Biofunctionalization of surfaces using polyelectrolyte multilayers : nano Online

Introduction: interaction of medical devices with the human body

In recent years, a lot of progress has been made in the areas of tissue engineering, biomaterials and polymer science. Accordingly, progress has also been made in the areas of implantable devices and drug/device combination products. Nevertheless, the biocompatibility of implantable devices remains a critical issue, limiting device functionality and presenting a significant risk for patients.

A biomaterial implanted into the body induces a foreign body response composed of nonspecific protein adsorption, cell adhesion, upregulation of cytokines and subsequent proinflammatory processes and finally encapsulation of the device by fibrous tissue.

The ISO 10993 serves the assessment of the overall biological safety of a medical device. It can be used for the valuation of potential new materials for suitability in a medical device for a proposed clinical application. Being focused on the biological evaluation of medical devices it therefore puts not only emphasize on the chemical characterization of materials (part 18) but also on the physicochemical, morphological and topographical characterization of materials (part 19). The combined surface characteristics of medical devices are decisive for the adhesion of proteins, bacteria and eukaryotic cells and several strategies on biofunctionalization of surfaces attempt to achieve an appropriate biological response.

Attachment of proteins, bacteria and mammalian cells

Biofouling

Immediately after implantation, a nonspecific attachment of native and denatured proteins, cells and other biological material takes place on the implant surface, a process called “biofouling” [1]. This nonspecific attachment is completely untypical for normal physiological processes and is therefore probably the trigger for the foreign body reaction [2]. Biofouling and the subsequent inflammatory reaction of the body are the main causes for the failure of in vivo implants [1], [2].

Preventing nonspecific protein adsorption reduces undesired biological responses, such as thrombus formation in blood-contacting devices and limits the initial stages of bacteria adhesion and hence biofilm formation [3], [4]. Therefore, protein-resistant properties of medical devices might extend their service life and biocompatibility.

A broad range of anti-biofouling strategies already exist, using biological, physical and chemical techniques to inhibit protein deposition as the initial step of biofouling. For example, surfaces bearing poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) moieties strongly resist nonspecific protein adsorption. This has led to the wide use of PEG in biomedical applications [5], [6], [7]. In addition, micropatterns can be formed on surfaces to make them superhydrophilic or superhydrophobic like the self-cleaning surface of the lotus leave (see review [8]).

Bacterial adhesion

Bacteria adhere to virtually all natural and synthetic surfaces [9], [10] and stimulate the organism to produce extracellular polymeric substances, such as polysaccharides, proteins, nucleic acids and lipids [11], through which they embed themselves in a protective matrix. This matrix provides mechanical stability and constitutes the main difference between planktonic bacteria and bacteria adhering to a surface in a so-called biofilm mode of growth. Bacteria organized in biofilms are at least 10–1000 times more resistant to antibiotics [12] than bacteria in a planktonic state and can cope much better with unfavorable external conditions in the host immune system than planktonic ones.

Initial bacterial adhesion arises from fundamental physicochemical interaction, such as the attractive Lifshitz-Van der Waals forces, electrostatic forces, hydrogen bonding and Brownian motion forces [13]. Additionally, specific molecular interactions operate over small distances. They arise from highly specific, chemical domains on the interacting surface, such as mannose, which is specifically bound by type 1 fimbriae possessing tip-positioned adhesive protein FimH, expressed by Escherichia coli [14].

To maintain antimicrobial activity, conventional formulations of antibiotics are administered. However, concentrations below the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) occur frequently during anti-infective treatment and induce antibiotic resistance. Besides, many antibiotics have short half-life values and need to be administered frequently, which contributes to patient incompliance. This poor compliance often leads to treatment failure and increases the costs of health-care resources such as the requirement for additional agents and hospital admission. By maintaining a constant plasma drug concentration over the MICpem for a prolonged period, sustained-release approaches maximize the therapeutic effect of antibiotics while minimizing antibiotic resistance [15].

Mammalian cell interaction

In vitro studies indicate that initial interactions typically occur between extracellular matrix (ECM) molecules adsorbed at the surface of the biomaterial, and transmembrane integrin receptors present on the cell surface. Rapid adsorption of endogenous proteins to a material surface provide a structural framework which initiates the cellular adhesion. Specific amino acid sequences have been identified to ligate many different cellular integrins, which facilitate adhesion of a variety of cell types [16], [17]. The ECM proteins also control downstream biological processes, such as cell proliferation, differentiation, migration and even cell death.

The subsequent performance of the implant or tissue-engineered product depends on the extent to which the cells interact with the surfaces of these products. Medical devices being in contact with blood, e.g. stents are inherent foreign bodies in the vessel wall, inducing platelet adhesion and activating coagulation, which may lead to thrombosis. The end stage of a potential foreign body response is fibrosis, which involves walling off the device by a vascular, collagenous fibrous capsule that is typically 50–200 μm in thickness [2]. This fibrous wall confines the implanted device and prevents it from interacting with surrounding tissues.

Interestingly, the degree of protein deposition, blood coagulation, or acute inflammation induced by a biomaterial does not always correlate with the amount of fibrosis. The chemical composition of the surface of the biomaterial indeed plays a role, but its physical structure and surface topography are more important to predict the degree of fibrosis [18]. For example, implants with a smooth and non-degradable surface create a thicker fibrous capsule than rough or textured implants [19], [20]. Modern implants use different chemical and topographical modifications to regulate cellular adhesion, differentiation and de novo tissue deposition (see review [21]).

In particular, nanoscale geometrical, topographical and mechanical properties of biomaterials are essential to achieve control of the cell-biomaterials interface [22]. For example, the antifouling properties of PEG can be used when grafted to polyelectrolyte multilayer (PEM) films to reduce cell adhesion. For this purpose, PEG grafted to poly(ethylene imine) (PEI) can be deposited onto the top of PEI/PAA [poly(acrylic acid)] multilayer films. Cell adhesion is reduced on the swollen PEM films and further decreases by increasing deposition of PEI-g-PEG as the topmost layer [23].

Biofunctionalization of medical devices with polyelectrolyte multilayer coatings

PEMs are nanoscale polymer thin films, which are formed by alternating deposition of polyelectrolytes. The used polyelectrolytes are polymers whose monomer units bear an electrolyte group which dissociate in suitable, e.g. aqueous solution, leaving charges on the polymer chains and releasing counter ions in solution. Examples of polyelectrolytes include polystyrene sulfonate, polyacrylic and polymethacrylic acids and their salts, DNA and other polyacids and polybases. The build-up process is driven by electrostatic interactions, but the stability of the films is given by entropic forces.

PEMs, fabricated by layer-by-layer (LbL) self-assembly of polycations and polyanions are a versatile tool for biofunctionalization of surfaces [24], [25]. A flexible deposition process is feasible by dipping or spraying on materials with any size and geometry. The resulting films show defined topography and controlled stability with the potential for tunable drug release under physiological conditions.

During preparation of the multilayer coatings, certain deposition parameters can be controlled and modified, such as the number of deposited layers, the type of specific polyelectrolytes, salts, pH, temperature, etc. These parameters influence the physicochemical characteristics of the PEM films, such as their chemical composition and charge, flexibility and stiffness, roughness and stability, as well as its growth regime (linear vs. exponential). For example, thinner PEMs are stiffer. On the other hand, exponentially growing PEMs are in general less dense and thus more flexible.

Accordingly, certain characteristics can be selected, to modulate the biofunctionality and interaction with biomolecules and cells [26]. For example, protein resistant properties can be generated on polycation-ending PEMs that efficiently prevent the adsorption of the negatively charged model protein glucose oxidase. The protein-resistant properties of these films, based on two typical weak poyelectrolytes, poly(allylamine hydrochloride) (PAH) and PAA, can be attributed to a high film hydration becoming the predominant factor over electrostatic interactions [27].

The flexibility of polyelectrolytes in solution is another important parameter which can influence cell adhesion. It was shown that the semi-flexible polyelectrolytes sulfated chitosan and cationic guar gum result in very little protein adsorption when used as components of PEMs, compared to the flexible polyelectrolytes poly(sodium 4-styrenesulfonate) (PSS) and poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) (PDADMAC). The adsorption of bovine serum albumin as test protein showed to be irrespective of which polyelectrolyte is used to terminate the film [28].

Besides several patents, there exist also two products, which are manufactured and sold commercially. One is the Yassa Sheet (Shiratori NanoTechnology, Kawasaki, Japan). It is equipped with a multilayer film and contains an enzyme that controls the ethylene concentration and thereby extends the shelf life of fruits and vegetables. In addition, contact lenses, equipped with a multilayer coating are sold commercially (CIBA Vision/Novartis, Duluth, U.S.A.).

In a recent study, we increased the surface roughness by introducing kosmotropic anions. The addition of Hofmeister anions improved the biocompatibility of PEM films built from the natural polysaccharides hyaluronic acid and chitosan: We could observe a decrease in albumin adsorption, and a subsequent anti-thrombogenic effect [29].

Last but not least, the top-down erosion principle of biodegradable PEMs naturally prevents bacterial attachment to coated surfaces [30].

Polyelectrolyte multilayer coatings with antibacterial activity

Nosocomial infections are developed in patients during their stay in a hospital. Such infections occur in 5%–10% of all hospitalizations in Europe and North America and in more than 40% in parts of Asia, Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa [31].

Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa have become the most important causes of nosocomial infections in recent years. Their pathogenicity is mainly due to the ability to form biofilms on biomedical devices and prosthesis [32], [33]. Biofilms can attach to both, abiotic and biotic surfaces, and have therefore been implicated in the development of wound infections, non-healing wounds, but also medical device-related infections [34], [35], [36].

The initial contamination of the medical device most likely occurs from a small number of microorganisms, which are often transferred to the device via the patient’s or healthcare workers’ skin, contaminated water or other external environmental sources [37], [38]. Medical device-related infections pose a huge financial burden on healthcare services, being associated with increased patient morbidity and mortality [39].

With the increasing evidence of the presence of biofilms in healthcare-associated infections, current research has focused upon more sophisticated methods of sterilization and the modification of medical devices in order to prevent microbial growth and biofilm formation. There are two general ways to prevent bacterial attachment and subsequent bacterial infections: (1) physical and (2) pharmacological means. PEM can be used for both attempts, by building up anti-adhesive layers and by incorporating antibacterial substances, such as antibiotics, which are then slowly released (see Figure 1).

Figure 1:

Left: Scheme of a layer-by-layer (LbL) assembly of polyelectrolyte multilayer. Middle: Scheme of the main antibacterial strategies (anti-adhesive layers and releasing of antibiotic substances). Right: Fluorescence microscopic pictures showing high number of live bacteria (green) only on uncoated substrate. LbL films with antibiotics show dead bacteria (red) and anti-adhesion layer clearly reduce the number of live bacteria. Reproduced from review [40] with permission of The Royal Society of Chemistry.

Correlation between surface physicochemical properties of PEMs and antibacterial effect

Surface hydrophobicity

Superhydrophilic surfaces have good nonfouling properties due to their high affinity to water. The strongly bound hydration layer on the hydrophilic surface opposes the adsorption of molecules to the surface. This weakens the interaction between the cell surface and the substratum material and thus reduces cell adhesion. Therefore, many coatings involve highly hydrated polymers, e.g. PEG to exhibit antifouling properties [41]. Due to the strong entropy based interactions and affinity of PEG for water, such coatings significantly reduce both, protein adsorption and bacterial adhesion. Studies showed that PEMs based on the combination of PDADMAC/PAA and PAH/PAA already decrease the adhesion strength of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. However, a further reduction in initial cell attachment and adhesion strength can be observed after adsorption of PAA-g-PEG copolymer onto PEMs [42].

In addition, zwitterionic polymers with a positive and a negative electrical charge in close proximity can be used to coat material surfaces to obtain superhydrophilicity. Unlike PEG, zwitterionic polymers have a broader chemical diversity and greater freedom for molecular design [43]. Incorporation of various zwitterionic components into coatings was shown to decrease adsorption of proteins [44], [45], [46], attenuate immune responses [47], [48], and resist attachment of eukaryotic cells [49] and occasionally bacteria [50].

Recent studies on PEMs, built with PAH and copolymers of PAA and the zwitterionic group 3-[2-(acrylamido)-ethyldimethyl ammonio] propane sulfonate (PAA-co-AEDAPS) showed contradictory results: these PEMs resist the adhesion of mammalian cells, but are bacterial adhesive, due to differences in adhesion mechanisms as well as different responses to the topology and morphology of the multilayer surface [51].

On the other side, superhydrophobic surfaces also display antifouling properties and can inhibit microbial adhesion, as well [52]. Superhydrophobic PEM can be created for example via deposition of gold on six bilayers of PDADMAC and PSS, as shown in Figure 2 [53].

Figure 2:

(A) SEM image of dendritic gold clusters formed on an ITO electrode modified with a PDADMAC/PSS polyelectrolyte multilayer by electrochemical deposition at −200 mV (vs Ag/AgCl). (B) Shape of a water droplet on the surface of dendritic gold clusters showing the super hydrophobicity of the coated surface. (Reprinted with permission from [53]. Copyright 2004 American Chemical Society.)

Recent research confirms that both, superhydrophobic and superhydrophilic surfaces might prevent biofilm formation: When the surface roughness is in an appropriate range, the system reaches a state, in which air is trapped in the grooves between surface features and thus prevents wetting [54].

Surface charge

Most bacterial cells are negatively charged; thus, in general, a positively charged surface is more susceptible to bacterial adhesion, whereas a negatively charged surface is more resistant [55]. For example, the negatively charged, antiadhesive polymer heparin can be assembled into multilayers with the positively charged, antibacterial biopolymer chitosan, taking advantage of the combined beneficial polymer characteristics [56].

Meanwhile, surfaces presenting certain cationic groups, such as quaternary ammonium, PEI, or chitosan, have particular antimicrobial activities and thus can kill attached bacterial cells [41]. Different studies in the past showed that specific adjustment of multilayer assembly and post-assembly conditions (e.g. pH value) can serve to expose mobile cationic charge and create antimicrobial PEMs without the addition of specific biocidal species. For example, this could be utilized for PEMs comprising PSS and PAH, assembled at high pH and subsequently immersed in low pH solutions. This system underwent a reversible pH-dependent swelling transition, and antimicrobial functionality at physiological pH conditions could be turned on and off with suitable pH treatment. As a result, the viability of gram-positive S. epidermidis and gram-negative E. coli was effectively reduced on PSS/PAH multilayers displaying accessible cationic charge [57].

Mechanical stiffness

An additional parameter that can regulate the adhesion and subsequent proliferation of viable bacteria is the stiffness of the coated substrate. For example, a study on biofilm formation on poly(dimethylsiloxane) with varying stiffness (2.6–0.1 MPa) showed that an increase in stiffness reduced not only the adhesion and growth of E. coli and P. aeruginosa but also the size and antibiotic susceptibility of attached bacteria, indicating that bacteria are able to sense and respond to material stiffness during biofilm formation [58].

In another systematic study, weak PEM films were employed, comprised of the synthetic polymers PAH and PAA, assembled over a range of conditions, to explore the physicochemical and mechanical characteristics of material surfaces controlling adhesion and growth of S. epidermidis (Gram-positive). AFM-enabled nano-indentation of hydrated PEMs indicated an average film stiffness ranging over two orders of magnitude from the stiffest PEM assembled at pH 6.5 (E = 80.4 MPa) to the most compliant PEM assembled at pH 2.0 (E = 0.8 MPa). The authors found that adhesion of viable S. epidermidis correlates positively with the stiffness of these polymeric substrata, independent of the roughness, interaction energy, and charge density of these materials. Quantitatively similar trends were observed for E. coli (Gram-negative), showing lower bacterial numbers on softer PEMs [59], as usually observed for eukaryotic cells.

Another study showed contrary effects with photo-cross-linkable polyelectrolyte films, whose nanomechanical properties were varied under UV light illumination, with minimal variations of film chemistry and microstructure. Here, E. coli and Lactococcus lactis grew faster on soft (Young’s modulus 30 kPa) than on stiffer PEM films (Young’s modulus 150 kPa) [60] (see Figure 3). The films were prepared from biopolymers: poly(l-lysine) and a hyaluronan derivative modified with photoreactive vinylbenzyl groups (HAVB).

Figure 3:

The adhesion and the growth of E. coli were studied on softer non-cross-linked and stiffer photo-cross-linked PLL/HAVB films to investigate how the film stiffness influences the bacterial behavior. The optical microscopy images show that the gram-negative E. coli exhibited a more rapid growth on non-cross-linked softer films compared to the stiffer ones. (Reprinted with permission from [60]. Copyright 2013 American Chemical Society.)

Even though in each of these studies, the chemical composition and microstructure of the films might play an additional role, it could be concluded that bacterial adhesion is especially favored on very soft coatings (30/100 kPa) and reduced only on surfaces with certain, intermediate stiffness (up to 2.6 MPa). Coatings with higher rigidities (80.4 MPa) again seem to be more susceptible for bacterial growth.

Antibacterial PEMs with pharmacological function

Despite significant progress in designing surfaces that inhibit bacterial adhesion and creating antifouling coatings via surface modification, the use of antibacterial agents to prevent infection still might be clinically unavoidable [15], [61].

Although many antimicrobial implant coatings have already been developed, drug dosage and release rate cannot be easily tuned, and local sustained delivery is still difficult to achieve [15]. One possible approach is the use of specific PEMs that allow versatile and tunable release of drugs like antibacterial substances and make them additionally attractive as coatings for implantable devices [62].

Antibiotics

Antibiotics either kill or inhibit the growth of bacteria: Bactericidal antibiotics target the cell wall (e.g. penicillins) or interfere with essential bacterial enzymes (e.g. rifamycins) and kill the bacteria. Bacteriostatic ones target the bacterial protein synthesis (e.g. macrolides) and inhibit bacterial growth.

The sustained release of antibiotics from coated surfaces can be used to provide a high local concentration and kill bacteria before biofilm formation [63]. The amounts of biocide agents in the blood or surrounding tissue can also be effectively controlled through drug delivery surfaces and help to improve the biocompatibility.

Cationic antibiotics, e.g. tobromycin, gentamicin, and polymyxin B can be easily immobilized into PEMs resulting in bio-responsive, controlled-release antibacterial coatings. For example, films were constructed by direct assembly of tannic acid (partially ionized at pH 7.5), combined with cationic antibiotics. These coatings stayed stable in phosphate-buffered saline at pH 7.4 for as long as 1 month in the absence of bacteria and released antibiotics only upon pH lowering [64]. More recently, PAA-gentamicin/PEI multilayer films were constructed via the LbL self-assembly method. In the biofilm inhibition assay, this multilayer film effectively inhibited bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation while showing only low cytotoxicity against human lens epithelial cells [65].

Silver

Another, increasingly used biocidal substance is silver, which is toxic for bacteria, fungi and viruses at concentrations of 10⁻⁹–10⁻⁶ M [66]. Especially silver nanoparticles have gained considerable attention over the last few decades due to the increasing bacterial resistance to commonly used antibiotics [67]. There are several pathways known for the interactions between silver compounds and bacteria [68]. These interactions can be classified into direct interactions of the silver compounds with (i) the bacterial cell wall, (ii) DNA, (iii) enzymes and membrane proteins, and (iv) interactions based on the silver-induced formation of reactive oxygen species [67].

Recent publications described the incorporation of silver nanoparticles into dopamine-modified alginate/chitosan multilayer. With this method, it was possible to modify the surface of titanium alloy and improve its antibacterial property against E. coli and S. aureus (see Figure 4) [69].

Figure 4:

Antibacterial activity of titanium against E. coli and S. aureus: (a) uncoated, (b) dopamine-modified alginate/chitosan multilayer, and (c) silver nanoparticles in dopamine-modified alginate/chitosan multilayer. (Reprinted from [69] Copyright 2013, with permission from Elsevier.)

In another study, the surface of poly(ether sulfone) membranes was modified with PSS, PDADMAC, and silver nanoparticles to reduce organic and biological fouling. These membranes could be useful for organic and biological fouling prevention during water and wastewater treatment [70]. In a murine wound infection model, the antibacterial efficacy of silver-impregnated PEMs immobilized on a biological dressing was shown. In detail, positively charged 20 nm diameter poly(vinylpyrrolidone) coated silver nanoparticles were incorporated into PEMs of the oppositely charged polyelectrolytes PAH and PAA [71].

Although silver ions have low toxicity, they can cause cell death in the eukaryotic host tissue: Concentrations of 10 μg/mL silver nanoparticles were reported to induce morphological changes in mammalian stem cells, reduce mitochondrial function and therefore cell viability [72]. After permeabilization of the eukaryotic mitochondrial cell membrane, silver ions induced mitochondrial swelling, accelerated cellular respiration and cytochrome c release [73]. Additionally, mitochondria independent toxicity was described for erythrocytes where silver nitrate induced eryptosis. Cell shrinkage and hemolysis were observed with 50–100 nM silver nitrate. The resulting reduced number of erythrocytes in the blood could lead to anemia [73].

Chitosan

Chitosan has several advantages over other disinfectants, as it possesses a higher antimicrobial activity, a broader spectrum of activity, a higher kill rate and lower toxicity towards mammalian cells [74], [75]. Chitosan is a hydrophilic, cationic biopolymer which exerts either bacteriostatic or bactericidal activity by disrupting the inner organelles or disturbing the metabolism of certain bacterial strains [76], [77]. The actual mechanism of inhibition is not yet fully understood. The most feasible hypothesis is a change in cell permeability due to interactions between the positively charged polysaccharide (at pH lower than 6.5) and the negatively charged bacterial membrane. Bacterial growth is then inhibited, when the positively-charged polymer combines with anionic components such as N-acetylmuramic acid, sialic acid and neuraminic acid, on the cell surface [78].

Bound, low molecular weight chitosan could then penetrate the cell wall of bacteria, bind to DNA and inhibit DNA transcription [79]. Bound, high molecular weight chitosan could alter cell permeability or form an impermeable layer around the cell and block any transport over the cell wall [80], [81], [82]. Antibacterial effects of chitosan and its derivatives were shown both, when used in solution and when immobilized on surfaces [83]. Chitosan as polymer showed higher antibacterial activity than chitosan oligomers [84].

Several studies showed that chitosan is more effective for gram-negative bacteria than Gram-positive bacteria [76], [85], [86]. The MIC values of acid-soluble chitosan are much lower (0.03%–0.1%) than those of water-soluble chitosan (0.05%–0.8%) [87]. The acid-soluble chitosan with a deacetylation degree of 0.99 and low viscosity was shown to be most effective in inhibiting bacterial growth [88].

Chitosan can be deposited via LbL assembly: In our own studies, the alternative deposition with hyaluronic acid on polyester and cotton textile proved to be biocompatible for mammalian cells and showed antibacterial functionality against E. coli, S. aureus and Klebsiella pneumoniae [89]. This approach could be used to coat different textiles in order to kill pathogens and to minimize their transmission in the hospital. Examples for possible applications would be coatings of wound dressings, compresses, surgical clothing, bed linen and towels.

In a similar study, LbL films were assembled on cotton samples, using chitosan and alginates to suppress the growth of S. aureus and K. pneumonia [90]. Likewise, chitosan and pentasodium tripolyphosphate were assembled on cotton fabrics to improve inhibition against E. coli and S. aureus [91]. Additional studies, applying alternative deposition with anionic lentinan sulphate showed antibacterial activity against P. aeruginosa [92].

Besides the described desired antibacterial effects, chitosan also promotes plasma protein adsorption, platelet adhesion and activation, and thrombus development, all of which is appropriate for bacteria adhesion [93]. In order to overcome these disadvantages, another study combined chitosan with carrageenan multilayers, to provide additional anti-adhesion properties [94].

Summary/outlook

Different ways of surface modification are known and widely used for finishing of different medical products. Here, we summarized the application of the layer-by-layer (LbL) coating technique for preparation of polyelectrolyte multilayer (PEM). This technique is versatile and can be used for fine adjustment of different surfaces. The PEM based coatings have a thickness of only a few nanometers. They can form robust coatings for long-lasting surface modifications or can be prepared as slowly degradable coatings for controlled release of active substances. The large variety of used and suitable polyelectrolytes enables the formation of coatings with well-predefined and biocompatible properties.

This review outlined specific PEM-based strategies to control the interactions between surfaces and biological systems. The results are important for the development and modification of surfaces from different medical implants. The general aim is to assure better contact between the biological tissues and the implants, and decrease the risk of bacterial infections caused by the implantation. The physical properties of the surfaces like hydrophobicity, hydrophilicity, charge and charge density, as well as roughness play an important role to control the adhesion and proliferation of mammalian cells. These properties, but often also the combined release of active compounds such as silver or antibiotics from the surfaces, can be used to suppress the adhesion and growth of bacteria on these materials. The special properties of chitosan are discussed in more detail within this review. Chitosan can suppress the bacterial adhesion, both because of its charge and because of its interaction with the bacterial cell wall.

Acknowledgments

Some of this work was performed as part of the projects ANKLANA (BMBF KMU innovative, FKZ: 13N13010), EnzCap (BMBF Strategy process “Nächste Generation biotechnologischer Verfahren – Biotechnologie 2020+”, FKZ: 031A171B) and Systemimmunologie an biologisch-technischen Grenzflächen (subproject of “Forschungscampus BioMedTech”).

Author’s statement

Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.

Materials and methods

Informed consent: Informed consent has been obtained from all individuals included in this study.
Ethical approval: The research related to human use has been complied with all the relevant national regulations, institutional policies and in accordance the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration, and has been approved by the authors’ institutional review board or equivalent committee.

References

1.
Wisniewski N, Klitzman B, Miller B, Reichert WM. Decreased analyte transport through implanted membranes: differentiation of biofouling from tissue effects. J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;57:513–21.Google Scholar
2.
Ratner BD, Bryant SJ. Biomaterials: where we have been and where we are going. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2004;6:41–75.Google Scholar
3.
John LB, Thomas AH. Proteins at interfaces: an overview. Am Chem Soc. 1995;602:1–23.Google Scholar
4.
An YH, Friedman RJ. Concise review of mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to biomaterial surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;43:338–48.Google Scholar
5.
Jeon SI, Lee JH, Andrade JD, De Gennes PG. Protein-surface interactions in the presence of polyethylene oxide: I. Simplified theory. J Colloid Interf Sci. 1991;142:149–58.Google Scholar
6.
Kenausis GL, Vörös J, Elbert DL, Huang N, Hofer R, Ruiz-Taylor L. Poly (L-lysine)-g-poly (ethylene glycol) layers on metal oxide surfaces: attachment mechanism and effects of polymer architecture on resistance to protein adsorption. J Phys Chem B. 2000;104:3298–309.Google Scholar
7.
Dalsin JL, Lin L, Tosatti S, Vörös J, Textor M, Messersmith PB. Protein resistance of titanium oxide surfaces modified by biologically inspired mPEG-DOPA. Langmuir. 2005;21:640–6.Google Scholar
8.
Damodaran VB, Murthy NS. Bio-inspired strategies for designing antifouling biomaterials. Biomater Res. 2016;20:18.Google Scholar
9.
Fletcher M. Bacterial biofilms and biofouling. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 1994;5:302–6.Google Scholar
10.
Hall-Stoodley L, Costerton JW, Stoodley P. Bacterial biofilms: from the natural environment to infectious disease. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004;2:95–108.Google Scholar
11.
Flemming HC, Wingender J. The biofilm matrix. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010;8:623–33.Google Scholar
12.
Rodriguez-Martinez JM, Pascual A. Antimicrobial resistance in bacterial biofilms. Rev Med Microbiol. 2006;17:65–75.Google Scholar
13.
Van Oss CJ. Polar or Lewis acid-base interactions. Interfacial forces in aqueous media. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1994:18–46.Google Scholar
14.
Tchesnokova V, Aprikian P, Kisiela D, Gowey S, Korotkova N, Thomas W, et al. Type 1 fimbrial adhesin FimH elicits and immune response that enhances cell adhesion of Eschericia coli. Infect Immun. 2011;79:3895–904.Google Scholar
15.
Gao P, Nie X, Zou M, Shi Y, Cheng G. Recent advances in materials for extended-release antibiotic delivery system. J Antibiot. 2011;64:625–34.Google Scholar
16.
Pierschbacher MD, Ruoslahti E. Cell attachment activity of fibronectin can be duplicated by small synthetic fragments of the molecule. Nature. 1984;306:30.Google Scholar
17.
Maheshwari G, Brown G, Lauffenburger DA, Wells A, Griffith LG. Cell adhesion and motility depend on nanoscale RGD clustering. J Cell Sci. 2000;113:1677–86.Google Scholar
18.
Lind G, Linsmeier CE, Schouenborg J. The density difference between tissue and neural probes is a key factor for glial scarring. Sci Rep. 2013;3:2942.Google Scholar
19.
Minami E, Koh IH, Ferreira JC, Waitzberg AF, Chifferi V, Rosewick TF, et al. The composition and behavior of capsules around smooth and textured breast implants in pigs. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118:874–84.Google Scholar
20.
Balderrama CM, Ribas-Filho JM, Malafaia O, Czeczko NG, Dietz UA, Sakamoto DG, et al. Healing reaction to mammary prostheses covered by textured silicone and silicone foam in rats. Acta Cirurgica Brasileira. 2009;24:367–76.Google Scholar
21.
Biggs MJ, Richards RG, Dalby MJ. Nanotopographical modification: a regulator of cellular function through focal adhesions. Nanomedicine. 2010;6:619–33.Google Scholar
22.
Di Cio S, Gautrot JE. Cell sensing of physical properties at the nanoscale: mechanisms and control of cell adhesion and phenotype. Acta Biomater. 2016;30:26–48.Google Scholar
23.
Tsai W-B, Chen Y-H, Chien H-W. Collaborative cell-resistant properties of polyelectrolyte multilayer films and surface PEGylation on reducing cell adhesion to cytophilic surfaces. J Biomat Sci Polymer E. 2009;20:1611–28.Google Scholar
24.
Decher G. Fuzzy nanoassemblies: toward layered polymeric multicomposites. Science. 1997;277:1232–7.Google Scholar
25.
Peyratout CS, Daehne L. Tailor-made polyelectrolyte microcapsules: from multilayers to smart containers. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2004;43:3762–83.Google Scholar
26.
Picart C. Polyelectrolyte multilayer films: from physico-chemical properties to the control of cellular processes. Curr Med Chem. 2008;15:685–97.Google Scholar
27.
Tristán F, Palestino G, Menchaca JL, Pérez E, Atmani H, Cuisinier F. Tunable protein-resistance of polycation-terminated polyelectrolyte multilayers. Biomacromolecules. 2009;10:2275–83.Google Scholar
28.
Wu B, Liu G, Zhang G, Craig VS. Stiff chains inhibit and flexible chains promote protein adsorption to polyelectrolyte multilayers. Soft Matter. 2014;10:3806–16.Google Scholar
29.
Andreeva TD, Hartmann H, Tanevaa SG, Krastev R. Regulation of the growth, morphology, mechanical properties and biocompatibility of natural polysaccharide-based multilayers by Hofmeister anions. J Mater Chem B. 2016;4:7092–100.Google Scholar
30.
Chuang HF, Smith RC, Hammond PT. Polyelectrolyte multilayers for tunable release of antibiotics. Biomacromolecules. 2008;9:1660–8.Google Scholar
31.
Bereket W, Hemalatha K, Getenet B, Wondwossen T, Solomon A, Zeynudin A, et al. Update on bacterial nosocomial infections. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012;16:1039–44.Google Scholar
32.
Foster TJ, Geoghegan JA, Ganesh VK, Höök M. Adhesion, invasion andevasion: the many functions of the surface proteins of Staphylococcus aureus. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2014;12:49–62.Google Scholar
33.
Loveday H, Wilson J, Kerr K, Pitchers R, Walker J, Browne J. Association between healthcare water systems and Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections: arapid systematic review. J Hosp Infect. 2014;86:7–15.Google Scholar
34.
Vinh DC, Embil JM. Device-related infections: a review. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2005;15:467–88.Google Scholar
35.
Seth AK, Geringer MR, Hong SJ, Leung KP, Mustoe TA, Galiano RD. In vivo modeling of biofilm-infected wounds: a review. J Surg Res. 2012;178:330–8.Google Scholar
36.
Percival SL, Hill KE, Williams DW, Hooper SJ, Thomas DW, Costerton JW. A review of the scientific evidence for biofilms in wounds. Wound Repair Regen. 2012;20:647–57.Google Scholar
37.
von Eiff C, Heilmann C, Peters G. New aspects in the molecular basis of polymer-associated infections due to staphylococci. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1999;18:843–846.Google Scholar
38.
von Eiff C, Jansen B, Kohnen W, Becker K. Infections associated with medical devices. Drugs. 2005;65:179–214.Google Scholar
39.
Donlan RM. Biofilms on central venous catheters: is eradication possible?. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2008;322:133–61.Google Scholar
40.
Zhu X, Loh XJ. Layer-by-layer assemblies for antibacterial applications. Biomater Sci. 2015;3:1505–18.Google Scholar
41.
Campoccia D, Montanaro L, Arciola CR. A review of the biomaterials technologies for infection-resistant surfaces. Biomaterials. 2013;34:8533e5.Google Scholar
42.
Schmolke H, Demming S, Edlich A, Magdanz V, Büttgenbach S, Franco-Lara E, et al. Polyelectrolyte multilayer surface functionalization of poly (dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) for reduction of yeast cell adhesion in microfluidic devices. Biomicrofluidics. 2010;4:044113.Google Scholar
43.
Mi L, Jiang S. Integrated antimicrobial and nonfouling zwitterionic polymers. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2014;53:1746–54.Google Scholar
44.
Schlenoff JB. Zwitteration: coating surfaces with zwitterionic functionality to reduce nonspecific adsorption. Langmuir. 2014;30:9625–36.Google Scholar
45.
Yuan J, Mao C, Zhou J, Fang J-L. Chemical grafting of sulfobetaine onto poly (ether urethane) surface for improving blood compatibility. Polymer International. 2003;52:1869–75.Google Scholar
46.
Sun J-T, Yu ZQ, Hong CY, Pan CY. Biocompatible zwitterionic sulfobetaine copolymer-coated mesoporous silica nanoparticles for temperature-responsive drug release. Macromol Rapid Comm. 2012;33:811–8.Google Scholar
47.
Zhang L, Cao Z, Bai T, Carr L, Ella-Menye JR, Irvin C, et al. Zwitterionic hydrogels implanted in mice resist the foreign-body reaction. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:553–6.Google Scholar
48.
Olenych SG, Moussallem MD, Salloum DS, Schlenoff JB, Keller TC. Fibronectin and cell attachment to cell and protein resistant polyelectrolyte surfaces. Biomacromolecules. 2005;6:3252–8.Google Scholar
49.
Chien H-W, Tsai CC, Tsai WB, Wang MJ, Kuo WH, Wei TC, et al. Surface conjugation of zwitterionic polymers to inhibit cell adhesion and protein adsorption. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2013;107:152–9.Google Scholar
50.
Cheng G, Zhang Z, Chen S, Bryers JD, Jiang S. Inhibition of bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation on zwitterionic surfaces. Biomaterials. 2007;28:4192–9.Google Scholar
51.
Martinez JS, Kelly KD, Ghoussoub YE, Delgado JD, Keller Iii TC, Schlenoff JB. Cell resistant zwitterionic polyelectrolyte coating promotes bacterial attachment: an adhesion contradiction. Biomater Sci. 2016;4:689–98.Google Scholar
52.
Genzer J, Efimenko K. Recent developments in superhydrophobic surfaces and their relevance to marine fouling: a review. Biofouling. 2006;22:339e60.Google Scholar
53.
Zhang X, Shi F, Yu X, Liu H, Fu Y, Wang Z, et al. Polyelectrolyte multilayer as matrix for electrochemical deposition of gold clusters: toward super-hydrophobic surface. J Am Chem Soc. 2004;126:3064–5.Google Scholar
54.
Marmur A. Wetting on hydrophobic rough surfaces: to be heterogeneous or not to be?. Langmuir. 2003;19:8343–8.Google Scholar
55.
Song F, Koo H, Ren D. Effects of material properties on bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation. J Dent Res. 2015;94:1027–34.Google Scholar
56.
Fu J, Ji J, Yuan W, Shen J. Construction of anti-adhesive and antibacterial multilayer films via layer-by-layer assembly of heparin and chitosan. Biomaterials. 2005;26:6684–92.Google Scholar
57.
Lichter JA, Rubner MF. Polyelectrolyte multilayers with intrinsic antimicrobial functionality: the importance of mobile polycations. Langmuir. 2009;25:7686–94.Google Scholar
58.
Song F, Ren D. Stiffness of cross-linked poly (dimethylsiloxane) affects bacterial adhesion and antibiotic susceptibility of attached cells. Langmuir. 2014;30:10354–62.Google Scholar
59.
Lichter JA, Thompson MT, Delgadillo M, Nishikawa T, Rubner MF, Van Vliet KJ. Substrata mechanical stiffness can regulate adhesion of viable bacteria. Biomacromolecules. 2008;9:1571–8.Google Scholar
60.
Saha N, Monge C, Dulong V, Picart C, Glinel K. Influence of polyelectrolyte film stiffness on bacterial growth. Biomacromolecules. 2013;14:520–8.Google Scholar
61.
Hetrick EM, Schoenfisch MH. Reducing implant-related infections: active release strategies. Chem Soc Rev. 2006;35:780–9.Google Scholar
62.
Deacon J, Abdelghany SM, Quinn DJ, Schmid D, Megaw J, Donnelly RF, et al. Antimicrobial efficacy of tobramycin polymeric nanoparticles for Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections in cystic fibrosis: Formulation, characterisation and functionalisation with dornase alfa (DNase). J Control Release. 2015;198:55–61.Google Scholar
63.
Diaz-Rodriguez P, Landin M, Rey-Rico A, Couceiro J, Coenye T, González P, et al. Bio-inspired porous SiC ceramics loaded with vancomycin for preventing MRSA infections. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2011;22:339–47.Google Scholar
64.
Zhuk I, Jariwala F, Attygalle AB, Wu Y, Libera MR, Sukhishvili SA. Self-defensive layer-by-layer films with bacteria-triggered antibiotic release. ACS Nano. 2014;8:7733–45.Google Scholar
65.
Wang B, Jin T, Xu Q, Liu H, Ye Z, Chen H. Direct loading and tuneable release of antibiotics from polyelectrolyte multilayers to reduce bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation. Bioconjug Chem. 2016;27:1305–13.Google Scholar
66.
Russell AD, Hugo WB. Antimicrobial activity and action of silver. Prog Med Chem. 1994;31:351–70.Google Scholar
67.
Eckhardt S, Brunetto PS, Gagnon J, Priebe M, Giese B, Fromm KM. Nanobio silver: its interactions with peptides and bacteria, and its uses in medicine. Chem Rev. 2013;113:4708–54.Google Scholar
68.
Marambio-Jones C, Hoek EM. A review of the antibacterial effects of silver nanomaterials and potential implications for human health and the environment. J Nanopart Res. 2010;12:1531–51.Google Scholar
69.
Zhang X, Li Z, Yuan X, Cui Z, Bao H, Li X, et al. Cytotoxicity and antibacterial property of titanium alloy coated with silver nanoparticle-containing polyelectrolyte multilayer. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2013;33:2816–20.Google Scholar
70.
Diagne F, Malaisamy R, Boddie V, David Holbrook R, Eribo B, Jones KL. Polyelectrolyte and silver nanoparticle modification of microfiltration membranes to mitigate organic and bacterial fouling. Environ Sci Technol. 2012;46:4025–33.Google Scholar
71.
Guthrie KM, Agarwal A, Tackes DS, Johnson KW, Abbott NL, Murphy CJ, et al. Antibacterial efficacy of silver-impregnated polyelectrolyte multilayers immobilized on a biological dressing in a murine wound infection model. Ann Surg. 2012;256:371.Google Scholar
72.
Braydich-Stolle L, Hussain S, Schlager JJ, Hofmann M-C. In vitro cytotoxicity of nanoparticles in mammalian germline stem cells. Toxicol Sci. 2005;88:412–9.Google Scholar
73.
Sopjani M, Föller M, Haendeler J, Götz F, Lang F. Silver ion-induced suicidal erythrocyte death. J Appl Toxicol. 2009;29:531–6.Google Scholar
74.
Franklin TJ, Snow GA. Biochemistry of antimicrobial action, 3rd ed London: Chapman and Hall, 1981:217.Google Scholar
75.
Synowiecki J, Al-Khateeb NA. Production, properties, and some new applications of chitin and its derivatives. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2003;43:145–71.Google Scholar
76.
Muzzarelli R, Tarsi R, Filippini O, Giovanetti E, Biagini G, Varaldo PE. Antimicrobial properties of N-carboxybutyl chitosan. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990;34:2019–23.Google Scholar
77.
Muzzarelli RAA, Boudrant J, Meyer D, Manno N, DeMarchis M, Paoletti MG. Current views on fungal chitin/chitosan, human chitinases, food preservation, glucans, pectins and inulin: a tribute to Henri Braconnot, precursor of the carbohydrate polymers science, on the chitin bicentennial. Carbohydr Polym. 2012;87:995–1012.Google Scholar
78.
Younes I, Rinaudo M. Chitin and chitosan preparation from marine sources. Structure, properties and applications. Mar Drugs. 2015;13:1133–74.Google Scholar
79.
Sudarshan NR, Hoover DG, Knorr D. Antibacterial action of chitosan. Food Biotechnol. 1992;6:257–72.Google Scholar
80.
Leuba S, Stossel P. Chitosan and other polyamines: antifungal activity and interaction with biological membranes. In: Muzzarelli RAA, Jeuniaux C, Gooday C, editors. Chitin in Nature and Technology. New York, NY, USA: Plenum Press, 1985:217.Google Scholar
81.
Choi BK, Kim KY, Yoo YJ, Oh SJ, Choi JH, Kim CY. In vitro antimicrobial activity of a chitooligosaccharide mixture against Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans and Streptococcus mutans. Int J Antimicrob Agent. 2001;18:553–7.Google Scholar
82.
Eaton P, Fernandes JC, Pereira E, Pintado ME, Malcata FX. Atomic force microscopy study of the antibacterial effects of chitosans on Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus. Ultramicroscopy. 2008;108:1128–34.Google Scholar
83.
Rabea EI, Badawy ME, Stevens CV, Smagghe G, Steurbaut W. Chitosan as antimicrobial agent: applications and mode of action. Biomacromolecules. 2003;4:1457–65.Google Scholar
84.
Benhabiles MS, Salah R, Lounici H, Drouiche N, Goosen MFA, Mameri N. Antibacterial activity of chitin, chitosan and its oligomers prepared from shrimp shell waste. Food Hydrocolloid. 2012;29:48–56.Google Scholar
85.
Jeon YJ, Park PJ, Kim SK. Antimicrobial effect of chitooligosaccharides produced by bioreactor. Carbohydr. Polym. 2001;44:71–6.Google Scholar
86.
Rhoades J, Roller S. Antimicrobial actions of degraded and native chitosan against spoilage organisms in laboratory media and foods. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000;66:80–6.Google Scholar
87.
Jung EJ, Youn DK, Lee SH, No HK, Ha JG, Prinyawiwatkul W. Antibacterial activity of chitosans with different degrees of deacetylation and viscosities. Int J Food Sci Tech. 2010;45:676–82.Google Scholar
88.
Friedman M, Juneja VK. Review of antimicrobial and antioxidative activities of chitosans in food. J Food Protect. 2010;73:1737–61.Google Scholar
89.
Hartmann H, Xiong X, Arefaine E, Gerhardts A, Höfer D, Krastev R. Antibakterielle Layer-by-Layer Beschichtung für Medizintextilien. BioNanoMaterials.Band 17:Seite 157 (Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Biomaterialien DGBM, Aachen, 28.09.-01.10.2016).Google Scholar
90.
Gomes AP, Mano JF, Queiroz JA, Gouveia IC. Layer-by-layer deposition of antimicrobial polymers on cellulosic fibers: a new strategy to develop bioactive textiles. Polym Advan Technol. 2013;24:1005–10.Google Scholar
91.
Shirvan AR, Nejad NH, Bashari A. Antibacterial finishing of cotton fabric via the chitosan/TPP self-assembled nano layers. Fibers Polymers. 2014;15:1908–14.Google Scholar
92.
Wang Y, Hong Q, Chen Y, Lian X, Xiong Y. Surface properties of polyurethanes modified by bioactive polysaccharide-based polyelectrolyte multilayers. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2012;100:77–83.Google Scholar
93.
Lord MS, Cheng B, McCarthy SJ, Jung M, Whitelock JM. The modulation of platelet adhesion and activation by chitosan through plasma and extracellular matrix proteins. Biomaterials. 2011;32:6655–62.Google Scholar
94.
Bratskaya S, Marinin D, Simon F, Synytska A, Zschoche S, Busscher HJ, et al. Adhesion and viability of two enterococcal strains on covalently grafted chitosan and chitosan/κ-carrageenan multilayers. Biomacromolecules. 2007;8:2960–8.Google Scholar

nano Online

Physics, Chemistry and Materials Science at the Nanoscale

Search

Supplementary Materials

Open Access

Biofunctionalization of surfaces using polyelectrolyte multilayers

Abstract