Next Article in Journal
Comparison of Antigen Retrieval Methods for Immunohistochemical Analysis of Cartilage Matrix Glycoproteins Using Cartilage Intermediate Layer Protein 2 (CILP-2) as an Example
Previous Article in Journal
Parasitological Examination of the Digestive System of Wild Boar from a Practical Point of View—Endoparasitological Sampling under Field Conditions
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Technical Note

Nanoparticle Lysis of Cryptosporidium Oocysts

Institute of Biological Chemistry, Biophysics and Bioengineering, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Current address: Biocrucible Ltd., Cambridge CB4 0WS, UK.
Current address: Merck Group, Glasgow G20 0XA, UK.
Methods Protoc. 2024, 7(5), 66; https://doi.org/10.3390/mps7050066
Submission received: 17 June 2024 / Revised: 16 August 2024 / Accepted: 19 August 2024 / Published: 23 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Molecular and Cellular Biology)

Abstract

:
The extraction of DNA from Cryptosporidium oocysts is challenging due to the robust oocyst wall. Nanoparticles have been applied to disinfect Cryptosporidium oocysts; here, we demonstrate the utilisation of nanoparticles to disrupt the oocyst wall to enable sporozoite lysis and detection via PCR. Both silver and zinc oxide nanoparticles are investigated under different conditions and compared to existing techniques. Zinc oxide nanoparticles are shown to be as effective as freeze–thaw methods, suggesting that a nanoparticle lysis approach offers a viable alternative to existing methods.

1. Introduction

Cryptosporidium is a protozoan pathogen. It is associated with waterborne and foodborne transmission, which have considerable human health impacts [1,2,3,4], as well as livestock disease [5,6,7]. Recently, various molecular methods have been developed and employed for detection, outbreak investigation, and subtype identification [5,8].
One of the challenges with the molecular detection of Cryptosporidium is the disruption of the oocyst wall to enable the lysis of the internal sporozoites and the release of DNA [9,10,11]. Different techniques have been utilised, including freeze/thaw cycling [12,13], thermal inactivation [14], bead beating [15,16], mechanical disruption, and sonication [17], as well as a combination of these approaches [8,18,19]. It is unclear which is the optimal approach in water, although a recent study compared techniques on stool samples [9]. Freeze/thaw cycling requires access to, and handling facilities for, liquid nitrogen and is a time-consuming process. Bead beating requires relatively expensive equipment. Sonication appears not to be fully effective unless combined with one of the other approaches. A more efficient, low-cost method for oocyst disruption requiring minimal facilities would be useful for more rapid sample processing. Others are developing a surfactant-based extraction technique to achieve this goal [10]; however, we suggest that nanoparticles should be employed to achieve this goal.
Nanoparticles (NP) have been used in disinfection applications for microorganisms, including protozoan pathogens, for a long time [20,21]. Silver nanoparticles (Ag NPs) have previously been used to disrupt the Cryptosporidium oocyst wall and results show a significant reduction in viability at concentrations above 0.5 mg/mL, as determined by excystation assays [22], as well as the loss of integrity of the oocyst wall, as confirmed by dielectrophoretic measurements [23]. Ag NPs have been applied for disinfection in both water samples [24] and faecal samples [25]. Chitosan and copper oxide nanoparticles have also been utilised in disinfection studies [26,27], whereas ZnO NPs have been used for disease treatment in mice [28]. A recent review summarises the impact of NPs on protozoan pathogens [21]. Of additional benefit is the fact that NPs are low-cost, with ~1 mg of AgNPs costing less than 5p.
Here, we report on an investigation into the ability of NPs to disrupt and lyse Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts, utilising silver NPs (selected as the most widely studied NP with Cryptosporidium) and zinc oxide (ZnO) NPs (selected due to their previous use in Cryptosporidium treatment [28] and their known effectiveness against other microbes [29,30]) in water samples.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Nanoparticles

Two different NPs were investigated: silver NPs (NM300) and zinc oxide (ZnO) NPs (NM110). Both were obtained from the JRC Nanomaterial Repository (Ispra, Italy) [31]. The anti-microbial properties of these are well established [29,30,32,33]. Dynamic light scattering (DLS) measurements were used to confirm NP size. Briefly, stock suspensions of ZnO and Ag nanoparticles were prepared in filtered (0.2 µm) DI water at a concentration of 1 mg/mL; they were sonicated for 16 min in a bath sonicator and then serially diluted to 1, 5, 10, 20, and 50 µg/mL in DI water. Note that we could not test the exact concentration range tested in the oocyst studies as NP concentrations above 50 µg/mL are not suitable for DLS analysis. After preparation, samples were analysed immediately at 22 °C using a Zetasizer Nano Series, Malvern (Malvern Panalytical Ltd., Malvern, UK).

2.2. Protozoa

Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts (Cryptosporidium Production Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ, USA) were vortexed (SA8 Stuart Vortex Mixer, Bibby Scientific Ltd., Stone, UK) before dilution in DI water (Milli Q Integral 3, Merck Millipore KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany). Oocyst stocks were prepared through serial dilutions in DI water to obtain oocyst numbers that ranged from 10 and 10,000 (a value of 1000 was used for the exposure time study).

2.3. NP Exposures

The oocysts were exposed to a NP suspension (200 µL) at concentrations ranging from 0.125 to 1 mg/mL for between 0 to 120 min at room temperature prior to performing the DNA extraction and purification protocol (proteinase K exposure at 56 °C for 1 h, followed by use of a kit, Macherey-Nagel GmBH, Düren, Germany) [12]. No attempt was made to remove the NPs before the DNA extraction and purification steps. There was a concern that the presence of NPs during the amplification phase of the PCR would impact performance; to determine whether there was an impact on the amplification, the PCR kit positive control was run under three conditions: (1) as provided by the manufacturer (Ct = 27.5); (2) spiked with Ag NPs (Ct = 28.0); and (3) spiked with ZnO NPs (Ct = 30.4). The Ct values were not significantly different from each other, unlike in some previous research [34,35], suggesting that there is no impact of these NPs on amplification with the kit used in this study. One further explanation could be that a degree of removal occurs during the DNA extraction and purification protocol; AgNP precipitation on the Eppendorf tube walls was observed (see Figure S1).

2.4. Oocyst Detection

To detect Cryptosporidium DNA, a Cryptosporidium probe and primer kit (CeeramTools, SAS Ceeram, Biomerieux, Marcy-l’Étoile, France) was used and samples were run on an Applied Biosystems PCR Machine. Positive controls from the PCR kit containing Cryptosporidium DNA (average Ct value of 27.5 (SD = 0.81), Figure S1 were included in every PCR run. The NP-mediated lysis of oocysts was compared against the commonly utilised approach of freeze–thaw, adopting the following protocol: oocysts were exposed to liquid nitrogen (−196 °C; 1 min), before immersion in a heated water bath at 56 °C until they were fully thawed, ten times [12]. The freeze–thaw samples acted as a positive control for the whole process.
Negative control experiments, i.e., those with no oocysts present and with oocysts present but no lysis agent, were included in every set of experiments (no definitive sign of cell lysis was observed; Ct values were >40). As an additional negative control, the Ag NP dispersant (NM-300 DIS) was added to oocysts, confirming that there was no impact of the dispersant on oocyst integrity (Ct values were >40). No negative controls are shown in the figures as the Ct values always exceeded 40. Triplicate samples were run, with two repeats performed on different days (n = 6).

3. Results

3.1. Exposure Time

We studied NP exposure times of 0, 30 and 120 min, followed by the DNA extraction and the purification protocol, and no statistically significant changes were noted between any of these times for either of the NPs (Figure 1A).

3.2. NP Concentration

NP concentration studies were then undertaken, adding the NPs to the sample and directly commencing the proteinase K incubation. The data indicate that increasing the concentration of Ag NPs resulted in less effective disruption of the oocyst wall (Figure 1B), with the only statistically significant difference being the higher Ct value at 1 mg/mL compared to the Ct value at 0.250 mg/mL. The opposite trend was observed for ZnO NPs (Figure 1B). For ZnO NPs, the average Ct values ranged from 35.1 for 0.125 mg/mL down to 29.0 for 0.5 mg/mL, with the Ct values for 0.125 mg/mL and 0.25 mg/mL being statistically significantly higher than those for both 0.5 mg/mL and 1 mg/mL. Dynamic Light Scattering data (Table 1) indicate that increasing NP concentration corresponds to a larger agglomerate size.

3.3. Oocyst Concentration

From Figure 1, optimal conditions were selected to investigate the NP performance over the range of 10–10,000 oocysts (Figure 2) and benchmarked against the freeze–thaw method (F/T). Figure 2 shows the expected linear relationship between oocyst number and Ct value (~3 Ct shift per 10-fold oocyst concentration) for the ZnO NP and F/T treatments (R2 > 0.9), though not for Ag NP. At all oocyst concentrations, there was no statistical difference in the Ct values for the ZnO NP (nor Ag NP, though as noted below use of these NPs did not give a linear relationship of Ct value with oocyst number) and F/T lysis approaches, indicating the ZnO NP approach is as effective as the commonly used F/T method.

4. Discussion

This study shows that oocyst lysis can be achieved using NPs, which is the first demonstration of the use of NPs for this application. The most effective oocyst disruption and DNA extraction were achieved at concentrations of 0.25 mg/mL and 0.5 mg/mL, for Ag and ZnO NPs, respectively.
Previous studies have shown higher toxicity to bacterial cells at higher concentrations of nanoparticles [36,37], which also aligns with the trend observed for ZnO NPs between 0.125 and 0.5 mg/mL. Increasing concentrations of Ag NPs resulted in less effective disruption of the oocyst wall. The enhanced agglomeration of NPs can reduce toxicity to cells in vitro [38] and Dynamic Light Scattering data indicate that an increasing AgNP concentration corresponds to a larger agglomerate size, which could explain these observations. Smaller particle size generally enhances toxicity [39,40,41]. However, larger ZnO NPs were more effective than the smaller Ag NPs, in contrast to previous research with other microorganisms [32,42], which might be due to their increased solubility [31]. Interestingly, previous research suggested that the AgNP toxicity to Cryptosporidium was driven by a combination of ion release and particle effects [22].
Oocysts could be detected at all oocyst concentrations tested (10–10,000), indicating that all approaches were able to lyse and extract DNA over this concentration range. Less reliable results were obtained at oocyst concentrations of 10, with some samples being undetermined, which could reflect the difficulties of accurately obtaining a single oocyst in a sample via a dilution series. The Ag NP results were more variable whereas ZnO and F/T both performed well, with no statistical difference between the data.
Future studies are required to optimise the approach, e.g., explore other NPs and make adjustments to the extraction and purification protocol to determine the limit of detection possible and to enable comparison with other approaches such as bead beating. Performance verification with other protozoan species; other Cryptosporidium kits; and environmental, food, and veterinary oocyst samples (including stool samples), as well as integration into miniaturised systems [43], would also be useful.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, we have shown that ZnO NPs offer a viable alternative to F/T in disrupting the oocyst wall to enable the extraction of DNA via molecular methods (AgNPs effectiveness is lower). NPs offer a rapid lysis approach with no additional exposure/processing time required before the initiation of DNA extraction and purification protocols and do not require any additional equipment, giving several advantages over more traditional lysis approaches.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/mps7050066/s1, Figure S1. Positive control study conducted by adding ZnO NPs and AgNPs directly into positive control of the PCR kit alongside a standard positive control (left) to observe the potential inhibitory effects. No significant differences were found (n = 3).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.B.; methodology, H.B., C.B., H.J. and A.V.; formal analysis and investigation, A.V. and C.B.; resources, H.B. and H.J.; data curation, A.V. and C.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.V.; writing—review and editing, C.B., H.J. and H.B.; supervision, H.B. and H.J.; project administration, H.B. and H.J.; funding acquisition, H.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by a Watson-Currie PhD Studentship, the Heriot-Watt EPSRC Impact Acceleration Account and the EU.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on request.

Acknowledgments

A.V. would like to thank the Watson-Currie Studentship for supporting his PhD studies. H.J. and H.B. would like to acknowledge funding from the Heriot-Watt EPSRC Impact Acceleration Account. H.B. also acknowledges funding from the EU project Aquavalens and thanks to Biomerieux for the provision of detection kits.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Ameya Vaidya and Claire Bankier are currently employed by Biocrucible Ltd. and Merck Group. This research was conducted during their time at Heriot Watt University and is entirely independent of the two companies.

References

  1. Carter, B.L.; Chalmers, R.M.; Davies, A.P. Health sequelae of human cryptosporidiosis in industrialised countries: A systematic review. Parasites Vectors 2020, 13, 443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Dong, S.; Yang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Yang, D.; Yang, Y.; Shi, Y.; Li, C.; Li, L.; Chen, Y.; Jiang, Q.; et al. Prevalence of Cryptosporidium Infection in the Global Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Acta Parasitol. 2020, 65, 882–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Corso, P.S.; Kramer, M.H.; Blair, K.A.; Addiss, D.G.; Davis, J.P.; Haddix, A.C. Cost of illness in the 1993 waterborne Cryptosporidium outbreak, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2003, 9, 426–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Widerström, M.; Schönning, C.; Lilja, M.; Lebbad, M.; Ljung, T.; Allestam, G.; Ferm, M.; Björkholm, B.; Hansen, A.; Hiltula, J.; et al. Large outbreak of Cryptosporidium hominis infection transmitted through the public water supply, Sweden. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2014, 20, 581–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Widmer, G.; Carmenax, D.; Kváč, M.; Chalmers, R.M.; Kissinger, J.C.; Xiao, L.; Sateriale, A.; Striepen, B.; Laurent, F.; Lacroix-Lamande, S.; et al. Update on Cryptosporidium spp.: Highlights from the Seventh International Giardia and Cryptosporidium Conference. Parasite 2020, 27, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Innes, E.A.; Chalmers, R.M.; Wells, B.; Pawlowic, M.C. A One Health Approach to Tackle Cryptosporidiosis. Trends Parasitol. 2020, 36, 290–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Shaw, H.J.; Innes, E.A.; Morrison, L.J.; Katzer, F.; Wells, B. Long-term production effects of clinical cryptosporidiosis in neonatal calves. Int. J. Parasitol. 2020, 50, 371–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Destura, R.V.; Cena, R.B.; Galarion, M.J.H.; Pangilinan, M.; Arevlao, G.M.; Alba, R.O.C.; Petronio, J.A.G.; Salem, G.M.; Schwem, B.; Sevilleja, J.E.A.D. Advancing Cryptosporidium Diagnostics from Bench to Bedside. Curr. Trop. Med. Rep. 2015, 2, 150–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Valeix, N.; Costa, D.; Basmaciyan, L.; Valot, S.; Vincent, A.; Razakandrainibe, R.; Rovert-Gangneux, F.; Nourrisson, C.; Pereira, B.; Frealle, E.; et al. Multicenter Comparative Study of Six Cryptosporidium parvum DNA Extraction Protocols Including Mechanical Pretreatment from Stool Samples. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sekikawa, T.; Toshiki, K. A new method for efficient detection of Cryptosporidium RNA by real-time reverse transcription-PCR with surfactants. Water Supply 2015, 15, 1061–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hawash, Y. DNA extraction from protozoan oocysts/cysts in feces for diagnostic PCR. Korean J. Parasitol. 2014, 52, 263–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wells, B.; Shaw, H.; Hotchkiss, E.; Gilray, J.; Ayton, R.; Green, J.; Katzer, F.; Wells, A.; Innes, E. Prevalence, species identification and genotyping Cryptosporidium from livestock and deer in a catchment in the Cairngorms with a history of a contaminated public water supply. Parasites Vectors 2015, 8, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Koken, E.; Darnault, C.J.G.; Jacobson, A.R.; Powelson, D.; Hendrickson, W. Quantification of Cryptosporidium parvum in natural soil matrices and soil solutions using qPCR. J. Microbiol. Methods 2013, 92, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Najdrowski, M.; Joachim, A.; Daugschies, A. An improved in vitro infection model for viability testing of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts. Vet. Parasitol. 2007, 150, 150–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Garcés-Sanchez, G.; Wilderer, P.A.; Munch, J.C.; Horn, H.; Lebuhn, M. Evaluation of two methods for quantification of hsp70 mRNA from the waterborne pathogen Cryptosporidium parvum by reverse transcription real-time PCR in environmental samples. Water Res. 2009, 43, 2669–2678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Halstead, F.D.; Lee, A.V.; Couto-Parada, X.; Polley, S.D.; Ling, C.; Jenkins, C.; Chalmers, R.M.; Elwin, K.; Gray, J.J.; Iturriza-Gómara, M.; et al. Universal extraction method for gastrointestinal pathogens. J. Med. Microbiol. 2013, 62, 1535–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Anceno, A.J.; Katayama, H.; Houpt, E.R.; Chavalitshewinkoon-Petmitr, P.; Chuluun, B.; Shipin, O.V. IMS-free DNA extraction for the PCR-based quantification of Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia lamblia in surface and waste water. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2007, 17, 297–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Lindergard, G.; Nydam, D.V.; Wade, S.E.; Schaaf, S.L.; Mohammed, H.O. The Sensitivity of PCR Detection of Cryptosporidium Oocysts in Fecal Samples Using Two DNA Extraction Methods. Mol. Diagn. 2003, 7, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Elwin, K.; Robinson, G.; Hadfield, S.J.; Fairclough, H.V.; Iturriza-Gomara, M.; Chalmers, R.M. A comparison of two approaches to extracting Cryptosporidium DNA from human stools as measured by a real-time PCR assay. J. Microbiol. Methods 2012, 89, 38–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Altammar, K. A review on nanoparticles: Characteristics, synthesis, applications and challenges. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1155622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Plachá, D.; Jampílek, J. Impact of Nanoparticles on Protozoa. In Nanotechnology in Medicine; Rai, M., Patel, M., Patel, R., Eds.; Springer Nature: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cameron, P.; Gaiser, B.K.; Bhandar, B.; Bartley, P.M.; Katzer, F.; Bridle, H. Silver Nanoparticles Decrease the Viability of Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 82, 431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Su, Y.-H.; Tsegaye, M.; Varhue, W.; Liao, K.-T.; Abebe, L.S.; Smith, J.A.; Guerrant, R.L.; Swami, N.S. Quantitative dielectrophoretic tracking for characterization and separation of persistent subpopulations of Cryptosporidium parvum. Analyst 2014, 139, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Haasan, D.; Farghali, M.; Eldeek, H.; Gaber, M.; Elossily, N.; Ismail, T. Antiprotozoal activity of silver nanoparticles against Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts: New insights on their feasibility as a water disinfectant. J. Microbiol. Methods 2019, 165, 105698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Abou Elez, R.M.M.; Attia, A.S.A.; Tolba, H.M.N.; Anter, R.G.A.; Elsohaby, I. Molecular identification and antiprotozoal activity of silver nanoparticles on viability of Cryptosporidium parvum isolated from pigeons, pigeon fanciers and water. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 3109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Abebe, L.S.; Su, Y.-H.; Guerrant, R.L.; Swami, N.S.; Smith, J.A. Point-of-Use Removal of Cryptosporidium parvum from Water: Independent Effects of Disinfection by Silver Nanoparticles and Silver Ions and by Physical Filtration in Ceramic Porous Media. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 12958–12967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ahmed, S.A.; El-Mahallawy, H.S.; Karanis, P. Inhibitory activity of chitosan nanoparticles against Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts. Parasitol. Res. 2019, 118, 2053–2063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hamdy, D.A.; Ismail, M.A.M.; El-Askary, H.M.; Abdel-Tawab, H.; Ahmed, M.M.; Fouad, F.M.; Mohamed, F. Newly fabricated zinc oxide nanoparticles loaded materials for therapeutic nano delivery in experimental cryptosporidiosis. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 19650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Azam, A.; Ahmed, A.S.; Oves, M.; Khan, M.S.; Habib, S.S. Antimicrobial activity of metal oxide nanoparticles against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria: A comparative study. Int. J. Nanomed. 2012, 7, 6003–6009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Dizaj, S.M.; Lotfipour, F.; Barzegar-Jalai, M.; Zarrintan, M.H.; Adibka, K. Antimicrobial activity of the metals and metal oxide nanoparticles. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2014, 44, 278–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kermanizadeh, A.; Gaiser, B.; Hutchison, G.R.; Stone, V. An in vitro liver model—Assessing oxidative stress and genotoxicity following exposure of hepatocytes to a panel of engineered nanomaterials. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 2012, 9, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Donnellan, S.; Tran, L.; Johnston, H.; McLuckie, J.; Stevenson, K.; Stone, V. A rapid screening assay for identifying mycobacteria targeted nanoparticle antibiotics. Nanotoxicology 2016, 10, 761–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Venkatasubbu, G.D.; Baskar, R.; Anusuya, T.; Seshan, C.A.; Chelliah, R. Toxicity mechanism of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles against food pathogens. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2016, 148, 600–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Wang, W.; Wang, H.-B.; Li, Z.-X.; Guo, Z.-Y. Silicon inhibition effects on the polymerase chain reaction: A real-time detection approach. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2006, 77, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wan, W.; Yeow, J.T.W.; Dyke, M.I.V. Effect of silver and titanium dioxide nanoparticles on PCR efficiency. In Proceedings of the 2009 9th IEEE Conference on Nanotechnology (IEEE-NANO), Genoa, Italy, 26–30 July 2009. [Google Scholar]
  36. Tran, Q.H.; Nguyen, V.Q.; Le, A.-T. Silver nanoparticles: Synthesis, properties, toxicology, applications and perspectives. Adv. Nat. Sci. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2013, 4, 033001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Naqvi, S.; Samim, M.; Abdin, M.Z.; Ahmed, F.J.; Maitra, A.N.; Prashant, C.K.; Dinda, A.K. Concentration-dependent toxicity of iron oxide nanoparticles mediated by increased oxidative stress. Int. J. Nanomed. 2010, 5, 983–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kalbassi, M.R.; Johari, S.A.; Soltani, M.; Yu, I. Particle Size and Agglomeration Affect the Toxicity levels of Silver Nanoparticle types in Aquatic Environment. Ecopersia 2013, 1, 247–264. [Google Scholar]
  39. Nair, S.; Sasidharan, A.; Rani, V.V.D.; Menon, D.; Nair, S.; Manzoor, K.; Raina, S. Role of size scale of ZnO nanoparticles and microparticles on toxicity toward bacteria and osteoblast cancer cells. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2008, 20, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jones, N.; Ray, B.; Ranjit, K.T.; Manna, A.C. Antibacterial activity of ZnO nanoparticle suspensions on a broad spectrum of microorganisms. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2008, 279, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Silva, T.; Pokhrel, L.R.; Dubey, B.; Tolaymat, T.M.; Maier, K.J.; Liu, X. Particle size, surface charge and concentration dependent ecotoxicity of three organo-coated silver nanoparticles: Comparison between general linear model-predicted and observed toxicity. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 468–469, 968–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mallevre, F.; Fernandes, T.F.; Aspray, T.J. Silver, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticle ecotoxicity to bioluminescent Pseudomonas putida in laboratory medium and artificial wastewater. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 195, 218–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wu, J.; Kodzius, R.; Cao, W.; Wen, W. Extraction, amplification and detection of DNA in microfluidic chip-based assays. Microchim. Acta 2014, 181, 1611–1631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Optimising conditions for NP lysis. (A) Results from the PCR experiments comparing the performance of Ag and ZnO NPs at a range of different exposure times between 0 and 120 min. The graph plots Ct value against time at an oocyst number of 1000. No statistically significant differences were observed between the different time points (see below for statistical analysis information). (B) Results from the PCR experiments comparing the performance of Ag NPs and ZnO NPs at a range of NP concentrations between 0.125 and 1 mg/mL. The graph plots the Ct value against oocyst number in the sample. Negative controls resulted in Ct values in excess of 40 and they are not plotted. All data are expressed as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). For each endpoint, triplicate samples were utilised, along with technical replicates in the PCR. In addition, the experiments were repeated twice on separate days (total n = 6). Statistical analyses were performed using MATLAB (Mathworks, Natick, MA, USA). Data were analysed using one-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey assessments. Significant difference p values are as follows: * p = 0.05; ** p = 0.01; *** p = 0.001; **** p = 0.0001.
Figure 1. Optimising conditions for NP lysis. (A) Results from the PCR experiments comparing the performance of Ag and ZnO NPs at a range of different exposure times between 0 and 120 min. The graph plots Ct value against time at an oocyst number of 1000. No statistically significant differences were observed between the different time points (see below for statistical analysis information). (B) Results from the PCR experiments comparing the performance of Ag NPs and ZnO NPs at a range of NP concentrations between 0.125 and 1 mg/mL. The graph plots the Ct value against oocyst number in the sample. Negative controls resulted in Ct values in excess of 40 and they are not plotted. All data are expressed as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). For each endpoint, triplicate samples were utilised, along with technical replicates in the PCR. In addition, the experiments were repeated twice on separate days (total n = 6). Statistical analyses were performed using MATLAB (Mathworks, Natick, MA, USA). Data were analysed using one-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey assessments. Significant difference p values are as follows: * p = 0.05; ** p = 0.01; *** p = 0.001; **** p = 0.0001.
Mps 07 00066 g001aMps 07 00066 g001b
Figure 2. Oocyst detection. Results from the PCR experiments comparing the performance of Ag and ZnO NPs at a range of oocyst concentrations benchmarked against F/T. The graph plots Ct value against oocyst number in the sample. Statistical analyses and controls are as described in the Figure 1 legend (n = 6). Significant difference p values are as follows: * p = 0.05; ** p = 0.01; *** p = 0.001.
Figure 2. Oocyst detection. Results from the PCR experiments comparing the performance of Ag and ZnO NPs at a range of oocyst concentrations benchmarked against F/T. The graph plots Ct value against oocyst number in the sample. Statistical analyses and controls are as described in the Figure 1 legend (n = 6). Significant difference p values are as follows: * p = 0.05; ** p = 0.01; *** p = 0.001.
Mps 07 00066 g002
Table 1. Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS) spectroscopy was used to assess the hydrodynamic diameter and zeta potential of Ag and ZnO NP suspensions.
Table 1. Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS) spectroscopy was used to assess the hydrodynamic diameter and zeta potential of Ag and ZnO NP suspensions.
NP Concentration (µg/mL)Ag NPsZnO NPs
Z-Ave (nm)PdlZeta Potential (mV)Z-Ave (nm)PdlZeta Potential (mV)
144.10.39−14.1305.50.37−4.7
547.060.35−6.3369.90.42−12.6
1079.290.28−7.5396.10.35−11.5
2094.310.42−15.2747.10.38−5.8
50130.270.25−11.3887.10.4911.9
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vaidya, A.; Bankier, C.; Johnston, H.; Bridle, H. Nanoparticle Lysis of Cryptosporidium Oocysts. Methods Protoc. 2024, 7, 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps7050066

AMA Style

Vaidya A, Bankier C, Johnston H, Bridle H. Nanoparticle Lysis of Cryptosporidium Oocysts. Methods and Protocols. 2024; 7(5):66. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps7050066

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vaidya, Ameya, Claire Bankier, Helinor Johnston, and Helen Bridle. 2024. "Nanoparticle Lysis of Cryptosporidium Oocysts" Methods and Protocols 7, no. 5: 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps7050066

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop