↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of methods to detect the in vitro activity of silver nanoparticles (AgNP) against multidrug resistant bacteria

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Nanobiotechnology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
198 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
362 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of methods to detect the in vitro activity of silver nanoparticles (AgNP) against multidrug resistant bacteria
Published in
Journal of Nanobiotechnology, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12951-015-0120-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emerson Danguy Cavassin, Luiz Francisco Poli de Figueiredo, José Pinhata Otoch, Marcelo Martins Seckler, Roberto Angelo de Oliveira, Fabiane Fantinelli Franco, Valeria Spolon Marangoni, Valtencir Zucolotto, Anna Sara Shafferman Levin, Silvia Figueiredo Costa

Abstract

Multidrug resistant microorganisms are a growing challenge and new substances that can be useful to treat infections due to these microorganisms are needed. Silver nanoparticle may be a future option for treatment of these infections, however, the methods described in vitro to evaluate the inhibitory effect are controversial. This study evaluated the in vitro activity of silver nanoparticles against 36 susceptible and 54 multidrug resistant Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria from clinical sources. The multidrug resistant bacteria were oxacilin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp., carbapenem- and polymyxin B-resistant A. baumannii, carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. We analyzed silver nanoparticles stabilized with citrate, chitosan and polyvinyl alcohol and commercial silver nanoparticle. Silver sulfadiazine and silver nitrate were used as control. Different methods were used: agar diffusion, minimum inhibitory concentration, minimum bactericidal concentration and time-kill. The activity of AgNPs using diffusion in solid media and the MIC methods showed similar effect against MDR and antimicrobial-susceptible isolates, with a higher effect against Gram-negative isolates. The better results were achieved with citrate and chitosan silver nanoparticle, both with MIC90 of 6.75 μg mL(-1), which can be due the lower stability of these particles and, consequently, release of Ag(+) ions as revealed by X-ray diffraction (XRD). The bactericidal effect was higher against antimicrobial-susceptible bacteria. It seems that agar diffusion method can be used as screening test, minimum inhibitory concentration/minimum bactericidal concentration and time kill showed to be useful methods. The activity of commercial silver nanoparticle and silver controls did not exceed the activity of the citrate and chitosan silver nanoparticles. The in vitro inhibitory effect was stronger against Gram-negative than Gram-positive, and similar against multidrug resistant and susceptible bacteria, with best result achieved using citrate and chitosan silver nanoparticles. The bactericidal effect of silver nanoparticle may, in the future, be translated into important therapeutic and clinical options, especially considering the shortage of new antimicrobials against the emerging antimicrobial resistant microorganisms, in particular against Gram-negative bacteria.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 362 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 359 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 63 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 54 15%
Student > Bachelor 35 10%
Researcher 28 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 5%
Other 55 15%
Unknown 108 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 47 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 18 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 5%
Other 90 25%
Unknown 126 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 January 2018.
All research outputs
#3,955,582
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nanobiotechnology
#118
of 1,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,962
of 277,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nanobiotechnology
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,418 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,499 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.