Effect of silver nanoparticle geometry on methicillin susceptible and resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and osteoblast viability

  • Lisa Actis
  • Anand Srinivasan
  • Jose L. Lopez-Ribot
  • Anand K. Ramasubramanian
  • Joo L. Ong
Biocompatibility Studies
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Biocompatibility Studies


Orthopedic implant failure as a result of bacterial infection affects approximately 0.5–5 % of patients. These infections are often caused by Staphylococcus aureus which is capable of attaching and subsequently forming a biofilm on the implant surface, making it difficult to eradicate with systemic antibiotics. Further, with the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, alternative treatments are necessary. Silver nanoparticles have received much attention for their broad spectrum antibacterial activity which has been reported to be both size and shape dependent. The purpose of this study was therefore to evaluate the effect of three different geometries on their effect on microbial susceptibility as well as evaluate their effect on bone cell viability. Silver nanoparticles of spherical, triangular and cuboid shapes were synthesized by chemical reduction methods. The susceptibility of S. aureus and methicillin-resistant S. aureus was evaluated a 24 h period and determined using a colorimetric assay. Further, the viability of human fetal osteoblast (hFOB) cells in the presence of the silver nanoparticles was evaluated over a period of 7 days by AlmarBlue fluorescence assay. hFOB morphology was also evaluated by light microscopy imaging. Results indicated that silver nanoparticle geometry did not have an effect on microbiota susceptibility or hFOB viability. However, high concentrations of silver nanoparticles (0.5 nM) conferred significant susceptibility towards the bacteria and significantly reduced hFOB viability. It was also found that the hFOBs exhibited an increasingly reduced viability to lower silver nanoparticle concentrations with an increase in exposure time.


Silver Nanoparticles Synthesize Silver Nanoparticles AgNP Concentration Osmium Tetroxide Solution Osteoblast Viability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Campoccia D, Montanaro L, Arciola CR. A review of the clinical implications of anti-infective biomaterials and infection-resistant surfaces. Biomaterials. 2013;34:8018–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Evan M, Hetrick MHS. Reducing implant-related infections: active release strategies. Chem Soc Rev. 2006;35:780–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Romeo T, editor. Bacterial biofilms. Current topics in microbiology and immunology, vol. 322. Berlin: Springer; 2008.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Trampuz A, Widmer AF. Infections associated with orthopedic implants. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2006;19:349–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Flemming H-C. Biofilm highlights. Springer Series on Biofilms. New York: Springer; 2011.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kawata K, Osawa M, Okabe S. In vitro toxicity of silver nanoparticles at noncytotoxic doses to HepG2 human hepatoma cells. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43(15):6046–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zimmerli W. Prosthetic-join-associated infections. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2006;20(6):1045–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ribeiro M, Monteiro FJ, Ferraz MP. Infection of orthopedic implants with emphasis on bacterial adhesion process and techniques used in studying bacterial-material interactions. Biomatter. 2012;2(4):176–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leid JG, Leid J, Shirtliff M, editors. The role of biofilm in device-related infections. Springer Series on Biofilms. Los Angeles: Springer; 2009.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vasilev K, Cook J, Griesser HJ. Antibacterial surfaces for biomedical devices. Exp Rev Med Devices. 2009;6(5):553–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lara HH, Garza-Treviño EN, Ixtepan-Turrent L, Singh DK. Silver nanoparticles are broad-spectrum bactericidal and virucidal compounds. J Nanobiotechnol. 2011;9(1):30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tran QH, Le AT. Silver nanoparticles: synthesis, properties, toxicology, applications and perspectives. Adv Nat Sci Nanosci Nanotechnol. 2013;4:033001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dal Lago V, de Oliveira LF, de Almeida Gonçalves K, Kobarg J, Cardoso MB. Size-selective silver nanoparticles: future of biomedical devices with enhanced bactericidal properties. J Mater Chem. 2011;21(33):12267–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marambio-Jones C, Hoek EM. A review of the antibacterial effects of silver nanomaterials and potential implications for human health and the environment. J Nanopart Res. 2010;12:1531–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pal S, Tak YK, Song JM. Does the antibacterial activity of silver nanoparticles depend on the shape of the nanoparticle? A study of the gram-negative bacterium Escherichia coli. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73(6):1712–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Metraux GS, Mirkin CA. Rapid thermal synthesis of silver nanoprisms with chemically tailorable thickness. Adv Mater. 2005;17(4):412–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sun Y, Xia Y. Shape-controlled synthesis of gold and silver nanoparticles. Science. 2002;298:2176–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yguerabide J, Yguerabide EE. Light-scattering submicroscopic particles as highly fluorescent analogs and their use as tracer labels in clinical and biological applications. Anal Biochem. 1998;262:137–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen Z, Gao L. A facile and novel way for the synthesis of nearly monodisperse silver nanoparticles. Mater Res Bull. 2007;42:1657–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mansouri SS, Ghader S. Experimental study of effect of different parameters on size and shape of triangular silver nanoparticles prepared by a simple and rapid method in aqueous solution. Arab J Chem. 2009;2:47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen S, Carroll DL. Silver nanoplates: size control in two dimensions and formulation mechanism. J Phys Chem B. 2004;108:5500–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Skrabalak SE, Au L, Li X, Xia Y. Facile synthesis of Ag nanocubes and Au nanocages. Nat Protoc. 2007;2(9):2182–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mdluli PS, Sosibo NM, Mashazi PN, Nyokong T, Tshikhudo RT, Skepu A, Van Der Lingen E. Selective adsorption of PVP on the surface of silver nanoparticles: a molecular dynamics study. J Mol Struct. 2011;1004:131–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kvitek L, Panáček A, Soukupova J, Kolar M, Vecerova R, Prucek R, et al. Effect of surfactants and polymers on stability and antibacterial activity of silver nanoparticles (NPs). J Phys Chem C. 2008;112:5825–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pauksch L, Hartmann S, Rohnke M, Szalay G, Alt V, Schnettler R, Lips KS. Biocompatibility of silver nanoparticles and silver ions in primary human mesenchymal stem cells and osteoblasts. Acta Biomater. 2014;10:439–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tautzenberger A, Kovtun A, Ignatius A. Nanoparticles and their potential application in bone. Int J Nanomed. 2012;7:4545–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa Actis
    • 1
  • Anand Srinivasan
    • 1
  • Jose L. Lopez-Ribot
    • 2
  • Anand K. Ramasubramanian
    • 1
  • Joo L. Ong
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biomedical EngineeringThe University of Texas at San AntonioSan AntonioUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyThe University of Texas at San AntonioSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations