Back to all available

Ethyl lauroyl arginate nanoparticles exhibit potent antibacterial and antibiofilm activity against oral pathogens

microbiology
dentistry

Abstract

Background: Dental biofilm is a key ethological factor in oral diseases such as dental caries and periodontal disease, and has also been linked to systemic health complications. In this study, ethyl lauroyl arginate nanoparticles (ELANPs) were formulated to investigate their antibiofilm capacity and cellular cytotoxicity in vitro.
Methods: The morphology of ELANPs was examined using transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Particle size, polydispersity index (PDI), and zeta potential were evaluated to assess nanoparticle stability over time. Biofilm matrix reduction was analyzed using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM), and cytotoxicity was assessed using the MTT assay.
Results: ELANPs displayed a spherical morphology with an average diameter of 84.3 ± 2.6 nm. The zeta potential was 46.7 ± 4.6 mV, and the PDI was 0.18 ± 0.01, indicating good colloidal uniformity and stable nanosuspensions. Slight changes in physicochemical properties were observed at days 14 and 30 and overall stability was maintained. ELANPs significantly reduced the biofilm matrix across all tested oral pathogens while maintaining low cytotoxicity toward normal human gingival fibroblasts.
Conclusion: The findings indicate that ELANPs are physicochemically stable, capable of inhibiting oral biofilm formation, and exhibit minimal cytotoxicity, supporting their potential as a safe and effective oral healthcare agent.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].