Enhancing the Efficacy of Antimicrobial Peptide BM2, Against Mono-Species Biofilms, with Detergents
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Enhancing the efficacy of Antimicrobial peptide BM2, against mono-species biofilms, by combining with detergents A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Clinical Dentistry (Endodontics) Arpana Arthi Devi Department of Oral Rehabilitation, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand 2016 Abstract Title Enhancing the efficacy of antimicrobial peptide BM2, against mono-species biofilms, by combining with detergents. Aim To investigate if a detergent regime could enhance the antimicrobial ability of BM2. Method Strains of Enterococcus faecalis, Streptococcus gordonii, Streptococcus mutans, and Candida albicans were grown from glycerol stocks after confirmation of the strains. After subculturing single colonies were cultured in TSB and CSM liquid media for 24hr to obtain a microbial suspension which was adjusted to OD600nm = 0.5. Dilution series of the peptidomimetic BM2 and detergents were prepared in aqueous solution and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) were determined using a broth micro-dilution method. Further on planktonic cells and monospecies biofilms were exposed to the detergent and BM2 combinations. The efficacy of BM2 and detergents at causing biofilm detachment was measured using a crystal violet based assay. Results Planktonic cells were easier to kill with some of the detergents in isolation or in combination with BM2. SDS and CTAB in combination with BM2 increased the efficacy of BM2 against the test organisms. Tween 20 did not kill any of the test organisms alone or in combination. Biofilms were harder to eradicate and detergent, BM2 combinations gave varied results for the different species tested. Detergents in combination with BM2 did not increase the efficacy of the antimicrobial peptide in disrupting S. mutans biofilm. SDS in combination with BM2 did not increase the efficacy of the antimicrobial peptide in disrupting E. faecalis biofilm at the 24 and 48 hr periods however at the 72 hr period there was disruption of biofilm. CTAB in combination with BM2 did not increase the efficacy of the antimicrobial peptide in disrupting E. faecalis biofilm. ii CTAB in combination with BM2 increased the efficacy of the antimicrobial peptide in disrupting S. gordonii biofilm at the 24 hr period, however at the 48 and 72 hr no disruption was noted. SDS in combination with BM2 did not increase the efficacy of the antimicrobial peptide in disrupting S. gordonii biofilm. CTAB in combination with BM2 increased the efficacy of the antimicrobial peptide in disrupting C. albicans biofilm at the 24 hr period, however at the 48 and 72 hr no disruption was noted. SDS in combination with BM2 increased the efficacy of the antimicrobial peptide in disrupting C. albicans biofilm at the 24 and 48 hr periods, however at the 72 hr period, the combination did not disrupt C. albicans biofilm. Conclusion Within the limits of this in-vitro study a combination of BM2 and SDS showed antimicrobial action against certain endodontic microorganisms occurring as planktonic cells and in biofilms and offers the potential to develop an effective between visits’ medicament. iii Acknowledgements I would like to thank my principal supervisor, Professor Robert Love. It was an honour to work with one of the distinguished Professors’ in the field of Endodontics. I have benefited greatly from his guidance, knowledge, and enthusiasm for research. The help and patience with the writing of this thesis has been amazing and I will never be able to fully express my gratitude to him. I am also grateful to my secondary supervisor, Dr. Brian Monk, for his expertise in the field of microbiology and peptide synthesis. His constructive guidance and inspired suggestions regarding the study are appreciated. Associate Professor Nick Chandler is thanked for proof reading. Mr. Navneet Sharan, my parents, grandparents, mentors, siblings and all my family and friends who have always supported me in my endeavors. The University of Otago and Ms. Juliet Farrell for the scholarship to take up the course. Special thanks to Mr. & Mrs. Raju, Ms. Juliet Farrell, Mr. Rajendra Sami, Ms. Shreya Aggarwala, the Pacific postgraduate support group and Mr. Dharmendra Singh and family for their support throughout the course. Last but not least the Lord God almighty without whose grace nothing is possible. iv Dedication This thesis is dedicated to my husband Mr. Navneet Sharan, son Master Joshua Sharan and parents for their, patience and endless support. v Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ ii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iv Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ v List of tables ................................................................................................................................... xi List of figures ................................................................................................................................ xii List of abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... xv Chapter 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 Literature Review............................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Biofilms ............................................................................................................................ 3 2.1.1 History of biofilms .................................................................................................... 3 2.1.2 Characteristics of biofilms ......................................................................................... 4 2.1.3 Composition and formation of biofilm ...................................................................... 4 2.1.4 Adhesion to tooth surfaces ........................................................................................ 5 2.1.5 Co-aggregation .......................................................................................................... 5 2.1.6 Metabolism ................................................................................................................ 5 2.1.7 Inhibitory substances and metabolites ....................................................................... 6 2.1.8 Extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) .................................................................. 6 2.1.9 Advantages of biofilms .............................................................................................. 9 2.1.10 Biofilms in dentistry .................................................................................................. 9 2.1.11 Biofilms in endodontics ........................................................................................... 11 2.1.12 Endodontic biofilm classification and formation .................................................... 12 2.1.13 Management strategies for biofilms within the root canals ..................................... 13 2.1.14 Root canal medications ............................................................................................ 15 2.2 Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) ...................................................................................... 17 vi 2.2.1 Categories and structural features of Cationic antimicrobial peptides .................... 18 2.2.2 Historic background of antimicrobial biology......................................................... 20 2.2.3 Mechanisms of Cationic AMP action ...................................................................... 21 2.2.4 Membrane-permeabilizing peptides ........................................................................ 23 2.2.5 Aggregate model...................................................................................................... 23 2.2.6 Toroidal pore model ................................................................................................ 23 2.2.7 Barrel-stave model ................................................................................................... 24 2.2.8 Carpet model ........................................................................................................... 24 2.2.9 Detergent Model ...................................................................................................... 24 2.2.10 Non- Membrane permeabilizing peptides ............................................................... 25 2.2.11 Advantages of peptides over other drug candidates ................................................ 26 2.3 Peptidomimetics .............................................................................................................. 27 2.3.1 Discovery of BM2 ................................................................................................... 27 2.3.2 Properties of BM2 ................................................................................................... 29 2.4 Detergents ....................................................................................................................... 29 2.4.1 Classification of Detergents ...................................................................................