Abstract
The rapid emergence of drug resistance continues to outpace the development of new antibiotics in the treatment of infectious diseases. Conventional therapy is currently limited by drug access issues such as low intracellular drug accumulations, drug efflux by efflux pumps and/or enzymatic degradation. To improve access, targeted delivery using nanocarriers could provide the quantum leap in intracellular drug transport and retention. Silica nanoparticles (SiNPs) with crucial advantages such as large surface area, ease-of-functionalization, and biocompatibility, are one of the most commonly used nanoparticles in drug delivery applications. A porous variant, called the mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSN), also confers additional amenities such as tunable pore size and volume, leading to high drug loading capacity. In the context of bacterial infections, SiNPs and its variants can act as a powerful tool for the targeted delivery of antimicrobials, potentially reducing the impact of high drug dosage and its side effects. In this review, we will provide an overview of SiNPs synthesis, its structural proficiency which is critical in loading and conjugation of antimicrobials and its role in different antimicrobial applications with emphasis on intracellular drug targeting in anti-tuberculosis therapy, nitric oxide delivery, and metal nanocomposites. The role of SiNPs in antibiofilm coatings will also be covered in the context of nosocomial infections and surgical implants.
Introduction
Dubbed as a global epidemic, the emergence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has resulted in a dramatic increase in bacterial pathogens with resistance against one or multiple antibiotics (Dabke and Sheridan, ; Ferri et al., ; Merlino, ). The rise and spread of resistant pathogens mainly stem from frequent misuse of antibiotics, subsequent selection pressure and acquisition of genetic mutations that carry the resistant genes. At present, more than 2.8 million people in the United States are affected by antibiotic-resistant infections each year (Centers for Disease Control Prevention, ), with over 35,000 deaths recorded yearly for infections that were easily treatable in the past. It is estimated that by the year 2050, AMR could result in 10 million deaths per year with an estimated expenditure of $100 trillion (O'Neill, ). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), drug-resistant Clostridium difficile, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter are some of the high priority pathogens that require immediate attention and an action plan (World Health Organization, ). Moreover, some of these AMR strains are present in complex biofilm forms, raising an additional challenge for the treatment of chronic infections. This rising trend of AMR crisis is also accompanied by the absence of new antibiotic classes in the drug synthesis pipeline owing to impeding regulatory setbacks (World Health Organization, ). The current set of antibiotics used for infectious disease treatment and even the last resort treatment drugs are all derived from the antibiotic classes discovered until 1984 (Gupta and Nayak, ).
Toward improving the efficacy of the available antibiotics, clinicians may resort to high drug dosing or an increment in dosage frequency. This recourse not only aggravates the existing toxicity and side effects of the antibiotics but also drives the development and spread of bacterial resistance. While research efforts on alternative antimicrobials such as antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) (Kang et al., ; Khara et al., , , , ; Khara and Ee, ) and revisiting old forgotten antibiotics like octapeptins and actinorhodins (Theuretzbacher et al., ) are ongoing, it is necessary to identify novel strategies that render resistant pathogens vulnerable to existing antibiotics. The use of nanoparticles as a delivery vehicle for antimicrobials is one such strategy that could potentially combat the setbacks mentioned above. The benefits of nanomaterials in this application are manifold. By using nanoparticles as carriers, the mode of uptake by the pathogens can be tailored and thus circumventing issues associated with antimicrobial resistance mechanism such as hyperactive efflux pumps (Hadinoto and Cheow, ; Baptista et al., ; Vallet-Reg et al., ). In addition, nanoparticles can improve the pharmacokinetic profile of the drug by capitalizing on additional amenities such as optimal-drug loading and targeted delivery. Incidentally, this can also reduce the high drug dose generally administered to reach clinical efficacy reducing associated toxic side effects. Amongst a wide range of nanoparticles, silica nanoparticles (SiNPs) represent a unique class of inorganic nanoparticles with a wide array of functional features advantageous for combating bacterial infections (Karaman et al., ; Martínez-Carmona et al., ; Bernardos et al., ). There are many different types of SiNPs, such as the conventional non-porous SiNPs, mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSN), hollow mesoporous silica nanoparticles (HMSN) and core-shell silica, either with or without surface modification. Particularly, MSN is a popular choice for targeted drug delivery given its flexible and desirable properties such as high drug loading capacity, tunable pore size and volume, ease-of-functionalization, and biocompatibility.
Silica Nanoparticles: Synthesis and Properties
Synthesis of Silica Nanoparticles
Silica nanoparticles can be synthesized by a number of protocols, yielding nanoparticles over a size range of 10–500 nm with a variety of shapes and physicochemical properties. The most commonly employed methods for the synthesis of SiNPs are the Stober's process and the microemulsion method (Figure 1). The Stober's method was first introduced in 1968, for the synthesis of monodispersed silica particles in the sub-micrometer range (Stöber et al., ). This technique utilizes a silica precursor, tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS) which in the presence of ethanol and ammonium hydroxide (NH2OH), undergoes hydrolysis followed by a polycondensation reaction to produce non-porous silica particles with sizes less than 200 nm. This synthesis protocol has now been fine-tuned to suit user-specific requirements (Rao et al., ). In addition to TEOS, other low-cost precursors such as sodium silicate solution (SSS) have been used (Zulfiqar et al., 2016a,b). The surface of these nanoparticles is rich in silanol groups which can be used as an anchor for surface modifications with organosilane coupling agents such as (3-aminopropyl) triethoxysilane (APTES) and (3-mercaptopropyl) trimethoxysilane (MPTMS) (Sterman and Marsden, ), to enable loading and adsorption of biomolecules. A modified Stober's process with the incorporation of surfactants such as cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) and, site-directing agents such as the triblock copolymer (F127) is widely used to synthesize MSN with pore sizes ranging between 2 and 50 nm (Wu et al., ). These porous compartments are widely utilized for loading different drugs and biomolecules such as proteins, peptides, and DNA for various therapeutic and biomedical applications.
Figure 1
Another standard method for the synthesis of SiNPs is the microemulsion technique, which involves the formation of oil-in-water (O/W) micelles or water-in-oil (W/O) reverse micelles (Arriagada and Osseo-Asare, ; López-Quintela, ). These micelles stabilized by surfactants such as tweens or pluronics, act as nanoreactors for particle synthesis, and therefore, the size of the nanoparticles primarily depends on the volume of these nanoreactors. It is inside these nanoreactors that silica precursors undergo hydrolysis and condensation reactions to form SiNPs. It is also possible to load fluorophores and drugs into these nanoreactors to facilitate drug delivery applications. Other alternate methods such as low-temperature vapor-phase hydrolysis (Yan et al., ), spray drying (Cho, ), and chemical precipitation (Cai et al., ) have also been employed for the synthesis of SiNPs. The most common morphologies of SiNPs synthesized using the above methods are non-porous SiNPs, mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSN), hollow mesoporous silica nanoparticles (HMSN) and core-shell SiNPs (Figure 2A).
Figure 2
Structural and Functional Properties of SiNPs
Size, Shape, and Porosity
The physicochemical parameters of the nanoparticles such as size, shape, and porosity play a critical role in the delivery of payloads to the target site and its subsequent elimination from the body. Notably, size is an essential factor that governs the cellular uptake of the nanoparticles and its biocompatibility. In general, SiNPs are synthesized in size range between 10 and 500 nm. The particle size is generally controlled by varying the reaction parameters such as ammonia/sodium hydroxide concentration, mixing speed or the rate of TEOS addition. A functional, PEG-coated near-infrared (NIR) fluorescent silica nanoparticles called Cornell dots (C-dots) were designed and synthesized by Wiesner and team for molecular cancer imaging (Ow et al.,
Nanospheres and nanorods with different aspect ratios are the most common shapes of SiNPs (Figure 2B), synthesized for a wide variety of therapeutic and diagnostic applications. Many studies have shown that, like size, the shape also acts as a key player in modulating the physiological behavior and activity of nanoparticles. This difference in the physiological behavior was observed by Zhao et al. in a study wherein three different shapes of MSN, long rod nanoparticles (NLR), short rod nanoparticles (NSR) and spherical nanoparticles (NS) were analyzed for their in vivo oral bioavailability (Zhao et al., 2017). It was observed that the NLR displayed longer in vivo residence time, slower renal clearance and more prolonged blood circulation when compared to NSR and NS. In line with this, in vitro degradation experiments showed that NSR degraded at a faster rate compared to NS and NLR, attributable to the high specific surface area of NSR. In another similar study where the shape of fluorescent MSN was manipulated by varying the concentration of reagents, short rod MSN (NSR) and long rod MSN (NLR) with or without PEGylation were analyzed for biodistribution, clearance, and biocompatibility (Huang et al.,
While size and shape are the primary determinants of uptake and biodistribution of nanoparticles, porosity played a stronger role in terms of payload delivery. Generally, the porosity of SiNPs can be controlled between 2 and 50 nm by varying synthesis parameters. This porous structure can be highly ordered as in the case of MCM-41-type silica nanoparticles with hexagonal pores or sometimes wrinkled or worm-like appearance (Figure 2C). Optimizing the pore size according to the size of the cargo and limit of controlled release is highly essential. While a smaller pore size might result in the restricted loading and release of the payloads at the target site, larger pore size can result in a premature release of the payloads before reaching the target site, causing unwanted side effects or toxicity. An interesting strategy to avoid premature release of payloads is the use of capping agents that enable drug release on specific triggers. Several capping agents for MSN such as cyclodextrin (Liu et al.,
Surface Modification
SiNPs are relatively easy to functionalize. Typically, the surface of SiNPs possesses a high content of silanol groups (Si-OH) which can be easily manipulated as the site of attachment for surface probes. This covalent modification strategy involves either co-condensation or post-synthetic grafting (Figure 3A) of different functional silanes (Figure 3B) onto the surface silanol groups. The post-synthetic grafting involves conjugation of functional groups, mostly on the surface of the nanoparticle, whereas the co-condensation approach entails the presence of modified functional groups even inside the pores of the nanoparticles. One primary reason to incorporate surface modifications is to improve the colloidal stability of the nanoparticles, which otherwise possess a high tendency to aggregate with each other. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is often used as modifying agent as it can improve colloidal stability of SiNPs, and provide improved blood circulation time and enhanced biocompatibility (Jokerst et al.,
Figure 3

Schematic representation of (A) Surface modification strategies and (B) Examples of most commonly used organosilanes.
Biocompatibility and Biodistribution
While silica nanoparticles are generally considered non-toxic, specific properties of SiNPs, such as the size, reactive surface groups or sometimes the route of administration, can illustrate varied levels of toxicity in the body. Generally, acute systemic toxicity by SiNPs in blood cells is triggered by proinflammatory responses, oxidative stress, or the activation of the apoptosis pathway in addition to hemolysis of the red blood cells. Zhao et al. studied the effect of particle size on toxicity by examining the interaction of SBA-15 type and MCM-41 type MSN of sizes, 531 and 122 nm. respectively, on red blood cells (Zhao et al., 2011). Results showed that larger SBA-15 type MSN induced greater membrane distortion due to stronger adsorption and internalization, which resulted in subsequent hemolysis. On the contrary, smaller MCM-41 type MSN were adsorbed onto the red blood cells without inflicting deformity. In another study, FITC-tagged fluorescent SiNPs of variable sizes (850, 500, 250, and 150 nm) were assessed against RAW 264.7 macrophages cell lines wherein toxicological responses such as TNF-α production, LDH release, H2O2 release and ROS generation demonstrated size-dependent compatibility (Leclerc et al.,
Some studies have also investigated the role of administration route on the toxicity, biodistribution and elimination. A systematic evaluation of fate of SiNPs (110 nm) in the body upon intravenous, hypodermic, intramuscular and oral administration was conducted by Fu et al. (
In addition to biocompatibility, it is also essential to understand the elimination and degradation process of the nanoparticles while evaluating its safety profile. Studies have shown that the elimination of silica nanoparticles occurs either through feces or urine. Preferential elimination of SiNPs through either of these routes are dependent on size, surface area, or charge. Particles with larger size and surface area tend to eliminate though gastrointestinal tract via liver accumulation while smaller particles (less than 6 nm) preferentially eliminate through urinary tract. Some studies have also indicated a charge-driven excretion pattern in SiNPs. A study by Dogra et al. with SPECT/CT imaging and mathematic modeling approach reported that particles of size between ~32–142 nm displayed lower bioavailability with preferential accumulation in liver and spleen which can lead to hepatobiliary excretion via gastrointestinal tract (Dogra et al.,
Applications of Silica Nanoparticles in Antimicrobial Therapeutics
Nanoparticle-based drug delivery has been established as one of the most promising therapeutic strategies owing to its versatility and enhanced functionality to overcome physiological barriers. In this regard, silica nanoparticles (SiNPs) have been proven to be a lucrative choice for many biomedical applications, especially cancer and antimicrobial therapeutics. The versatility of SiNPs is particularly advantageous for antimicrobial therapeutics, including biofilm treatment, given the rising challenge of antimicrobial resistance. Since these nanoparticles can attack pathogens by multiple modes including physical damage to cell membranes, ROS production and endo-lysosomal burden, in addition to the antimicrobial activity induced by the cargo itself, the window for the development of antimicrobial resistance is quite narrow. Thus, this section highlights different modes of drug payload delivery of SiNPs targeted against bacterial pathogens with emphasis on anti-tuberculosis (anti-TB) therapy which requires intracellular targeting. In addition, other delivery compositions of SiNPs in infectious disease treatment such as metal-silica nanocomposites, nitric oxide (NO) delivery, antibiofilm coatings and dental composites were also explored and are summarized in Supplementary Table 1.
Targeted Delivery of Antimicrobials
Silica nanoparticles, mainly MSN, have been widely exploited for their application in the delivery of drugs and other biomolecules such as proteins, peptides, and nucleic acids. Although the use of antibiotics is the conventional treatment modality for infectious diseases, requirements for high drug dosages in vivo and its association with resistance is a primary concern. In addition to unwarranted toxicity associated with direct delivery of antibiotics, another popular class of antimicrobials called antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) (Kang et al.,
Drug Loading
A wide variety of antimicrobials such as antibiotics, peptides, and other functional materials can be loaded onto SiNPs, either covalently or non-covalently (Figure 4), offering a rational solution to the concerns associated with resistance, physiological barriers such as enzymes or serum proteins and other functional barriers such as drug solubility or toxicity. Covalent conjugation or grafting of the antimicrobials onto the surface of modified SiNPs involves the use of different linker molecules such as PEG crosslinkers and silane-coupling agents. For instance, an FDA approved antimicrobial triclosan (Irgasan) was covalently linked to the surface of SiNPs via a silane coupling agent, 3-(triethoxysilyl)propyl isocyanate (TESPC) (Makarovsky et al.,
Figure 4

Different modes of loading of antimicrobials onto MSN.
In addition to the mode of interaction, drug loading can also be achieved in two ways, either during synthesis or post-synthesis while post-synthesis drug loading results in encapsulation of drug onto the surface or inside of the pores, addition of a drug during synthesis results in the incorporation of the drug in the core framework of the nanoparticle itself. Stewart and coworkers demonstrated the co-assembly of an antimicrobial drug (Octenidine dihydrochloride, OCT) and silica with a loading efficacy of 35 wt% (Stewart et al.,
Drug Delivery
Many different strategies have been employed for the delivery of targeted delivery of antimicrobials to bacteria (Figure 5). Charge of a nanocarrier can invariably affect its ability to interact with negatively charged bacterial membrane and influence its selectivity. Pedraza and team designed a “nanoantibiotic” system made of MSN loaded with levofloxacin (LEVO) and surface functionalized with positively-charged N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (DAMO) which acts as a targeting agent rendering affinity toward negatively-charged bacterial membrane and biofilms (Pedraza et al.,
Figure 5

Targeted delivery of antimicrobials by MSN using different strategies.
Despite being one of the most promising nanocarriers, MSN still suffers from issues associated with the premature release of cargo, which results in unwanted drug side effects and low bioavailability at the site of infection. In order to achieve a well-controlled release of cargos, only at the site of infection, designing a “smart” delivery vehicle that can sense the stimuli from the environment to open the pores is essential. Stimuli-responsive drug release has been widely exploited for cancer therapeutics wherein acidic pH, and the difference in redox potential at the cancer microenvironment are used as common triggers for the drug release. Likewise, for a bacterial infection site, drop in pH during active anaerobic metabolism can be utilized as a trigger to enable the spatiotemporal release of encapsulated drugs. Utilizing this knowledge, Kuthati and team designed a pH-triggered MSN nanocarrier wherein silver-indole-3 acetic acid hydrazide (IAAH-Ag) complex was linked to IBN-4 type MSN via weak pH-sensitive hydrazone bonds (Kuthati et al.,
Photodynamic therapy is another technology widely evaluated for strategic release of antimicrobials from the nanocarriers by application of external stimuli. A few recent studies have highlighted this potential in MSN nanocarriers using different photosensitizers (PS). A study by Paramanatham and team encapsulated malachite green, a cationic photosensitizing molecule into MSN and evaluated its antimicrobial potential against E. coli and S. aureus by laser irradiation at a wavelength of 670 nm (Paramanantham et al.,
Intracellular targeting for anti-tuberculosis therapy
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), tuberculosis (TB) is considered one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the world, encompassing around 1.6 million deaths in 2017 (World Health Organization,
Other Delivery Composites
Metal-Silica Nanocomposites
Some metals such as copper (Cu) and silver (Ag) with inherent antimicrobial activity have been used to evade infections since ancient times. However, they exhibit high cytotoxicity toward the mammalian cells and possess poor pharmacokinetic properties. Thus, incorporating these metals as co-delivery payloads with SiNPs has proven effective for antimicrobial applications. For instance, an MCM-41 type MSN with encapsulated silver nanocrystals (Ag@MESs) in a yolk/shell fashion was synthesized and tested against B. anthracis and E. coli (Liong et al.,
Like silver, copper is another common heavy metal capable of wielding bactericidal activity. Compositing Cu with SiNPs can help in sustained release of Cu to exert antibacterial activity. Synthesis of core-shell copper-silica nanoparticles for antimicrobial activity was reported by Maniprasad and Santra (
Nitric Oxide (NO) Delivery
Nitric oxide (NO) is a free radical released by immune cells in response to infections. It also acts as a vasodilator and a tumoricidal agent. NO has been shown to possess broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity with the aid of small molecule NO donors such as sodium nitrite, diazeniumdiolates, and S-Nitrosothiols group (Schairer et al.,
Antibiofilm Coatings and Dental Composites
Microbial biofilm formation is recognized as a key virulence factor in localized chronic infections and a prominent menace in nosocomial infections (Koo et al.,
In addition to the different metallic biomedical implants discussed above, drug loaded SiNPs can be used as an antimicrobial additive for bone cement and dental matrices. Poly (methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) is one of the most common commercially available bone cement matrices for dental and bone implants. Direct loading of antimicrobials onto this matrix ensue difficulties in achieving a sustained drug release due to poor mixing or uneven distribution. Thus, SiNPs can act as a reinforcement material toward achieving controlled drug release (Letchmanan et al.,
Conclusion and Future Perspectives
Rising antimicrobial resistance and lack of varied treatment modalities have led to a growing interest in developing nanotechnology-based treatment strategies for infectious diseases. Silica nanoparticles, in particular, shows a huge potential for infectious disease treatment due to its versatile and tunable characteristic features. Controllable pore properties of SiNPs have enabled loading of a wide variety of payloads including drugs, dyes and metals leading to both therapeutic and diagnostic application. Tunable surface modifications of SiNPs have enabled both covalent and non-covalent modes of interaction with the payload and thus facilitating a well-controlled release and activity of the functional payloads. SiNPs have also demonstrated a good efficacy against notorious biofilms which warrants its application in antibiofilm coating and wearable implants. However, payload delivery using nanomaterials suffers from issues such as protein fouling, immunogenicity and toxicity. The recent FDA approval of investigation new drug (IND) application of fluorescent core-shell SiNPs called Cornell dots (C-dots) (Kim et al.,
Overall, the report encompasses the role of SiNPs as an efficient drug delivery vehicle with a great potential in infectious disease treatment. Use of nanotechnology for infectious diseases treatment when compared to cancer therapeutics, is still at an early stage of understanding and development. There is still more room for learning and implementing new notions for achieving better efficacy without trading off its safety and biocompatibility. Dealing with bacterial and biofilm microenvironments can be tricky, and the mode of action differs from species to species. Understanding this can help us design suitable stimuli-responsive drug delivery systems that cater explicitly to any particular disease treatment. One interesting characteristic of SiNPs is its adaptable nature that allows them to blend in with other nanomaterials including iron oxide nanoparticles, polymeric nanoparticles, metal nanoparticles and even with liposomes. More research could be devoted to this area of hybrid silica nanoparticles that can make use of the benefits from both worlds.
Statements
Author contributions
VS designed and wrote this study. SO and PE reviewed the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge research funding and facilities provided by the National University of Singapore and Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund (R148000240114) awarded to PE, SINGA Scholarship and Otto Bayer Fellowship to SO, and NUS Research Scholarship to VS.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fchem.2020.00602/full#supplementary-material
- SiNPs
Silica nanoparticles
- MSN
Mesoporous silica nanoparticles
- AMR
Antimicrobial resistance
- CDC
Centers for disease control and prevention
- MRSA
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
- CRE
Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae
- HMSN
Hollow mesoporous silica nanoparticles
- TEOS
Tetraethylorthosilicate
- APTES
(3-Aminopropyl) triethoxysilane
- MPTMS
(3-Mercaptopropyl) trimethoxysilane
- CTAB
Cetyltrimethylammoniumbromide
- O/W
Oil-in-water
- W/O
Water-in-oil
- NIR
Near-infrared
- C-dots
Cornell dots
- FDA
Food and drug administration
- IND
Investigational new drug
- NLR
Long rod nanoparticles
- NSR
Short rod nanoparticles
- NS
Spherical nanoparticles
- Si-OH
Silanol
- PEG
Polyethylene glycol
- AMAS
N-(α-maleimidoacetoxy) succinimide ester
- MBS
m-Maleimido-benzoyl-N-hydroxysuccinimide ester
- Mal-PEG-NHS
Maleimide-PEG-N-hydroxysuccinimide
- VTES
Vinyltriethoxysilane
- FITC
Fluorescein isothiocyanate
- SPECT/CT
Single-photon emission computed tomography
- LDH
Lactate dehydrogenase
- ROS
Reactive oxygen species
- NO
Nitric oxide
- TB
Tuberculosis
- TESPC
3-(Triethoxysilyl)propyl isocyanate
- EDC
1-Ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl) carbodiimide
- NHS
N-hydroxysuccinimide
- PEI
Polyethyleneimine
- OCT
Octenidine dihydrochloride
- TC
Tetracycline
- CHX
Chlorhexidine
- MXF
Moxifloxacin
- IAAH-Ag
Silver-indole-3-acetic acid hydrazide
- MBI
1-Methyl-1H-benzimidazole
- β-CD
β-Cyclodextrin
- ANA
Aniloalkane
- PCL
Polycaprolactone
- WHO
World Health Organization
- INH
Isoniazid
- RIF
Rifampicin
- CFZ
Clofazimine
- PZA
Pyrazinamide
- AP
Acetophenone
- CS-DDS
Composite scaffold drug delivery system
- β-TCP
β-Tricalcium phosphate
- Cht
Chitosan
- AEMP3
(Aminoethylaminomethyl)phenethyltrimethoxysilane
- AHAP3
N-(6-aminohexyl) aminopropyltrimethoxysilane
- AEAP3
N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane
- MAP3
N-methylaminopropyltrimethoxysilane
- PROLI/NO
1-(2-(carboxylate) pyrrolidin-1-yl) diazen-1-ium-1,2-diolate
- PCN
Phenazine-1-carboxamide
- PFTE
Polytetrafluoroethylene
- PMMA
Poly(methyl methacrylate).
Abbreviations
References
1
ArriagadaF. J.Osseo-AsareK. (1995). Synthesis of nanosize silica in aerosol OT reverse microemulsions. J. Colloid Interface Sci.170, 8–17. 10.1006/jcis.1995.1064
2
BaoY.WangT.KangQ.ShiC.MaJ. (2017). Micelle-template synthesis of hollow silica spheres for improving water vapor permeability of waterborne polyurethane membrane. Sci. Rep.7:46638. 10.1038/srep46638
3
BaptistaP. V.McCuskerM. P.CarvalhoA.FerreiraD. A.MohanN. M.MartinsM.et al. (2018). Nano-strategies to fight multidrug resistant bacteria-“A Battle of the Titans”. Front. Microbiol.9:1441. 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01441
4
BehzadiF.DarouieS.AlaviS. M.ShariatiP.SinghG.Dolatshahi-PirouzA.et al. (2018). Stability and antimicrobial activity of nisin-loaded mesoporous silica nanoparticles: a game-changer in the war against maleficent microbes. J. Agric. Food Chem.66, 4233–4243. 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b05492
5
BernardosA.PiacenzaE.SancenónF.HamidiM.MalekiA.TurnerR. J.et al. (2019). Mesoporous silica-based materials with bactericidal properties. Small15:1900669. 10.1002/smll.201900669
6
BraunK.PochertA.LindénM.DavoudiM.SchmidtchenA.NordströmR.et al. (2016). Membrane interactions of mesoporous silica nanoparticles as carriers of antimicrobial peptides. J. Colloid Interface Sci.475, 161–170. 10.1016/j.jcis.2016.05.002
7
CaiX.HongR. Y.WangL. S.WangX. Y.LiH. Z.ZhengY.et al. (2009). Synthesis of silica powders by pressured carbonation. Chem. Eng. J.151, 380–386. 10.1016/j.cej.2009.03.060
8
CapelettiL. B.de OliveiraL. F.GonçalvesK. D. A.de OliveiraJ. F. A.SaitoÂ.KobargJ.et al. (2014). Tailored silica-antibiotic nanoparticles: overcoming bacterial resistance with low cytotoxicity. Langmuir30, 7456–7464. 10.1021/la4046435
9
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2019). Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States.
10
ChenW.ChengC. A.LeeB. Y.ClemensD. L.HuangW. Y.HorwitzM. A.et al. (2018). Facile strategy enabling both high loading and high release amounts of the water-insoluble drug clofazimine using mesoporous silica nanoparticles. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces10, 31870–31881. 10.1021/acsami.8b09069
11
ChenX.LiuY.LinA.HuangN.LongL.GangY.et al. (2018). Folic acid-modified mesoporous silica nanoparticles with pH-responsiveness loaded with Amp for an enhanced effect against anti-drug-resistant bacteria by overcoming efflux pump systems. Biomater. Sci.6, 1923–1935. 10.1039/C8BM00262B
12
ChenX.SunH.HuJ.HanX.LiuH.HuY. (2017). Transferrin gated mesoporous silica nanoparticles for redox-responsive and targeted drug delivery. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces152, 77–84. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2017.01.010
13
ChengY. J.ZhangA. Q.HuJ. J.HeF.ZengX.ZhangX. Z. (2017). Multifunctional peptide-amphiphile end-capped mesoporous silica nanoparticles for tumor targeting drug delivery. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces9, 2093–2103. 10.1021/acsami.6b12647
14
ChoY. S. (2016). Fabrication of hollow or macroporous silica particles by spray drying of colloidal dispersion. J. Dispers. Sci. Technol.37, 23–33. 10.1080/01932691.2015.1022655
15
ClemensD. L.LeeB.-Y.XueM.ThomasC. R.MengH.FerrisD.et al. (2012). Targeted intracellular delivery of antituberculosis drugs to Mycobacterium tuberculosis-infected macrophages via functionalized mesoporous silica nanoparticles. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.56, 2535–2545. 10.1128/AAC.06049-11
16
ClimentE.Martínez-MáñezR.MaquieiraA.SancenónF.MarcosM. D.BrunE. M.et al. (2012). Antibody-capped mesoporous nanoscopic materials: design of a probe for the selective chromo-fluorogenic detection of finasteride. Chem. Open1, 251–259. 10.1002/open.201100008
17
CuiY.DongH.CaiX.WangD.LiY. (2012). Mesoporous silica nanoparticles capped with disulfide-linked PEG gatekeepers for glutathione-mediated controlled release. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces4, 3177–3183. 10.1021/am3005225
18
DabkeG.SheridanE. (2011). Antimicrobial resistance: the threat to public health. Perspect. Public Health131, 260–260. 10.1177/1757913911425745
19
DograP.AdolphiN. L.WangZ.LinY. S.ButlerK. S.DurfeeP. N.et al. (2018). Establishing the effects of mesoporous silica nanoparticle properties on in vivo disposition using imaging-based pharmacokinetics. Nat. Commun.9:4551. 10.1038/s41467-018-06730-z
20
D'souzaA. A.ShegokarR. (2016). Polyethylene glycol (PEG): a versatile polymer for pharmaceutical applications. Expert Opin. Drugs Deliv. 13, 1257–75. 10.1080/17425247.2016.1182485
21
FerriM.RanucciE.RomagnoliP.GiacconeV. (2017). Antimicrobial resistance: a global emerging threat to public health systems. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.57, 2857–2876. 10.1080/10408398.2015.1077192
22
FuC.LiuT.LiL.LiuH.ChenD.TangF. (2013). The absorption, distribution, excretion and toxicity of mesoporous silica nanoparticles in mice following different exposure routes. Biomaterials34, 2565–2575. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.12.043
23
GonzálezB.ColillaM.DíezJ.PedrazaD.GuembeM.Izquierdo-BarbaI.et al. (2018). Mesoporous silica nanoparticles decorated with polycationic dendrimers for infection treatment. Acta Biomater.68, 261–271. 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.12.041
24
GuptaS. K.NayakR. P. (2014). Dry antibiotic pipeline: regulatory bottlenecks and regulatory reforms. J. Pharm. Pharmacother.5, 4–7. 10.4103/0976-500X.124405
25
HadinotoK.CheowW. S. (2014). Nano-antibiotics in chronic lung infection therapy against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces116, 772–85. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.02.032
26
HetrickE. M.ShinJ. H.PaulH. S.SchoenfischM. H. (2009). Anti-biofilm efficacy of nitric oxide-releasing silica nanoparticles. Biomaterials30, 2782–2789. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.01.052
27
HetrickE. M.ShinJ. H.StaskoN. A.JohnsonC. B.WespeD. A.HolmuhamedovE.et al. (2008). Bactericidal efficacy of nitric oxide-releasing silica nanoparticles. ACS Nano2, 235–246. 10.1021/nn700191f
28
HuangK.ChenJ.NugenS. R.GoddardJ. M. (2016). Hybrid antifouling and antimicrobial coatings prepared by electroless co-deposition of fluoropolymer and cationic silica nanoparticles on stainless steel: efficacy against Listeria monocytogenes. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces8, 15926–15936. 10.1021/acsami.6b04187
29
HuangX.LiL.LiuT.HaoN.LiuH.ChenD.et al. (2011). The shape effect of mesoporous silica nanoparticles on biodistribution, clearance, and biocompatibility in vivo. ACS Nano5, 5390–5399. 10.1021/nn200365a
30
HuangX.YoungN. P.TownleyH. E. (2014). Characterization and comparison of mesoporous silica particles for optimized drug delivery. Nanomater. Nanotechnol.4:58290. 10.5772/58290
31
HwangA. A.LeeB.-Y. Y.ClemensD. L.DillonB. J.ZinkJ. I.HorwitzM. A.et al. (2015). pH-responsive isoniazid-loaded nanoparticles markedly improve tuberculosis treatment in mice. Small11, 5065–5078. 10.1002/smll.201500937
32
JaeH. S.MetzgerS. K.SchoenfischM. H. (2007). Synthesis of nitric oxide-releasing silica nanoparticles. J. Am. Chem. Soc.129, 4612–4619. 10.1021/ja0674338
33
JiaoJ.LiX.ZhangS.LiuJ.DiD.ZhangY.et al. (2016). Redox and pH dual-responsive PEG and chitosan-conjugated hollow mesoporous silica for controlled drug release. Mater. Sci. Eng. C67, 26–33. 10.1016/j.msec.2016.04.091
34
JoJ. K.El-FiqiA.LeeJ. H.KimD. A.KimH. W.LeeH. H. (2017). Rechargeable microbial anti-adhesive polymethyl methacrylate incorporating silver sulfadiazine-loaded mesoporous silica nanocarriers. Dent. Mater.33, e361–e372. 10.1016/j.dental.2017.07.009
35
JokerstJ. V.LobovkinaT.ZareR. N.GambhirS. S. (2011). Nanoparticle PEGylation for imaging and therapy. Nanomedicine6, 715–728. 10.2217/nnm.11.19
36
KangS.-J.ParkS. J.Mishig-OchirT.LeeB.-J. (2014). Antimicrobial peptides: therapeutic potentials. Expert Rev. Anti Infect. Ther.12, 1477–1486. 10.1586/14787210.2014.976613
37
KanugalaS.JinkaS.PuvvadaN.BanerjeeR.KumarC. G. (2019). Phenazine-1-carboxamide functionalized mesoporous silica nanoparticles as antimicrobial coatings on silicone urethral catheters. Sci. Rep.9:6198. 10.1038/s41598-019-42722-9
38
KaramanD. S.MannerS.RosenholmJ. M. (2018). Mesoporous silica nanoparticles as diagnostic and therapeutic tools: how can they combat bacterial infection?Ther. Deliv.9, 241–244. 10.4155/tde-2017-0111
39
KaramanD. S.SarwarS.DesaiD.BjörkE. M.OdénM.ChakrabartiP.et al. (2016). Shape engineering boosts antibacterial activity of chitosan coated mesoporous silica nanoparticle doped with silver: a mechanistic investigation. J. Mater. Chem. B, 4, 3292–3304. 10.1039/C5TB02526E
40
KavrukM.CelikbicakO.OzalpV. C.BorsaB. A.HernandezF. J.BayramogluG.et al. (2015). Antibiotic loaded nanocapsules functionalized with aptamer gates for targeted destruction of pathogens. Chem. Commun.51, 8492–8495. 10.1039/C5CC01869B
41
KharaJ. S.EeP. L. R. (2015). “Nature-inspired multifunctional host defense peptides with dual antimicrobial-immunomodulatory activities,” in Biomaterials in Regenerative Medicine and the Immune System (Springer International Publishing), 95–112. 10.1007/978-3-319-18045-8_6
42
KharaJ. S.LimF. K.WangY.KeX. Y.VooZ. X.YangY. Y.et al. (2015). Designing α-helical peptides with enhanced synergism and selectivity against Mycobacterium smegmatis: discerning the role of hydrophobicity and helicity. Acta Biomater.28, 99–108. 10.1016/j.actbio.2015.09.015
43
KharaJ. S.ObuobiS.WangY.HamiltonM. S.RobertsonB. D.NewtonS. M.et al. (2017). Disruption of drug-resistant biofilms using de novo designed short α-helical antimicrobial peptides with idealized facial amphiphilicity. Acta Biomater.57, 103–114. 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.04.032
44
KharaJ. S.PriestmanM.UhíaI.HamiltonM. S.KrishnanN.WangY.et al. (2016). Unnatural amino acid analogues of membrane-active helical peptides with anti-mycobacterial activity and improved stability. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.71, 2181–2191. 10.1093/jac/dkw107
45
KharaJ. S.WangY.KeX. Y.LiuS.NewtonS. M.LangfordP. R.et al. (2014). Anti-mycobacterial activities of synthetic cationic α-helical peptides and their synergism with rifampicin. Biomaterials35, 2032–2038. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.11.035
46
KimM.ParkJ. H.JeongH.HongJ.ChoiW. S.LeeB. H.et al. (2017). An evaluation of the in vivo safety of nonporous silica nanoparticles: ocular topical administration versus oral administration. Sci. Rep.7:8238. 10.1038/s41598-017-08843-9
47
KimS. E.ZhangL.MaK.RiegmanM.ChenF.IngoldI.et al. (2016). Ultrasmall nanoparticles induce ferroptosis in nutrient-deprived cancer cells and suppress tumour growth. Nat. Nanotechnol.11, 977–985. 10.1038/nnano.2016.164
48
KimY. H.LeeD. K.ChaH. G.KimC. W.KangY. C.KangY. S. (2006). Preparation and characterization of the antibacterial Cu nanoparticle formed on the surface of SiO2 nanoparticles. J. Phys. Chem. B, 110, 24923–24928. 10.1021/jp0656779
49
KooH.AllanR. N.HowlinR. P.StoodleyP.Hall-StoodleyL. (2017). Targeting microbial biofilms: current and prospective therapeutic strategies. Nat. Rev. Microbiol.15, 740–755. 10.1038/nrmicro.2017.99
50
KuthatiY.KankalaR. K.LinS. X.WengC. F.LeeC. H. (2015). pH-triggered controllable release of silver-indole-3 mesoporous Silica nanoparticles (IBN-4) for effectively killing malignant bacteria. Mol. Pharm.12, 2289–2304. 10.1021/mp500836w
51
KwonE. J.SkalakM.BertucciA.BraunG.RicciF.RuoslahtiE.et al. (2017). Porous silicon nanoparticle delivery of tandem peptide anti-infectives for the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa lung infections. Adv. Mater.29:201701527. 10.1002/adma.201701527
52
LeclercL.RimaW.BoudardD.PourchezJ.ForestV.BinV.et al. (2012). Size of submicrometric and nanometric particles affect cellular uptake and biological activity of macrophages in vitro. Inhal. Toxicol.24, 580–588. 10.3109/08958378.2012.699984
53
LeeJ. H.El-FiqiA.JoJ. K.KimD. A.KimS. C.JunS. K.et al. (2016). Development of long-term antimicrobial poly(methyl methacrylate) by incorporating mesoporous silica nanocarriers. Dent. Mater.32, 1564–1574. 10.1016/j.dental.2016.09.001
54
LetchmananK.ShenS.-C. C.NgW. K.KingshukP.ShiZ.WangW.et al. (2017). Mechanical properties and antibiotic release characteristics of poly(methyl methacrylate)-based bone cement formulated with mesoporous silica nanoparticles. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater.72, 163–170. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.05.003
55
LiJ.ShenS.KongF.JiangT.TangC.YinC. (2018). Effects of pore size on in vitro and in vivo anticancer efficacies of mesoporous silica nanoparticles. RSC Adv.8, 24633–24640. 10.1039/C8RA03914C
56
LiL.WangH. (2013). Enzyme-coated mesoporous silica nanoparticles as efficient antibacterial agents in vivo. Adv. Healthc. Mater.2, 1351–1360. 10.1002/adhm.201300051
57
LiZ.ClemensD. L.LeeB. Y.DillonB. J.HorwitzM. A.ZinkJ. I. (2015). Mesoporous silica nanoparticles with pH-sensitive nanovalves for delivery of moxifloxacin provide improved treatment of lethal pneumonic tularemia. ACS Nano9, 10778–10789. 10.1021/acsnano.5b04306
58
LiongM.FranceB.BradleyK. A.ZinkJ. I. (2009). Antimicrobial activity of silver nanocrystals encapsulated in mesoporous silica nanoparticles. Adv. Mater.21, 1684–1689. 10.1002/adma.200802646
59
LiuJ.LuoZ.ZhangJ.LuoT.ZhouJ.ZhaoX.et al. (2016). Hollow mesoporous silica nanoparticles facilitated drug delivery via cascade pH stimuli in tumor microenvironment for tumor therapy. Biomaterials83, 51–65. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.01.008
60
LiuT.LiL.TengX.HuangX.LiuH.ChenD.et al. (2011). Single and repeated dose toxicity of mesoporous hollow silica nanoparticles in intravenously exposed mice. Biomaterials32, 1657–1668. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.10.035
61
López-QuintelaM. A. (2003). Synthesis of nanomaterials in microemulsions: Formation mechanisms and growth control. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 8, 137–144. 10.1016/S1359-0294(03)00019-0
62
LuM.GeY.QiuJ.ShaoD.ZhangY.BaiJ.et al. (2018). Redox/pH dual-controlled release of chlorhexidine and silver ions from biodegradable mesoporous silica nanoparticles against oral biofilms. Int. J. Nanomed.13, 7697–7709. 10.2147/IJN.S181168
63
LuoG. F.ChenW. H.LiuY.LeiQ.ZhuoR. X.ZhangX. Z. (2014). Multifunctional enveloped mesoporous silica nanoparticles for subcellular co-delivery of drug and therapeutic peptide. Sci. Rep.4:6064. 10.1038/srep06064
64
MakarovskyI.BoguslavskyY.AleskerM.LelloucheJ.BaninE.LelloucheJ. P. (2011). Novel triclosan-bound hybrid-silica nanoparticles and their enhanced antimicrobial properties. Adv. Funct. Mater.21, 4295–4304. 10.1002/adfm.201101557
65
ManiprasadP.SantraS. (2012). Novel copper (Cu) loaded core-shell silica nanoparticles with improved Cu bioavailability: synthesis, characterization and study of antibacterial properties. J. Biomed. Nanotechnol.8, 558–566. 10.1166/jbn.2012.1423
66
Martínez-CarmonaM.Gun'koY. K.Vallet-RegíM. (2018). Mesoporous silica materials as drug delivery: “the nightmare” of bacterial infection. Pharmaceutics.10:279. 10.3390/pharmaceutics10040279
67
MerlinoJ. (2017). Antimicrobial resistance a threat to public health. Microbiol. Aust.38, 15–167. 10.1071/MA17059
68
MohammadpourR.YazdimamaghaniM.CheneyD. L.JedrzkiewiczJ.GhandehariH. (2019). Subchronic toxicity of silica nanoparticles as a function of size and porosity. J Controlled Release304, 216–232. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2019.04.041
69
MöllerK.BeinT. (2019). Degradable drug carriers: vanishing mesoporous silica nanoparticles. Chem. Mater.31, 4364–4378. 10.1021/acs.chemmater.9b00221
70
MoonD. S.LeeJ. K. (2012). Tunable synthesis of hierarchical mesoporous silica nanoparticles with radial wrinkle structure. Langmuir28, 12341–12347. 10.1021/la302145j
71
NadrahP.PortaF.PlaninšekO.KrosA.GaberščekM. (2013). Poly(propylene imine) dendrimer caps on mesoporous silica nanoparticles for redox-responsive release: smaller is better. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.15:10740. 10.1039/c3cp44614j
72
O'NeillJ. (2016). Tackling Drug-Resistant Infections Globally: Final Report and Recommendations.London: Review on Antimicrobial Resistance, 1–84.
73
OwH.LarsonD. R.SrivastavaM.BairdB. A.WebbW. W.WiesnertU. (2005). Bright and stable core-shell fluorescent silica nanoparticles. Nano Lett.5, 113–117. 10.1021/nl0482478
74
ParamananthamP.AntonyA. P.Sruthil LalS. B.SharanA.SiddhardhaB.KasinathanK.et al. (2019a). Antimicrobial photodynamic activity of toluidine blue encapsulated in mesoporous silica nanoparticles against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. Biofouling35, 89–103. 10.1080/08927014.2019.1570501
75
ParamananthamP.SiddhardhaB.LalS. B. S.SharanA.AlyousefA. A.Al DosaryM. S.et al. (2019b). Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy on Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli using malachite green encapsulated mesoporous silica nanoparticles: an in vitro study. PeerJ2019:e7454. 10.7717/peerj.7454
76
PedrazaD.DíezJ.Isabel-Izquierdo-Barba C.olillaM.Vallet-RegíM. (2018). Amine-functionalized mesoporous silica nanoparticles: a new nanoantibiotic for bone infection treatment. Biomed. Glasses4, 1–12. 10.1515/bglass-2018-0001
77
QiG.LiL.YuF.WangH. (2013). Vancomycin-modified mesoporous silica nanoparticles for selective recognition and killing of pathogenic Gram-positive bacteria over macrophage-like cells. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces5, 10874–10881. 10.1021/am403940d
78
RaoK. S.El-HamiK.KodakiT.MatsushigeK.MakinoK. (2005). A novel method for synthesis of silica nanoparticles. J. Colloid Interface Sci.289, 125–131. 10.1016/j.jcis.2005.02.019
79
RyuH. J.SeongN.-W.SoB. J.SeoH.-S.KimJ.-H.HongJ.-S.et al. (2014). Evaluation of silica nanoparticle toxicity after topical exposure for 90 days. Int. J. Nanomed.9(Suppl. 2), 127–136. 10.2147/IJN.S57929
80
SahooB.DeviK. S. P.SahuS. K.NayakS.MaitiT. K.DharaD.et al. (2013). Facile preparation of multifunctional hollow silica nanoparticles and their cancer specific targeting effect. Biomater. Sci.1, 647–657. 10.1039/c3bm00007a
81
SchairerD. O.ChouakeJ. S.NosanchukJ. D.FriedmanA. J. (2012). The potential of nitric oxide releasing therapies as antimicrobial agents. Virulence3, 271–279. 10.4161/viru.20328
82
ShiJ.HouS.HuangJ.WangS.HuanW.HuangC.et al. (2017). An MSN-PEG-IP drug delivery system and IL13Rα2 as targeted therapy for glioma. Nanoscale9, 8970–8981. 10.1039/C6NR08786H
83
ShiY.HélaryC.HayeB.CoradinT. (2018). Extracellular versus intracellular degradation of nanostructured silica particles. Langmuir34, 406–415. 10.1021/acs.langmuir.7b03980
84
SourisJ. S.LeeC. H.ChengS. H.ChenC. T.YangC. S.HoJ.et al. (2010). Surface charge-mediated rapid hepatobiliary excretion of mesoporous silica nanoparticles. Biomaterials31, 5564–5574. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.03.048
85
StermanS.MarsdenJ. G. (1966). “Silane coupling agents,” in Reinforced Plastics Symposium (Industrial & Engineering Chemistry), 33–37. 10.1021/ie50675a010
86
StewartC. A.FinerY.HattonB. D. (2018). Drug self-assembly for synthesis of highly-loaded antimicrobial drug-silica particles. Sci. Rep.8:895. 10.1038/s41598-018-19166-8
87
StöberW.FinkA.BohnE. (1968). Controlled growth of monodisperse silica spheres in the micron size range. J. Colloid Interface Sci.26, 62–69. 10.1016/0021-9797(68)90272-5
88
SunJ.FanY.ZhangP.ZhangX.ZhouQ.ZhaoJ.et al. (2020). Self-enriched mesoporous silica nanoparticle composite membrane with remarkable photodynamic antimicrobial performances. J. Colloid Interface Sci.559, 197–205. 10.1016/j.jcis.2019.10.021
89
SunX.LuoY.HuangL.YuB.-Y.TianJ. (2017). A peptide-decorated and curcumin-loaded mesoporous silica nanomedicine for effectively overcoming multidrug resistance in cancer cells. RSC Adv.7, 16401–16409. 10.1039/C7RA01128H
90
TenlandE.PochertA.KrishnanN.RaoK. U.KalsumS.BraunK.et al. (2019). Effective delivery of the anti-mycobacterial peptide NZX in mesoporous silica nanoparticles. PLoS ONE14:e0212858. 10.1371/journal.pone.0212858
91
TheuretzbacherU.van BambekeF. V.CantónR.GiskeC. G.MoutonJ. W.NationR. L.et al. (2015). Reviving old antibiotics. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.70, 2177–2181. 10.1093/jac/dkv157
92
Vallet-Reg,íM.GonzálezB.Izquierdo-BarbaI. (2019). Nanomaterials as promising alternative in the infection treatment. Int. J. Mol. Sci.20:3806. 10.3390/ijms20153806
93
WangJ.WuG.LiuX.SunG.LiD.WeiH. (2017). A decomposable silica-based antibacterial coating for percutaneous titanium implant. Int. J. Nanomed.12, 371–379. 10.2147/IJN.S123622
94
World Health Organization (2015). WHO | Antimicrobial Resistance. WHO. Available online at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs194/en/
95
World Health Organization (2017a). Antibacterial Agents in Clinical Development: Analysis of the Clinical Development Pipeline Against Priority Pathogens and Mycobacterium tuberculosis.Geneva: World Health Organization.
96
World Health Organization (2017b). Global Tuberculosis Report 2017: Leave no One Behind - Unite to End TB.WHO. Technical Report Series. 727.
97
WuS.-H.MouC.-Y.LinH.-P. (2013). Synthesis of mesoporous silica nanoparticles. Chem. Soc. Rev.42:3862. 10.1039/c3cs35405a
98
XiaX.PetheK.KimR.BallellL.BarrosD.CechettoJ.et al. (2014). Encapsulation of anti-tuberculosis drugs within mesoporous silica and intracellular antibacterial activities. Nanomaterials4, 813–826. 10.3390/nano4030813
99
XiongL.BiJ.TangY.QiaoS. Z. (2016). Magnetic core-shell silica nanoparticles with large radial mesopores for siRNA delivery. Small12, 4735–4742. 10.1002/smll.201600531
100
YanF.JiangJ.ChenX.TianS.LiK. (2014). Synthesis and characterization of silica nanoparticles preparing by low-temperature vapor-phase hydrolysis of SiCl4. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.53, 11884–11890. 10.1021/ie501759w
101
YuE.GalianaI.Martínez-MáñezR.StroeveP.MarcosM. D.AznarE.et al. (2015). Poly(N-isopropylacrylamide)-gated Fe3O4/SiO2 core shell nanoparticles with expanded mesoporous structures for the temperature triggered release of lysozyme. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces135, 652–660. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2015.06.048
102
ZhangK.XuL. L.JiangJ. G.CalinN.LamK. F.ZhangS. J.et al. (2013). Facile large-scale synthesis of monodisperse mesoporous silica nanospheres with tunable pore structure. J. Am. Chem. Soc.135, 2427–2430. 10.1021/ja3116873
103
ZhaoQ.LiuJ.ZhuW.SunC.DiD.ZhangY.et al. (2015). Dual-stimuli responsive hyaluronic acid-conjugated mesoporous silica for targeted delivery to CD44-overexpressing cancer cells. Acta Biomater.23, 147–156. 10.1016/j.actbio.2015.05.010
104
ZhaoY.SunX.ZhangG.TrewynB. G.SlowingI. I.LinV. S.-Y. (2011). Interaction of mesoporous silica nanoparticles with human red blood cell membranes: size and surface effects. ACS Nano5, 1366–1375. 10.1021/nn103077k
105
ZhaoY.WangY.RanF.CuiY.LiuC.ZhaoQ.et al. (2017). A comparison between sphere and rod nanoparticles regarding their in vivo biological behavior and pharmacokinetics. Sci. Rep.7:4131. 10.1038/s41598-017-03834-2
106
ZhuM.WangH.LiuJ.HeH.HuaX.HeQ.et al. (2011). A mesoporous silica nanoparticulate/β-TCP/BG composite drug delivery system for osteoarticular tuberculosis therapy. Biomaterials32, 1986–1995. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.11.025
107
ZouZ.HeD.HeX.WangK.YangX.QingZ.et al. (2013). Natural gelatin capped mesoporous silica nanoparticles for intracellular acid-triggered drug delivery. Langmuir29, 12804–12810. 10.1021/la4022646
108
ZulfiqarU.SubhaniT.HusainS. W. (2016a). Synthesis and characterization of silica nanoparticles from clay. J. Asian Ceramic Soc.4, 91–96. 10.1016/j.jascer.2015.12.001
109
ZulfiqarU.SubhaniT.HusainS. W. (2016b). Synthesis of silica nanoparticles from sodium silicate under alkaline conditions. J. Sol Gel Sci. Technol.77, 753–758. 10.1007/s10971-015-3950-7
Summary
Keywords
silica nanoparticles, mesoporous silica nanoparticles, antimicrobial, infectious diseases, antibiotic resistance, targeted delivery
Citation
Selvarajan V, Obuobi S and Ee PLR (2020) Silica Nanoparticles—A Versatile Tool for the Treatment of Bacterial Infections. Front. Chem. 8:602. doi: 10.3389/fchem.2020.00602
Received
15 January 2020
Accepted
09 June 2020
Published
15 July 2020
Volume
8 - 2020
Edited by
Mukul Ashtikar, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Belgium
Reviewed by
Mangal Shailesh Nagarsenker, Bombay College of Pharmacy, India; Hae-Won Kim, Institute of Tissue Regeneration Engineering (ITREN), South Korea
Updates

Check for updates
Copyright
© 2020 Selvarajan, Obuobi and Ee.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Pui Lai Rachel Ee phaeplr@nus.edu.sg
This article was submitted to Nanoscience, a section of the journal Frontiers in Chemistry
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.