Peptide–Polymer Conjugates: A Promising Therapeutic Solution for Drug-Resistant Bacteria

Shen, Xuqiu; Zhang, Yiyin; Mao, Qijiang; Huang, Zhengze; Yan, Tingting; Lin, Tianyu; Chen, Wenchao; Wang, Yifan; Cai, Xiujun; Liang, Yuelong

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7610951

International Journal of Polymer Science

On this page

Abstract Introduction Synthesis Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 7610951 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7610951

Peptide–Polymer Conjugates: A Promising Therapeutic Solution for Drug-Resistant Bacteria

Xuqiu Shen,¹Yiyin Zhang,¹Qijiang Mao,¹Zhengze Huang,¹Tingting Yan,¹Tianyu Lin,¹Wenchao Chen,¹Yifan Wang,¹Xiujun Cai,¹and Yuelong Liang¹

Academic Editor: Cornelia Vasile

Received05 May 2022

Revised14 Jun 2022

Accepted26 Oct 2022

Published02 Dec 2022

Abstract

By 2050, it is estimated that 10 million people will die of drug-resistant bacterial infection caused by antibiotic abuse. Antimicrobial peptide (AMP) is widely used to prevent such circumstances, for the positively charged AMPs can kill drug-resistant bacteria by destroying negatively charged bacterial cell membrane, and has excellent antibacterial efficiency and low drug resistance. However, due to the defects in low in vivo stability, easy degradation, and certain cytotoxicity, its practical clinical application is limited. The emergence of peptide–polymer conjugates (PPC) helps AMPs overcome these shortcomings. By combining with functional polymers, the positive charge of AMPs is partially shielded, and its stability and water solubility are improved, so as to prolong the in vivo circulation time of AMPs and reduce its cytotoxicity. At the same time, the self-assembly ability of PPC enables it to assemble into different nanostructures to undertake specific antibacterial tasks. At present, PPC is mainly used in wound dressing, bone tissue repair, antibacterial coating of medical devices, nerve repair, tumor treatment, and oral health maintenance. In this study, we summarize the structure, synthesis methods, and the clinical applications of PPC, so as to present the current challenges and discuss the future prospects of antibacterial therapeutic materials.

1. Introduction

With the wide applications and abuse of antibiotics, the antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and drug-resistant bacteria have become a serious problem to global health. By 2050, 10 million people are expected to die from drug-resistant infections [1], which not only put tremendous pressure on the health care system but also lead to prolonged illness and increased pain for patients. What is more, the overuse of antibiotics has contributed to the emergence and further spread of superbugs, which have the multidrug resistance (MDR) [2]. Therefore, how to treat drug-resistant bacteria has become an important research issue.

Bacteria resist the action of antibiotics by four main molecular mechanisms: reducing membrane permeability to reduce antibiotic penetration, expelling antibiotics through the effluent system, destroying antibiotics or modifying them to inactivate them, and modifying target sites to reduce affinity for antibiotic [3, 4]. There are two ways that bacteria can obtain AMR: one is via vertical (endogenous) and the other is via horizontal (exogenous). Vertical evolution refers to the intergenerational accumulation of spontaneous resistance mutations in bacterial genomes, whereas horizontal evolution refers to the transfer of resistance genes from resistant bacteria to susceptible bacteria, which includes three mechanisms: conjugation, transduction, and transformation [4, 5].

Current therapeutic approaches for AMR and drug-resistant bacteria include antibiotics with new targets; antibiotic resistance breakers (ARBs), which can overcome the mechanism of bacterial resistance and re-sensitize the reaction of resistant bacteria to antibiotics, such as β-lactam inhibitors; and a group of viruses called phages, which can cause the host bacteria to lyse and so on [5–7]. However, these therapeutic approaches would still be caught in the dilemma of increasing bacterial resistance, because they all exert strong antimicrobial selective pressures on the drug-resistant bacteria, which leads to the appearance of new drug-resistant bacterial mutants even more quickly [7, 8]. Meanwhile, ARBs or antibiotic adjuvants, including modified enzyme inhibitors, membrane permeators, and efflux pump inhibitors, have the risk of adverse reactions due to potential drug interactions and face the challenge of how to administer ARBs in a more scientific and efficient manner [5, 9–11]. As for phages, the high degree of specificity, the lack of phage pharmacological model, and the high risk of causing inflammation by altering intestinal flora and increasing epithelial cell permeability make the clinical application of phages difficult [12–20]. Given the limited efficiency of these approaches, a new approach or drug is urgently needed to address the AMR problem.

Researchers hope to introduce antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) to solve the problems of AMR and drug-resistant bacteria. In the mid-1990s, the concept of AMPs took off [21]. AMPs, also known as host defense peptides, are a group of highly bioactive polypeptide substances widely existing in plants, animals, and microorganisms, which are formed by long-term evolution in nature, and it can fight off exogenous pathogens. As a group of small, biologically active proteins, unlike traditional antibiotics that target specific organs within the cell [22, 23], AMPs have a cationic–hydrophobic amphiphilic structure, which is positively charged, and they work by using electrostatic interactions to destroy the negatively charged bacterial membranes and by regulating immune responses and inflammation [24, 25]. At present, several models have been proposed to explain this process, including barrel-stave model, carpet-like model, toroidal-pore model, and disordered toroidal-pore model [26–30]. Compared with traditional antibiotics, ARBs, and bacteriophages, AMPs can better regulate the immune response of the host and have a relatively broad spectrum of anti-biofilm activity with relatively slow development of bacterial resistance [31, 32]. Human AMPs also act as natural disease-fighting agents, more than 100 of which were discovered as broad spectrum of antibacterial activity [31, 33, 34]. However, AMPs also have several disadvantages, such as easy degradation, low stability in vivo, low salt sensitivity, high toxicity to mammalian cells due to a lack of selectivity, difficult extraction, and high manufacturing costs, which also limit their clinical applications [35–40]. Given these shortcomings of AMPs, the researchers used two different approaches to overcome them [41]: one is to imitate the key structural characteristics and characteristics of natural AMPs to synthesize cationic polypeptides with excellent antibacterial activity, proteolytic stability, biocompatibility, and biodegradability [42–44]. However, the high cytotoxicity of these synthetic AMPs is yet to be overcome [45].

In recent years, there have been many innovative and valuable works aiming at the novel anti-bacteria conjugates to better overcome these shortcomings of AMPs. Therefore, in this study, we focuses on peptide–polymer conjugates (PPC), which are the combinations of AMPs and functional polymers with excellent biocompatibility, while reducing the cytotoxicity and improving the antibacterial selectivity [38, 39, 46–48]. As illustrated in Scheme 1, in the following study, starting from the synthesis and self-assembly of PPC, we sort out the existing assembly products and applications of PPC in bio-medicine and classified the usage of PPC by organs to elucidate the current situation and possible future of PPC.

Scheme 1

Different macromolecular structures, self-assembly behaviors, and applications of peptide–polymer conjugates (PPC). (a) PPC is used as wound dressing to help inhibit bacteria and promote wound healing. (b) PPC is applied on bone tissue repair to help bone tissue repair by inhibiting bacteria and delivering drugs. (c) PPC is served as antibacterial coatings on medical devices, such as urinary catheters and contact lenses, to avoid infection caused by the use of medical devices. (d) PPC assists cancer treatment. It can destroy tumor cell membrane through safe and efficient delivery of AMPs and electrostatic interaction. (e) PPC for the use of nerve repair to remyelinate demyelinated damaged nerve fibers and avoid infection. (f) For oral health maintenance, PPC is used as the antibacterial coating of teeth helps prevent dental caries.

2. Synthesis and Self-Assembly of PPC

As shown in Figure 1, coupling and polymerization, as two methods of synthesizing PPC, have their own characteristics and advantages [49–54]. The coupling is particularly suitable for the linkage of AMPs with low molar mass polymers. However, the purification of reactants of coupling is complicated by the addition of an excess of AMPs to the polymer in order to improve the coupling efficiency [55–58]. In addition, in the coupling reaction, the functional groups of AMPs and functional polymers, which can react with each other, such as carboxyl and amino, are necessary. In addition, the formation of amide bonds, especially peptide bonds, is a common method of conjugation. Moreover, oxidation, photo cross-linking, Michael addition, and Schiff base reaction are also the methods of coupling [53].

The polymerization involves initiators and macromonomers, and has some advantages that coupling does not have. With ring-opening polymerization (ROP) of α-amino acid N-carboxyanhydrides (NCAs), single-electron-transfer living radical polymerization, nitroxide-mediated radical polymerization, atom transfer radical polymerization (ATRP), reversible addition-fragmentation chain transfer, ROP of other monomers, and other methods, the polymerization can synthesize PPC with long polypeptide chains and various macromolecular structures [51, 59–62]. Among them, NCA-ROP provides a convenient way to synthesize PPC, which have various macromolecular structures, such as linear polymer, star copolymer, dendritic copolymer, and hyperbranched polymer, and has attracted more and more attention [63]. Compared with coupling, this step-by-step synthesis method of polymerization can provide various PPCs with controllable chain length, low polydispersity, and high amine functionalization, and can realize various topologies of PPC [63, 64]. While maintaining the functions of AMPs and functional polymers, PPC possess new properties that do not exist in AMPs and functional polymers alone [48]. For example, when AMPs is combined with biocompatible polymers, its positive charge can be partially neutralized, so as to help AMPs escape the attack of the immune system, improve its in vivo stability, and prolong its in vivo circulation time. Meanwhile, the cytotoxicity of AMPs was also reduced [65–67].

Self-assembly has become an advantage and research hotspot of PPC. PPC has obtained self-assembly ability by adjusting non covalent bond forces, such as electrostatic interaction, hydrogen bond association, hydrophobic interaction, van der Waals forces, π–π stacking, and spontaneously connected to form clear and aggregates under equilibrium conditions [68–70]. Specifically, PPC is amphiphilic, which can form ordered nanostructures under the synergistic action of hydrophobic force of hydrophobic part and hydrogen bond of hydrophilic part. During the assembly process, the hydrophobic parts gather with each other due to hydrophobicity, forming the hydrophobic core of the assembly. The hydrophobic force is the main driving force to drive the self-assembly of amphiphilic molecules and maintain the structural stability of the assembly. The hydrogen bond makes the hydrophilic parts close to each other closely stacked on the surface of the assembly with a specific secondary structure, which contacts with water and further drives the completion of the assembly. In PPC, AMPs is often located on the surface of the assembly with hydrophilic peptide chain, whereas polymers are often located in the core of the assembly because of hydrophobicity. Such a structure enables AMPs on the surface of the assembly to effectively contact and kill bacteria, and the hydrophobic core makes it possible to load drugs to treat diseases.

Through self-assembly, PPC can form nanostructures with different shapes and functions, such as micelles, vesicles, nanosheets, nanoparticles, and other nanostructures. They have biocompatibility, stability, and good antibacterial activity, showing great potential in antibacterial, anti-biofilm, anti-MDR, wound dressing, implant coating, drug delivery, and even gene delivery [61, 71–78]. The following are several examples of products of the self-assembly of PPC, each with different mechanisms and advantages.

Micelle: the conjugates of tritrpticin AMPs and poly(acrylic acid)-b-polystyrene will self-assemble in water and form micelles, and the active segment of AMPs will locate on the surface of micelles [79]. Compared to the two individual components, the micelles have stronger bactericidal effects on Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus. The detailed interaction between antibacterial micelles and bacterial membrane is still unclear, and further efforts are needed to study its antibacterial mechanism in the future.

Microsphere: grafting AMPs onto microspheres can maintain the stability of AMPs and improve its exposure area, which is helpful to give full play to its practicability [80]. In the study of Li et al., NF-κB essential modifier binding domain (NBD) polypeptide was combined with other substrates to prepare microspheres to help load and release drugs [81].

Hydrogel: Rezaei and his team loaded piscidin-1 to prepare wound dressings with controllable release, antibacterial activity, biocompatibility, and biodegradability to avoid wound infection and help heal wounds faster [82].

Recent advances in the field of AMPs mainly focus on the artificial design and synthesis of AMPs, the optimization of functional polymers, the synthesis and optimization of PPC, and the self-assembly of PPC. Due to the needs of transformation and the advantages of material properties, the research hotspot has gradually changed to different medical applications of PPC.

3. The Treatments of Drug-Resistant Bacteria in Different Tissues or Organs by PPC

In view of the advantages of PPC, such as better in vivo stability, higher biocompatibility, longer in vivo circulation time, more stable antibacterial properties, and better drug resistance, PPC has a trend to replace traditional antibiotics and AMPs in many applications. Relevant cases are presented in Table 1.

3.1. Wound Dressing and Healing

Microbial infection is one of the important factors leading to slow wound healing, and appropriate antibacterial wound dressing is an important approach to prevent microbial infection and also a necessary condition to accelerate wound healing [97]. The dressings should support the sustained drug release of loaded antimicrobials to achieve long-term antimicrobial activity and maintain a healthy concentration of healing tissues [98].

AMPs and its simulators have a broad-spectrum antibacterial effect on bacteria and even fungi, which is very suitable for application in wound infections caused by drug-resistant bacteria [99, 100]. Meanwhile, AMPs can also induce cell migration and proliferation at the wound site, promote vascular repair, regulate immune response, and help wound healing [101–103]. However, due to its sensitivity, easy degradation, and certain cytotoxicity, its biomedical application has been affected to a certain extent [104]. Conjugated AMPs with polymers emerged in order to solve this problem, which can improve the stability of AMPs while reducing their cytotoxicity [66, 105, 106]. In current clinical application, various natural polymer materials [e.g., gelatine, alginate (ALG), silk, collagen (COL), chitosan, and hyaluronic acid (HA)] and synthetic polymer materials [e.g., polyurethane (PU), poly(lactide-co-glycolide), poly(vinyl alcohol), and poly-ε-caprolactone] are regarded as potential tissue-engineering materials [107–110]. These materials may not have any antibacterial activity on their own, but when combined with AMPs, they can not only exert their own properties to aid wound repair but also have antibacterial abilities. For example, bacterial cellulose can enhance the wound healing through regulation of angiogenesis and formation of connective tissue [111, 112]. But its lack of antimicrobial activity requires it to be functionalized with antimicrobial agents [113], such as AMPs, so the peptide can conjugate with hydrogel made of bacterial cellulose to inhibit bacteria and promote wound healing. The actual case is that, a bifunctional peptide, combining an AMP and a cellulose binding peptide (CBP), is designed to be fixed on membranes of bacterial cellulose with tight control over peptide concentrations. Based on this, Weishaupt et al. have developed a cellulose membrane, which was modified by AMP tet009 against S. aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and it has good antibacterial ability and can effectively treat and prevent wound infection [83].

Different types of injuries require corresponding repair methods, and their requirements for wound dressing are also different. Therefore, the requirements for the composition of PPC are also different. For example, in the face of scalded wounds, it is very crucial to keep the wound moist. Therefore, choosing a dressing that can keep the wound in a moist, breathable, and antibacterial microenvironment is particularly necessary to prevent wound infection, promote cell proliferation, and accelerate wound healing [114]. In addition, as one of the main components of extracellular matrix, HA not only has a significant impact on cell migration and proliferation but also has good water absorption ability, which can absorb tissue exudate and maintain wound wetness [115–117]. For wounds caused by hemorrhagic trauma, appropriate materials are needed to help repair the blood vessels of the wound and prevent inflammation. In addition, COL can meet these requirements because it can promote wound healing by promoting cell migration and proliferation [118, 119], can accelerate wound healing by its ability to promote angiogenesis [120], and can effectively address wound inflammation due its ability to promote chemotaxis, promote the recruitment of macrophages to the wound site, and attenuate the polarization of pro-inflammatory macrophages [121]. At present, with the increasing complexity of wound conditions and the increase of bacterial drug resistance, the development of composite dressing materials with multiple functions has become a general trend. In addition, these composite materials can retain the advantages of various polymer materials. Stimulating fibroblast aggregation to help wound healing is an essential function of many wound dressings. In the study of Lin et al., a natural composite composed of ALG, HA, and COL was used as wound dressing substrate because it has good biocompatibility and can stimulate the aggregation of fibroblasts to help wound healing [84]. In addition, Lin et al. conjugated the AMP Tet123 onto on the substrate, and the results showed that the multifunctional wound dressing (ALG/HA/COL-Tet213) had good biocompatibility and antimicrobial activity that can release AMPs in a sustainable manner to inhibit or kill bacteria in infected wounds and can accelerate wound tissue repair and accelerate wound healing (Figure 2).

(a)

(b)

Figure 2

Schematic of the preparation of the ALG/HA/COL-AMP wound dressings. (a) The Tet213-conjugated ALG/HA/COL wound dressings were prepared using the chemical reaction between the carboxyl groups and the amino groups on ALG, COL, HA, and Tet213. (b) The slow release of Tet213 due to the cleavage of the amide bond combined into the wound-dressing substrates helps kill bacteria, avoid the unrestrained release of Tet213 at the tissue sites, and excessive dressing changes. Reprinted with permission from ref [84]. Copyright 2019 Elsevier.

Many nanomaterials have been developed as wound dressings to promote wound healing in different situation, such as hydrogels [122], sponges [123], electrospun mats [124], and nanofibers [125]. Wound dressings should exhibit certain biological properties (i.e., support keratinocyte adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation) and have appropriate mechanical and degradation properties [126]. In view of these requirements, hydrogel has become the focus of research, because as a hydrated three-dimensional network composed of polymers, it has good biocompatibility, degradation properties, expansion properties, and suitable mechanical properties [127–129]. The PPC can be used as raw materials to assemble hydrogels as wound dressings, which not only plays the antibacterial role of AMPs but also helps absorb tissue exudate [130]. Meanwhile, hydrogels can also be loaded with drugs to help accelerate wound healing [131]. In order to overcome the disadvantage of low adhesion of hydrogel, a composite meth-acryloyl-substituted recombinant human tropoelastin (MeTro)/gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) hydrogel mediated by visible light has been created, which has strong adhesion and can better prevent wound infection and promote wound healing [71].

3.2. Bone Tissue Repair

Nanocomposite biomaterials, as a relatively new material, contain biopolymers and biodegradable matrix structures that help bone tissue regenerate and degrade in situ. In orthopedic surgery, biomaterials are often used to permanently replace lost tissue or to support the process of bone tissue regeneration at the defect site, thereby compensating for lost function and optimizing appearance [132]. Implants with permanent functions need to be stable and biocompatible in the body, whereas implants that help regenerate bone tissue need to be able to degrade in situ and be replaced by new bone tissue [133]. Nanocomposite biomaterials have corresponding characteristics and can effectively help bone regeneration.

Whether natural and synthetic polymers, and whether they degraded or not, the high risks of microbial growth on the implanted devices are a common and serious problem in orthopedic surgery [134, 135]. The formation of bacterial biofilms at the interface between implants and tissues may cause persistent infection, so antibacterial treatment of implants is required [136]. Given the resistance caused by traditional antibiotics, AMPs are a new weapon in orthopedic implants against resistant bacteria [137]. Combining these materials with AMPs, the resulting implants not only have good biocompatibility and biodegradability but also have good antibacterial and vascular repair effects, which can help bone tissue repair faster and better [138].

In order to achieve better antibacterial effect and repair effect, AMPs on implants need not only to reach a certain concentration locally but also need to control the release rate to maintain a relatively long time concentration [139]. Recently, the strategies adopted can be roughly divided into two kinds. One is chemical factor, that is, selecting suitable polymer materials and AMPs to ensure relatively strong electrostatic interaction between them. In addition, the other is morphological factor, that is, expanding the contact area to be able to bind more AMPs [140].

Currently, a third strategy is gaining increasing attention, which is to assemble polymer membranes containing AMPs layer-by-layer on a solid support [85, 86]. Compared to other methods of local drug delivery, such as hydrogels, this way could lead to implants with the ability to release AMPs in a controlled and continuous manner, making them more effective against resistant bacteria [141]. S. aureus, is one of the most common pathogens that cause infection in orthopedic surgery, and it will cause serious harm to patients [142]. Using a non-cytotoxic multilayered coating that programmed the release of AMP HHC-36 from the titanium surface, Kazemzadeh-Narbat et al. were able to effectively eradicate S. aureus and found no cytotoxicity of the implant [85]. In another study of Shukla et al., an AMP ponericin G1 that is effective against S. aureus was incorporated into a hydrolytically degradable polyelectrolyte multilayer film to exert its own function (Figure 3) [86].

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 3

Polyelectrolyte multilayer film prevents biofilm formation. (a) Blank silicon substrate. Uncoated substrate is almost completely covered by Staphylococcus aureus. (b) (Poly 2/alginic acid/ponericin G1/alginic acid)₇₅ film. The substrate is completely void of bacteria, showing 100% inhibition of S. aureus attachment on substrates coated with alginic acid films. (c) (Poly 2/chondroitin sulfate/ponericin G1/chondroitin sulfate)₇₅ film. (d) (Poly 2/dextran sulfate/ponericin G1/dextran sulfate)₇₅ film. (Scale bars: 200 μm). (Four films and controls were examined; the experiment was repeated three times.) Reprinted with permission from ref [86]. Copyright 2010 Elsevier.

In addition, to using the implants’ antibacterial coating to fight bacterial infections, AMPs can also play a role in bone tissue repair through their ability to self-assemble. Bone repair is a complex process involving the interaction between cells and cytokines, among which growth factors play a very important role in cell proliferation, differentiation, and the formation of extracellular matrix [143]. However, growth factors tend to degrade in vivo without carrier protection. Therefore, using antibacterial carrier to carry growth factors can not only exert antibacterial effect but also promote bone repair. Zhou et al. synthesized peptide-mimetic alternating copolymers, which not only have good antibacterial activity and low cytotoxicity but also can self-assemble into vesicles with antibacterial activity and load growth factors (Figure 4). Therefore, the polymer vesicles can perform both antibacterial and repair tasks during bone repair [87]. Compared with the previous step-by-step work, this is undoubtedly fast and efficient. It is worth noting that how to ensure that AMPs in combination with polymers still maintain antibacterial activity should be one future focus of the research.

Figure 4

Engineering dual missions in one peptide-mimetic alternating copolymer (PMAC) vesicle for bone repairing: antibacterial and delivery of growth factor. The positively charged PMAC vesicles can attack negatively charged bacteria, impale and penetrate bacteria membrane, and finally kill bacteria. In the meanwhile, the encapsulated growth factors can be released from vesicles for facilitating bone regeneration. The growth factors can be also released in the healthy bone defects due to the degradation of vesicles. Reprinted with permission from ref [87]. Copyright 2017 American Chemical Society.

3.3. Antibacterial Coating for Medical Devices

Various medical devices, such as urinary catheter, endotracheal tube, gastric tube, artificial heart valve, and contact lens, have been widely used in clinic and become an indispensable part of modern health undertakings [144]. However, with the wide use of various medical devices, the cases of biomaterial-related infections are also increasing. On the one hand, this is due to the decline of immunity of people using medical devices because of their basic diseases; on the other hand, it is due to the increase of bacterial drug resistance caused by antibiotic abuse all over the world. At the same time, the existence of medical devices as foreign bodies in non-human tissues will also lead to the reduction of the body’s local immune defense ability [145]. According to previous studies, the pathogens of medical device related infections usually come from the commercial skin floor or the hospital environment brought in during the use and implantation of medical devices. These pathogens will adhere to the surface of medical devices and form biofilms, and then invade human tissues in contact with medical devices, resulting in infection or body damage [146]. Due to the existence of antibiotic resistance, even if high concentration antibiotics are used, it is often difficult to effectively solve the related infection. Therefore, once the medical device related infection occurs, most of the time, it ends with the removal of medical devices and reoperation [147].

At present, the preventive measures for biomaterial-related infection often start with the medical devices themselves, hoping to make them have antibacterial ability when manufacturing related medical devices, so as to better avoid the generation of biofilm and infection. The current common method is to directly bind AMPs to the surface of medical materials and directly kill pathogenic bacteria or store AMPs in antibacterial coatings, such as microporous calcium phosphate coatings, nanotubes, polymer coatings, and hydrogels, through the release of AMPs to achieve antibacterial effect [148, 149].

For the direct covalent binding and fixation of AMPs on the surface of biomaterials, there are relevant studies on contact lenses. As a broad-spectrum AMP, melimine has good antibacterial activity. Melimine can be covalently combined to the surface of contact lenses by coupling with 1-ethyl-3-[3-dimethylaminopropyl] carbodiimide hydrochloride, so as to have antibacterial effect and reduce the occurrence of eye infection caused by wearing contact lenses [88, 89]. In addition to contact lenses, urinary catheters are also common medical devices and biomaterials in daily life. In order to solve the problem of urinary tract infection caused by the current use of urinary catheters, Yu et al. prepared AMP (C-terminal cysteine peptides E6) coating on PU (a common biomedical plastic used for catheter manufacturing) by using anti-viscosity hydrophilic polymer coating, so as to reduce the occurrence of urinary tract infection (Figure 5). Compared with catheters without AMPs coating, catheters with AMPs coating can reduce bacterial adhesion on the surface by more than 4 logarithms (from to CFU/ml), so as to effectively prevent infection. At the same time, the number of planktonic bacteria in urine was also inhibited by nearly 3 logarithms (from to CFU/ml) [90]. These advances can prolong the service life of urinary catheters and improve the experience of patients.

Figure 5

Functionalization of polyurethane (PU) catheter with AMP-brush coating. The catheter was initially treated with allylamine to generate a surface layer containing amine group. This was followed by a reaction with epoxy containing atom transfer radical polymerization (ATRP) initiator to generate polymerization initiating sites. Poly (N,N′-dimethylacrylamide (PDMA)-co-N-(3-aminopropyl) methacrylamide hydrochloride (APMA) brushes were grown from these initiator modified PU catheter by surface initiated ATRP (SI-ATRP). The sulfhydryl group of C-terminal cysteine peptides E6 (sequence RRWRIVVIRVRRC) was used tether it to the PDMA-co-APMA brush functionalized with iodoacetic acid N-hydroxysuccinimide ester. Reprinted with permission from ref [90]. Copyright 2017 Elsevier.

However, there are also some disadvantages of directly covalently binding AMPs to the surface of biomaterials. First, the activity of AMPs covalently fixed on the surface of the device is affected, and its antibacterial activity decreases compared with free AMPs [150, 151]. Second, once the surface of medical devices is covered with proteins, dead cells, platelets, and dead bacteria, there is a physical barrier between AMPs and the bacteria to be killed, which will be difficult to play its antibacterial effect [146]. In addition, because AMPs is fixed on the surface of medical devices or biomaterials, its scope of action is limited, and it is difficult to effectively kill bacteria far away from the surface of medical devices or bacteria that have invaded surrounding tissues.

Researchers try to store AMP in antibacterial coating and fix it on the surface of medical devices to overcome the above shortcomings. When the medical devices are implanted or contact with the human body, AMPs can be released from the antibacterial coating and maintain a certain concentration in the surrounding tissues in the form of free AMPs, so as to kill the possible pathogenic bacteria. It is worth noting that in order to avoid bacteria escaping into the surrounding tissues and increase the difficulty of antibacterial, the release of AMPs needs to be rapid, stable, and lasting [152]. At present, AMPs have been applied to microporous calcium phosphate coatings [153], nanotubes [154], hydrogels [155], and polymer coatings [156]. For example, research has used hydrogel coating to store AMP HHC36 and control its release, so that titanium materials have the function of resisting S. aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and other bacteria, thereby avoiding the damage caused by biofilm formation [91]. Of course, this method inevitably has some disadvantages. Although the release of AMPs can effectively kill the bacteria that may exist in the tissues around the medical device and effectively avoid the formation of biofilm, this effect is limited, because AMPs are difficult to produce an effect on internalized bacteria, so it is difficult to avoid the occurrence of infection characterized by intracellular bacteria. However, some scholars have tried to use cell-penetrating peptides combined with AMPs to treat intracellular bacterial infections [157, 158].

Infection related to medical devices has always been a major problem in modern medical and health undertakings. AMPs play an antibacterial role by forming PPC on the surface of biomaterials and effectively reduce the occurrence of infection. However, there are still many problems in the application of PPC in medical devices, which need to be studied and solved by researchers.

3.4. Other Applications of PPC in the Body

In addition to the three types mentioned above, PPC are used in the body in many other forms. In addition, the existence of PPC broadens the application of scenarios of AMPs, and these applications are not limited to only antibacterial applications like dental applications but also include tumor therapy, nerve repair and regeneration, and other applications.

PPC shows good anticancer potential. Under normal circumstances, neutral phospholipids, that is, phosphatidylcholines and sphingomyelins [159], are located in the outer leaflet of plasma membranes, whereas in cancer cells, the phospholipid phosphatidylserines (PS) are transferred to the outer leaflet rather than staying in the inner leaflet, making the outer plasma membranes negatively charged. For this reason, some AMPs selectively target cancer cells by binding to negatively charged PS located in the outer leaflet of plasma membranes of cancer cells [160]. Thereby, AMPs bind and destroy the cancer cell membranes mainly through electrostatic interaction [161, 162], so it is not easy to develop drug resistance. However, AMPs are easy to be degraded by protease in the process of in vivo treatment, and they are also easy to miss and cause side effects, so some improvements are needed [36–41], such as combining with polymers to synthesize PPC. At present, the main methods are: the PEGylation of AMP [163], using bacteriophage as the carrier of AMPs [164], encapsulating AMPs with liposome [73, 165], or using polymer nanoparticles to deliver AMPs to treat tumors [166]. For example, melittin has good anticancer activity, but due to its non-specific cytotoxicity and hemolytic activity, it is difficult to strike a balance between efficacy and safety. To this end, researchers have used self-assembling melittin–lipid nanoparticles (Figure 6) [92], perfluorocarbon nanoparticles delivery system [167], redox sensitive polymer-based nanocomplex [168], and other nanoencapsulation methods [37] to make melittin druggable and to exert its anticancer effect safely in vivo.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Figure 6

Cell viability of antigen presenting cells and B16F10 melanoma cells after exposure to melittin and α-melittin-NPs (nanoparticles). Real-time and dynamic imaging of (a) bone marrow-derived dendritic cells (BMDC), (b) bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMDMs), and (c) B16F10 cells after incubations with free melittin (5 μM) and α-melittin-NP (10 μM). Green: BMDC, magenta: BMDM, cyan: B16F10. Red indicates PI. All scale bars represent 10 μm. (d) Evaluation of cellular-binding ability by analyzing the MFI of FITC-α-melittin-NPs in B16F10 cells, BMDCs, and BMDMs (n =3 per group). Incubation time: 3 hours. MFI: mean fluorescent intensity. (e) Representative immunofluorescence imaging of cellular binding of FITC-α-melittin-NPs (10 μM) to B16F10 cells, BMDCs, and BMDMs. Incubation time: 3 hours. Blue: DAPI, green: FITC-α-melittin-NPs, red: membrane-targeted tdTomato. (Scale bar: 5 μm.) Reprinted with permission from ref [92]. Copyright 2020 Springer Nature.

PPC is also used to help nerve repair and regeneration. Due to the stability and particularity of nerve cells, functional nerve repair and regeneration are a difficult problem. Trauma is a common cause of nerve injury, and the loss of connection between neurons and distal axons often makes nerve repair difficult. How to promote the regeneration of axons from proximal to distal and restore the damaged synapses has become the focus of nerve injury repair. In this process, it is not only necessary to avoid infection and inflammation but also to promote the remyelination of demyelinated myelinated nerve fibers or the repair of unmyelinated nerve fibers. Therefore, a good interaction between appropriate materials and regenerative cells is needed. This material should have many functions, such as antibacterial, inhibiting inflammation, forming tubular structure, and guiding nerve repair. Depending on the actual situation, it can also have the ability to recruit peripheral neural stem cells to differentiate into various cells to help nerve repair [169, 170]. How to develop a novel biomaterial with good bioactivity and biodegradation ability to promote the adhesion, proliferation, differentiation, and functionalization of nerve cells has become an important research direction. Positive charges are known to be involved in these cellular activities, and some positively charged AMPs provide cell-binding sites and positive charges to promote cell function through electrostatic interactions with anion sites of cytoplasmic membrane [171, 172]. Unlike other applications, AMPs applied for this scenario require long-term stability and constant density. With this in mind, the researchers developed several versatile poly(L-lysine) (PLL)-grafted hydrogels, which can promote attachment, proliferation, encapsulation, differentiation, and function regeneration of mouse neural progenitor cells (Figure 7) [93, 173]. Zhang et al. invented a 3D-printed self-adhesive bandage with drug release for peripheral nerve repair, which can tightly wrap the injured nerve, release the drug to the internal area, and promote nerve repair by improving the proliferation and migration of Schwann cells. The scheme is suitable for combining with AMPs to form PPC and improve the antibacterial properties of the material [174].

Due to its rapid dilution and biodegradation, the application of AMPs in oral cavity is limited, whereas PPC has overcome the disadvantages of AMPs in dental application to some extent. For example, as a common dental disease, dental caries is often caused by bacterial infection and dental plaque formation [94]. Although AMPs can overcome resistance to traditional antibiotics to a certain extent and play an antibacterial effect, the actual effect is not ideal because it is difficult to maintain a certain threshold concentration in the oral cavity [42]. Therefore, PPC have been designed to construct antibacterial coatings on teeth [95]. For example, Zhang et al. have combined hydroxyapatite-binding diphosphoserine (DPS) domain with an AMP (polyphemusin) to create a new antibacterial coating for teeth to prevent and treat cavities [94]. In addition, this antibacterial coating has good stability in oral cavity, so it has a long-lasting antibacterial effect. As dental composite restoration materials are often re-destroyed by bacteria planted at the interface of the restoration, resulting in restoration failure, in addition to being used as a coating to prevent dental caries, PPC can also be involved in dental restoration. Xie et al. combined AMP (AMPM5) with monomers in dental adhesive formulation to form an adhesive system with good mechanical properties and antibacterial activity (Figure 8) [96]. In addition, this adhesive can treat secondary dental caries and enhance the durability of dental composite restorations.

3.5. Limitations of PPC

Even though PPC has been applied in many fields, there are still many problems and directions for progress in its research. First, there is currently no unified method to test the antibacterial properties of PPC, so it is difficult to directly compare their results in the face of different studies. How to reach a consensus on the test of antibacterial properties of PPC and formulate a set of unified test methods that can be compared horizontally is worthy of careful study. Second, at present, most of the studies on PPC are in vitro, there are relatively few in vivo studies, and there is a lack of data in human experiments. Due to the complexity of human internal environment, the actual efficacy of PPC still needs more data support. Therefore, more animal models and even clinical trials are needed to evaluate the feasibility of PPC in vivo. In addition, the current research on biocompatibility of PPC has great limitations. According to the guidance documents of FDA [175], the test indicators of biocompatibility include cytotoxicity, sensitization, hemocompatibility, pyrogenicity, implantation, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and degradation assessments. However, the current research mainly focuses on cytotoxicity and hemocompatibility, and is unable to more comprehensively evaluate the biocompatibility of PPC, and there is a lack of research on the possible long-term effects of PPC, such as genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive, and developmental toxicity. Apart from these, with the emergence of superbacteria caused by antibiotic abuse all over the world, how to better use PPC in combination with antibiotics to limit the occurrence of super drug-resistant bacteria and biofilm should be a research hotspot we need to consider. Extending from drug-resistant bacteria, we can also consider applying PPC to antifungal undertakings. Through the joint use of PPC and antifungal drugs, we can use their synergy to achieve the purpose of antifungal or use PPC with anticancer drugs to achieve the synergy of anticancer and antibacterial. Finally, at present, the research of intelligent antibacterial agents is a hotspot. We should consider how to use more appropriate ways or components to design PPC to realize its intelligent antibacterial effect at the treatment site, such as specific release when the tissue microenvironment reaches certain conditions, slow release, and gradual degradation with the progress of the disease. From what has been discussed above, these research directions put forward higher requirements for the design of functional polymers of PPC. For AMPs itself, its high synthesis cost limits the commercialization of AMPs. Research, develop, and design a new and convenient synthesis method to reduce the production cost of AMPs, which is conducive to the wider application of AMPs and PPC.

4. Conclusions

The existing countermeasures, including new antibiotics, antibiotic resistance blockers (ARB), and phage therapy, cannot effectively solve the problem of drug-resistant bacteria. Compared with them, AMPs destroy bacterial membrane through electrostatic interaction, can better regulate host immune response, and have relatively wide anti-biofilm activity, and the development of bacterial drug resistance is relatively lagging. In order to overcome the disadvantages of poor stability and high cytotoxicity of AMPs in vivo, researchers combined AMPs with functional polymers. Through coupling or polymerization, AMPs and functional polymers can form –PPC. In addition, PPC can obtain self-assembly ability through electrostatic interaction, van der Waals forces, and other ways to form a variety of different nanostructures, such as micelles, vesicles, and microspheres, so as to play different specific functions. In addition, the function of PPC is influenced by a variety of factors, such as the specific sequence of AMPs, or the properties of the functional polymers. In this study, we focus on the practical application of PPC from six aspects: wound dressing, bone tissue repair, medical device coating, tumor treatment, nerve repair, and oral application. For different specific applications, PPC can better adapt to different situations in practical applications by changing its composition and nanostructure. In view of the limitations and problems existing in the practical application of PPC, we believe that it is necessary to formulate a unified evaluation standard for antibacterial performance, carry out more comprehensive in vivo and clinical research, completely evaluate the biocompatibility index of PPC, consider the prospect of the combined use of PPC and other drugs, and realize the intelligent antibacterial effect of PPC. At the same time, AMPs should also be further studied and developed.

Data Availability

Data supporting this research article are available from the corresponding author or the first author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

Xuqiu Shen: conceptualization, writing—original draft, writing—review & editing, and project administration; Yiyin Zhang: writing—original draft, writing—review & editing, and project administration; Qijiang Mao: writing—review & editing and project administration; Zhengze Huang: writing—review & editing; Tingting Yan: writing—review & editing; Tianyu Lin: writing—review & editing; Wenchao chen: writing—review & editing; Yifan Wang: supervision; Xiujun Cai: supervision; Yuelong Liang: supervision & conceptualization.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation (Y22H039489 and LQ19H160044) and Zhejiang Province Medical and Public Health Projects (2022519993 and 2022522045).

References

M. I. Hutchings, A. W. Truman, and B. Wilkinson, “Antibiotics: past, present and future,” Current Opinion in Microbiology, vol. 51, pp. 72–80, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. M. P. De Oliveira, B. M. Forde, T. J. Kidd et al., “Antimicrobial resistance in ESKAPE pathogens,” Clinical Microbiology Reviews, vol. 33, no. 3, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. M. Uddin, A. J. Chakraborty, A. Khusro et al., “Antibiotic resistance in microbes: history, mechanisms, therapeutic strategies and future prospects,” Journal of Infection and Public Health, vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 1750–1766, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Tshibangu-Kabamba and Y. Yamaoka, “Helicobacter pylori infection and antibiotic resistance—from biology to clinical implications,” Nature Reviews. Gastroenterology & Hepatology, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 613–629, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Laws, A. Shaaban, and K. M. Rahman, “Antibiotic resistance breakers: current approaches and future directions,” FEMS Microbiology Reviews, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 490–516, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. R. Randall and B. W. Davies, “Mining for novel antibiotics,” Current Opinion in Microbiology, vol. 63, pp. 66–69, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. F. Hatfull, R. M. Dedrick, and R. T. Schooley, “Phage therapy for antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections,” Annual Review of Medicine, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 197–211, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Lauman and J. J. Dennis, “Advances in phage therapy: targeting the Burkholderia cepacia complex,” Viruses, vol. 13, no. 7, p. 1331, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Gonzalez-Bello, D. Rodriguez, M. Pernas, A. Rodriguez, and E. Colchon, “β-lactamase inhibitors to restore the efficacy of antibiotics against superbugs,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 1859–1881, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. F. Mojica, M.-A. Rossi, A. J. Vila, and R. A. Bonomo, “The urgent need for metallo-β-lactamase inhibitors: an unattended global threat,” The Lancet Infectious Diseases, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. e28–e34, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Dey, S. Mukherjee, S. Barman, and J. Haldar, “Macromolecular nanotherapeutics and antibiotic adjuvants to tackle bacterial and fungal infections,” Macromolecular Bioscience, vol. 21, no. 11, article e2100182, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
F. L. Gordillo Altamirano and J. J. Barr, “Phage therapy in the postantibiotic era,” Clinical Microbiology Reviews, vol. 32, no. 2, article e00066-18, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Hesse and S. Adhya, “Phage therapy in the twenty-first century: facing the decline of the antibiotic era; is it finally time for the age of the phage?” Annual Review of Microbiology, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 155–174, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Huh, S. Wong, J. St Jean, and R. Slavcev, “Bacteriophage interactions with mammalian tissue: therapeutic applications,” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, vol. 145, pp. 4–17, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. L. Tagliaferri, M. Jansen, and H. P. Horz, “Fighting pathogenic bacteria on two fronts: phages and antibiotics as combined strategy,” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, vol. 9, p. 22, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Fathima and A. C. Archer, “Bacteriophage therapy: recent developments and applications of a renaissant weapon,” Research in Microbiology, vol. 172, no. 6, article 103863, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Zyman, A. Górski, and R. Międzybrodzki, “Phage therapy of wound-associated infections,” Folia Microbiologia, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 193–201, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kaur, A. Kumari, A. Kumari Negi et al., “Nanotechnology based approaches in phage therapy: overcoming the pharmacological barriers,” Frontiers in Pharmacology, vol. 12, article 699054, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Venturini, A. Petrovic Fabijan, A. Fajardo Lubian, S. Barbirz, and J. Iredell, “Biological foundations of successful bacteriophage therapy,” EMBO Molecular Medicine, vol. 14, no. 7, article e12435, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
O. W. Barber, I. M. Miramontes, M. Jain, E. A. Ozer, and E. M. Hartmann, “The future of bacteriophage therapy will promote antimicrobial susceptibility,” mSystems, vol. 6, no. 4, article e0021821, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Lemaitre, E. Nicolas, L. Michaut, J.-M. Reichhart, and J. A. Hoffmann, “The dorsoventral regulatory gene cassette spätzle/toll/cactus controls the potent antifungal response in Drosophila adults,” Cell, vol. 86, no. 6, pp. 973–983, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Luo and Y. Song, “Mechanism of antimicrobial peptides: antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory and Antibiofilm activities,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 22, no. 21, p. 11401, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bin Hafeez, X. Jiang, P. J. Bergen, and Y. Zhu, “Antimicrobial peptides: an update on classifications and databases,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 22, no. 21, p. 11691, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
R. E. W. Hancock, M. A. Alford, and E. F. Haney, “Antibiofilm activity of host defence peptides: complexity provides opportunities,” Nature Reviews Microbiology, vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 786–797, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Zhu, W. Hao, X. Wang et al., “Antimicrobial peptides, conventional antibiotics, and their synergistic utility for the treatment of drug-resistant infections,” Medicinal Research Reviews, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 1377–1422, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. J. Chen, L. N. Schmucker, and D. P. Visco, “Pharmaceutical machine learning: virtual high-throughput screens identifying promising and economical small molecule inhibitors of complement factor C1s,” Biomolecules, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 24, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Järvå, F. T. Lay, T. K. Phan et al., “X-ray structure of a carpet-like antimicrobial defensin-phospholipid membrane disruption complex,” Nature Communications, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 1962, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Priyadarshini, J. Ivica, F. Separovic, and M. R. R. de Planque, “Characterisation of cell membrane interaction mechanisms of antimicrobial peptides by electrical bilayer recording,” Biophysical Chemistry, vol. 281, article 106721, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Zhao and K. Sugihara, “Analysis of PDA dose curves for the extraction of antimicrobial peptide properties,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, vol. 125, no. 44, pp. 12206–12213, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. V. Sychev, S. V. Sukhanov, P. V. Panteleev, Z. O. Shenkarev, and T. V. Ovchinnikova, “Marine antimicrobial peptide arenicin adopts a monomeric twisted β-hairpin structure and forms low conductivity pores in zwitterionic lipid bilayers,” Biopolymers, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Magana, M. Pushpanathan, A. L. Santos et al., “The value of antimicrobial peptides in the age of resistance,” The Lancet Infectious Diseases, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. e216–e230, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Moravej, Z. Moravej, M. Yazdanparast et al., “Antimicrobial peptides: features, action, and their resistance mechanisms in bacteria,” Microbial Drug Resistance, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 747–767, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Browne, S. Chakraborty, R. Chen et al., “A new era of antibiotics: the clinical potential of antimicrobial peptides,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 21, no. 19, p. 7047, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Ma, Z. Guo, B. Xia et al., “Identification of antimicrobial peptides from the human gut microbiome using deep learning,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 921–931, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Zhu, C. Shao, G. Li et al., “Rational avoidance of protease cleavage sites and symmetrical end-tagging significantly enhances the stability and therapeutic potential of antimicrobial peptides,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 63, no. 17, pp. 9421–9435, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. S. Fleck, D. Mukherjee, N. D. T. Tram, P. L. R. Ee, and U. Schepers, “Novel tetrameric cell penetrating antimicrobial peptoids effective against mycobacteria and drug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus,” Frontiers in Bioscience, vol. 27, no. 2, p. 64, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Lv, M. Sylvestre, K. Song, and S. H. Pun, “Development of D-melittin polymeric nanoparticles for anti-cancer treatment,” Biomaterials, vol. 277, article 121076, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Gera, E. Kankuri, and K. Kogermann, “Antimicrobial peptides—unleashing their therapeutic potential using nanotechnology,” Pharmacology & Therapeutics, vol. 232, article 107990, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Yang, S. He, H. Wu, T. Yin, L. Wang, and A. Shan, “Nanostructured antimicrobial peptides: crucial steps of overcoming the bottleneck for clinics,” Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 12, article 710199, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Sarkar, M. Chetia, and S. Chatterjee, “Antimicrobial peptides and proteins: from Nature’s reservoir to the laboratory and beyond,” Frontiers in Chemistry, vol. 9, article 691532, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Wu, G. Xia, W. Zhang et al., “Structural design and antimicrobial properties of polypeptides and saccharide-polypeptide conjugates,” Journal of Materials Chemistry B, vol. 8, no. 40, pp. 9173–9196, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. D. Fjell, J. A. Hiss, R. E. Hancock, and G. Schneider, “Designing antimicrobial peptides: form follows function,” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 37–51, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Chen, C. Zhou, Y. Xu et al., “An alternatingly amphiphilic, resistance-resistant antimicrobial oligoguanidine with dual mechanisms of action,” Biomaterials, vol. 275, article 120858, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. J. Ramchuran, I. Pérez-Guillén, L. A. Bester et al., “Super-cationic peptide dendrimers-synthesis and evaluation as antimicrobial agents,” Antibiotics, vol. 10, no. 6, p. 695, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
S.-J. Chiou, H.-J. Ko, C.-C. Hwang, and Y.-R. Hong, “The double-edged sword of Beta2-microglobulin in antibacterial properties and amyloid fibril-mediated cytotoxicity,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 22, no. 12, p. 6330, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. B. Zhen, M. H. Zhao, Y. Ge et al., “Construction, mechanism, and antibacterial resistance insight into polypeptide-based nanoparticles,” Biomaterials Science, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 4142–4152, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. V. Carratalá, N. Serna, A. Villaverde, E. Vázquez, and N. Ferrer-Miralles, “Nanostructured antimicrobial peptides: the last push towards clinics,” Biotechnology Advances, vol. 44, article 107603, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. E. Callmann, M. P. Thompson, and N. C. Gianneschi, “Poly(peptide): synthesis, structure, and function of peptide-polymer Amphiphiles and protein-like polymers,” Accounts of Chemical Research, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 400–413, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. M. Costa, S. R. Maia, P. A. Gomes, and M. C. Martins, “Dhvar5 antimicrobial peptide (AMP) chemoselective covalent immobilization results on higher antiadherence effect than simple physical adsorption,” Biomaterials, vol. 52, pp. 531–538, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. N. Siriwardena, M. Stach, R. He et al., “Lipidated peptide dendrimers killing multidrug-resistant bacteria,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 140, no. 1, pp. 423–432, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. J. Lam, N. M. O’Brien-Simpson, N. Pantarat et al., “Combating multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria with structurally nanoengineered antimicrobial peptide polymers,” Nature Microbiology, vol. 1, no. 11, p. 16162, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Zhou, M. Wang, K. Zou, J. Chen, Y. Zhu, and J. Du, “Antibacterial polypeptide-grafted chitosan-based nanocapsules as an “Armed” carrier of anticancer and antiepileptic drugs,” ACS Macro Letters, vol. 2, no. 11, pp. 1021–1025, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Sun, Y. Hong, Y. Xi, Y. Zou, J. Gao, and J. Du, “Synthesis, self-assembly, and biomedical applications of antimicrobial peptide-polymer conjugates,” Biomacromolecules, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1701–1720, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Cheng and T. J. Deming, “Synthesis of polypeptides by ring-opening polymerization of α-amino acid N-carboxyanhydrides,” Topics in Current Chemistry, vol. 310, pp. 1–26, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
P. R. Judzewitsch, N. Corrigan, E. H. H. Wong, and C. Boyer, “Photo-enhanced antimicrobial activity of polymers containing an embedded photosensitiser,” Angewandte Chemie, vol. 60, no. 45, pp. 24248–24256, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. D. Kimmins, S. B. Hanay, R. Murphy et al., “Antimicrobial and degradable triazolinedione (TAD) crosslinked polypeptide hydrogels,” Journal of Materials Chemistry B, vol. 9, no. 27, pp. 5456–5464, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Lai, Q. Jian, G. Li et al., “Self-assembling peptide dendron nanoparticles with high stability and a multimodal antimicrobial mechanism of action,” ACS Nano, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 15824–15840, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Comune, A. Rai, P. Palma, C. TondaTuro, and L. Ferreira, “Antimicrobial and pro-angiogenic properties of soluble and nanoparticle-immobilized LL37 peptides,” Biomaterials Science, vol. 9, no. 24, pp. 8153–8159, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Zhang, M. Li, C. Zhu et al., “Well-defined protein/peptide–polymer conjugates by aqueous cu-LRP: synthesis and controlled self-assembly,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 137, no. 29, pp. 9344–9353, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Lim, R. R. Y. Chua, B. Ho, P. A. Tambyah, K. Hadinoto, and S. S. J. Leong, “Development of a catheter functionalized by a polydopamine peptide coating with antimicrobial and antibiofilm properties,” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 15, pp. 127–138, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Xi, T. Song, S. Tang, N. Wang, and J. Du, “Preparation and antibacterial mechanism insight of polypeptide-based micelles with excellent antibacterial activities,” Biomacromolecules, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 3922–3930, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Jokonya, M. Langlais, M. Leshabane et al., “Poly(N-vinylpyrrolidone) antimalaria conjugates of membrane-disruptive peptides,” Biomacromolecules, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 5053–5066, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Wang, Z. Song, S. Wei et al., “Polypeptide-based drug delivery systems for programmed release,” Biomaterials, vol. 275, article 120913, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Wu, K. Chen, X. Wu et al., “Superfast and water-insensitive polymerization on α-amino acid N-carboxyanhydrides to prepare polypeptides using tetraalkylammonium carboxylate as the initiator,” Angewandte Chemie, vol. 60, no. 50, pp. 26063–26071, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. H. Turabee, T. Thambi, J. S. Lym, and D. S. Lee, “Bioresorbable polypeptide-based comb-polymers efficiently improves the stability and pharmacokinetics of proteins in vivo,” Biomaterials Science, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 837–848, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Shao, Y. Zhu, Z. Lai, P. Tan, and A. Shan, “Antimicrobial peptides with protease stability: progress and perspective,” Future Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 11, no. 16, pp. 2047–2050, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Zhao, E. Ibarboure, V. Ibrahimova, Y. Xiao, E. Garanger, and S. Lecommandoux, “Spatiotemporal dynamic assembly/disassembly of organelle-mimics based on intrinsically disordered protein-polymer conjugates,” Advanced Science, vol. 8, no. 24, article e2102508, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. E. Nielsen, M. A. Alford, D. B. Y. Yung et al., “Self-assembly of antimicrobial peptoids impacts their biological effects on bacterial pathogens,” ACS Infectious Diseases, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 533–545, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Chen, Y. Lyu, M. Tan et al., “Fabrication of supramolecular antibacterial nanofibers with membrane-disruptive mechanism,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 64, no. 22, pp. 16480–16496, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y.-Y. Xie, X.-T. Qin, J. Zhang et al., “Self-assembly of peptide nanofibers with chirality-encoded antimicrobial activity,” Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 622, pp. 135–146, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Annabi, D. Rana, E. Shirzaei Sani et al., “Engineering a sprayable and elastic hydrogel adhesive with antimicrobial properties for wound healing,” Biomaterials, vol. 139, pp. 229–243, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Gao, M. Wang, F. Wang, and J. Du, “Synthesis and mechanism insight of a peptide-grafted Hyperbranched polymer nanosheet with weak positive charges but excellent intrinsically antibacterial efficacy,” Biomacromolecules, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 2080–2086, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Wang, T. Hong, P. Cui, J. Wang, and J. Xia, “Antimicrobial peptides towards clinical application: delivery and formulation,” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, vol. 175, article 113818, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. J. Peeler, S. N. Thai, Y. Cheng, P. J. Horner, D. L. Sellers, and S. H. Pun, “pH-sensitive polymer micelles provide selective and potentiated lytic capacity to venom peptides for effective intracellular delivery,” Biomaterials, vol. 192, pp. 235–244, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Ding, A. Wang, W. Tong, and F.-J. Xu, “Biodegradable antibacterial polymeric nanosystems: a new hope to cope with multidrug-resistant bacteria,” Small, vol. 15, no. 20, p. 1900999, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Yu, Z. Ma, S. Meng et al., “A novel nanohybrid antimicrobial based on chitosan nanoparticles and antimicrobial peptide microcin J25 with low toxicity,” Carbohydrate Polymers, vol. 253, article 117309, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. H. De Zoysa, A. J. Cameron, V. V. Hegde, S. Raghothama, and V. Sarojini, “Antimicrobial peptides with potential for biofilm eradication: synthesis and structure activity relationship studies of battacin peptides,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 625–639, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. V. M. Freire, Y. Pillco-Valencia, G. C. A. da Hora et al., “Antimicrobial peptide induced colloidal transformations in bacteria-mimetic vesicles: combining in silico tools and experimental methods,” Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 596, pp. 352–363, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. L. Becker, J. Liu, and K. L. Wooley, “Functionalized micellar assemblies prepared via block copolymers synthesized by living free radical polymerization upon peptide-loaded resins,” Biomacromolecules, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 220–228, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Dong, J. Du, Y. Chen, M. Zhang, and L. Zhao, “A comparative study of immobilizing ammonium molybdophosphate onto cellulose microsphere by radiation post-grafting and hybrid grafting for cesium removal,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 273, article 116432, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Li, L. Wang, C. Wang, C. Tan, X. Liu, and Y. Zhu, “Development and biocompatibility analysis of NBD peptide sustained-release microsphere scaffold nanoparticle SP-Sr-CaS/NBD,” Current Drug Delivery, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 433–445, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Rezaei, H. G. Hamidabadi, S. Khosravimelal et al., “Antimicrobial peptides-loaded smart chitosan hydrogel: release behavior and antibacterial potential against antibiotic resistant clinical isolates,” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, vol. 164, pp. 855–862, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Weishaupt, J. N. Zünd, L. Heuberger et al., “Antibacterial, cytocompatible, sustainably sourced: cellulose membranes with bifunctional peptides for advanced wound dressings,” Advanced Healthcare Materials, vol. 9, no. 7, p. 1901850, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Lin, T. Wu, W. Wang et al., “Biofunctions of antimicrobial peptide-conjugated alginate/hyaluronic acid/collagen wound dressings promote wound healing of a mixed-bacteria-infected wound,” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, vol. 140, pp. 330–342, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Kazemzadeh-Narbat, B. F. L. Lai, C. Ding, J. N. Kizhakkedathu, R. E. W. Hancock, and R. Wang, “Multilayered coating on titanium for controlled release of antimicrobial peptides for the prevention of implant-associated infections,” Biomaterials, vol. 34, no. 24, pp. 5969–5977, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Shukla, K. E. Fleming, H. F. Chuang et al., “Controlling the release of peptide antimicrobial agents from surfaces,” Biomaterials, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 2348–2357, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Zhou, Y. Yuan, P. Zhou et al., “Highly effective antibacterial vesicles based on peptide-mimetic alternating copolymers for bone repair,” Biomacromolecules, vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 4154–4162, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Chen, M. D. P. Willcox, K. K. K. Ho, D. Smyth, and N. Kumar, “Antimicrobial peptide melimine coating for titanium and its in vivo antibacterial activity in rodent subcutaneous infection models,” Biomaterials, vol. 85, pp. 142–151, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Dutta, J. Ozkan, and M. D. P. Willcox, “Biocompatibility of antimicrobial melimine lenses: rabbit and human studies,” Optometry and Vision Science, vol. 91, no. 5, pp. 570–581, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Yu, J. C. Y. Lo, M. Yan et al., “Anti-adhesive antimicrobial peptide coating prevents catheter associated infection in a mouse urinary infection model,” Biomaterials, vol. 116, pp. 69–81, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Cheng, K. Yue, M. Kazemzadeh-Narbat et al., “Mussel-inspired multifunctional hydrogel coating for prevention of infections and enhanced osteogenesis,” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, vol. 9, no. 13, pp. 11428–11439, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Yu, Y. Dai, Y. Zhao et al., “Melittin-lipid nanoparticles target to lymph nodes and elicit a systemic anti-tumor immune response,” Nature Communications, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 1110, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Cai, J. Lu, V. Sheen, and S. Wang, “Promoting nerve cell functions on hydrogels grafted with poly(L-lysine),” Biomacromolecules, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 342–349, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L.-Y. Zhang, Z.-H. Fang, Q.-L. Li, and C. Y. Cao, “A tooth-binding antimicrobial peptide to prevent the formation of dental biofilm,” Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, vol. 30, no. 4, p. 45, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. G. Moussa, A. Fok, and C. Aparicio, “Hydrophobic and antimicrobial dentin: a peptide-based 2-tier protective system for dental resin composite restorations,” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 88, pp. 251–265, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S.-X. Xie, L. Song, E. Yuca et al., “Antimicrobial peptide–polymer conjugates for dentistry,” ACS Applied Polymer Materials, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1134–1144, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Yang, Y. Liang, J. Wang et al., “Multifunctional wound dressing for rapid hemostasis, bacterial infection monitoring and photodynamic antibacterial therapy,” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 135, pp. 179–190, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. He, M. Zhou, X. Chen et al., “Development and characterization of multifunctional wound dressing with the property of anti-bacteria and angiogenesis,” Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Ciumac, H. Gong, X. Hu, and J. R. Lu, “Membrane targeting cationic antimicrobial peptides,” Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 537, pp. 163–185, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Gomes, M. T. Augusto, M. R. Felício et al., “Designing improved active peptides for therapeutic approaches against infectious diseases,” Biotechnology Advances, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 415–429, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. X. Luong, T. T. Thanh, and T. H. Tran, “Antimicrobial peptides – advances in development of therapeutic applications,” Life Sciences, vol. 260, article 118407, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Zou, W.-H. Lee, Z. Gao et al., “Wound dressing from polyvinyl alcohol/chitosan electrospun fiber membrane loaded with OH-CATH30 nanoparticles,” Carbohydrate Polymers, vol. 232, article 115786, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Gomes, L. J. Bessa, I. Fernandes et al., “Disclosure of a promising lead to tackle complicated skin and skin structure infections: antimicrobial and antibiofilm actions of peptide PP4-3.1,” Pharmaceutics, vol. 13, no. 11, p. 1962, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. K. Thapa, D. B. Diep, and H. H. Tønnesen, “Topical antimicrobial peptide formulations for wound healing: current developments and future prospects,” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 103, pp. 52–67, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Chen, H. Li, X. Qiao et al., “Agarose oligosaccharide-silver nanoparticle-antimicrobial peptide- composite for wound dressing,” Carbohydrate Polymers, vol. 269, article 118258, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Comune, A. Rai, K. K. Chereddy et al., “Antimicrobial peptide-gold nanoscale therapeutic formulation with high skin regenerative potential,” Journal of Controlled Release, vol. 262, pp. 58–71, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Ahmadi, S. Yadav, A. K. Kar et al., “An injectable self-assembling hydrogel based on RGD peptidomimetic β-sheets as multifunctional biomaterials,” Materials Science & Engineering. C, Materials for Biological Applications, no. article 112633, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Mndlovu, L. C. du Toit, P. Kumar et al., “Bioplatform fabrication approaches affecting chitosan-based Interpolymer complex properties and performance as wound dressings,” Molecules, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 222, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Yang, L. Xu, J. Wang et al., “Recent advances in polysaccharide-based self-healing hydrogels for biomedical applications,” Carbohydrate Polymers, vol. 283, article 119161, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Kanikireddy, K. Varaprasad, T. Jayaramudu, C. Karthikeyan, and R. Sadiku, “Carboxymethyl cellulose-based materials for infection control and wound healing: a review,” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, vol. 164, pp. 963–975, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. He, J. Wu, J. Xu, D. A. Mosselhy, Y. Zheng, and S. Yang, “Bacterial cellulose: functional modification and wound healing applications,” Advances in Wound Care, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 623–640, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Wahid, L.-H. Huang, X.-Q. Zhao et al., “Bacterial cellulose and its potential for biomedical applications,” Biotechnology Advances, vol. 53, article 107856, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Naseri-Nosar and Z. M. Ziora, “Wound dressings from naturally-occurring polymers: a review on homopolysaccharide-based composites,” Carbohydrate Polymers, vol. 189, pp. 379–398, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Zhang, X. Qiao, W. Han, T. Jiang, F. Liu, and X. Zhao, “Alginate-chitosan oligosaccharide-ZnO composite hydrogel for accelerating wound healing,” Carbohydrate Polymers, vol. 266, article 118100, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Valachová, M. A. El Meligy, and L. Šoltés, “Hyaluronic acid and chitosan-based electrospun wound dressings: problems and solutions,” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, vol. 206, pp. 74–91, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Alven and B. A. Aderibigbe, “Hyaluronic acid-based scaffolds as potential bioactive wound dressings,” Polymers, vol. 13, no. 13, p. 2102, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Yang, Z. Xie, J. Hu, and Y. Liu, “Hyaluronic acid nanofiber mats loaded with antimicrobial peptide towards wound dressing applications,” Materials Science & Engineering. C, Materials for Biological Applications, vol. 128, article 112319, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. You, Q. Li, X. Wang et al., “Silver nanoparticle loaded collagen/chitosan scaffolds promote wound healing via regulating fibroblast migration and macrophage activation,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
W. Peng, D. Li, K. Dai et al., “Recent progress of collagen, chitosan, alginate and other hydrogels in skin repair and wound dressing applications,” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, vol. 208, pp. 400–408, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Mbese, S. Alven, and B. A. Aderibigbe, “Collagen-based nanofibers for skin regeneration and wound dressing applications,” Polymers, vol. 13, no. 24, p. 4368, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Das, M. Abas, N. Biswas et al., “A modified collagen dressing induces transition of inflammatory to reparative phenotype of wound macrophages,” Scientific Reports, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 14293–14293, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Liang, J. He, and B. Guo, “Functional hydrogels as wound dressing to enhance wound healing,” ACS Nano, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 12687–12722, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. He, W. Zhao, Z. Dong et al., “A biodegradable antibacterial alginate/carboxymethyl chitosan/Kangfuxin sponges for promoting blood coagulation and full-thickness wound healing,” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, vol. 167, pp. 182–192, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. N. Sarwar, H. G. Ali, S. Ullah et al., “Electrospun PVA/CuONPs/bitter gourd nanofibers with improved Cytocompatibility and antibacterial properties: application as antibacterial wound dressing,” Polymers, vol. 14, no. 7, p. 1361, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Su, V. L. Mainardi, H. Wang et al., “Dissolvable microneedles coupled with nanofiber dressings eradicate biofilms via effectively delivering a database-designed antimicrobial peptide,” ACS Nano, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 11775–11786, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Zeng, X. Qi, G. Shi, M. Zhang, and H. Haick, “Wound dressing: from nanomaterials to diagnostic dressings and healing evaluations,” ACS Nano, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 1708–1733, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Ma, W. Dong, S. Zhao et al., “An injectable adhesive antibacterial hydrogel wound dressing for infected skin wounds,” Materials Science & Engineering. C, Materials for Biological Applications, vol. 134, no. article 112584, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Liu, J. Miao, L. Zhao et al., “Versatile bilayer hydrogel for wound dressing through PET-RAFT polymerization,” Biomacromolecules, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1112–1123, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Su, J. Li, J. Liang, K. Zhang, and J. Li, “Hydrogel preparation methods and biomaterials for wound dressing,” Life, vol. 11, no. 10, p. 1016, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Montaser, M. Rehan, and M. E. El-Naggar, “pH-Thermosensitive hydrogel based on polyvinyl alcohol/sodium alginate/N-isopropyl acrylamide composite for treating re-infected wounds,” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, vol. 124, pp. 1016–1024, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. U. A. Khan, S. I. A. Razaq, H. Mehboob, S. Rehman, W. S. Al-Arjan, and R. Amin, “Antibacterial and hemocompatible pH-responsive hydrogel for skin wound healing application: in vitro drug release,” Polymers, vol. 13, no. 21, p. 3703, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Honda, M. Matsumoto, and M. Aizawa, “Potential application of protamine for antimicrobial biomaterials in bone tissue engineering,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 21, no. 12, p. 4368, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bharadwaz and A. C. Jayasuriya, “Recent trends in the application of widely used natural and synthetic polymer nanocomposites in bone tissue regeneration,” Materials Science and Engineering: C, vol. 110, article 110698, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Sebastian, E. A. Sezgin, J. Stučinskas et al., “Different microbial and resistance patterns in primary total knee arthroplasty infections—a report on 283 patients from Lithuania and Sweden,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 800, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Gordon, D. E. Lee, B. Liu et al., “Dynamic PET-facilitated modeling and high-dose rifampin regimens for orthopedic implant-associated infections,” Science Translational Medicine, vol. 13, no. 622, p. eabl6851, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Garg, I. Matai, and A. Sachdev, “Toward designing of anti-infective hydrogels for orthopedic implants: from lab to clinic,” ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 1933–1961, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Costa, G. Martínez-de-Tejada, P. A. C. Gomes, M. C. L. Martins, and F. Costa, “Antimicrobial peptides in the battle against orthopedic implant-related infections: a review,” Pharmaceutics, vol. 13, no. 11, p. 1918, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Ye, T. Sang, K. Li et al., “Hybrid nanocoatings of self-assembled organic-inorganic amphiphiles for prevention of implant infections,” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 140, pp. 338–349, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Pihl, S. Galli, R. Jimbo, and M. Andersson, “Osseointegration and antibacterial effect of an antimicrobial peptide releasing mesoporous titania implant,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part B, Applied Biomaterials, vol. 109, no. 11, pp. 1787–1795, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Kazemzadeh-Narbat, J. Kindrachuk, K. Duan, H. Jenssen, R. E. W. Hancock, and R. Wang, “Antimicrobial peptides on calcium phosphate-coated titanium for the prevention of implant-associated infections,” Biomaterials, vol. 31, no. 36, pp. 9519–9526, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. C. Wood, H. F. Chuang, R. D. Batten, D. M. Lynn, and P. T. Hammond, “Controlling interlayer diffusion to achieve sustained, multiagent delivery from layer-by-layer thin films,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 103, no. 27, pp. 10207–10212, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. G. Dreyfus, H. Yu, E. Begier, J. Gayle, and M. A. Olsen, “Incidence and burden of Staphylococcus aureus infection after orthopedic surgeries,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 64–71, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Devescovi, E. Leonardi, G. Ciapetti, and E. Cenni, “Growth factors in bone repair,” La Chirurgia degli organi di movimento, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 161–168, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Teixeira-Santos, M. Lima, L. C. Gomes, and F. J. Mergulhão, “Antimicrobial coatings based on chitosan to prevent implant-associated infections: a systematic review,” iScience, vol. 24, no. 12, article 103480, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. G. Welch, D. A. Winkler, and H. Thissen, “Antifibrotic strategies for medical devices,” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, vol. 167, pp. 109–120, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Riool, A. de Breij, J. W. Drijfhout, P. H. Nibbering, and S. A. J. Zaat, “Antimicrobial peptides in biomedical device manufacturing,” Frontiers in Chemistry, vol. 5, pp. 63–63, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Zimmerli, “Infection and musculoskeletal conditions: prosthetic-joint-associated infections,” Clinical Rheumatology, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1045–1063, 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Roupie, B. Labat, S. Morin-Grognet, P. Thébault, and G. Ladam, “Nisin-based antibacterial and antiadhesive layer-by-layer coatings,” Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, vol. 208, article 112121, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Acosta, A. Ibañez-Fonseca, C. Aparicio, and J. C. Rodríguez-Cabello, “Antibiofilm coatings based on protein-engineered polymers and antimicrobial peptides for preventing implant-associated infections,” Biomaterials Science, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 2866–2877, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Dutta, N. Kumar, and M. D. P. Willcox, “Antimicrobial activity of four cationic peptides immobilised to poly-hydroxyethylmethacrylate,” Biofouling, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 429–438, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Onaizi and S. S. Leong, “Tethering antimicrobial peptides: current status and potential challenges,” Biotechnology Advances, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 67–74, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Emanuel, Y. Rosenfeld, O. Cohen, Y. H. Applbaum, D. Segal, and Y. Barenholz, “A lipid-and-polymer-based novel local drug delivery system—BonyPid^™: from physicochemical aspects to therapy of bacterially infected bones,” Journal of Controlled Release, vol. 160, no. 2, pp. 353–361, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Tian, S. Shen, C. Zhou et al., “Investigation of the antimicrobial activity and biocompatibility of magnesium alloy coated with HA and antimicrobial peptide,” Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, vol. 26, no. 2, p. 66, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Li, N. Wang, S. Chen, R. Lu, H. Li, and Z. Zhang, “Antibacterial activity and cytocompatibility of an implant coating consisting of TiO₂ nanotubes combined with a GL13K antimicrobial peptide,” International Journal of Nanomedicine, vol. 12, pp. 2995–3007, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Mateescu, S. Baixe, T. Garnier et al., “Antibacterial peptide-based gel for prevention of medical implanted-device infection,” PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 12, article e0145143, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Riool, A. de Breij, L. de Boer et al., “Controlled release of LL-37-derived synthetic antimicrobial and anti-biofilm peptides SAAP-145 and SAAP-276 prevents experimental biomaterial-associated Staphylococcus aureus infection,” Advanced Functional Materials, vol. 27, no. 20, p. 1606623, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. F. Buccini, M. H. Cardoso, and O. L. Franco, “Antimicrobial peptides and cell-penetrating peptides for treating intracellular bacterial infections,” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, vol. 10, article 612931, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Huo, C. Chen, Z. Lyu et al., “Overcoming planktonic and intracellular-associated infection with a cell-penetrating peptide-conjugated antimicrobial peptide,” ACS Infectious Diseases, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 3147–3162, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
E. M. Bevers, P. Comfurius, and R. F. Zwaal, “Regulatory mechanisms in maintenance and modulation of transmembrane lipid asymmetry: pathophysiological implications,” Lupus, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 480–487, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Wodlej, S. Riedl, B. Rinner et al., “Interaction of two antitumor peptides with membrane lipids—influence of phosphatidylserine and cholesterol on specificity for melanoma cells,” PLoS One, vol. 14, no. 1, article e0211187, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Scocchi, M. Mardirossian, G. Runti, and M. Benincasa, “Non-membrane Permeabilizing modes of action of antimicrobial peptides on bacteria,” Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 76–88, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Lei, L. Sun, S. Huang et al., “The antimicrobial peptides and their potential clinical applications,” American Journal of Translational Research, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 3919–3931, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
G. J. Kelly, A. F.-A. Kia, F. Hassan et al., “Polymeric prodrug combination to exploit the therapeutic potential of antimicrobial peptides against cancer cells,” Organic & Biomolecular Chemistry, vol. 14, no. 39, pp. 9278–9286, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Dąbrowska, Z. Kaźmierczak, J. Majewska et al., “Bacteriophages displaying anticancer peptides in combined antibacterial and anticancer treatment,” Future Microbiology, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 861–869, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. M. B. Pinilla, N. A. Lopes, and A. Brandelli, “Lipid-based nanostructures for the delivery of natural antimicrobials,” Molecules, vol. 26, no. 12, p. 3587, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
A. L. Tornesello, M. Tagliamonte, M. L. Tornesello, F. M. Buonaguro, and L. Buonaguro, “Nanoparticles to improve the efficacy of peptide-based cancer vaccines,” Cancers, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 1049, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. P. Jallouk, R. U. Palekar, J. N. Marsh et al., “Delivery of a protease-activated cytolytic peptide prodrug by perfluorocarbon nanoparticles,” Bioconjugate Chemistry, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1640–1650, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Cheng and P. Xu, “Redox-sensitive Nanocomplex for targeted delivery of Melittin,” Toxins, vol. 12, no. 9, p. 582, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. E. Schmidt and J. B. Leach, “Neural tissue engineering: strategies for repair and regeneration,” Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 293–347, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. R. Carvalho, J. Silva-Correia, J. M. Oliveira, and R. L. Reis, “Nanotechnology in peripheral nerve repair and reconstruction,” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, vol. 148, pp. 308–343, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. S. Rao, N. Han, and J. O. Winter, “Polylysine-modified PEG-based hydrogels to enhance the neuro–electrode interface,” Journal of Biomaterials Science, Polymer Edition, vol. 22, no. 4-6, pp. 611–625, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Royce Hynes, L. M. McGregor, M. Ford Rauch, and E. B. Lavik, “Photopolymerized poly(ethylene glycol)/poly(L-lysine) hydrogels for the delivery of neural progenitor cells,” Journal of Biomaterials Science, Polymer Edition, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 1017–1030, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Cai, J. Lu, V. Sheen, and S. Wang, “Optimal poly(L-lysine) grafting density in hydrogels for promoting neural progenitor cell functions,” Biomacromolecules, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1663–1674, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Zhang, Y. Chen, Y. Huang et al., “A 3D-printed self-adhesive bandage with drug release for peripheral nerve repair,” Advanced Science, vol. 7, no. 23, pp. 2002601–2002601, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. FaD, Use of International Standard Iso 10993-1, “Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices-Part 1: Evaluation and Testing within a Risk Management Process”, 2021.

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Xuqiu Shen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

797

Downloads

506

Citations