The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Role of Size and Shape on Biofilm Eradication for Nitric Oxide-Releasing Silica Nanoparticles
Abstract
Nitric oxide (NO), a reactive free radical, has proven effective in eradicating bacterial biofilms with reduced risk of fostering antibacterial resistance. Herein, we evaluated the efficacy of NO-releasing silica nanoparticles against Gram-negative Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Gram-positive Staphylococcus aureus biofilms as a function of particle size and shape. Three sizes of NO-releasing silica nanoparticles (i.e., 14, 50, and 150 nm) with identical total NO release (∼0.3 μmol/mg) were utilized to study antibiofilm eradication as a function of size. To observe the role of particle shape on biofilm killing, we varied the aspect ratio of the NO-releasing silica particles from 1 to 8 while maintaining constant particle volume (∼0.02 μm(3)) and NO-release totals (∼0.7 μmol/mg). Nitric oxide-releasing particles with decreased size and increased aspect ratio were more effective against both P. aeruginosa and S. aureus biofilms, with the Gram-negative species exhibiting the greatest susceptibility to NO. To further understand the influence of these nanoparticle properties on NO-mediated antibacterial activity, we visualized intracellular NO concentrations and cell death with confocal microscopy. Smaller NO-releasing particles (14 nm) exhibited better NO delivery and enhanced bacteria killing compared to the larger (50 and 150 nm) particles. Likewise, the rod-like NO-releasing particles proved more effective than spherical particles in delivering NO and inducing greater antibacterial action throughout the biofilm.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bacterial Biofilms: A Common Cause of Persistent Infections
Costerton, J. W., Stewart, P. S., & Greenberg, E. P. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.284.5418.1318 · Cited by 12,167
Anderl, J. N., Franklin, M. J., & Stewart, P. S. (2000) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.44.7.1818-1824.2000 · Cited by 958
Nitric oxide release: Part I. Macromolecular scaffolds
Riccio, D. A., & Schoenfisch, M. H. (2012) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c2cs15272j · Cited by 475
Self-citationZhang, H., Annich, G. M., Miskulin, J., Stankiewicz, K., Osterholzer, K., Merz, S. I., Bartlett, R. H., & Meyerhoff, M. E. (2003) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja0291538 · Cited by 176
Cited by
The antimicrobial activity of nanoparticles: present situation and prospects for the future
Wang, L., Hu, C., & Shao, L. (2017) · International Journal of Nanomedicine · doi:10.2147/ijn.s121956 · Cited by 4,062
Alternative Antimicrobial Approach: Nano-Antimicrobial Materials
Beyth, N., Houri-Haddad, Y., Domb, A., Khan, W., & Hazan, R. (2015) · Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine · doi:10.1155/2015/246012 · Cited by 837
Croissant, J. G., Fatieiev, Y., Almalik, A., & Khashab, N. M. (2018) · Advanced Healthcare Materials · doi:10.1002/adhm.201700831 · Cited by 594
Progress in Alternative Strategies to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance: Focus on Antibiotics
Murugaiyan, J., Kumar, P. A., Rao, G. S., Iskandar, K., Hawser, S., Hays, J. P., Mohsen, Y., Adukkadukkam, S., Awuah, W. A., Jose, R. A. M., et al. (2022) · Antibiotics · doi:10.3390/antibiotics11020200 · Cited by 567
Versatile Antibacterial Materials: An Emerging Arsenal for Combatting Bacterial Pathogens
Ding, X., Duan, S., Ding, X., Liu, R., & Xu, F. (2018) · Advanced Functional Materials · doi:10.1002/adfm.201802140 · Cited by 489
Metadata
- Authors
- Slomberg, D. L., Lu, Y., Broadnax, A. D., Hunter, R. A., Carpenter, A. W., & Schoenfisch, M. H.
- Venue
- ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2013-09-05
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 9322-9329
- ISSN
- 1944-8244 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-8252
- OpenAlex
- W1984091667
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 5.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.