal Plus 2018, 8, ecosalplus.ESP-0001-2018.
  49. Jubeh, B.; Breijyeh, Z.; Karaman, R. Resistance of Gram-Positive Bacteria to Current Antibacterial Agents and Overcoming Approaches. Molecules 2020, 25, 2888.
  50. Khatoon, Z.; McTiernan, C.D.; Suuronen, E.J.; Mah, T.-F.; Alarcon, E.I. Bacterial Biofilm Formation on Implantable Devices and Approaches to Its Treatment and Prevention. Heliyon 2018, 4, e01067.
  51. Oliva, A.; Stefani, S.; Venditti, M.; Di Domenico, E.G. Biofilm-Related Infections in Gram-Positive Bacteria and the Potential Role of the Long-Acting Agent Dalbavancin. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 749685.
  52. Vazquez-Guillamet, C.; Kollef, M.H. Treatment of Gram-Positive Infections in Critically Ill Patients. BMC Infect. Dis. 2014, 14, 92.
  53. Lebeaux, D.; Ghigo, J.-M.; Beloin, C. Biofilm-Related Infections: Bridging the Gap between Clinical Management and Fundamental Aspects of Recalcitrance toward Antibiotics. Microbiol Mol. Biol. Rev. 2014, 78, 510–543.
  54. Römling, U.; Balsalobre, C. Biofilm Infections, Their Resilience to Therapy and Innovative Treatment Strategies. J. Intern. Med. 2012, 272, 541–561.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback