No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 22, 2026.

Nanotechnology as a Promising Approach to Combat Multidrug Resistant Bacteria: A Comprehensive Review and Future Perspectives

Helal F. Hetta, Yasmin N. Ramadan, Alhanouf I. Al-Harbi and 5 more

Biomedicines · 2023 · Review · CC BY

doi:10.3390/biomedicines11020413

Abstract

The wide spread of antibiotic resistance has been alarming in recent years and poses a serious global hazard to public health as it leads to millions of deaths all over the world. The wide spread of resistance and sharing resistance genes between different types of bacteria led to emergence of multidrug resistant (MDR) microorganisms. This problem is exacerbated when microorganisms create biofilms, which can boost bacterial resistance by up to 1000-fold and increase the emergence of MDR infections. The absence of novel and potent antimicrobial compounds is linked to the rise of multidrug resistance. This has sparked international efforts to develop new and improved antimicrobial agents as well as innovative and efficient techniques for antibiotic administration and targeting. There is an evolution in nanotechnology in recent years in treatment and prevention of the biofilm formation and MDR infection. The development of nanomaterial-based therapeutics, which could overcome current pathways linked to acquired drug resistance, is a hopeful strategy for treating difficult-to-treat bacterial infections. Additionally, nanoparticles’ distinct size and physical characteristics enable them to target biofilms and treat resistant pathogens. This review highlights the current advances in nanotechnology to combat MDR and biofilm infection. In addition, it provides insight on development and mechanisms of antibiotic resistance, spread of MDR and XDR infection, and development of nanoparticles and mechanisms of their antibacterial activity. Moreover, this review considers the difference between free antibiotics and nanoantibiotics, and the synergistic effect of nanoantibiotics to combat planktonic bacteria, intracellular bacteria and biofilm. Finally, we will discuss the strength and limitations of the application of nanotechnology against bacterial infection and future perspectives.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 22, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

1. Introduction

1Antimicrobial resistance poses a serious threat to global public health, causing at least 1.27 million deaths globally and approximately 5 million fatalities in 2019. Each year, more than 2.8 million illnesses in the US are resistant to antibiotics. More than 35,000 people die as a result, according to CDC’s 2019 Antibiotic Resistance (AR) Threats Report.

2Antimicrobial resistance may have an impact on individuals at every stage of life, as well as on the medical, veterinary, and agricultural sectors. This makes it one of the most important public health issues in the entire world.

3Rapid development of Ab resistance in microorganisms is directly related to overconsumption of Abs, their broad utilization in agriculture and the non-availability of novel antibiotics. Due to the fact that repeated drug administration and greater doses are common nowadays, Antibiotic resistance has emerged against various types of antibiotics commonly used against harmful bacteria. Development of Antibiotic resistance has a severe impact on the efficacy of antimicrobial medication and is linked to high fatality rates and high medical costs.

4To be hazardous, bacteria do not necessarily need to be resistant to all antibiotics. Serious issues can result from resistance to even a single antibiotic. For example, second- and third-line treatments for antibiotic-resistant infections can harm patients by resulting in severe adverse effects, such as organ failure, and delaying treatment and recovery for weeks or even months. If antibiotics and antifungals become ineffective, we will be unable to treat infections and manage these public health problems.

5To overcome this serious problem, nanotechnology and nanoparticles were developed in recent years to reduce and combat bacterial resistance, multidrug resistance (MDR) and even bacterial biofilm. Nanoparticles are engineered structures with sizes ranging from 1 to 100 nm (nm). Nanomaterials are used in a variety of medical applications, ranging from medical equipment to therapeutic agents, drug delivery systems, and diagnostic imaging systems.

6Nanotechnology-based delivery systems are increasingly being evaluated as viable options for improving therapeutic efficacy by limiting drug degradation, increasing accumulation at infection sites, and reducing toxicity. The NPs provide the most effective method of addressing MDR bacteria since they not only act as transporters for natural antibiotics and antimicrobials, but also actively combat bacteria. Moreover, loaded NPs have the capacity to safely and effectively transport a wide variety of treatments to the site of infection when they are bonded to their surface or enclosed within a structure.

7Nanoparticles can act as inherent therapies (e.g., titanium dioxide (TiO2), zinc oxide (Zn O) NPs, copper (Cu) NPs, nickel (Ni) NPs), selenium (Se) NPs, silver (Ag) NPs) or as nano-carriers for antimicrobial agents “Nanobiotics” (e.g., liposomes, polymeric NPs, and dendrimers).

8Due to the ability of the NPs to carry medications to the target location in the ideal dosage range, protect them against deactivation, and boost their therapeutic effectiveness with fewer adverse effects, nanoparticles are considered a targeted therapy approach.

9The nano-formulations’ small size, large surface area, and highly reactive nature allow them to penetrate biological barriers such as biofilm and have a high selectivity for bacterial cells. The increased surface area of NPs makes it easier to load medications while the NPs sizes are tiny enough to penetrate biofilms and microbial cell walls. Additionally, NPs are quickly excreted through the kidney and have extended plasma half-lives.

10Typically, the synthesis procedures and formulation conditions of nanoparticles, such as the type of reducing agent, temperature, concentration, and solvent, typically determine their antibacterial or biological properties.The behavior and activity of nanoparticle are significantly determined by chemical composition, shape, size and size distribution. The antimicrobial properties of nanoparticles are also influenced by a number of factors, including temperature, pH, metal ion concentration, cell age, and reaction time.

11Organic nanoparticles (e.g., liposomes, polymeric nanoparticles, micelles, ferritin) and inorganic nanoparticles (e.g., metal nanoparticles) have both been used to treat a variety of medical diseases. Drug transport efficiency, bioavailability, and antibacterial activity have all been improved with the use of organic nanoparticles. They have showed promise against viral infections, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and have also been used to treat fungal infection.

12The present variety of nanoparticulate antibacterial systems consists of liposomes, micelles, solid lipid nanoparticles, carriers nanogels, nanocapsules, nanotubes, dendrimers, emulsions, nanostructured lipid, quantum dots and polymeric NPs. They are slow-release nanoscale drug delivery systems that deliver drugs to targeted cells.

13The most promising ones seem to be the metallic NPs. Several multi-drug resistant microorganisms are responsive to a variety of their activities. Among all the nanoparticles, AgNps is the most studied and utilized.It is crucial to characterize metal NPs to understand their toxicity and mode of action. A variety of methods including UV–visible spectroscopy, single-particle inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, X-ray diffraction analysis, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), atomic force microscopy, Zeta potential measurement, dynamic light scattering and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy analysis can be used for this purpose.

14In this review, we will discuss the ways in which the bacteria develop resistance to conventional antibiotics, serious widespread of MDR and XDR bacteria. Moreover, we will discuss NPs as a trend approach to combat MDR organisms, their types and formulation and expected mechanism of action. Additionally, we will explain synergetic effect of NPs loaded with conventional antibiotics and the way this affects targeting of antibiotic and potentiate bacterial cell lysis as shown in Figure 1.

2. Development of Antibiotic Resistance

15Bacteria are living entities that change over time. Their major goal is to multiply, endure, and spread as quickly as they can. Microbes, as a result, adapt to their environment and develop in ways that ensure their survival. If anything, such as an antibiotic, inhibits their ability to develop, genetic changes may occur, rendering the bacteria resistant to the medicine and enabling them to survive.

16Antibiotics can be rendered inactive by bacteria via a variety of molecular mechanisms (Figure 2).

17Production of inactivating enzymes: The bacterium produces particular enzymes that precisely inactivate the antibiotic, causing it to lose its biological function. For instance, when β-lactam drugs are digested by β-lactamases, this occurs. Extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs), which have the same inactivating activity, are produced by some bacteria, making them challenging to eradicate. The enzymes acetyltransferase, phosphotransferase, and adenyl transferase are additional ones that can render certain antibiotics inactive.

18Changes and alterations in the antibiotic target: In the case of erythromycin resistance, for instance, methylation of an adenine residue in the peptidyl-transferase of r-RNA 23S reduces the enzyme’s affinity for the antibiotic without impairing protein synthesis. The alteration of penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs) by MRSA is another significant instance.

19Decrease in antibiotic uptake: Changes in the structural architecture of the cell’s surface casings can reduce the entry of an antibiotic. For example, a change or reduction in the quantity of porins or porin gene mutation may be the cause of the resistance in Gram-negative bacteria.

20Extrusion of drug outside the cell: Energy-driven drug efflux systems eliminate antibiotics that have been taken up by bacterium cells. Many times, bacterial cells that are resistant to antibiotics have upregulated efflux pumps.

21Activation of alternative metabolic pathways: The sulfonamides case serves as an explanation. In fact, bacteria exposed to sulfonamides are still able to produce folic acid through a different metabolic pathway.

22Transferring of resistance genes: As a result of bacterial communication and genetic information sharing, resistance genes propagate among bacterial populations.

23Inactive metabolic state of microorganism: The metabolically inert bacterial subpopulations known as persister cells have a lower antibacterial susceptibility than active ones.

24Extracellular polymeric substances (biofilm) formation: Due to electrostatic repulsion, some antibiotics, such aminoglycosides, are unable to penetrate the protective extracellular polymeric components of bacterial biofilms.

3. Spread of MDR and XDR Bacteria

25Once a species gains resistance to an antibiotic, it eventually overcomes the combined drug effects, leading to development of multidrug-resistant (MDR) organisms which are resistant to antimicrobial drugs or combination treatments. By encouraging bacterial growth that was not immediately eliminated, this scenario occasionally encourages the spread of resistance.

26Increased antibiotic resistance is among the world’s top three public health issues of the 21st century, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The much more harmful bacteria, collectively known as ESKAPE (Enterococcus, Staphylococcus, Klebsiella, Actinobacter, Pseudomonas, and Enterobacter), are those that cause the most concern. They are all are connected to a high death rate. The spread of MDR and extensively drug-resistant (XDR) bacteria continues to represent a severe threat to human and animal health due to their high mortality, morbidity, and prices of medication to combat them. This is made worse by a number of bacterial strains’ capacity to form biofilms, which is linked to 65–80% of human illnesses. Antibiotic susceptibility of biofilm cells is typically 100–1000 times lower than that of planktonic cells. Drug resistance in biofilms is caused by various factors, including decreased drug absorption throughout the extracellular polymeric matrix, decreased intracellular drug level, decreased bacterial metabolism, and transferring resistant genes. MDR causes blockage in the fight against disease and decreases treatment effectiveness, which causes the patient’s infection to last longer than expected. Immunocompromised patients such as those with chronic diseases, receiving cancer chemotherapy, immunosuppressive drugs or undergo organ transplantation are more vulnerable to MDR infection. Additionally, the treatment cost has also increased as a result of MDR since microorganisms have developed resistant to commercially accessible Abs, necessitating the adoption of a more expensive one (Figure 3). The potential for MDR to spread over the world is boosted by the expansion of international trade and travel.

27According to reports, multidrug-resistant bacteria are responsible for at least 700,000 deaths annually across the globe, including 23,000 deaths in the US and 25,000 deaths in the EU. According to reports from the WHO, misuse and overuse of antibiotics account for approximately 80% of MDR or XDR bacteria, and these infections are linked to serious negative effects. It is also predicted that if no action is taken to combat bacterial resistance or create new medicines, 10 million individuals will die globally from bacterial diseases by the year 2050. As MDR pathogens and other resistant organisms proliferate, there are currently few therapeutic and preventative options available. The lack of success with conventional antibiotics forces the quest for more effective treatments. Most bacterial infections can be successfully treated using nanoparticles, particularly those caused by MDR pathogens. Antibiotics and nanoparticles can be employed separately or in combination to produce strong synergistic effects.

4.1. Organic NPs

28Organic NPs have been extensively studied over the recent years and contain a variety of types. The first nano-scale medication licensed for medical use is called a liposome. Liposomes are biocompatible, biodegradable, and nontoxic vesicles. They consist of one or more outer lipid layers and core holding hydrophilic or hydrophobic medication.

29Liposomal Np core has high drug loading capacity, and so, by encapsulating hydrophilic antimicrobial drugs in liposomal NP core, it is possible to protect them from degradation in vivo. Bassetti M et al. studied the effect of aerosolized liposomal antimicrobials (ciprofloxacin, tobramycin, amphotericin B and amikacin) and their curative significant effect to prevent and treat acute and chronic respiratory tract infection.

30Another type of organic NPs is polymer-based, which has unique structural arrangements for drug delivery created by numerous monomers. Polymeric NPs include polylactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA), which is formed through co-polymerization of lactic and glycolic acid; dendrimers, which are characterized with a 3D branching architecture; and micelles, which are distinguished by polymer self-assembly into nano-aggregates.

4.2. Inorganic NPs

31Inorganic NPs may be categorized into metal nanoparticles and nanoparticles made of metal oxide. They are characterized with their own antibacterial activities. Due to their unique antibacterial activities, they may be used alone or loaded with antibiotic and exert dual mechanisms (Figure 4).

32Metal NPs my include Ag, Au, Cu, Si, Ni, and Se, and metal oxide may include ZnO, TiO2, CuO, MgO and SiO2.

33Organic NPs have advantage over inorganic type as they have higher surface area to volume ratio. Unfortunately, they have poorer biodegradability and biocompatibility.

34Inorganic NPs may have some sort of cytotoxicity and this effect depends on their size and charge. This cytotoxicity is dose-related.

35Carbon nanotubes are tubes made of carbon with diameters typically measured in nanometers, characterized by a vast promise in the drug delivery area due to its distinct biological, physical, and chemical properties.

36Mesoporous nanoparticle carriers, which are subtypes from silica NPs, have high surface area, strong framework, and are porous. This porous nature creates high content of internal pores and so is loaded with maximum number of antimicrobials.

4.3. Hybrid NPs

37Hybrid NPs are formed from combination of organic and inorganic NPs in a single composite drug delivery system. Therefore, this composite system improves biological features and increases treatment efficacy and decreases toxicity and resistance.

38Lipid polymer hybrid NPs are constructed from polymeric core and outer lipid sheath. It has been established and proved that these hybrid NPs are an effective drug delivery system. These hybrid NPs combine the advantages of both lipids and polymers; therefore, they are characterized with biocompatibility, structural rigidity, and sustained drug release. This type can also be loaded with both hydrophilic and hydrophobic drugs and achieve perfect drug targeting and release.

39In recent study, it was shown that the hybridization may include polymer gold (AuNP). In the study, He X et al. examine the effect of polyhexamethylene biguanide polymer hybridized with AuNP and prove a promising synergistic activity of this drug delivery system to propagate wound healing infected with S. aureus.

40Moreover, magnetic carboxymethyl cellulose-ε-poly-lysine hybrids were synthesized and used as matrix to anchor Ag NPs. This hybrid Ag NP complex shows promising antibacterial activity against S. aureus and E. coli and shows synergistic antibacterial activity for wound infection treatment.

5. Free Antibiotic VS Nanoantibiotic

41Antibiotics are a substance that reduces the growth of germs, combats some diseases, and saves lives when administered properly. They are the basic pharmacological options for treating biofilm and planktonic infections.

42Nonoantibiotic (nAbts) are pure antibiotic molecules that have been synthetically grown to an average diameter of ≤100 nm minimally at one dimension, or engineered NPs that encapsulate the antibiotic molecules.

43Antibiotics frequently result in the death of bacteria by disrupting the proton driving force throughout the cell membrane, lowering the microbe ability to produce or store energy, blocking protein production, rupturing the structural components of the cell wall, etc..

44Multifunctional “intelligent” antimicrobials contained in NPs react to stimuli to interact with the surfaces of bacterial cell walls and membranes, improving entry through membranes and drug distribution to target sites. nAbts further have a target-specific, controlled release which can be administered in a single dose, unlike the majority of traditional antibiotics that require many doses in a systematic release.

45In comparison to “free” antibiotics, the dosage of antibiotics administered via nanoparticle-based delivery systems has additional benefits, including decreased amount and frequency of the dose, sustained drug release that boosts drug efficiency, and targeted drug delivery to a specific site within bacterial cell.

46When compared to molecular materials, NPs have a high surface-to-volume ratio and a unique surface area; as a result, these nanoscale particles have an extraordinary large contact area.

47When antibiotics are combined with NPs, the antibiotic is transported to the desired locations and the NPs simultaneously activate a variety of antibacterial defenses. Therefore, NPs provide more functionalities compared to the effects of one medicine or the combination of various therapies for treating MDR strains.

48Taking β-lactam antibiotics and β-lactam nAbts as an example, β-lactam antibiotics destroy microorganisms via numerous approaches, including (a) inhibiting the transpeptidase enzyme responsible for cross linkage of peptidoglycan in bacterial cell wall from functioning, (b) blocking the penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs), the enzymes responsible for synthesis of peptidoglycan in bacterial cell wall, and (c) destroying Ftsl (PBP3), an important protein complex required by living microorganisms.

49The production of ROS by nAbts has been linked to DNA deterioration, protein denaturation, membrane malfunction, and deterioration of membrane stability.

50The NPs linked to antibiotics can physically damage cellular structures by dissolving and liberating metal ions, resulting in biomechanical damage. Furthermore, signal transmission inhibits ATPase activity and ribosomal subunit binding to tRNA; modifying metabolic activities include protein regulation, metabolism of lipids, carbs, and energy, as well as prevention of bacterial growth, leading to cell death. The interaction of nanosized antibiotics with intracellular component of bacteria is critical in applications such as antimicrobial transportation, drug transporters, cell membrane infiltration to specific locations, and interruption of protein synthesis. As a result, nAbts are seen as a possible alternative to current antimicrobial resistance and treatment methods in clinical infections.

6. Mechanisms of Action of Nanoparticles (NPs)

51It is challenging to pinpoint the specific mechanisms of action of NPs because the action is multifactorial in nature.

52To battle bacteria, nanomaterial can use a variety of bactericidal methods, such as the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), destruction of cell walls and membranes, the distribution of medicines via membrane fusion, and interacting with intracellular elements (e.g., DNA and ribosomes) (Figure 4). It is noted that nanomaterials’ special physico-chemical characteristics, particularly their chelation with bacterial cells, are determined through Van der Waals forces, receptor–ligand interactions, hydrophobic interactions, and electrostatic attractions.

6.1. Destruction of Cell Wall and Cell Membrane

53The cell membrane of microorganisms has developed to act as a physical barrier to antimicrobials. Teichoic acids, which are found in Gram-positive bacteria’s cell walls, and lipopolysaccharide, which is present in Gram-negative bacteria’s outer membrane, both include phosphate or carboxyl groups that make the surfaces of the bacteria negatively charged. This intensely polar environment hinders hydrophobic antimicrobials’ ability to penetrate membranes, impairing their ability to combat microorganisms.

54Through electrostatic adsorption to the cell wall, membrane depolarization, decrease in membrane permeability, and loss of membrane fluidity occur, resulting in disruption of energy transmission and cell death.

55Besides that, a buildup of NPs causes “pits” to form in the bacterial cell wall. As a result, they can enter cells, altering their cell membranes and resulting in structural damage and cell death. By interacting with the bacterial surfaces’ negative charges (through carboxyl or phosphate groups), positively charged ions produced by NPs have a greater bactericidal effect. However, because Gram-positive bacteria have a thick coat of peptidoglycan, it is more difficult for nanoparticles (NPs) to enter the bacteria. As a result, NPs only interact with the bacterial surface.

6.2. Production of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS)

56ROS are byproduct results from oxidative metabolism. They influence cell development, signaling, survival, and death. In addition, they have strong positive redox potential.

57ROS include hydroxyl radicals (˙OH), superoxide radicals (O2−), singlet oxygen (O2), and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). Different NPs generate various mixtures of ROS, which have different antibacterial characteristics. For instance, MgO NPs and ZnO NPs only produce the (O2−) radicals and a mixture of (H2O2) and the (˙OH) radicals, respectively, while Ag and Cu NPs generate all forms of ROS.

58ROS are brought on by NPs or by disruption of the respiratory chain. Usually, they are kept in low level by scavengers’ molecules as reduced glutathione.

59In a typical environment, ROS generation and removal are proportional. However, under extreme stress, there is too much ROS generation, which leads to alteration in the cell membrane fluidity and results in bacterial damage. Along with oxidative stress, ROS can disrupt macromolecules in the cell, resulting in lipid peroxidation, protein modification, enzyme inhibition, inhibition of electron transport chain and RNA or DNA damage (Figure 2).

60It was reported that significant antimicrobial effects caused by production of ROS can be observed in the case of Ag, Cu, ZnO, TiO2, and iron NPs.

6.3. Binding to and Damaging Intracellular Component

61Bacteria’s ability to function and survive depends on their cellular homoeostasis and intracellular signaling pathways. Cell death can result from the engineering of nanomaterials to obstruct these pathways. Changes in protein synthesis, DNA damage, and altered gene expression are some of these disruptions. As an illustration, to create pyrimidine-capped AuNPs, 4,6-diamino-2-pyrimidinethiol (DAPT), an analogue of 2-pyrimidinethiol (found in E. coli), was added to AuNPs (Au-DAPT). MDR strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and E. coli were prevented from growing by these nanoparticles.

6.4. Destruction of Biofilm Architecture

62NPs can destruct biofilm due to their high penetration power. They penetrate dense layers of biofilm (extracellular polysaccharide matrix), and once they evade biofilm, they interact with bacteria and exert bactericidal effect. Charge in NPs is greatly affecting the interaction and penetration of biofilm. For instance, positively charged or cationic NPs are firmly interacting with anionic matrix.

7. Synergistic Activity of Nanoantibiotics

63When nanoparticles are coated or coupled with other substances, their activity can be significantly improved (Figure 5). In fact, utilizing nanoparticles in conjunction with antibiotics can help to decrease bacterial resistance. Antibiotics may be incorporated in nanoparticles or bonded to their surfaces, protecting Abs from chemicals and enzymes that would break them down. This protection may improve a drug’s therapeutic effectiveness. lowering dosage is required to improve treatment outcomes and reduce host hazard.

64The use of nanocarriers can reduce resistance selection by delivering treatments that stimulate numerous modes of action and by targeting cargo release, preventing bacteria from being exposed to sub-minimal inhibitory doses of the drug; In addition, when they serve as antibiotic carriers, penetration of bacterial cell walls becomes easier. The antibiotic then causes damage to the cell wall, allowing the nanoparticles and their complex to enter the body more easily.

65In previous studies, when amoxicillin was coupled with AgNps, a noticeable drop in bacterial growth was observed, AgNps-ampicillin complex displays more antibacterial action than a single amoxicillin dose against S. aureus, E. coli, and K. mobilis, Enhanced antimicrobial action against P. aeruginosa was seen in vitro and in vivo when the gentamicin was loaded into poly(lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) nanoparticles. When ampicillin was bonded to the interface of AuNPs and AgNPs, broad-spectrum bactericidal agents were created that bypass the resistance pathways of MDR strains of P. aeruginosa, Enterobacter aerogenes, and MRSA. Increasing colistin activity against colistin-resistant E. coli by combining it with alginate nanoparticles and small molecules such as components of essential Oils, polyamines, lactic Acid, bimetallic nanoparticles (gold/silver), and core shell linezolid (Au@Ag@Lz) complexes shows good bactericidal action against all investigated pathogens, including MRSA.

7.1. Effect on Planktonic Bacteria

66Planktonic bacteria are free-living bacteria. Serious infectious conditions such as sepsis and keratitis are frequently caused by planktonic bacteria. The most serious group of planktonic bacteria are collectively called ESKAPE pathogens (Enterococcus, Staphylococcus, Klebsiella, Actinobacter, Pseudomonas, and Enterobacter), and they account for the majority of hospital-acquired infections, complicating the conditions of patients who are often immunocompromised.

67Because these microorganisms produce resistance quickly even to the latest antibiotics, there are few treatment options for infections caused by them.

68Because little to no resistance development is shown with nanomaterial-based techniques, nanoparticles can save therapeutic design in this regard.

69Protein is the primary driver of bacterial life processes and is found in essential bacterial cell components such as cell walls, cell membranes, ribosomes, nucleic acid, etc. As a result, any of the above components can be destroyed and cause bacterial death.

70The effectiveness of nanomaterials against the ESKAPE pathogens has been the subject of numerous studies: through disrupting cell membrane, interfering with protein, or by targeting nucleic acid.

7.2. Effect on Intracellular Bacteria

71Bacteria can live inside of mammalian cells, resulting in recurrent systemic infections. For instance, Salmonella enterica is a classic facultative intracellular organism that annually causes potentially fatal food-borne infections in millions of people. Salmonella species have the ability to live and multiply within host cells, including macrophages. Because many antibiotics are unable to cross the membranes of mammals and can actively be transported outside by the host cell, intracellular localization of bacteria makes treatment more challenging. Owing to nanomaterials’ capacity to enter eukaryotic cells and their high drug loading capacity, they can help to overcome this obstacle.

72Another example of an intracellular microorganism which persists inside macrophages is Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTb) and Mycobacterium avium. The efficacy of nanoparticles against intracellular MTb species has been shown in multiple studies on topics such as the following: (a) biodegradable multimetallic microparticles including Ag NPs and ZnO NPs were created for pulmonary medication delivery to the endosomal pathway of MTb-infected macrophages; (b) ZnONPs and the mixture MgONPs-ZnONPs have higher bactericide behavior and might have synergistic effects against MDR-MTb; (c) the use of all trans retinoic acid-loaded nanoparticles in a host-directed therapy for TB, which targets the host’s immune system response rather than MTb directly, has promise for enhancing current treatments and reducing the emergence of MDR-MTb; (d) PLGA NP loaded with various antibiotics (levofloxacin, linezolid, ethambutol, prothionamide, and pyrazinamide) show promising approach for MDR-MTb by enhancing drug efficacy and inducing innate bactericidal events in macrophages. Other studies have proven the promising effect of NPs on other intracellular bacteria: (a) docosanoic acid solid lipid nanoparticles that were loaded with enrofloxacin raised the intracellular concentration of the drug by up to 40 times and improved killing of Salmonella within macrophages; (b) colistin, a weakly diffusible antimicrobial agent, was transformed into liposomes complexed with a protein derived from bacteria to promote internalization into eukaryotic cells and deliver drugs with a high bioavailability; (c) Listeria monocytogenes and P. aeruginosa were eliminated from inside invaded macrophages by gentamicin-loaded AuNPs coated with phosphatidylcholine.

7.3. Effect on Bacterial Biofilm

73A biofilm is a network of thousands of bacteria that acts as a barrier against the human immune system, extreme conditions, and antibiotics.

74Bacteria can grow in two different ways: as free-floating planktonic organisms or as sessile, surface-attached communities seen in biofilms, which are organized colonies enclosed in a self-produced extracellular polymeric matrix (EPS).

75Biofilm formation is a process initiated by planktonic (free-living) organisms aggregating on the outside of either living or inanimate items.

76Approximately two-thirds of the biofilm’s volume is composed of EPS, which mostly consists of lipids, carbohydrates, proteins, and nucleic acids, giving bacteria a 3D protective structure. Bacteria implanted in the matrix can interact synergistically, communicate with one another, and transfer resistance genes. Additionally, the lower oxygen and nutrition levels in the higher depth of the matrix lead to the creation of latent persister cells, which support antimicrobial tolerance and resistance. The matrix is also rich in hydrophobic groups and negatively charged elements and 3D structure of EPS forming mesh-like structure containing pores filled with water, facilitating transmission between bacterial communities.

77MDR biofilm infections represent an especially challenging treatment obstacle, and to combat biofilms, it is necessary to overcome the physical barrier produced by them.

78Bacterial communities communicate with each other through autoinducer called quorum sensing (QS); therefore, biofilm eradication occurs through degrading EPS, QS, and killing of internal bacteria.

79Nanoparticles show promising effect to overcome and eradicate MDR biofilm infections. The invasion of this highly stable polymeric matrix can be enhanced by optimizing the surface properties and designating the nanoparticles. Important variables affecting the invasion and penetration of biofilm include size and electrostatic interactions. Generally, positively charged nanomaterials have an excellent penetration within the matrix, whereas uncharged nanomaterials smaller than 350 nm are more mobile through holes present in biofilms.

80When nanomaterials invade biofilms, they can interact with bacteria and produce antimicrobial effects. It wase proved in previous studies that polymeric nano delivery systems, in which the antibiotic is encased in a formulation, have shown considerable promise in terms of facilitating a high local drug concentration at the site of infection, controlled drug release, and minimal drug degradation. In another study, zinc oxide nanoparticles with pancreatin enzyme (ZnONPs-PK) have anti-bacterial and anti-biofilm activity and are potent to eradicate MRSA. In a different method, a promising result was achieved when using prolonged release poly-lactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA) micro- and nanoparticles containing ciprofloxacin against biofilms of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa.

8. Strengths and Challenges in the Application of NPs against MDR Infection

81Due to the unique size and physical characters of NPs, they provide significant advantages over conventional antibiotics; however, their delivery method is still challenging. They provide sustained release system and targeted delivery of antibiotic. Therefore, small and reduced doses are the required result in order to decrease the frequency of dosing, host cell toxicity and emergence of resistance.

82However, NPs systemic administration still has to handle a number of other issues and challenges, including additional analysis of NP interactions with cells, tissues, and organs, optimal dose, identification of suitable routes of administration, toxicity following both short-term and long-term exposure, and exact mechanism of cellular uptake. Moreover, prolonged exposure to NPs in the workplace may result in unanticipated health risks. Inhaling nanoparticles in the form of air pollutants is another method of secondary exposure to NPs. Sometimes, these inhaled nanoparticles can evade the immune system and spread throughout the body, causing systemic health problems. Moreover, intravenous administration of NPs lead to their accumulation in spleen, lung and bone marrow. In addition, inhaled NPs can distribute through lung, heart, liver, spleen and brain due to their small size, large surface area and high absorption rate. Administration of NP therapeutically may cause multiorgan nanotoxicity. In all toxic cases, NPs are linked to oxidative stress, which in turn causes hepatotoxicity and lung toxicity and metabolic modifications such as β oxidation of fatty acid, glycolysis and reduced ketogenesis that occur through ROS and may be associated with hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity. Therefore, due to previous challenges, no FDA-approved nAbts for systemic human use have been launched to date. Hence, the safety, toxicity, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of NP systems as well as the therapeutic efficacy measures used in clinical trials must be considered in future preclinical investigations. Finally, the financial implications of these NP clinical translations regarding their therapeutic efficacy need to be evaluated.

9. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

83The emergence and growth of MDR bacteria have shown to be a serious health issue that must be managed on a global scale. To treat persistent MDR planktonic bacterial and biofilm infections, nanomaterials offer a novel, “outside the box” strategy. Optimization of their physical characters, particularly size and surface charge, is essential to maximize their curative potential and decrease host hazard. Clinical use is currently limited by issues concerning the long-term effects of nanoparticles on the person and systemic safety. Moreover, metabolic, toxicity, stability issues and mechanism explanation on the gene level show that the NP effect on gene expression should be explained in detail in future studies. Additionally, the exact and detailed mechanism of interaction of NPs with biological systems should be explained in future trials to develop nanomaterials with favorable physicochemical properties that will allow them to be more responsive to varied biological settings for therapeutic advantages while having no negative effect. The field of nAbs will act as the next-generation medicines in near future to combat MDR bacteria.

References 234

1.
CDC. Antimicrobial (AR) Threats Report.
Not in our library
2.
Nageeb W.M., Hetta H.F. The predictive potential of different molecular markers linked to amikacin susceptibility phenotypes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. PLoS ONE. 2022;17:e0267396.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0267396
3.
Algammal A.M., Alfifi K.J., Mabrok M., Alatawy M., Abdel-Moneam D.A., Alghamdi S., Azab M.M., Ibrahim R.A., Hetta H.F., El-Tarabili R.M. Newly Emerging MDR B. cereus in Mugil seheli as the First Report Commonly Harbor nhe, hbl, cytK, and pc-plc Virulence Genes and bla1, bla2, tetA, and ermA Resistance Genes. Infect. Drug Resist. 2022;15:2167-2185.
Not in our library10.2147/idr.s365254
4.
Investigation of the Bacterial Contamination and Antibiotic Susceptibility Profile of Bacteria Isolated from Bottled Drinking Water · 2022
Not checked
5.
Algammal A.M., Abo Hashem M.E., Alfifi K.J., Al-Otaibi A.S., Alatawy M., ElTarabili R.M., Abd El-Ghany W.A., Hetta H.F., Hamouda A.M., Elewa A.A. Sequence Analysis, Antibiogram Profile, Virulence and Antibiotic Resistance Genes of XDR and MDR Gallibacterium anatis Isolated from Layer Chickens in Egypt. Infect. Drug Resist. 2022;15:4321-4334.
Not in our library10.2147/idr.s377797
6.
Meshaal A.K., Hetta H.F., Yahia R., Abualnaja K.M., Mansour A.T., Al-Kadmy I.M., Alghamdi S., Dablool A.S., Emran T.B., Sedky H. In Vitro Antimicrobial Activity of Medicinal Plant Extracts against Some Bacterial Pathogens Isolated from Raw and Processed Meat. Life. 2021;11:1178.
Not in our library10.3390/life11111178
7.
Rangel-López L., Zaragoza-Bastida A., Valladares-Carranza B., Peláez-Acero A., Sosa-Gutiérrez C.G., Hetta H.F., Batiha G.E.-S., Alqahtani A., Rivero-Perez N. In Vitro Antibacterial Potential of Salix babylonica Extract against Bacteria that Affect Oncorhynchus mykiss and Oreochromis spp. Animals. 2020;10:1340.
Not in our library10.3390/ani10081340
8.
Ventola C.L. The antibiotic resistance crisis: Part 1: Causes and threats. Pharm. Ther. 2015;40:277.
Not in our library
9.
Pelgrift R.Y., Friedman A.J. Nanotechnology as a therapeutic tool to combat microbial resistance. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2013;65:1803-1815.
Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2013.07.011
10.
Teixeira M., Sanchez-Lopez E., Espina M., Calpena A., Silva A.M., Veiga F., Garcia M., Souto E.B. Advances in antibiotic nanotherapy: Overcoming antimicrobial resistance. Emerg. Nanotechnologies Immunol. 2018;21:233-259.
Not in our library
11.
Yang X., Ye W., Qi Y., Ying Y., Xia Z. Overcoming Multidrug Resistance in Bacteria Through Antibiotics Delivery in Surface-Engineered Nano-Cargos: Recent Developments for Future Nano-Antibiotics. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2021;9:696514.
Not in our library10.3389/fbioe.2021.696514
12.
Donadu M.G., Mazzarello V., Cappuccinelli P., Zanetti S., Madléna M., Nagy Á.L., Stájer A., Burián K., Gajdács M. Relationship between the Biofilm-Forming Capacity and Antimicrobial Resistance in Clinical Acinetobacter baumannii Isolates: Results from a Laboratory-Based In Vitro Study. Microorganisms. 2021;9:2384.
Not in our library10.3390/microorganisms9112384
13.
Usai D., Donadu M., Bua A., Molicotti P., Zanetti S., Piras S., Corona P., Ibba R., Carta A. Enhancement of antimicrobial activity of pump inhibitors associating drugs. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2019;13:162-164.
Not in our library10.3855/jidc.11102
14.
Spengler G., Gajdács M., Donadu M.G., Usai M., Marchetti M., Ferrari M., Mazzarello V., Zanetti S., Nagy F., Kovács R. Evaluation of the Antimicrobial and Antivirulent Potential of Essential Oils Isolated from Juniperus oxycedrus L. ssp. macrocarpa Aerial Parts. Microorganisms. 2022;10:758.
Not in our library10.3390/microorganisms10040758
15.
Pinna A., Donadu M.G., Usai D., Dore S., Boscia F., Zanetti S. In Vitro Antimicrobial Activity of a New Ophthalmic Solution Containing Hexamidine Diisethionate 0.05% (Keratosept). Cornea. 2020;39:1415-1418.
Not in our library10.1097/ico.0000000000002375
16.
Algammal A.M., Elsayed M.E., Hashem H.R., Ramadan H., Sheraba N.S., El-Diasty E.M., Abbas S.M., Hetta H.F. Molecular and HPLC-based approaches for detection of aflatoxin B1 and ochratoxin A released from toxigenic Aspergillus species in processed meat. BMC Microbiol. 2021;21:1-10.
Not in our library10.1186/s12866-021-02144-y
17.
Horikoshi S., Serpone N. Microwaves in Nanoparticle Synthesis: Fundamentals and Applications. 2013.
Not in our library
18.
Abd El-Aziz F.E.-Z.A., Hetta H.F., Abdelhamid B.N., Abd Ellah N.H. Antibacterial and wound-healing potential of PLGA/spidroin nanoparticles: A study on earthworms as a human skin model. Nanomedicine. 2022;17:353-365.
Not in our library10.2217/nnm-2021-0325
19.
Abdellatif A.A., Tawfeek H.M., Abdelfattah A., Batiha G.E.-S., Hetta H.F. Recent updates in COVID-19 with emphasis on inhalation therapeutics: Nanostructured and targeting systems. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 2021;63:102435.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jddst.2021.102435
20.
Wasef L., Nassar A.M., El-Sayed Y.S., Samak D., Noreldin A., Elshony N., Saleh H., Elewa Y.H., Hassan S., Saati A.A. The potential ameliorative impacts of cerium oxide nanoparticles against fipronil-induced hepatic steatosis. Sci. Rep. 2021;11:1310.
Not in our library10.1038/s41598-020-79479-5
21.
Eid A.M., Fouda A., Niedbała G., Hassan S.E.-D., Salem S.S., Abdo A.M., Hetta F.H., Shaheen T.I. Endophytic Streptomyces laurentii mediated green synthesis of Ag-NPs with antibacterial and anticancer properties for developing functional textile fabric properties. Antibiotics. 2020;9:641.
Not in our library10.3390/antibiotics9100641
22.
Mubeen B., Ansar A.N., Rasool R., Ullah I., Imam S.S., Alshehri S., Ghoneim M.M., Alzarea S.I., Nadeem M.S., Kazmi I. Nanotechnology as a Novel Approach in Combating Microbes Providing an Alternative to Antibiotics. Antibiotics. 2021;10:1473.
Not in our library10.3390/antibiotics10121473
23.
Tripathi N., Goshisht M.K. Recent Advances and Mechanistic Insights into Antibacterial Activity, Antibiofilm Activity, and Cytotoxicity of Silver Nanoparticles. ACS Appl. Bio. Mater. 2022;5:1391-1463.
Not in our library10.1021/acsabm.2c00014
24.
Tawre M.S., Shiledar A., Satpute S.K., Ahire K., Ghosh S., Pardesi K. Synergistic and antibiofilm potential of Curcuma aromatica derived silver nanoparticles in combination with antibiotics against multidrug-resistant pathogens. Front. Chem. 2022;10:1029056.
Not in our library10.3389/fchem.2022.1029056
25.
Hetta H.F., Al-Kadmy I., Khazaal S.S., Abbas S., Suhail A., El-Mokhtar M.A., Ellah N.H.A., Ahmed E.A., Abd-Ellatief R.B., El-Masry E.A. Antibiofilm and antivirulence potential of silver nanoparticles against multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Sci. Rep. 2021;11:10751.
Not in our library10.1038/s41598-021-90208-4
26.
Abdelraheem W.M., Khairy R.M., Zaki A.I., Zaki S.H. Effect of ZnO nanoparticles on methicillin, vancomycin, linezolid resistance and biofilm formation in Staphylococcus aureus isolates. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2021;20:54.
Not in our library10.1186/s12941-021-00459-2
27.
Hashem A.H., Al Abboud M.A., Alawlaqi M.M., Abdelghany T.M., Hasanin M. Synthesis of nanocapsules based on biosynthesized nickel nanoparticles and potato starch: Antimicrobial, antioxidant, and anticancer activity. Starch Stärke. 2022;74:2100165.
Not in our library10.1002/star.202100165
28.
Hashem A.H., Salem S.S. Green and ecofriendly biosynthesis of selenium nanoparticles using Urtica dioica (stinging nettle) leaf extract: Antimicrobial and anticancer activity. Biotechnol. J. 2022;17:2100432.
Not in our library10.1002/biot.202100432
29.
Abu-Elghait M., Hasanin M., Hashem A.H., Salem S.S. Ecofriendly novel synthesis of tertiary composite based on cellulose and myco-synthesized selenium nanoparticles: Characterization, antibiofilm and biocompatibility. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021;175:294-303.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.02.040
30.
Han H.-W., Patel K.D., Kwak J.-H., Jun S.-K., Jang T.-S., Lee S.-H., Knowles J.C., Kim H.-W., Lee H.-H., Lee J.-H. Selenium nanoparticles as candidates for antibacterial substitutes and supplements against multidrug-resistant bacteria. Biomolecules. 2021;11:1028.
Not in our library10.3390/biom11071028
31.
Elbahnasawy M.A., Shehabeldine A.M., Khattab A.M., Amin B.H., Hashem A.H. Green biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using novel endophytic Rothia endophytica: Characterization and anticandidal activity. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 2021;62:102401.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jddst.2021.102401
32.
El-Batal A.I., Mosallam F.M., El-Sayyad G.S. Synthesis of metallic silver nanoparticles by fluconazole drug and gamma rays to inhibit the growth of multidrug-resistant microbes. J. Clust. Sci. 2018;29:1003-1015.
Not in our library10.1007/s10876-018-1411-5
33.
Song X., Liu P., Liu X., Wang Y., Wei H., Zhang J., Yu L., Yan X., He Z. Dealing with MDR bacteria and biofilm in the post-antibiotic era: Application of antimicrobial peptides-based nano-formulation. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2021;128:112318.
Not in our library10.1016/j.msec.2021.112318
34.
Khalid M., El-Sawy H.S. Polymeric nanoparticles: Promising platform for drug delivery. Int. J. Pharm. 2017;528:675-691.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijpharm.2017.06.052
35.
Qayyum S., Khan A.U. Nanoparticles vs. biofilms: A battle against another paradigm of antibiotic resistance. MedChemComm. 2016;7:1479-1498.
Not in our library10.1039/c6md00124f
36.
Liu T., Cui Q., Wu Q., Li X., Song K., Ge D., Guan S. Mechanism study of bacteria killed on nanostructures. J. Phys. Chem. B. 2019;123:8686-8696.
Not in our library10.1021/acs.jpcb.9b07732
37.
Lipid-Based Antimicrobial Delivery-Systems for the Treatment of Bacterial Infections · 2020
No notice
38.
Saleh H., Nassar A.M., Noreldin A.E., Samak D., Elshony N., Wasef L., Elewa Y.H., Hassan S.M., Saati A.A., Hetta H.F. Chemo-protective potential of cerium oxide nanoparticles against fipronil-induced oxidative stress, apoptosis, inflammation and reproductive dysfunction in male white albino rats. Molecules. 2020;25:3479.
Not in our library10.3390/molecules25153479
39.
Adeyemi O.S., Arowolo A.T., Hetta H.F., Al-Rejaie S., Rotimi D., Batiha G.E.-S. Apoferritin and Apoferritin-Capped Metal Nanoparticles Inhibit Arginine Kinase of Trypanosoma brucei. Molecules. 2020;25:3432.
Not in our library10.3390/molecules25153432
40.
Chaturvedi V.K., Yadav N., Rai N.K., Ellah N.H.A., Bohara R.A., Rehan I.F., Marraiki N., Batiha G.E.-S., Hetta H.F., Singh M. Pleurotus sajor-caju-mediated synthesis of silver and gold nanoparticles active against colon cancer cell lines: A new era of herbonanoceutics. Molecules. 2020;25:3091.
Not in our library10.3390/molecules25133091
41.
Hetta H.F., Ahmed E.A., Hemdan A.G., El-Deek H.E., Abd-Elregal S., Abd Ellah N.H. Modulation of rifampicin-induced hepatotoxicity using poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) nanoparticles: A study on rat and cell culture models. Nanomedicine. 2020;15:1375-1390.
Not in our library10.2217/nnm-2020-0001
42.
Abd Ellah N.H., Ahmed E.A., Abd-Ellatief R.B., Ali M.F., Zahran A.M., Hetta H.F. Metoclopramide nanoparticles modulate immune response in a diabetic rat model: Association with regulatory T cells and proinflammatory cytokines. Int. J. Nanomed. 2019;14:2383.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s196842
43.
Blanco E., Shen H., Ferrari M. Principles of nanoparticle design for overcoming biological barriers to drug delivery. Nat. Biotechnol. 2015;33:941-951.
Not in our library10.1038/nbt.3330
44.
Antibiotics versus biofilm: an emerging battleground in microbial communities · 2019
No notice
45.
Recent Nanotechnology Approaches for Prevention and Treatment of Biofilm-Associated Infections on Medical Devices · 2016
No notice
46.
Nanoparticles in the Treatment of Infections Caused by Multidrug-Resistant Organisms · 2019
No notice
47.
Cheng L., Li R., Liu G., Zhang Y., Tang X., Wang J., Liu H., Qin Y. Potential antibacterial mechanism of silver nanoparticles and the optimization of orthopedic implants by advanced modification technologies. Int. J. Nanomed. 2018;13:3311.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s165125
48.
Shobha G., Moses V., Ananda S. Biological synthesis of copper nanoparticles and its impact. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Invent. 2014;3:6-28.
Not in our library
49.
Jaworski S., Wierzbicki M., Sawosz E., Jung A., Gielerak G., Biernat J., Jaremek H., Łojkowski W., Woźniak B., Wojnarowicz J. Graphene oxide-based nanocomposites decorated with silver nanoparticles as an antibacterial agent. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2018;13:116.
Not in our library10.1186/s11671-018-2533-2
50.
Nanoparticles in the clinic · 2016
No notice
51.
Therapeutic Nanoparticles and Their Targeted Delivery Applications · 2020
No notice
52.
Abd Ellah N.H., Gad S.F., Muhammad K., E Batiha G., Hetta H.F. Nanomedicine as a promising approach for diagnosis, treatment and prophylaxis against COVID-19. Nanomedicine. 2020;15:2085-2102.
Not in our library10.2217/nnm-2020-0247
53.
Mba I.E., Nweze E.I. The use of nanoparticles as alternative therapeutic agents against Candida infections: An up-to-date overview and future perspectives. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020;36:163.
Not in our library10.1007/s11274-020-02940-0
54.
Mba I.E., Sharndama H.C., Osondu-Chuka G.O., Okeke O.P. Immunobiology and nanotherapeutics of severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2): A current update. Infect. Dis. 2021;53:559-580.
Not in our library10.1080/23744235.2021.1916071
55.
Abd Ellah N.H., Tawfeek H.M., John J., Hetta H.F. Nanomedicine as a future therapeutic approach for Hepatitis C virus. Nanomedicine. 2019;14:1471-1491.
Not in our library10.2217/nnm-2018-0348
56.
Sayad R., Abdelsabour H.A., Farhat S.M., Omer N.G., Ahmed M.M., Elsayh I.K., Ibrahim I.H., Algammal A.M., AL-Kadmy I.M.S., Batiha G.E.-S., et al. Applications of nanotechnology in the fight against coronavirus disease 2019. Rev. Res. Med. Microbiol. 2019.
Not in our library10.1097/mrm.0000000000000335
57.
Abid S.A., Muneer A.A., Al-Kadmy I.M., Sattar A.A., Beshbishy A.M., Batiha G.E.-S., Hetta H.F. Biosensors as a future diagnostic approach for COVID-19. Life Sci. 2021;273:119117.
Not in our library10.1016/j.lfs.2021.119117
58.
Liao S., Zhang Y., Pan X., Zhu F., Jiang C., Liu Q., Cheng Z., Dai G., Wu G., Wang L. Antibacterial activity and mechanism of silver nanoparticles against multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Int. J. Nanomed. 2019;14:1469.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s191340
59.
Möhler J.S., Sim W., Blaskovich M.A., Cooper M.A., Ziora Z.M. Silver bullets: A new lustre on an old antimicrobial agent. Biotechnol. Adv. 2018;36:1391-1411.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biotechadv.2018.05.004
60.
Merrifield R.C., Stephan C., Lead J.R. Single-particle inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy analysis of size and number concentration in mixtures of monometallic and bimetallic (core-shell) nanoparticles. Talanta. 2017;162:130-134.
Not in our library10.1016/j.talanta.2016.09.070
61.
Rajeshkumar S., Bharath L. Mechanism of plant-mediated synthesis of silver nanoparticles–a review on biomolecules involved, characterisation and antibacterial activity. Chem. -Biol. Interact. 2017;273:219-227.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cbi.2017.06.019
62.
MacGowan A., Macnaughton E. Antibiotic resistance. Medicine. 2017;45:622-628.
Not in our library10.1016/j.mpmed.2017.07.006
63.
El-Mokhtar M.A., Hetta H.F. Ambulance vehicles as a source of multidrug-resistant infections: A multicenter study in Assiut City, Egypt. Infect. Drug Resist. 2018;11:587.
Not in our library10.2147/idr.s151783
64.
Munita J.M., Arias C.A. Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance. Microbiol. Spectr. 2016;4:15.
Not in our library10.1128/microbiolspec.vmbf-0016-2015
65.
Alekshun M.N., Levy S.B. Molecular mechanisms of antibacterial multidrug resistance. Cell. 2007;128:1037-1050.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2007.03.004
66.
El-Kazzaz W., Metwally L., Yahia R., Al-Harbi N., El-Taher A., Hetta H.F. Antibiogram, prevalence of OXA carbapenemase encoding genes, and RAPD-genotyping of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii incriminated in hidden community-acquired infections. Antibiotics. 2020;9:603.
Not in our library10.3390/antibiotics9090603
67.
Abd El-Baky R.M., Farhan S.M., Ibrahim R.A., Mahran K.M., Hetta H.F. Antimicrobial resistance pattern and molecular epidemiology of ESBL and MBL producing Acinetobacter baumannii isolated from hospitals in Minia, Egypt. Alex. J. Med. 2020;56:4-13.
Not in our library10.1080/20905068.2019.1707350
68.
Makharita R.R., El-Kholy I., Hetta H.F., Abdelaziz M.H., Hagagy F.I., Ahmed A.A., Algammal A.M. Antibiogram and genetic characterization of carbapenem-resistant gram-negative pathogens incriminated in healthcare-associated infections. Infect. Drug Resist. 2020;13:3991.
Not in our library10.2147/idr.s276975
69.
Farhan S.M., Ibrahim R.A., Mahran K.M., Hetta H.F., Abd El-Baky R.M. Antimicrobial resistance pattern and molecular genetic distribution of metallo-β-lactamases producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from hospitals in Minia, Egypt. Infect. Drug Resist. 2019;12:2125.
Not in our library10.2147/idr.s198373
70.
Algammal A.M., Hetta H.F., Elkelish A., Alkhalifah D.H.H., Hozzein W.N., Batiha G.E.-S., El Nahhas N., Mabrok M.A. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): One health perspective approach to the bacterium epidemiology, virulence factors, antibiotic-resistance, and zoonotic impact. Infect. Drug Resist. 2020;13:3255.
Not in our library10.2147/idr.s272733
71.
Kareem S.M., Al-Kadmy I.M., Kazaal S.S., Ali A.N.M., Aziz S.N., Makharita R.R., Algammal A.M., Al-Rejaie S., Behl T., Batiha G.E.-S. Detection of gyra and parc mutations and prevalence of plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance genes in Klebsiella pneumoniae. Infect. Drug Resist. 2021;14:555.
Not in our library10.2147/idr.s275852
72.
Al-Kadmy I.M., Ibrahim S.A., Al-Saryi N., Aziz S.N., Besinis A., Hetta H.F. Prevalence of genes involved in colistin resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii: First report from Iraq. Microb. Drug Resist. 2020;26:616-622.
Not in our library10.1089/mdr.2019.0243
73.
Abd El-Baky R.M., Masoud S.M., Mohamed D.S., Waly N.G., Shafik E.A., Mohareb D.A., Elkady A., Elbadr M.M., Hetta H.F. Prevalence and some possible mechanisms of colistin resistance among multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Infect. Drug Resist. 2020;13:323.
Not in our library10.2147/idr.s238811
74.
Gupta A., Saleh N.M., Das R., Landis R.F., Bigdeli A., Motamedchaboki K., Campos A.R., Pomeroy K., Mahmoudi M., Rotello V.M. Synergistic antimicrobial therapy using nanoparticles and antibiotics for the treatment of multidrug-resistant bacterial infection. Nano Futures. 2017;1:015004.
Not in our library10.1088/2399-1984/aa69fb
75.
Gupta D., Singh A., Khan A.U. Nanoparticles as efflux pump and biofilm inhibitor to rejuvenate bactericidal effect of conventional antibiotics. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2017;12:454.
Not in our library10.1186/s11671-017-2222-6
76.
Abd El-Baky R.M., Sandle T., John J., Abuo-Rahma G.E.-D.A., Hetta H.F. A novel mechanism of action of ketoconazole: Inhibition of the NorA efflux pump system and biofilm formation in multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Infect. Drug Resist. 2019;12:1703.
Not in our library10.2147/idr.s201124
77.
Ovung A., Bhattacharyya J. Sulfonamide drugs: Structure, antibacterial property, toxicity, and biophysical interactions. Biophys. Rev. 2021;13:259-272.
Not in our library10.1007/s12551-021-00795-9
78.
Blair J., Webber M.A., Baylay A.J., Ogbolu D.O., Piddock L.J. Molecular mechanisms of antibiotic resistance. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2015;13:42-51.
Not in our library10.1038/nrmicro3380
79.
Hurdle J.G., O’neill A.J., Chopra I., Lee R.E. Targeting bacterial membrane function: An underexploited mechanism for treating persistent infections. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2011;9:62-75.
Not in our library10.1038/nrmicro2474
80.
Tseng B.S., Zhang W., Harrison J.J., Quach T.P., Song J.L., Penterman J., Singh P.K., Chopp D.L., Packman A.I., Parsek M.R. The extracellular matrix protects P seudomonas aeruginosa biofilms by limiting the penetration of tobramycin. Environ. Microbiol. 2013;15:2865-2878.
Not in our library10.1111/1462-2920.12155
81.
Khalil M.A., Ahmed F.A., Elkhateeb A.F., Mahmoud E.E., Ahmed M.I., Ahmed R.I., Hosni A., Alghamdi S., Kabrah A., Dablool A.S. Virulence characteristics of biofilm-forming acinetobacter baumannii in clinical isolates using a Galleria Mellonella Model. Microorganisms. 2021;9:2365.
Not in our library10.3390/microorganisms9112365
82.
Liu J., Gefen O., Ronin I., Bar-Meir M., Balaban N.Q. Effect of tolerance on the evolution of antibiotic resistance under drug combinations. Science. 2020;367:200-204.
Not in our library10.1126/science.aay3041
83.
Torky H.A., Saad H.M., Khaliel S.A., Kassih A.T., Sabatier J.-M., Batiha G.E.-S., Hetta H.F., Elghazaly E.M., De Waard M. Isolation and Molecular Characterization of Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis: Association with Proinflammatory Cytokines in Caseous Lymphadenitis Pyogranulomas. Animals. 2023;13:296.
Not in our library10.3390/ani13020296
84.
Mabrok M., Algammal A., Sivaramasamy E., Hetta H.F., Atwah B., Alghamdi S., Fawzy A., Avendaño-Herrera R., Rodkhum C. Tenacibaculosis caused by Tenacibaculum maritimum: Updated knowledge of this marine bacterial fish pathogen. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2023;1862:1068000.
Not in our library10.3389/fcimb.2022.1068000
85.
Salah M., Badr G., Hetta H.F., Khalifa W.A., Shoreit A.A. Fig latex inhibits the growth of pathogenic bacteria invading human diabetic wounds and accelerates wound closure in diabetic mice. Sci. Rep. 2022;12:21852.
Not in our library10.1038/s41598-022-26338-0
86.
Morgan D.J., Okeke I.N., Laxminarayan R., Perencevich E.N., Weisenberg S. Non-prescription antimicrobial use worldwide: A systematic review. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2011;11:692-701.
Not in our library10.1016/s1473-3099(11)70054-8
87.
World Health Organization. Antibiotic Resistance: Multi-Country Public Awareness Survey. 2015.
Not in our library
88.
Emerging MDR-Pseudomonas aeruginosa in fish commonly harbor oprL and toxA virulence genes and blaTEM, blaCTX-M, and tetA antibiotic-resistance genes · 2020
No notice
89.
Roca I., Akova M., Baquero F., Carlet J., Cavaleri M., Coenen S., Cohen J., Findlay D., Gyssens I., Heure O. The global threat of antimicrobial resistance: Science for intervention. New Microbes New Infect. 2015;6:22-29.
Not in our library10.1016/j.nmni.2015.02.007
90.
atpD gene sequencing, multidrug resistance traits, virulence-determinants, and antimicrobial resistance genes of emerging XDR and MDR-Proteus mirabilis · 2021
Not checked
91.
Algammal A.M., Hetta H.F., Batiha G.E., Hozzein W.N., El Kazzaz W.M., Hashem H.R., Tawfik A.M., El-Tarabili R.M. Virulence-determinants and antibiotic-resistance genes of MDR-E. coli isolated from secondary infections following FMD-outbreak in cattle. Sci. Rep. 2020;10:19779.
Not in our library10.1038/s41598-020-75914-9
92.
Elkhawaga A.A., Hetta H.F., Osman N.S., Hosni A., El-Mokhtar M.A. Emergence of Cronobacter sakazakii in cases of neonatal sepsis in upper Egypt: First report in North Africa. Front. Microbiol. 2020;11:215.
Not in our library10.3389/fmicb.2020.00215
93.
From in vitro to in vivo Models of Bacterial Biofilm-Related Infections · 2013
No notice
94.
Saginur R., StDenis M., Ferris W., Aaron S.D., Chan F., Lee C., Ramotar K. Multiple combination bactericidal testing of staphylococcal biofilms from implant-associated infections. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2006;50:55-61.
Not in our library10.1128/aac.50.1.55-61.2006
95.
Hall-Stoodley L., Costerton J.W., Stoodley P. Bacterial biofilms: From the natural environment to infectious diseases. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2004;2:95-108.
Not in our library10.1038/nrmicro821
96.
Hall C.W., Mah T.-F. Molecular mechanisms of biofilm-based antibiotic resistance and tolerance in pathogenic bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2017;41:276-301.
Not in our library10.1093/femsre/fux010
97.
Multidrug Resistance: An Emerging Crisis · 2014
No notice
98.
Yin M., Yang M., Yan D., Yang L., Wan X., Xiao J., Yao Y., Luo J. Surface-Charge-Switchable and Size-Transformable Thermosensitive Nanocomposites for Chemo-Photothermal Eradication of Bacterial Biofilms in Vitro and in Vivo. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2022;14:8847-8864.
Not in our library10.1021/acsami.1c24229
99.
Lu B., Hu E., Xie R., Yu K., Lu F., Bao R., Wang C., Lan G., Dai F. Magnetically Guided Nanoworms for Precise Delivery to Enhance In Situ Production of Nitric Oxide to Combat Focal Bacterial Infection In Vivo. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2021;13:22225-22239.
Not in our library10.1021/acsami.1c04330
100.
Zylberberg C., Matosevic S. Pharmaceutical liposomal drug delivery: A review of new delivery systems and a look at the regulatory landscape. Drug Deliv. 2016;23:3319-3329.
Not in our library10.1080/10717544.2016.1177136
101.
Lemière J., Carvalho K., Sykes C. Cell-Sized Liposomes That Mimic Cell Motility and the Cell Cortex. Methods in Cell Biology. 2015;128:271-285.
Not in our library10.1016/bs.mcb.2015.01.013
102.
Shek P., Yung B., Stanacev N. Comparison between multilamellar and unilamellar liposomes in enhancing antibody formation. Immunology. 1983;49:37.
Not in our library
103.
Bassetti M., Vena A., Russo A., Peghin M. Inhaled Liposomal Antimicrobial Delivery in Lung Infections. Drugs. 2020;80:1309-1318.
Not in our library10.1007/s40265-020-01359-z
104.
Amreddy N., Babu A., Muralidharan R., Panneerselvam J., Srivastava A., Ahmed R., Mehta M., Munshi A., Ramesh R. Recent advances in nanoparticle-based cancer drug and gene delivery. Adv. Cancer Res. 2018;137:115-170.
Not in our library10.1016/bs.acr.2017.11.003
105.
Sánchez A., Mejía S.P., Orozco J. Recent Advances in Polymeric Nanoparticle-Encapsulated Drugs against Intracellular Infections. Molecules. 2020;25:3760.
Not in our library10.3390/molecules25163760
106.
Saneja A., Kumar R., Mintoo M.J., Dubey R.D., Sangwan P.L., Mondhe D.M., Panda A.K., Gupta P.N. Gemcitabine and betulinic acid co-encapsulated PLGA− PEG polymer nanoparticles for improved efficacy of cancer chemotherapy. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2019;98:764-771.
Not in our library10.1016/j.msec.2019.01.026
107.
Bahlool A.Z., Fattah S., O’Sullivan A., Cavanagh B., MacLoughlin R., Keane J., O’Sullivan M.P., Cryan S.A. Development of Inhalable ATRA-Loaded PLGA Nanoparticles as Host-Directed Immunotherapy against Tuberculosis. Pharmaceutics. 2022;14:1745.
Not in our library10.3390/pharmaceutics14081745
108.
Sherje A.P., Jadhav M., Dravyakar B.R., Kadam D. Dendrimers: A versatile nanocarrier for drug delivery and targeting. Int. J. Pharm. 2018;548:707-720.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijpharm.2018.07.030
109.
Ghezzi M., Pescina S., Padula C., Santi P., Del Favero E., Cantù L., Nicoli S. Polymeric micelles in drug delivery: An insight of the techniques for their characterization and assessment in biorelevant conditions. J. Control. Release Off. J. Control. Release Soc. 2021;332:312-336.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jconrel.2021.02.031
110.
Ameh T., Gibb M., Stevens D., Pradhan S.H., Braswell E., Sayes C.M. Silver and Copper Nanoparticles Induce Oxidative Stress in Bacteria and Mammalian Cells. Nanomaterials. 2022;12:2402.
Not in our library10.3390/nano12142402
111.
Haidari H., Bright R., Kopecki Z., Zilm P.S., Garg S., Cowin A.J., Vasilev K., Goswami N. Polycationic Silver Nanoclusters Comprising Nanoreservoirs of Ag+ Ions with High Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Activity. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2021;14:390-403.
Not in our library10.1021/acsami.1c21657
112.
Al Hagbani T., Rizvi S.M.D., Hussain T., Mehmood K., Rafi Z., Moin A., Abu Lila A.S., Alshammari F., Khafagy E.S., Rahamathulla M., et al. Cefotaxime Mediated Synthesis of Gold Nanoparticles: Characterization and Antibacterial Activity. Polymers. 2022;14:771.
Not in our library10.3390/polym14040771
113.
Wang L., Zheng W., Li S., Zhong L., Jiang X. Aminophenol-Decorated Gold Nanoparticles for Curing Bacterial Infections. Nano Lett. 2022;22:3576-3582.
Not in our library10.1021/acs.nanolett.1c04968
114.
Periakaruppan R., S M.P., C P., P R., S G.R., Danaraj J. Biosynthesis of Silica Nanoparticles Using the Leaf Extract of Punica granatum and Assessment of Its Antibacterial Activities Against Human Pathogens. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2022;194:5594-5605.
Not in our library10.1007/s12010-022-03994-6
115.
Krishnamoorthy R., Athinarayanan J., Periyasamy V.S., Alshuniaber M.A., Alshammari G., Hakeem M.J., Ahmed M.A., Alshatwi A.A. Antibacterial Mechanisms of Zinc Oxide Nanoparticle against Bacterial Food Pathogens Resistant to Beta-Lactam Antibiotics. Molecules. 2022;27:2489.
Not in our library10.3390/molecules27082489
116.
Yaghubi Kalurazi T., Jafari A. Evaluation of magnesium oxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles against multi-drug-resistance Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Indian J. Tuberc. 2021;68:195-200.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijtb.2020.07.032
117.
Lin Y., Liu X., Liu Z., Xu Y. Visible-Light-Driven Photocatalysis-Enhanced Nanozyme of TiO2 Nanotubes@ MoS2 Nanoflowers for Efficient Wound Healing Infected with Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria. Small. 2021;17:2103348.
Not in our library10.1002/smll.202103348
118.
Eymard-Vernain E., Luche S., Rabilloud T., Lelong C. ZnO and TiO2 nanoparticles alter the ability of Bacillus subtilis to fight against a stress. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0240510.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0240510
119.
Younis A.B., Haddad Y., Kosaristanova L., Smerkova K. Titanium dioxide nanoparticles: Recent progress in antimicrobial applications. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Nanomed. Nanobiotechnology. 2022;e1860.
Not in our library10.1002/wnan.1860
120.
Gilbertson L.M., Albalghiti E.M., Fishman Z.S., Perreault F., Corredor C., Posner J.D., Elimelech M., Pfefferle L.D., Zimmerman J.B. Shape-Dependent Surface Reactivity and Antimicrobial Activity of Nano-Cupric Oxide. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016;50:3975-3984.
Not in our library10.1021/acs.est.5b05734
121.
Fonseca S., Cayer M.P., Ahmmed K.M.T., Khadem-Mohtaram N., Charette S.J., Brouard D. Characterization of the Antibacterial Activity of an SiO(2) Nanoparticular Coating to Prevent Bacterial Contamination in Blood Products. Antibiotics. 2022;11:107.
Not in our library10.3390/antibiotics11010107
122.
Jiang Y., Huo S., Hardie J., Liang X.-J., Rotello V.M. Progress and perspective of inorganic nanoparticle-based siRNA delivery systems. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2016;13:547-559.
Not in our library10.1517/17425247.2016.1134486
123.
Marcato P.D., Durán N. New aspects of nanopharmaceutical delivery systems. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2008;8:2216-2229.
Not in our library10.1166/jnn.2008.274
124.
Kassem A., Ayoub G.M., Malaeb L. Antibacterial activity of chitosan nano-composites and carbon nanotubes: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2019;668:566-576.
Not in our library10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.446
125.
Noor M.M., Santana-Pereira A.L.R., Liles M.R., Davis V.A. Dispersant Effects on Single-Walled Carbon Nanotube Antibacterial Activity. Molecules. 2022;27:1606.
Not in our library10.3390/molecules27051606
126.
Ang C.W., Tan L., Qu Z., West N.P., Cooper M.A., Popat A., Blaskovich M.A.T. Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles Improve Oral Delivery of Antitubercular Bicyclic Nitroimidazoles. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2022;8:4196-4206.
Not in our library10.1021/acsbiomaterials.1c00807
127.
Alandiyjany M.N., Abdelaziz A.S., Abdelfattah-Hassan A., Hegazy W.A.H., Hassan A.A., Elazab S.T., Mohamed E.A.A., El-Shetry E.S., Saleh A.A., ElSawy N.A., et al. Novel In Vivo Assessment of Antimicrobial Efficacy of Ciprofloxacin Loaded Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles against Salmonella typhimurium Infection. Pharmaceuticals. 2022;15:357.
Not in our library10.3390/ph15030357
128.
Sánchez-Salcedo S., García A., González-Jiménez A., Vallet-Regí M. Antibacterial effect of 3D printed mesoporous bioactive glass scaffolds doped with metallic silver nanoparticles. Acta Biomater. 2022;155:654-666.
Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2022.10.045
129.
Zafar A., Alruwaili N.K., Imam S.S., Alsaidan O.A., Ahmed M.M., Yasir M., Warsi M.H., Alquraini A., Ghoneim M.M., Alshehri S. Development and Optimization of Hybrid Polymeric Nanoparticles of Apigenin: Physicochemical Characterization, Antioxidant Activity and Cytotoxicity Evaluation. Sensors. 2022;22:1364.
Not in our library10.3390/s22041364
130.
Khalili L., Dehghan G., Sheibani N., Khataee A. Smart active-targeting of lipid-polymer hybrid nanoparticles for therapeutic applications: Recent advances and challenges. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2022;213:166-194.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.05.156
131.
Elhassan E., Devnarain N., Mohammed M., Govender T., Omolo C.A. Engineering hybrid nanosystems for efficient and targeted delivery against bacterial infections. J. Control. Release Off. J. Control. Release Soc. 2022;351:598-622.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jconrel.2022.09.052
132.
Zhang R.X., Ahmed T., Li L.Y., Li J., Abbasi A.Z., Wu X.Y. Design of nanocarriers for nanoscale drug delivery to enhance cancer treatment using hybrid polymer and lipid building blocks. Nanoscale. 2017;9:1334-1355.
Not in our library10.1039/c6nr08486a
133.
A Vehicle‐Free Antimicrobial Polymer Hybrid Gold Nanoparticle as Synergistically Therapeutic Platforms for Staphylococcus aureus Infected Wound Healing · 2022
No notice
134.
Jia H., Zeng X., Fan S., Cai R., Wang Z., Yuan Y., Yue T. Silver nanoparticles anchored magnetic self-assembled carboxymethyl cellulose-ε-polylysine hybrids with synergetic antibacterial activity for wound infection therapy. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2022;210:703-715.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.04.225
135.
Cascioferro S., Carbone D., Parrino B., Pecoraro C., Giovannetti E., Cirrincione G., Diana P. Therapeutic strategies to counteract antibiotic resistance in MRSA biofilm-associated infections. ChemMedChem. 2021;16:65-80.
Not in our library10.1002/cmdc.202000677
136.
Makabenta J.M.V., Nabawy A., Li C.-H., Schmidt-Malan S., Patel R., Rotello V.M. Nanomaterial-based therapeutics for antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2021;19:23-36.
Not in our library10.1038/s41579-020-0420-1
137.
Kohanski M.A., Dwyer D.J., Collins J.J. How antibiotics kill bacteria: From targets to networks. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2010;8:423-435.
Not in our library10.1038/nrmicro2333
138.
Mamun M.M., Sorinolu A.J., Munir M., Vejerano E.P. Nanoantibiotics: Functions and properties at the nanoscale to combat antibiotic resistance. Front. Chem. 2021;9:687660.
Not in our library10.3389/fchem.2021.687660
139.
Nano-Based Drug Delivery or Targeting to Eradicate Bacteria for Infection Mitigation: A Review of Recent Advances · 2020
No notice
140.
Zaidi S., Misba L., Khan A.U. Nano-therapeutics: A revolution in infection control in post antibiotic era. Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 2017;13:2281-2301.
Not in our library10.1016/j.nano.2017.06.015
141.
Chung H.S., Yao Z., Goehring N.W., Kishony R., Beckwith J., Kahne D. Rapid beta-lactam-induced lysis requires successful assembly of the cell division machinery. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2009;106:21872-21877.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0911674106
142.
Zhang Y.M., Rock C.O. Membrane lipid homeostasis in bacteria. Nat. Reviews. Microbiol. 2008;6:222-233.
Not in our library10.1038/nrmicro1839
143.
Nel A.E., Mädler L., Velegol D., Xia T., Hoek E.M., Somasundaran P., Klaessig F., Castranova V., Thompson M. Understanding biophysicochemical interactions at the nano-bio interface. Nat. Mater. 2009;8:543-557.
Not in our library10.1038/nmat2442
144.
Zhao Y., Tian Y., Cui Y., Liu W., Ma W., Jiang X. Small molecule-capped gold nanoparticles as potent antibacterial agents that target gram-negative bacteria. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010;132:12349-12356.
Not in our library10.1021/ja1028843
145.
Cui Y., Zhao Y., Tian Y., Zhang W., Lü X., Jiang X. The molecular mechanism of action of bactericidal gold nanoparticles on Escherichia coli. Biomaterials. 2012;33:2327-2333.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.11.057
146.
Lemire J.A., Harrison J.J., Turner R.J. Antimicrobial activity of metals: Mechanisms, molecular targets and applications. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2013;11:371-384.
Not in our library10.1038/nrmicro3028
147.
Tarrat N., Benoit M., Giraud M., Ponchet A., Casanove M.-J. The gold/ampicillin interface at the atomic scale. Nanoscale. 2015;7:14515-14524.
Not in our library10.1039/c5nr03318g
148.
Kim D., Kwon S.J., Wu X., Sauve J., Lee I., Nam J., Kim J., Dordick J.S. Selective Killing of Pathogenic Bacteria by Antimicrobial Silver Nanoparticle-Cell Wall Binding Domain Conjugates. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2018;10:13317-13324.
Not in our library10.1021/acsami.8b00181
149.
Jijie R., Barras A., Teodorescu F., Boukherroub R., Szunerits S. Advancements on the molecular design of nanoantibiotics: Current level of development and future challenges. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. 2017;2:349-369.
Not in our library10.1039/c7me00048k
150.
Antimicrobial Metal Nanomaterials: From Passive to Stimuli‐Activated Applications · 2020
No notice
151.
Antibacterial nanomaterials: Upcoming hope to overcome antibiotic resistance crisis · 2022
Not checked
152.
Gupta A., Mumtaz S., Li C.-H., Hussain I., Rotello V.M. Combatting antibiotic-resistant bacteria using nanomaterials. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2019;48:415-427.
Not in our library10.1039/c7cs00748e
153.
Muthukrishnan L., Chellappa M., Nanda A. Bio-engineering and cellular imaging of silver nanoparticles as weaponry against multidrug resistant human pathogens. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2019;194:119-127.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2019.03.021
154.
Wang L., Hu C., Shao L. The antimicrobial activity of nanoparticles: Present situation and prospects for the future. Int. J. Nanomed. 2017;12:1227.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s121956
155.
Metal nanoparticles: understanding the mechanisms behind antibacterial activity · 2017
No notice
156.
Wang X., Du Y., Fan L., Liu H., Hu Y. Chitosan-metal complexes as antimicrobial agent: Synthesis, characterization and Structure-activity study. Polym. Bull. 2005;55:105-113.
Not in our library10.1007/s00289-005-0414-1
157.
Natan M., Banin E. From nano to micro: Using nanotechnology to combat microorganisms and their multidrug resistance. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2017;41:302-322.
Not in our library10.1093/femsre/fux003
158.
Fenoglio I., Corazzari I., Francia C., Bodoardo S., Fubini B. The oxidation of glutathione by cobalt/tungsten carbide contributes to hard metal-induced oxidative stress. Free. Radic. Res. 2008;42:437-745.
Not in our library10.1080/10715760802350904
159.
Quinteros M., Aristizábal V.C., Dalmasso P.R., Paraje M.G., Páez P.L. Oxidative stress generation of silver nanoparticles in three bacterial genera and its relationship with the antimicrobial activity. Toxicol. Vitr. 2016;36:216-223.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tiv.2016.08.007
160.
Hailan W.A., Al-Anazi K.M., Farah M.A., Ali M.A., Al-Kawmani A.A., Abou-Tarboush F.M. Reactive Oxygen Species-Mediated Cytotoxicity in Liver Carcinoma Cells Induced by Silver Nanoparticles Biosynthesized Using Schinus molle Extract. Nanomaterials. 2022;12:161.
Not in our library10.3390/nano12010161
161.
Banerjee S., Vishakha K., Das S., Sangma P.D., Mondal S., Ganguli A. Oxidative stress, DNA, and membranes targets as modes of antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of facile synthesized biocompatible keratin-copper nanoparticles against multidrug resistant uro-pathogens. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2022;38:20.
Not in our library10.1007/s11274-021-03187-z
162.
Fahimmunisha B.A., Ishwarya R., AlSalhi M.S., Devanesan S., Govindarajan M., Vaseeharan B. Green fabrication, characterization and antibacterial potential of zinc oxide nanoparticles using Aloe socotrina leaf extract: A novel drug delivery approach. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 2020;55:101465.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jddst.2019.101465
163.
Pathakoti K., Manubolu M., Hwang H.M. Effect of Size and Crystalline Phase of TiO₂ Nanoparticles on Photocatalytic Inactivation of Escherichia coli. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2019;19:8172-8179.
Not in our library10.1166/jnn.2019.16757
164.
Bardestani A., Ebrahimpour S., Esmaeili A., Esmaeili A. Quercetin attenuates neurotoxicity induced by iron oxide nanoparticles. J. Nanobiotechnology. 2021;19:327.
Not in our library10.1186/s12951-021-01059-0
165.
Chaithawiwat K., Vangnai A., McEvoy J.M., Pruess B., Krajangpan S., Khan E. Role of oxidative stress in inactivation of Escherichia coli BW25113 by nanoscale zero-valent iron. Sci. Total Environ. 2016;565:857-862.
Not in our library10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.191
166.
Ševců A., El-Temsah Y.S., Joner E.J., Černík M. Oxidative stress induced in microorganisms by zero-valent iron nanoparticles. Microbes Environ. 2011;26:271-281.
Not in our library10.1264/jsme2.me11126
167.
Gold Nanoparticles: An Efficient Antimicrobial Agent against Enteric Bacterial Human Pathogen · 2016
No notice
168.
Chatterjee A.K., Chakraborty R., Basu T. Mechanism of antibacterial activity of copper nanoparticles. Nanotechnology. 2014;25:135101.
Not in our library10.1088/0957-4484/25/13/135101
169.
Sutherland I.W. The biofilm matrix--an immobilized but dynamic microbial environment. Trends Microbiol. 2001;9:222-227.
Not in our library10.1016/s0966-842x(01)02012-1
170.
Hosnedlova B., Kabanov D., Kepinska M., VH B.N., Parikesit A.A., Fernandez C., Bjørklund G., Nguyen H.V., Farid A., Sochor J., et al. Effect of Biosynthesized Silver Nanoparticles on Bacterial Biofilm Changes in S. aureus and E. coli. Nanomaterials. 2022;12:2183.
Not in our library10.3390/nano12132183
171.
Brown A.N., Smith K., Samuels T.A., Lu J., Obare S.O., Scott M.E. Nanoparticles functionalized with ampicillin destroy multiple-antibiotic-resistant isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacter aerogenes and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012;78:2768-2774.
Not in our library10.1128/aem.06513-11
172.
Li C.-H., Chen X., Landis R.F., Geng Y., Makabenta J.M., Lemnios W., Gupta A., Rotello V.M. Phytochemical-based nanocomposites for the treatment of bacterial biofilms. ACS Infect. Dis. 2019;5:1590-1596.
Not in our library10.1021/acsinfecdis.9b00134
173.
Abo-Shama U.H., El-Gendy H., Mousa W.S., Hamouda R.A., Yousuf W.E., Hetta H.F., Abdeen E.E. Synergistic and antagonistic effects of metal nanoparticles in combination with antibiotics against some reference strains of pathogenic microorganisms. Infect. Drug Resist. 2020;13:351.
Not in our library10.2147/idr.s234425
174.
Bera S.M.D. Drug Targeting and Stimuli Sensitive Drug Delivery Systems. 2018;271-302.
Not in our library
175.
Li P., Li J., Wu C., Wu Q., Li J. Synergistic antibacterial effects of β-lactam antibiotic combined with silver nanoparticles. Nanotechnology. 2005;16:1912.
Not in our library10.1088/0957-4484/16/9/082
176.
Chamundeeswari M., Sobhana S.L., Jacob J.P., Kumar M.G., Devi M.P., Sastry T.P., Mandal A.B. Preparation, characterization and evaluation of a biopolymeric gold nanocomposite with antimicrobial activity. Biotechnol. Appl. Biochem. 2010;55:29-35.
Not in our library10.1042/ba20090198
177.
Abdelghany S.M., Quinn D.J., Ingram R.J., Gilmore B.F., Donnelly R.F., Taggart C.C., Scott C.J. Gentamicin-loaded nanoparticles show improved antimicrobial effects towards Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. Int. J. Nanomed. 2012;7:4053.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s34341
178.
Hazime N., Belguesmia Y., Kempf I., Barras A., Drider D., Boukherroub R. Enhancing Colistin Activity against Colistin-Resistant Escherichia coli through Combination with Alginate Nanoparticles and Small Molecules. Pharmaceuticals. 2022;15:682.
Not in our library10.3390/ph15060682
179.
Hada A.M., Potara M., Astilean S., Cordaro A., Neri G., Malanga M., Nostro A., Mazzaglia A., Scala A., Piperno A. Linezolid nanoAntiobiotics and SERS-nanoTags based on polymeric cyclodextrin bimetallic core-shell nanoarchitectures. Carbohydr. Polym. 2022;293:119736.
Not in our library10.1016/j.carbpol.2022.119736
180.
Rumbaugh K.P., Sauer K. Biofilm dispersion. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2020;18:571-586.
Not in our library10.1038/s41579-020-0385-0
181.
The Antimicrobial Resistance Crisis: Causes, Consequences, and Management · 2014
No notice
182.
Cassandra W. The drug-resistant bacteria that pose the greatest health threats. Nature. 2017;543:15.
Not in our library10.1038/nature.2017.21550
183.
Huang C.-M., Chen C.-H., Pornpattananangkul D., Zhang L., Chan M., Hsieh M.-F., Zhang L. Eradication of drug resistant Staphylococcus aureus by liposomal oleic acids. Biomaterials. 2011;32:214-221.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.08.076
184.
Sun C., Wang X., Dai J., Ju Y. Metal and Metal Oxide Nanomaterials for Fighting Planktonic Bacteria and Biofilms: A Review Emphasizing on Mechanistic Aspects. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022;23:1348.
Not in our library10.3390/ijms231911348
185.
Liu M., Guo L., Fu Y., Huo M., Qi Q., Zhao G. Bacterial protein acetylation and its role in cellular physiology and metabolic regulation. Biotechnol. Adv. 2021;53:107842.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biotechadv.2021.107842
186.
Xu Z., Zhang C., Wang X., Liu D. Release strategies of silver ions from materials for bacterial killing. ACS Appl. Bio. Mater. 2021;4:3985-3999.
Not in our library10.1021/acsabm.0c01485
187.
Du T., Huang B., Cao J., Li C., Jiao J., Xiao Z., Wei L., Ma J., Du X., Wang S. Ni Nanocrystals Supported on Graphene Oxide: Antibacterial Agents for Synergistic Treatment of Bacterial Infections. ACS Omega. 2022;7:18339-18349.
Not in our library10.1021/acsomega.2c00508
188.
Sondi I., Salopek-Sondi B. Silver nanoparticles as antimicrobial agent: A case study on E. coli as a model for Gram-negative bacteria. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2004;275:177-182.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jcis.2004.02.012
189.
Benzalkonium chloride antagonises aminoglycoside antibiotics and promotes evolution of resistance · 2021
Not checked
190.
Zhang X., Zhang Z., Shu Q., Xu C., Zheng Q., Guo Z., Wang C., Hao Z., Liu X., Wang G. Copper clusters: An effective antibacterial for eradicating multidrug-resistant bacterial infection in vitro and in vivo. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021;31:2008720.
Not in our library10.1002/adfm.202008720
191.
Emmanuel R., Palanisamy S., Chen S.-M., Chelladurai K., Padmavathy S., Saravanan M., Prakash P., Ali M.A., Al-Hemaid F.M. Antimicrobial efficacy of green synthesized drug blended silver nanoparticles against dental caries and periodontal disease causing microorganisms. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2015;56:374-379.
Not in our library10.1016/j.msec.2015.06.033
192.
Sun C., Wang W., Sun X., Chu W., Yang J., Dai J., Ju Y. An intrinsically thermogenic nanozyme for synergistic antibacterial therapy. Biomater. Sci. 2021;9:8323-8334.
Not in our library10.1039/d1bm01390d
193.
Peng B., Su Y.-b., Li H., Han Y., Guo C., Tian Y.-m., Peng X.-x. Exogenous alanine and/or glucose plus kanamycin kills antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Cell Metab. 2015;21:249-262.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cmet.2015.01.008
194.
Marambio-Jones C., Hoek E. A review of the antibacterial effects of silver nanomaterials and potential implications for human health and the environment. J. Nanoparticle Res. 2010;12:1531-1551.
Not in our library10.1007/s11051-010-9900-y
195.
Rizzello L., Pompa P.P. Nanosilver-based antibacterial drugs and devices: Mechanisms, methodological drawbacks, and guidelines. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2014;43:1501-1518.
Not in our library10.1039/c3cs60218d
196.
Eng S.-K., Pusparajah P., Ab Mutalib N.-S., Ser H.-L., Chan K.-G., Lee L.-H. Salmonella: A review on pathogenesis, epidemiology and antibiotic resistance. Front. Life Sci. 2015;8:284-293.
Not in our library10.1080/21553769.2015.1051243
197.
Hetta H.F., Meshaal A.K., Algammal A.M., Yahia R., Makharita R.R., Marraiki N., Shah M.A., Hassan H.-A.M., Batiha G.E.-S. In-vitro antimicrobial activity of essential oils and spices powder of some medicinal plants against bacillus species isolated from raw and processed meat. Infect. Drug Resist. 2020;13:4367.
Not in our library10.2147/idr.s277295
198.
Salmonella - the ultimate insider. Salmonella virulence factors that modulate intracellular survival · 2009
No notice
199.
Kamaruzzaman N.F., Kendall S., Good L. Targeting the hard to reach: Challenges and novel strategies in the treatment of intracellular bacterial infections. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2017;174:2225-2236.
Not in our library10.1111/bph.13664
200.
Russell D.G. Mycobacterium tuberculosis: Here today, and here tomorrow. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2001;2:569-578.
Not in our library10.1038/35085034
201.
El-Masry E.A., Taher I., Hetta H.F., Eldahdouh S.S. Pulmonary tuberculosis susceptibility and association with Toll-Like receptor 2 Arg753Gln polymorphism. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2022;16:125-133.
Not in our library10.3855/jidc.14885
202.
Algammal A.M., Hashem H.R., Al-Otaibi A.S., Alfifi K.J., El-Dawody E.M., Mahrous E., Hetta H.F., El-Kholy A.W., Ramadan H., El-Tarabili R.M. Emerging MDR-Mycobacterium avium subsp. avium in house-reared domestic birds as the first report in Egypt. BMC Microbiol. 2021;21:237.
Not in our library10.1186/s12866-021-02287-y
203.
Dar H.A., Ismail S., Waheed Y., Ahmad S., Jamil Z., Aziz H., Hetta H.F., Muhammad K. Designing a multi-epitope vaccine against Mycobacteroides abscessus by pangenome-reverse vaccinology. Sci. Rep. 2021;11:11197.
Not in our library10.1038/s41598-021-90868-2
204.
Ellis T., Chiappi M., Garcia-Trenco A., Al-Ejji M., Sarkar S., Georgiou T.K., Shaffer M.S., Tetley T.D., Schwander S., Ryan M.P. Multimetallic microparticles increase the potency of rifampicin against intracellular Mycobacterium tuberculosis. ACS Nano. 2018;12:5228-5240.
Not in our library10.1021/acsnano.7b08264
205.
Jiang H., Li X., Xing Z., Niu Q., Xu J. Intracellular Activity of Poly (DL-lactide-co-glycolide) Nanoparticles Encapsulated with Prothionamide, Pyrazinamide, Levofloxacin, Linezolid or Ethambutol on Multidrug-Resistant Mycobacterium Tuberculosis. Curr. Drug Deliv. 2022.
Not in our library10.2174/1567201819666220511120215
206.
Xie X., Du X., Li K., Chen Y., Guan Y., Zhao X., Niu G., Luan Y., Zhang D., Sun C., et al. Construction of engineered corpus cavernosum with primary mesenchymal stem cells in vitro. Sci. Rep. 2017;7:18053.
Not in our library10.1038/s41598-017-18129-9
207.
Menina S., Eisenbeis J., Kamal M.A.M., Koch M., Bischoff M., Gordon S., Loretz B., Lehr C.M. Bioinspired liposomes for oral delivery of colistin to combat intracellular infections by Salmonella enterica. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2019;8:1900564.
Not in our library10.1002/adhm.201900564
208.
Potent Antibacterial Nanoparticles against Biofilm and Intracellular Bacteria · 2016
No notice
209.
Li Y., Wang J., Li B., Geng M., Wang Y., Zhao J., Jin B., Li Y. Response of extracellular polymeric substances and microbial community structures on resistance genes expression in wastewater treatment containing copper oxide nanoparticles and humic acid. Bioresour. Technol. 2021;340:125741.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125741
210.
Costerton J.W., Stewart P.S., Greenberg E.P. Bacterial biofilms: A common cause of persistent infections. Science. 1999;284:1318-1322.
Not in our library10.1126/science.284.5418.1318
211.
Geesey G., Richardson W., Yeomans H., Irvin R., Costerton J. Microscopic examination of natural sessile bacterial populations from an alpine stream. Can. J. Microbiol. 1977;23:1733-1736.
Not in our library10.1139/m77-249
212.
Flemming H.-C., Wingender J., Szewzyk U., Steinberg P., Rice S.A., Kjelleberg S. Biofilms: An emergent form of bacterial life. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2016;14:563-575.
Not in our library10.1038/nrmicro.2016.94
213.
Arnaouteli S., Bamford N.C., Stanley-Wall N.R., Kovács Á.T. Bacillus subtilis biofilm formation and social interactions. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2021;19:600-614.
Not in our library10.1038/s41579-021-00540-9
214.
Flemming H.-C., Wingender J. The biofilm matrix. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2010;8:623-633.
Not in our library10.1038/nrmicro2415
215.
Patel R. Biofilms and antimicrobial resistance. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2005;437:41-47.
Not in our library10.1097/01.blo.0000175714.68624.74
216.
Van Acker H., Van Dijck P., Coenye T. Molecular mechanisms of antimicrobial tolerance and resistance in bacterial and fungal biofilms. Trends Microbiol. 2014;22:326-333.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tim.2014.02.001
217.
Sauer K., Stoodley P., Goeres D.M., Hall-Stoodley L., Burmølle M., Stewart P.S., Bjarnsholt T. The biofilm life cycle: Expanding the conceptual model of biofilm formation. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2022;20:608-620.
Not in our library10.1038/s41579-022-00767-0
218.
Ciofu O., Moser C., Jensen P., Høiby N. Tolerance and resistance of microbial biofilms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2022;20:621-635.
Not in our library10.1038/s41579-022-00682-4
219.
Morales-Ubaldo A.L., Rivero-Perez N., Avila-Ramos F., Aquino-Torres E., Prieto-Méndez J., Hetta H.F., El-Saber Batiha G., Zaragoza-Bastida A. Bactericidal activity of Larrea tridentata hydroalcoholic extract against phytopathogenic bacteria. Agronomy. 2021;11:957.
Not in our library10.3390/agronomy11050957
220.
Wang Y., Bian Z., Wang Y. Biofilm formation and inhibition mediated by bacterial quorum sensing. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2022;106:6365-6381.
Not in our library10.1007/s00253-022-12150-3
221.
Fulaz S., Vitale S., Quinn L., Casey E. Nanoparticle–biofilm interactions: The role of the EPS matrix. Trends Microbiol. 2019;27:915-926.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tim.2019.07.004
222.
When nanoparticles meet biofilmsâ€”interactions guiding the environmental fate and accumulation of nanoparticles · 2015
No notice
223.
Birk S.E., Boisen A., Nielsen L.H. Polymeric nano- and microparticulate drug delivery systems for treatment of biofilms. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2021;174:30-52.
Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2021.04.005
224.
Banerjee S., Vishakha K., Das S., Dutta M., Mukherjee D., Mondal J., Mondal S., Ganguli A. Antibacterial, anti-biofilm activity and mechanism of action of pancreatin doped zinc oxide nanoparticles against methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces. 2020;190:110921.
Not in our library10.1016/j.colsurfb.2020.110921
225.
Thomas N., Thorn C., Richter K., Thierry B., Prestidge C. Efficacy of Poly-Lactic-Co-Glycolic Acid Micro- and Nanoparticles of Ciprofloxacin Against Bacterial Biofilms. J. Pharm. Sci. 2016;105:3115-3122.
Not in our library10.1016/j.xphs.2016.06.022
226.
Zazo H., Colino C.I., Lanao J.M. Current applications of nanoparticles in infectious diseases. J. Control. Release. 2016;224:86-102.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.01.008
227.
Huh A.J., Kwon Y.J. “Nanoantibiotics”: A new paradigm for treating infectious diseases using nanomaterials in the antibiotics resistant era. J. Control. Release. 2011;156:128-145.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jconrel.2011.07.002
228.
Nano-Strategies to Fight Multidrug Resistant Bacteria—“A Battle of the Titans” · 2018
No notice
229.
Sandhiya S., Dkhar S.A., Surendiran A. Emerging trends of nanomedicine--an overview. Fundam. Clin. Pharmacol. 2009;23:263-269.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1472-8206.2009.00692.x
230.
El-Ansary A., Al-Daihan S. On the Toxicity of Therapeutically Used Nanoparticles: An Overview. J. Toxicol. 2009;2009:754810.
Not in our library10.1155/2009/754810
231.
Hagens W.I., Oomen A.G., de Jong W.H., Cassee F.R., Sips A.J.A.M. What do we (need to) know about the kinetic properties of nanoparticles in the body? Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2007;49:217-229.
Not in our library10.1016/j.yrtph.2007.07.006
232.
De Jong W.H., Borm P.J. Drug delivery and nanoparticles:applications and hazards. Int. J. Nanomed. 2008;3:133-149.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s596
233.
Miyazaki T., Chen S., Florinas S., Igarashi K., Matsumoto Y., Yamasoba T., Xu Z.-Q., Wu H., Gao C., Kataoka K. A Hoechst Reporter Enables Visualization of Drug Engagement In Vitro and In Vivo: Toward Safe and Effective Nanodrug Delivery. ACS Nano. 2022;16:12290-12304.
Not in our library10.1021/acsnano.2c03170
234.
Duncan R., Gaspar R. Nanomedicine(s) under the microscope. Mol. Pharm. 2011;8:2101-2141.
Not in our library10.1021/mp200394t

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.