Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2024 Mar 25;18(3):e0011976. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011976

Chitosan nanoparticles improve the effectivity of miltefosine against Acanthamoeba

Alireza Latifi 1, Fariba Esmaeili 2, Mehdi Mohebali 1,3, Setayesh Yasami-Khiabani 4, Mostafa Rezaeian 1, Mohammad Soleimani 5, Elham Kazemirad 1,*, Amir Amani 6,*
Editor: Aiman Abu Ammar7
PMCID: PMC10962830  PMID: 38527059

Abstract

Background

Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK) is a corneal sight-threatening infection caused by the free-living amoebae of the genus Acanthamoeba. Early and appropriate treatment significantly impacts visual outcomes. Mucoadhesive polymers such as chitosan are a potential strategy to prolong the residence time and bioavailability of the encapsulated drugs in the cornea. Regarding the recent administration of miltefosine (MF) for treating resistant AK, in the present study, we synthesized miltefosine-loaded chitosan nanoparticles (MF-CS-NPs) and evaluated them against Acanthamoeba.

Methodology/Principal findings

Chitosan nanoparticles (CNPs) were prepared using the ionic gelation method with negatively charged tripolyphosphate (TPP). The zeta-potential (ZP) and the particle size of MF-CS-NPs were 21.8±3.2 mV and 46.61±18.16 nm, respectively. The release profile of MF-CS-NPs indicated linearity with sustained drug release. The cytotoxicity of MF-CS-NPs on the Vero cell line was 2.67 and 1.64 times lower than free MF at 24 and 48 hours. This formulation exhibited no hemolytic activity in vitro and ocular irritation in rabbit eyes. The IC50 of MF-CS-NPs showed a significant reduction by 2.06 and 1.69-fold in trophozoites at 24 and 48 hours compared to free MF. Also, the MF-CS-NPs IC50 in the cysts form was slightly decreased by 1.26 and 1.21-fold at 24 and 48 hours compared to free MF.

Conclusions

The MF-CS-NPs were more effective against the trophozoites and cysts than free MF. The nano-chitosan formulation was more effective on trophozoites than the cysts form. MF-CS-NPs reduced toxicity and improved the amoebicidal effect of MF. Nano-chitosan could be an ideal carrier that decreases the cytotoxicity of miltefosine. Further analysis in animal settings is needed to evaluate this nano-formulation for clinical ocular drug delivery.

Author summary

Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK) is a painful corneal disease that causes vision loss if not treated promptly. AK incidence is increasing worldwide, especially among those who wear contact lenses. Prompt and proper treatment is essential for complete recovery of vision. The successful treatment has been complicated due to low efficacy, toxicity, and ineffectual ocular drug delivery. Mucoadhesive polymers, like chitosan nanoparticles, are a promising approach to enhancing drug residence time and transcorneal permeation. Miltefosine (MF) is an effective medication for treating refractory AK. In the present study, miltefosine-loaded chitosan nanoparticles were prepared, and their therapeutic effect and cytotoxicity were compared with free miltefosine. The MF-CS-NPs demonstrated a significant decrease in the viability of trophozoite forms compared to free miltefosine. The nano-chitosan formulation was more effective toward trophozoites than the cysts form. Overall, the chitosan nanoparticles improved the effectiveness of miltefosine against Acanthamoeba. Besides, this formulation notably reduced toxicity compared to free MF, exhibiting no in-vivo irritation. The nano-chitosan carrier can be proposed as an ideal nanocarrier for future evaluation in AK treatment.

Introduction

Acanthamoeba species are the causative agents of a severe corneal infection designated as Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK) [1]. The global annual incidence of AK has been estimated to be 23,561 cases, accounting for 2% of corneal infections. The infection affects immunocompetent individuals following contact lens misuse or corneal trauma [2]. In the past two decades, increased use of contact lenses, along with mishandling and poor contact lens hygiene, have elevated microbial keratitis, especially Acanthamoeba keratitis [3].

In the early stages, Acanthamoeba invades the anterior cornea and, during the later stage, gradually penetrates the deeper corneal tissue, leading to ulceration, blurred vision, and eventually blindness [4]. Early diagnosis and accurate treatment reduce the risk of treatment failure, long-term visual sequelae, and poor visual outcomes. Nevertheless, the clinical management of AK remains challenging due to the absence of standardized diagnostic tests, clinician awareness, and the potential for treatment failure [5]. The treatment can become problematic as trophozoites transform into dormant double-walled cysts resistant to drug penetration. Hence, the treatment should be extended even after the clinical resolution of the infection to prevent the relapse by the cysts [6]. Moreover, when amoeba penetrates deeply into the corneal stroma layer in the late stage, the low drug delivery across the corneal barrier makes successful treatment remarkably difficult [4]. Despite long and continuous treatments, therapeutic keratoplasty is needed in some refractory AK cases to restore visual acuity [7].

Polyhexamethylene Biguanide (PHMB) and Chlorhexidine are two medications that are effective at low concentrations [8]. However, they may develop resistance and side effects like cataracts, iris atrophy, and peripheral ulcerative keratitis [9]. In the last decade, miltefosine (hexadecyl phosphocholine) as an alkyl phosphocholine compound has successfully treated protozoal infections, particularly visceral leishmaniasis [10]. Studies have indicated lower cell toxicity for MF than PHMB and Chlorohexidine [11,12]. Topical MF has shown promising efficacy in treating AK in animal models, and the oral administration of MF has been used to treat resistant AK cases [13].

The ocular administration of drugs comprises various challenges, such as low retention time on the ocular surface, poor bioavailability, and permeability, along with side effects [14]. Nano-based ocular drug delivery offers new formulations with controlled drug release, improved ocular bioavailability, enhanced cornea permeation, and reduced eye irritation [15].

Polymeric nanoparticles have been widely used in drug delivery systems due to their chemical versatility, biocompatibility, and biodegradability [16]. Chitosan is a nontoxic polymer derived from chitin, primarily found in crustacean shells. It is produced through the N-deacetylation of chitin and exhibits similarities to cellulose [17]. Chitosan has various pharmacological properties such as immune-potentiation, antioxidant, and antibacterial activities [18]. Chitosan nanoparticles (CS-NPs) have been employed as a drug delivery system to treat Plasmodium vivax and Leishmania [19,20]. As a mucoadhesive polymer, chitosan is a potential carrier to prolong the residence time and bioavailability of the encapsulated drugs on the ocular surfaces and enhance intraocular penetration. It can adhere to the eye and reduce the drug drainage rate due to its viscosity [21,22]. Considering the advantages of chitosan polymer and successful treatment of AK with miltefosine, here we evaluated a new nano-formulation of miltefosine-loaded chitosan nanoparticles (MF-CS-NPs) against trophozoites and cysts of Acanthamoeba genotype T4, isolated from keratitis case.

Material and methods

Ethics statement

The protocol of the present experimental study was approved by the Ethics Committees of the Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran (No. IR.TUMS.SPH.REC.1399.285). The experiments on animals were performed according to the School of Public Health considerations for ethical care and use of animals following the guidelines of ICLAS (International Council for Laboratory Animal Science).

Compounds

MF was purchased from Selleckchem company (USA); chitosan (MW = 100 kDa, DD = 93%) and sodium tripolyphosphate (TPP) were obtained from Easter Holding Group (China). Fetal bovine serum, Penicillin/Streptomycin, and RPMI were purchased from Gibco (Gibco, USA). DMSO, acetic acid, were purchased from Merck Chemicals, and 3-(4,5-dimethyl- 2-thiazolyl)- 2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide (MTT), and Chlorhexidine from Sigma-Aldrich (Hamburg, Germany).

Preparation of nanoparticles

Chitosan nanoparticles were prepared according to the ionotropic gelation process [23]. Chitosan solutions with concentrations of 0.5 wt% were dissolved in 1% acetic acid. The mixture was stirred for 24 hours to obtain a perfectly transparent solution. CS-NPs were obtained upon adding 1 mL TPP aqueous solution (1 mg/mL) to 5 mL chitosan solution (2 mg/mL) and continuously stirred (400 rpm) at room temperature. To obtain MF-CS-NPs, 1 mL MF (5 mg/mL) was added to 1 mL TPP (1 mg/mL), and the solution was added dropwise into 5 mL chitosan solution (2 mg/mL) under constant magnetic stirring at 400 rpm, and room temperature. The non-entrapped drug was removed by centrifugation at 15,000g for 45 min at 4°C, and the pellet was resuspended in pure water. The purified nanoparticles were freeze-dried for further characterization (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Schematic illustration of the preparation of MF-loaded chitosan nanoparticles by ionotropic gelation method.

Fig 1

The illustration was generated using Biorender.com (Full license).

Characterization of MF-CS-NPs

The size and zeta potential of the nanoparticles were obtained by photon correlation spectroscopy using nano Zetasizer (Malvern Zetasizer, UK). The samples were prepared with deionized water at appropriate concentrations. The surface morphology of the MF-CS-NPs was observed using Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM). The nanoparticle suspensions were spread on a glass plate and dried at room temperature. The dried nanoparticles were coated with gold metal under vacuum and then examined by FESEM (TESCAN, MIRA3, Czech Republic). Also, the size and morphology of the MF-CS-NPs were observed by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) (Philips CM200 EFG, FEI Company, Eindhoven, Netherlands). The chemical structure and complex formation of MF-CS-NPs were analyzed by FTIR (Nicolet, 5DX/550II, USA). The samples were prepared by grinding the dry specimens with potassium bromide (KBr) and pressing the mixed powder to form disks, followed by examining through FTIR.

Evaluation of drug encapsulation

MF-CS-NPs were prepared from MF (5 mg/mL, 1 mL), TPP (1 mg/mL, 1 mL), and chitosan (2 mg/mL, 5 mL). The solution was pelleted by centrifugation at 15,000g for 45 min at 4°C, and then the concentration of nonencapsulated MF was determined in the supernatant. Since MF has no UV absorbance, the MF concentration was measured by a colorimetric assay based on the complexation of zwitterionic MF with anionic ammonium ferric thiocyanate (NH4Fe[NCS]4) dye to form a colored complex with ammonium ferric thiocyanate, which can be extracted in organic solvents. This procedure was modified for MF, and 1, 2-dichloroethane was used to extract the brown-red-colored complex. The colored complex visually and spectrophotometrically was assessed at 460 nm [24]. The calibration curve was plotted using concentrations of 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 μg/mL MF based on the miltefosine complexation with ammonium iron thiocyanate dye (S1A and S1B Fig). The non-trapped MF was estimated in the supernatant medium. Finally, the following equations were used to calculate the encapsulation efficiency (EE%) and loading efficiency (LE%):

EE(%)=TotalMFFreeMFTotalMF×100
LE(%)=TotalMFFreeMFWeightofNanoparticles×100

In vitro drug release assay

The MF-CS-NPs (30 mg) were dispersed in 5 mL PBS (pH 7.4) and transferred into the dialysis tubing (MWCO:12,000 Da; Sigma-Aldrich). The tubing was moved into 30 mL PBS at 37°C under constant shaking at 100 rpm. Sampling was performed at 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, and 30 h, and the medium was replaced with fresh PBS. Triplicate samples were analyzed for each time point. The concentration of MF released in PBS was determined by a UV spectrophotometer using a colorimetric assay [25].

Stability analysis

The formulation of MF-CS-NPs was selected for stability studies based on drug content, particle size, zeta potential, and in vitro release of MF-CS-NPs. The nanoparticles were synthesized using chitosan 2 mg/mL, TPP 1 mg/mL, and miltefosine 5 mg/mL, packed in the hard gelatin capsules and stored at 25 ± 2°C, 60% ± 5% RH. The drug content was determined monthly for six months based on the stability studies (ICH Guidelines) [26]. The Zeta potential of MF-CS-NPs was investigated at zero, three, and six months of incubation.

Vero cell lines culture

In vitro, cytotoxicity assay was performed on the Vero cell line. The cells were maintained in RPMI 1640 (Roswell Park Memorial Institute) supplemented with 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), 100 U/mL penicillin, and 100 μg/mL streptomycin (Gibco, Waltham, MA, USA). The cells were incubated at 37°C in a humidified atmosphere of 95% air and 5% CO2 for 24 hours, and then the adherent cells were detached using a 0.25% trypsin-EDTA solution. The cells were counted using a Neubauer chamber, and cell viability was determined by the trypan blue dye exclusion method.

Cytotoxicity determination

The cytotoxicity of MF-CS-NPs on Vero cell lines was determined using an MTT assay. The cells (2 × 104) were seeded in triplicate in 96 well microplates and incubated in 5% CO2 at 37°C for 24 h. The cells were exposed to a graded concentration of 9.8, 19.6, 39.2, 78.125, 156.25, 312.5, and 625 μg/mL and incubated for 24 and 48 h. The untreated cell was used as a negative control. Then, the media was removed from all the treated cells, replaced with new media containing MTT (0.5 mg/mL), and reincubated for three hours at 37°C. MTT solution was removed, and 100 μL of DMSO was added to dissolve insoluble formazan crystals within viable cells’ mitochondria. The plate was incubated with DMSO for 5 min with gentle shaking. The cell viability was determined by measuring the absorbance on a microplate reader (Microplate Reader, BioTek, USA) at λmax 570 nm. The half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) was calculated by plotting the dose-response curve.

Biocompatibility assay of MF-CS-NPs

The biocompatibility assay was conducted as previously described [27]. Briefly, in a test tube containing 3.2% sodium citrate, red blood cells (RBCs) were collected by centrifugation (1500 rpm, 10 min) of a human blood sample. The RBCs were washed three times with NaCl (0.9% w/v) and diluted to prepare a stock dispersion. Then, 50 μL of the stock dispersion was mixed with either 950 μL of MF-CS-NPs or 230 μg/mL of MF. The mixture was incubated at 37°C for one hour and centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for five minutes. The hemolysis rate was assessed by measuring the absorbance of the supernatant at 540 nm against the negative control (PBS solution) and positive control (0.1% Triton-X-100). Finally, the hemolysis rate was calculated according to the following equation:

Hemolysisrate%=AbsorbanceofTestAbsorbanceofNegativecontrolAbsorbanceofPositivecontrolAbsorbanceofNegativecontrol×100

Acanthamoeba isolate

This study was performed with the Acanthamoeba genotype T4, the most prevalent in clinical and environmental samples and the most virulent with the highest binding potential to cornea cells [28]. This isolate was derived from a patient suffering from Acanthamoeba keratitis in December 2020, and after determining the genotype, it was kept axenically (Acc. No. MT820305) [29].

Acanthamoeba cultivation

Axenic cultures were obtained as described previously [30]. Briefly, cysts were removed from non-nutrient agar (NNA) plates using cell scrapers, washed by centrifugation three times with saline, and counted with the Neubauer chamber slide. A 3% HCl solution was added to the cysts and incubated at room temperature overnight to inactivate the bacteria. The cysts were washed with PBS, transferred into a protease-peptone-yeast extract-glucose medium (PYG), and incubated at 30°C. After 72 hours, actively growing trophozoites were harvested by centrifugation at 500g for 7 minutes. For preparing the mature cyst, trophozoite was cultured on 1.5% NNA with 5 μL of heat-killed Escherichia coli and incubated at 30°C for three weeks. The cysts were harvested, washed in PBS, and then treated with 0.5% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) to lyse non-mature cysts. The trophozoite and cysts were then counted using a Neubauer hemocytometer, and 105 cells/mL were adjusted for in vitro assay.

In vitro assay

Experiments were conducted in microtiter plates with 24 wells at 37°C under sterile conditions as described previously [31]. One hundred-five cells/mL of trophozoites or cysts were used for the drug assay. MF, MF-CS-NPs, and CS-NPs were tested against trophozoites at a concentration of 9.8, 19.6, 39.2, 78.125, 156.25, 312.5, and 625 μg/mL, and cysts at a concentration of 156.25, 312.5, 625, 1250, 2500 and 5000 μg/mL. Chlorhexidine (0.02%) and untreated trophozoites or cysts were used as positive and negative controls, respectively [32]. The reduction in amoeba cells was determined by counting the viable cells with a Neubauer hemocytometer after 24 and 48 hours. Trypan blue was served as the viability indicator. All the experiments were conducted in two independent experiments, each time in triplicate.

Flow cytometry

The cysts were exposed to a 50% inhibitory concentration of MF and MF-CS-NPs for 24 hours and analyzed by flow cytometry to confirm the viability obtained by microscopy. The flow cytometry was not conducted on the trophozoite due to their variable size. The viability of cysts was assessed with modifications to the method described by Khunkitti et al. [33]. Briefly, 105 cysts/mL were incubated with 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) of drugs and then stained with propidium iodide (PI). Flow cytometric analyses were performed with a FACSC alibur fluorescence-activated cell sorter system (Becton Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany). Illumination was from a 15-mW, 488-nm argon-ion laser. Nonviable cells were stained with PI fluoresced red with a 585/42 filter (FL2-H). Heat-killed cysts at 90°C for 20 min that fluoresced red with PI stain served as a control for the staining procedure. Suspensions containing viable untreated cysts served as controls. Control amoeba populations that excluded PI (viable cells) were used to select analysis gates in FL2-H versus FSC-H (forward scattered light measure of cell size) dot plots. The dot plots were also gated by forward scatter to eliminate analysis of noise and smaller particles (<3 μm in diameter). Treated amoebae cysts were superimposed into the previously selected analysis gates. The viability percentage was analyzed based on at least 10,000 cysts.

Eye irritancy evaluation

The potential ocular irritancy and harmful effects of MF-CS-NPs eye drop dispersion were determined based on a modified scoring system for ocular irritation testing, according to guidelines of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) [34]. The eye irritancy was evaluated in six male domestic rabbits weighing 1.5 and 2.5 kg. The animals were divided into two groups of three. Group I received a blank MF-CS-NPs eye drop solution with a concentration of 1023 μg/mL; group II received a 0.9% NaCl drop solution. The right eye of each rabbit was treated with two drops of the assigned treatment twice daily for 72 hours. The animals were monitored for ocular conditions such as discomfort and clinical signs in the conjunctiva, cornea, and eyelids.

Statistical analysis

The data were presented as the mean ± standard deviation (SD). Data analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism version 9.5.0 with a two-tailed Student’s t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). A p value < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Characterization and morphology of MF-CS-NPS

The size and surface morphology of MF-CS-NPs were determined using dynamic light scattering (DLS), FESEM, and TEM. The average diameters of the nanoparticles were 53.28±15.13 nm using FESEM (Figs 2 and 3). As shown in Fig 2, the MF-CS-NPs displayed a spherical shape with irregular surface morphology. The average particle size of MF-CS-NPs was 46.61±18.16 nm, determined by the TEM micrograph (Fig 3). The drug loading content of MF in nanoparticles was 83.3±4.3 μg/mL. The MF-CS-NPs possessed a positive zeta potential of 21.8±3.2 mV (Fig 4 and Table 1).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) analysis of miltefosine-loaded chitosan nanoparticles (a), The particle size histogram of MF-CS-NPs (b).

Fig 3. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) image of the MF-CS-NPs.

Fig 3

Fig 4. Physical characterization of nanoparticles.

Fig 4

(a) Particle size distribution of miltefosine-loaded chitosan nanoparticles. The X-axis is the size distribution of particles, and the Y-axis is the number of particles. (b) The zeta potential of miltefosine-loaded chitosan nanoparticles.

Table 1. Physicochemical properties of miltefosine-loaded chitosan nanoparticles.

Parameters (MF-CS-NPS) Amount
Encapsulation Efficiency (EE) 86.33±4.3%
Loading Content (LE) 30.17±1.4%
Average Size (DLS) 131.9±10.3 nm
Zeta Potential 21.8±3.2 mV
Average Size (FESEM) 53.28±15.13 nm
Average Size (TEM) 46.61±18.16 nm

Studying loading of MF-CS-NPs by FTIR spectrum

The FTIR results revealed the structural properties of MF, CS-NPs, and MF-CS-NPs (Fig 5). It demonstrated the differences between unloaded and loaded nanoparticles. In FTIR analysis of drug carriers, a high double peak (2917 and 2850 cm-1) was detected, corresponding to CH2 stretching in the long hexadecyl chain that indicateed MF in drug carriers [24].

Fig 5.

Fig 5

Fourier transforms infrared spectra of nano chitosan, (a) miltefosine-loaded chitosan nanoparticles (b), and miltefosine (c).

In vitro release study

The in-vitro release for MF and MF-CS-NPs was conducted in phosphate buffer (pH 7.2). Fig 6 shows that 46.7 ± 5.27% of the total loaded MF was released during the first four hours. The total cumulative MF percent released from nanoparticles after 30 h of incubation was 83.2 ± 1.8%. The findings show that chitosan nanoparticles provide sustained MF release.

Fig 6. In vitro drug release profile of MF and miltefosine-loaded chitosan nanoparticles in phosphate buffer (pH 7.2).

Fig 6

Stability analysis result

The drug content slightly decreased during six months of storage at 25 ± 2°C, 60% ± 5% RH (Fig 7). After six months, the drug content was more than 60%, demonstrating the acceptable stability of miltefosine in chitosan nanoparticles. The Zeta potential of MF-CS-NPs following zero, three-, and six-months incubation in accelerated stability test conditions was 21.8±3.2, 20.8±2.2, and 19.8±4.3 mV, respectively. The slight decrease in zeta potential may be attributed to nanoparticle aggregation and morphological changes.

Fig 7. Percentage drug content of MF-CS-NPs stored at 25 ± 2°C, 65% ± 5% RH after 0–6 months storage.

Fig 7

Cell cytotoxicity assay of MF, MF-CS-NPs, and CS-NPs

The cytotoxicity of MF-CS-NPs on Vero cells was evaluated. The IC50 value of free MF was 67.55±8.16 and 33.72±3.35 μg/mL after 24 and 48 h incubation, whereas the values for MF-CS-NPS were 180.5±15.00 and 55.15±4.70 μg/mL after 24 and 48 h, respectively. The results showed that the cytotoxicity of MF-CS-NPS significantly decreased by 2.67-fold compared to free MF at 24 hours (p<0.05) (Fig 8). After 48 hours, due to the drug release, MF-CS-NPS exhibited a slight reduction by 1.64-fold in cytotoxicity compared to the free drug. Formulated CS-NPs were not toxic in the investigated concentrations (Fig 8 and Table 2).

Fig 8. Comparison of cell cytotoxicity effect.

Fig 8

The viability of Vero cell after treatment with MF, MF-CS-NPs, and CS-NPs (24–48 h) (a). The IC50 of MF and MF-CS-NPs against Vero cell line (p<0.05) (b). (****, p<0.0001; ns: non-significant).

Table 2. Effects of MF, MF-CS-NPs, and CS-NPs on Vero cell viability after 24 and 48 hours of drug exposure.

IC50 (24h) μg/mL 95% CI IC50 (48h) μg/mL 95% CI
MF 67.55±8.16 63.16 to 72.23 33.72±3.35 31.01 to 36.66
MF-CS-NPs 180.5±15.00 159.1 to 204.8 55.15±4.70 49.56 to 61.36
CS-NPs 2534±386.70 1958 to 3493 2242±357.60 1692 to 3253

Hemolysis assay

The hemolysis percentage of the MF-CS-NPs and MF was 2.1 and 7.4% at the 230 μg/mL concentration of MF after 2 h incubation, indicating non-hemolytic and good hemolysis protection activity. According to the ISO/TR 7406 guideline, a hemolysis rate lower than 5% is considered non-hemolytic, which is required for materials to be used in biomedical applications [35].

Effects of MF, MF-CS-NPs, and CS-NPs on trophozoites and cysts

The activity of MF-CS-NPs, MF, and CS-NPs against trophozoites and cysts was evaluated using trypan blue staining at 24 and 48 h. The effectivity of MF-CS-NPs and MF was higher in the trophozoite compared to the cyst form. The MF-CS-NPs and MF significantly decreased the trophozoite viability (p<0.05) at 24 and 48 hours (Fig 9). At 24 hours, the IC50 for MF-CS-NPs and MF against the trophozoite was 93.57±5.00 and 192.8±16.30 μg/mL, respectively. The IC50 of MF-CS-NPs showed a significant 2.06-fold reduction in trophozoite at 24 hours compared to free MF. After 48 h, the IC50 for MF-CS-NPs was slightly lower by 1.69-fold than MF due to the release of miltefosine from the chitosan by increasing exposure time.

Fig 9. The in-vitro drug assay against the trophozoites and cysts of Acanthamoeba.

Fig 9

The viability percentage of Acanthamoeba trophozoite when exposed to MF, MF-CS-NPs, and CS-NPs (24–48 h) (a). The IC50 diagram of MF and MF-CS-NPs against Acanthamoeba trophozoite (24–48 h) (b). The viability of Acanthamoeba cyst form in exposure to MF, MF-CS-NPs, and CS-NPs (24–48 h) (c). The IC50 diagram of MF and MF-CS-NPs against Acanthamoeba cysts (24–48 h) (d). (****, p<0.0001; **, p<0.01; *, p<0.05).

MF-CS-NPs were more effective on cysts than free miltefosine, and the IC50 of MF-CS-NPs in the cyst form was slightly decreased by 1.26 and 1.21-fold at 24 and 48 hours compared to free MF. CS-NPs were ineffective in the investigated concentrations. The IC50 values for CS-NPs were much higher and did not significantly decrease trophozoite and cyst viability (p>0.05) at 24 and 48 hours in comparison with MF-CS-NPs and MF compounds (Fig 9 and Table 3). The 0.02% chlorhexidine as a positive control resulted in 100% trophozoites and cysts death after 24 and 48 hours.

Table 3. IC50 of MF, MF-CS-NPs, CS-NPs on Trophozoites and cyst form of Acanthamoeba after 24 and 48 hours of drug exposure.

Trophozoite Cyst
Incubation time 24h 48h 24h 48h
IC50 IC50 μg/mL 95% CI IC50 μg/mL 95% CI IC50 μg/mL 95% CI IC50 μg/mL 95% CI
MF 192.8±16.30 180.0 to 206.4 68.81±4.70 60.13 to 78.45 1287±81.56 1099 to 1499 1003±72.01 859.6 to 1166
MF-CS-NPs 93.57±5.00 83.42 to 104.7 40.62±2.40 35.68 to 46.16 1023±83.79 857.1 to 1215 831.8±63.15 706.1 to 975.8
CS-NPs 2301±28.00 1830 to 3019 2207±398.80 1578 to 3385 25706±7360 15107 to 58203 21329±4370 14532 to 36270

Flow cytometry result

The flow cytometry experiment confirmed the cell viability results of the microscopy (Figs 10 and 11). The cysts were exposed to 50% MF and MF-CS-NPs inhibitory concentration for 24 hours and stained with propidium iodide. The flow cytometry assay confirmed the trypan blue staining results, and the cyst death percentage following exposure to MF and MF-CS-NPs was 43.9 and 54.4%, respectively.

Fig 10.

Fig 10

Flow cytometry diagram of the viability of Acanthamoeba cysts, treated with MF (a) MF-CS-NPs (b) and control (c) after 24 h.

Fig 11. Microscopic images of Acanthamoeba after 24 h of treatment.

Fig 11

(a) Acanthamoeba cysts after exposure to MF-CS-NPs, stained with Trypan Blue 0.04%, (b) Acanthamoeba cysts before exposure to MF-CS-NPs, (c) Acanthamoeba trophozoite after exposure to the MF-CS-NPs, stained with Trypan Blue 0.04%, (d) Acanthamoeba trophozoite before exposure to the MF-CS-NPs.

Eye irritancy assessment

The irritation tendency of the MF-CS-NPs solution and 0.9% NaCl eye drop dispersions was evaluated on the rabbit eyes. The MF-CS-NPs and 0.9% NaCl solution showed no changes in the cornea, iris, and conjunctiva with no redness or secretions. The total irritancy score was zero, suggesting the selected MF-CS-NPs can be considered a safe formulation for ophthalmic application (Fig 12).

Fig 12. The irritancy assessment on rabbit eyes.

Fig 12

The NaCl-treated eye at 0 h (a) and 72 h (b); the MF-CS-NPs-treated eye at 0 h (c) and 72 h (d), photographed by the authors.

Discussion

The treatment of Acanthamoeba keratitis is becoming a severe challenge in managing the disease. Considering the low effectiveness, poor ocular penetration and bioavailability, and toxicity of current topical therapeutic agents, developing more effective and safe therapeutic regimens is essential for treating AK [36]. In the present study, chitosan nanoparticles were employed for loading the miltefosine to evaluate the therapeutic and cytotoxicity effects compared to free miltefosine. MF-CS-NPs were prepared by ionic gelation and showed a high encapsulation efficiency of 86.3% and particle size of 46.61±18.16 nm. The positive zeta potential was 21.8±3.2 mV, related to amino groups in the chitosan structure, enabling the nanoparticles to interact with anionic molecules [37]. The positive zeta potential is essential for ocular drug delivery since it facilitates positive nanoparticle adhesion to the negatively charged cornea surface, prolonging the drug release and enhancing the drug bioavailability in the internal eye tissues [38]. The structural morphology of the NPs showed that MF-CS-NPs exhibit a spherical form with irregular surfaces, which was also previously reported [39]. The small particle size of nanoparticles contributes to mobility and surface interaction, enhancing the antimicrobial activity and the bioavailability of poorly water-soluble molecules [40]. The particle size of MF-CS-NPS was less than 200 nm, which is suitable for ocular drug delivery due to better penetration through the ocular barrier and their low irritation [41].

By monitoring the MF release at pH 7.4, it was found that the chitosan nanoparticles provide sustained drug release, consistent with the previous study [42]. Various factors affect drug release from chitosan nanoparticles, such as polymer swelling, absorbed drug, drug diffusion through the polymeric matrix, polymer erosion or degradation, and a combination [43]. The initial release from the chitosan nanoparticles is most probably due to the release of adsorbed MF. The pH-dependent drug release feature of chitosan nanoparticles is ideal in drug delivery to adjust the MF release rate [44]. In the stability test, after six months of incubation, the drug content was more than 60%, and the zeta potential was 19.8±4.3 mV, indicating the acceptable stability of MF-CS-NPs. During the storage, the drug content and zeta potential slightly decreased, possibly due to nanoparticle aggregation and morphological changes. The zeta potential of chitosan-loaded nanoparticles can significantly influence their stability in media through electrostatic repulsion between the particles [45].

In the cytotoxicity assay on the Vero cell line, the IC50 value of MF-CS-NPs and MF was 180.5±15.00 and 67.55±8.16 μg/mL, respectively, after 24h incubation. The cytotoxicity of MF-CS-NPs was 2.67 times lower than free MF, which might have resulted from the sustained release of MF from nanoparticles, providing minimum contact between MF and the cells [46]. Furthermore, encapsulation can decrease the interaction of the active ingredient with the cells [47]. Several studies reported that chitosan could reduce the cytotoxicity of the drug when used in nanocarrier formulation [48,49]. A survey by Tripathi et al. demonstrated that the chitosan carrier system could reduce the cytotoxicity of amphotericin B and MF, which might be associated with the uptake behavior of nanocarrier systems and slow drug release [50].

Moreover, it was demonstrated that encapsulation of S-nitroso-mercapto succinic acid into chitosan nanoparticles led to decreasing promastigote and amastigote forms of Leishmania amazonensis without macrophage toxicity [51]. After 48 hours, the difference between the toxicity of free MF and MF-CS-NPs was not remarkable owing to the drug release (Fig 6). Also, the free chitosan nanoparticle was nontoxic in the in-vitro assay, which agrees with other surveys [52]. In the current study, MF-CS-NPs showed notably lower hemolytic activity than free MF, representing improved red blood cell compatibility. The lower hemolytic activity is predicted as the drug is entrapped in the nanoparticles [53].

The exact mechanism of MF against Acanthamoeba is not entirely understood; nevertheless, its activity could be associated with changes in lipid metabolism, reduction of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase, and induction of apoptosis-like cell death in parasites such as Leishmania [10]. MF has been utilized in treating amoebic encephalitis cases and against different strains of Acanthamoeba in vitro [31,54]. In the present study, drug assay against the trophozoite revealed that MF and MFS-CNPs exhibited IC50 values of 192.8±16.30 and 93.57±5.00 μg/mL after 24 h and 68.81±4.70 and 40.62±2.40 μg/mL after 48 h incubation, respectively. MFS-CNPs showed increased activity against the trophozoite compared to free MF. This improvement could be attributed to the cellular uptake of the carrier and the slow, sustained release of the drug [50]. Several studies demonstrated that the chitosan nanoparticles accumulate better into the macrophages due to their preferential phagocytosis and are introduced as effective delivery approaches for biopharmaceuticals [50,55]. Indeed, chitosan-coated nanoparticles improved cellular uptake in macrophages compared to uncoated nanoparticles [56]. In addition, the positive charge enables chitosan to attach to the cells efficiently and uptake rapidly [50]. It is assumed that the amoeba trophozoites could phagocyte the chitosan nanoparticles-loaded drug more efficiently than the free drug, which makes it accumulate in the cytoplasm. On the other hand, it is expected that due to the change of pH in the amoeba cytoplasm, compared to the external environment, the drug release faster in the cytoplasm [57].

Our results revealed that in the cyst form, the IC50 values for MF and MFS-CNPs were 1287±81.56 and 1023±83.79 μg/mL after 24 h and 1003±72.01 and 831.8±63.15 μg/mL after 48 h incubation, respectively. Although the IC50 was lower in MFS-CNPs than the free MF, the difference in the cyst form was not remarkable. It assumed that the positive charge of chitosan nanoparticles allows attachment to the negatively charged cyst wall. Nonetheless, the drug penetration into the double-layered cellulose wall of the cyst is complex and requires more prolonged exposure [58]. Previous studies on different antimicrobial agents revealed that the cysticidal concentration is generally higher than the trophozoicidial concentration; thus, more prolonged drug exposure was needed in in-vitro and clinical cases to vanish the cyst form [59]. In a study by Walochnik et al., miltefosine at the concentration of 40 μM eradicated the trophozoites, while a cysticidal effect was observed at 160 μM [31]. Interestingly, the effective drug concentration varies based on the species, genotype, and thickness of double-walled cysts of Acanthamoeba [60]. Therefore, more studies are required to optimize and improve the cysticidal activity of the MF-loaded chitosan nanoparticles.

Our results revealed that chitosan was not toxic in the concentration used for preparing the MF-CS-NPS. The IC50 value of chitosan was considerably higher than that of MF-CS-NPs and free MF against the trophozoite and cyst forms of Acanthamoeba. Although the antiamoebic activity of chitosan is lower than miltefosine, the encapsulation of miltefosine into chitosan nanocarriers, through changes in drug penetration and release, significantly enhances the effectiveness of MF. The nanoparticle size allows their penetration through tight junctions and increases the surface-to-volume ratio, strongly affecting their release outline [61]. Also, a carrier covering the drug molecule offers protection from environmental and biological barriers [62].

In the present study, the eye irritation of MF-CS-NPs was investigated in rabbits’ eyes. Topical application of MF-CS-NPs displays no sign of irritation, redness, or abnormal discharge. Our finding agrees with the previous reports on chitosan-based nanocarriers applied for topical ocular delivery of dexamethasone, forskolin, and clarithromycin, in which topical chitosan nanoparticles were nonirritant [6365]. Interestingly, chitosan is a cationic polysaccharide with mucoadhesive properties that can bind to the epithelium, making it a desirable drug carrier for ophthalmic applications. Mucoadhesive drug delivery systems are ideal as they can increase the residence time of the drugs at the site of absorption in tissue, providing sustained drug release and minimizing the degradation of drugs in various body sites [21]. In addition, chitosan can increase drug transfer across corneal barriers, offering a promising strategy to increase drug permeability, which is essential to treat the late stage of Acanthamoeba keratitis [22].

In conclusion, miltefosine-loaded chitosan nanoparticles were evaluated against Acanthamoeba for the first time. This formulation exhibited the optimal size, zeta potential, and stability. Also, the sustained release profile of MF-CS-NPs was confirmed. It exhibited low cytotoxicity toward the Vero cell line compared to free MF, without any hemolytic activity in vitro and ocular irritation in rabbit eyes. The MF-CS-NPs showed a significant reduction in trophozoite viability compared to free miltefosine while moderately effective against the cyst. Our results revealed that nano-chitosan could be an ideal career that reduced the cytotoxicity of miltefosine. The development of this nano-formulation of miltefosine opens a new era of effective treatment of Acanthamoeba. Further studies on the animal model are required to shed light on the effectiveness of the miltefosine-loaded chitosan nanoparticle in ocular drug delivery systems.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. The colorimetric assay for miltefosine based on the colored complex formation with ammonium ferric thiocyanate.

(A) The colored complex results from different concentrations of 0, 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 μg/mL MF, photographed by the authors (B) the calibration curve of the colorimetric assay.

(TIF)

pntd.0011976.s001.tif (549.6KB, tif)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Prof. Saied Reza Naddaf, Dr Fatemeh Goodarzi, and Dr Mona Koosha for their kind cooperation. We also thank the members of the workgroup Parasitology at the Department of Medical Parasitology and Mycology, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, for their technical support.

Data Availability

The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This research has been supported by Tehran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services grant no. 99-2-211-49861. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Szentmáry N, Daas L, Shi L, Laurik KL, Lepper S, Milioti G, et al. Acanthamoeba keratitis–Clinical signs, differential diagnosis and treatment. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2019;31(1):16–23. doi: 10.1016/j.joco.2018.09.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zhang Y, Xu X, Wei Z, Cao K, Zhang Z, Liang Q. The global epidemiology and clinical diagnosis of Acanthamoeba keratitis. J Infect Public Health. 2023;16(6):841–852. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2023.03.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Stellwagen A, MacGregor C, Kung R, Konstantopoulos A, Hossain P. Personal hygiene risk factors for contact lens-related microbial keratitis. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2020;5(1):e000476. doi: 10.1136/bmjophth-2020-000476 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lorenzo-Morales J, Khan NA, Walochnik J. An update on Acanthamoeba keratitis: diagnosis, pathogenesis and treatment. Parasite. 2015;22:10. doi: 10.1051/parasite/2015010 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Karsenti N, Lau R, Purssell A, Chong-Kit A, Cunanan M, Gasgas J, et al. Development and validation of a real-time PCR assay for the detection of clinical acanthamoebae. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):355. doi: 10.1186/s13104-017-2666-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Juarez MM, Tartara LI, Cid AG, Real JP, Bermudez JM, Rajal VB, et al. Acanthamoeba in the eye, can the parasite hide even more? Latest developments on the disease. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2018;41(3):245–51. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2017.12.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ti S-E, Scott JA, Janardhanan P, Tan DT. Therapeutic keratoplasty for advanced suppurative keratitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143(5):755–62. e2. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.01.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Papa V, Rama P, Radford C, Minassian DC, Dart JK. Acanthamoeba keratitis therapy: time to cure and visual outcome analysis for different antiamoebic therapies in 227 cases. Br J Ophthalmol. 2020;104(4):575–81. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-314485 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Siddiqui R, Aqeel Y, Khan NA. The development of drugs against Acanthamoeba infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60(11):6441–50. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00686-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.dos Santos Nogueira F, Avino VC, Galvis-Ovallos F, Pereira-Chioccola VL, Moreira MAB, Romariz APPL, et al. Use of miltefosine to treat canine visceral leishmaniasis caused by Leishmania infantum in Brazil. Parasit Vectors. 2019;12(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/s13071-019-3323-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Latifi A, Mohebali M, Yasami S, Soleimani M, Rezaian M, Kazemirad E. Comparing cytotoxicity and efficacy of miltefosine and standard antimicrobial agents against Acanthamoeba trophozoites and cyst forms: An in vitro study. Acta Trop. 2023;247:107009. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2023.107009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bradley CS, Sicks LA, Pucker AD. Common ophthalmic preservatives in soft contact lens care products: benefits, complications, and a comparison to non-preserved solutions. Clin Optom (Auckl). 2021:271–85. doi: 10.2147/OPTO.S235679 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hirabayashi KE, Lin CC, Ta CN. Oral miltefosine for refractory Acanthamoeba keratitis. American Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep. 2019;16:100555. doi: 10.1016/j.ajoc.2019.100555 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Macwan JS, Hirani A, Pathak Y. Challenges in ocular pharmacokinetics and drug delivery. Nano-biomaterials for ophthalmic drug delivery. 2016:593–611. 10.1007/978-3-319-29346-2_26 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gorantla S, Rapalli VK, Waghule T, Singh PP, Dubey SK, Saha RN, et al. RSC Adv. 2020;10(46):27835–55. doi: 10.1039/d0ra04971a [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Begines B, Ortiz T, Pérez-Aranda M, Martínez G, Merinero M, Argüelles-Arias F, et al. Polymeric nanoparticles for drug delivery: Recent developments and future prospects. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2020;10(7):1403. doi: 10.3390/nano10071403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Younes I, Rinaudo M. Chitin and chitosan preparation from marine sources. Structure, properties and applications. Mar Drugs. 2015;13(3):1133–74. doi: 10.3390/md13031133 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tripathi K, Singh A. Chitin, chitosan and their pharmacological activities: a review. Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2018;9(7):2626–35. 10.13040/IJPSR.0975-8232.9(7).2626-35 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Louisa M, Hawa P, Purwantyastuti P, Mardliyati E, Freisleben H-J. Primaquine-chitosan Nanoparticle Improves Drug Delivery to Liver Tissue in Rats. Open Access Maced. J. Med. Sci. 2022;10(A):1278–84. 10.3889/oamjms.2022.10005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Riezk A, Van Bocxlaer K, Yardley V, Murdan S, Croft SL. Activity of Amphotericin B-Loaded Chitosan Nanoparticles against Experimental Cutaneous Leishmaniasis. Molecules. 2020;25(17). doi: 10.3390/molecules25174002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Silva MM, Calado R, Marto J, Bettencourt A, Almeida AJ, Gonçalves LM. Chitosan nanoparticles as a mucoadhesive drug delivery system for ocular administration. Mar Drugs. 2017;15(12):370. doi: 10.3390/md15120370 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zamboulis A, Nanaki S, Michailidou G, Koumentakou I, Lazaridou M, Ainali NM, et al. Chitosan and its derivatives for ocular delivery formulations: Recent advances and developments. Polymers (Basel). 2020;12(7):1519. doi: 10.3390/polym12071519 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tiyaboonchai W. Chitosan nanoparticles: a promising system for drug delivery. J. nat. sci. 2013;11(3):51–66. https://www.journal.nu.ac.th/NUJST/article/view/250 [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Dorlo TP, Eggelte TA, de Vries PJ, Beijnen JH. Characterization and identification of suspected counterfeit miltefosine capsules. Analyst. 2012;137(5):1265–74. doi: 10.1039/c2an15641e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sultan MH, Moni SS, Madkhali OA, Bakkari MA, Alshahrani S, Alqahtani SS, et al. Characterization of cisplatin-loaded chitosan nanoparticles and rituximab-linked surfaces as target-specific injectable nano-formulations for combating cancer. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):468. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-04427-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Guideline I. Stability testing of new drug substances and products. Q1A (R2), current step. 2003;4(1–24). https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/ich-q1a-r2-stability-testing-new-drug-substances-and-drug-products-scientific-guideline [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Jesus S, Marques AP, Duarte A, Soares E, Costa JP, Colaço M, et al. Chitosan nanoparticles: shedding light on immunotoxicity and hemocompatibility. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020;8:100. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Maciver SK, Asif M, Simmen MW, Lorenzo-Morales J. A systematic analysis of Acanthamoeba genotype frequency correlated with source and pathogenicity: T4 is confirmed as a pathogen-rich genotype. Eur J protistol. 2013;49(2):217–21. doi: 10.1016/j.ejop.2012.11.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Soleimani M, Latifi A, Momenaei B, Tayebi F, Mohammadi SS, Ghahvehchian H. Management of refractory Acanthamoeba keratitis, two cases. Parasitol Res. 2021;120(3):1121–4. doi: 10.1007/s00436-020-06997-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Walochnik J, Haller-Schober E-M, Kolli H, Picher O, Obwaller A, Aspock H. Discrimination between clinically relevant and nonrelevant Acanthamoeba strains isolated from contact lens-wearing keratitis patients in Austria. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38(11):3932–6. doi: 10.1128/JCM.38.11.3932-3936.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Walochnik J, Duchêne M, Seifert K, Obwaller A, Hottkowitz T, Wiedermann G, et al. Cytotoxic activities of alkylphosphocholines against clinical isolates of Acanthamoeba spp. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46(3):695–701. doi: 10.1128/AAC.46.3.695-701.2002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sangkanu S, Mitsuwan W, Mahabusarakam W, Jimoh TO, Wilairatana P, Girol AP, et al. Anti-Acanthamoeba synergistic effect of chlorhexidine and Garcinia mangostana extract or α-mangostin against Acanthamoeba triangularis trophozoite and cyst forms. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):8053. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-87381-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Khunkitti W, Avery S, Lloyd D, Furr J, Russell A. Effects of biocides on Acanthamoeba castellanii as measured by flow cytometry and plaque assay. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1997;40(2):227–33. doi: 10.1093/jac/40.2.227 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Cooperation OfE Development. Test No. 405: Acute Eye Irritation/Corrosion: OECD Publishing; 2002. doi: 10.1787/9789264185333-en [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Niza E, Nieto-Jiménez C, Noblejas-López MdM, Bravo I, Castro-Osma JA, de la Cruz-Martínez F, et al. Poly (cyclohexene phthalate) nanoparticles for controlled dasatinib delivery in breast cancer therapy. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2019;9(9):1208. doi: 10.3390/nano9091208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Varacalli G, Di Zazzo A, Mori T, Dohlman TH, Spelta S, Coassin M, et al. Challenges in Acanthamoeba Keratitis: A Review. J Clin Med. 2021;10(5). doi: 10.3390/jcm10050942 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Mahdizadeh Barzoki Z, Emam-Djomeh Z, Rafiee-Tehrani M, Mortazavian E, Moosavi Movahedi AA. Optimization and development of insulin nanoparticles by new thiolated chitosan derivative with ionic gelation method using a model-based methodology. J Food Bioprocess Eng. 2019;2(1):25–34. https://jfabe.ut.ac.ir/article_73075.html [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Zhang C, Yin Y, Zhao J, Li Y, Wang Y, Zhang Z, et al. An update on novel ocular nanosystems with possible benefits in the treatment of corneal neovascularization. Int J Nanomedicine. 2022:4911–31. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S375570 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Yi Qiaoli, Xu Zhijie, Thakur Abhimanyu, Zhang Kui, Liang Qiuju, Liu Yuanhong, Yan Yuanliang 2023:190:106733. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2023.106733 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ibraheem DR, Hussein NN, Sulaiman GM, Mohammed HA, Khan RA, Al Rugaie O. Ciprofloxacin-Loaded Silver Nanoparticles as Potent Nano-Antibiotics against Resistant Pathogenic Bacteria. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2022;12(16). doi: 10.3390/nano12162808 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Alonso MJ, Sánchez A. The potential of chitosan in ocular drug delivery. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2003;55(11):1451–63. doi: 10.1211/0022357022476 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Modaresi SMS, Ejtemaei Mehr S, Faramarzi MA, Esmaeilzadeh Gharehdaghi E, Azarnia M, Modarressi MH, et al. Preparation and characterization of self-assembled chitosan nanoparticles for the sustained delivery of streptokinase: an in vivo study. Pharm Dev Technol. 2014;19(5):593–7. doi: 10.3109/10837450.2013.813542 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Herdiana Y, Wathoni N, Shamsuddin S, Muchtaridi M. Drug release study of the chitosan-based nanoparticles. Heliyon. 2022;8(1):e08674. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08674 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Singh R, Lillard JW Jr. Nanoparticle-based targeted drug delivery. Exp Mol Pathol. 2009;86(3):215–23. doi: 10.1016/j.yexmp.2008.12.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kouchak M, Azarpanah A. Preparation and in vitro evaluation of chitosan nanoparticles containing diclofenac using the ion-gelation method. Jundishapur J Nat Pharm Prod. 2015;10(2). 10.17795/jjnpp-23082. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Far J, Abdel-Haq M, Gruber M, Abu Ammar A. Developing biodegradable nanoparticles loaded with mometasone furoate for potential nasal drug delivery. ACS omega. 2020;5(13):7432–9. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.0c00111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Baharifar H, Khoobi M, Bidgoli SA, Amani A. Preparation of PEG-grafted chitosan/streptokinase nanoparticles to improve biological half-life and reduce immunogenicity of the enzyme. Int J Biol Macromol. 2020;143:181–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.11.157 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Li Z, Yang F, Yang R. Synthesis and characterization of chitosan derivatives with dual-antibacterial functional groups. Int J Biol Macromol. 2015;75:378–87. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2015.01.056 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Narayan S. Lithium entrapped chitosan nanoparticles to reduce toxicity and increase cellular uptake of lithium. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2018;61:79–86. doi: 10.1016/j.etap.2018.05.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Tripathi P, Jaiswal AK, Dube A, Mishra PR. Hexadecylphosphocholine (Miltefosine) stabilized chitosan modified Ampholipospheres as prototype co-delivery vehicle for enhanced killing of L. donovani. Int J Biol Macromol. 2017;105(Pt 1):625–37. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.07.076 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Cabral FV, Pelegrino MT, Sauter IP, Seabra AB, Cortez M, Ribeiro MS. Nitric oxide-loaded chitosan nanoparticles as an innovative antileishmanial platform. Nitric oxide. 2019;93:25–33. doi: 10.1016/j.niox.2019.09.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bashir SM, Ahmed Rather G, Patrício A, Haq Z, Sheikh AA, Shah M, et al. Chitosan Nanoparticles: A Versatile Platform for Biomedical Applications. Materials (Basel). 2022;15(19). doi: 10.3390/ma15196521 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Sorasitthiyanukarn FN, Muangnoi C, Gomez CB, Suksamrarn A, Rojsitthisak P, Rojsitthisak P. Potential Oral Anticancer Therapeutic Agents of Hexahydrocurcumin-Encapsulated Chitosan Nanoparticles against MDA-MB-231 Breast Cancer Cells. Pharmaceutics. 2023;15(2):472. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15020472 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Alli A, Ortiz JF, Morillo Cox Á, Armas M, Orellana VA. Miltefosine: A Miracle Drug for Meningoencephalitis Caused by Free-Living Amoebas. Cureus. 2021;13(3):e13698. doi: 10.7759/cureus.13698 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Jiang LQ, Wang TY, Webster TJ, Duan HJ, Qiu JY, Zhao ZM, et al. Intracellular disposition of chitosan nanoparticles in macrophages: intracellular uptake, exocytosis, and intercellular transport. Int J Nanomedicine. 2017;12:6383–98. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S142060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Jain V, Gupta A, Pawar VK, Asthana S, Jaiswal AK, Dube A, et al. Chitosan-assisted immunotherapy for intervention of experimental leishmaniasis via amphotericin B-loaded solid lipid nanoparticles. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2014;174(4):1309–30. doi: 10.1007/s12010-014-1084-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Vivek R, Babu VN, Thangam R, Subramanian K, Kannan S. pH-responsive drug delivery of chitosan nanoparticles as Tamoxifen carriers for effective anti-tumor activity in breast cancer cells. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2013;111:117–23. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2013.05.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Lakhundi S, Siddiqui R, Khan NA. Cellulose degradation: a therapeutic strategy in the improved treatment of Acanthamoeba infections. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:1–16. doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-0642-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Sharma G, Kalra SK, Tejan N, Ghoshal U. Nanoparticles based therapeutic efficacy against Acanthamoeba: Updates and future prospect. Exp Parasitol. 2020;218:108008. doi: 10.1016/j.exppara.2020.108008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Chao M, Thongseesuksai T, Boonmars T, Laummaunwai P. Investigation of the in vitro cysticidal activity of miltefosine against Acanthamoeba spp. J Parasit Dis. 2020;44(2):491–5. doi: 10.1007/s12639-020-01204-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Augustine R, Hasan A, Primavera R, Wilson RJ, Thakor AS, Kevadiya BD. Cellular uptake and retention of nanoparticles: Insights on particle properties and interaction with cellular components. Mater. Today Commun. 2020;25:101692. 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.101692. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Aibani N, Rai R, Patel P, Cuddihy G, Wasan EK. Chitosan Nanoparticles at the Biological Interface: Implications for Drug Delivery. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13(10). doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13101686 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Kalam MA. The potential application of hyaluronic acid coated chitosan nanoparticles in ocular delivery of dexamethasone. Int J Biol Macromol. 2016;89:559–68. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.05.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Khan N, Khanna K, Bhatnagar A, Ahmad FJ, Ali A. Chitosan coated PLGA nanoparticles amplify the ocular hypotensive effect of forskolin: Statistical design, characterization and in vivo studies. Int J Biol Macromol. 2018;116:648–63. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.04.122 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Bin-Jumah M, Gilani SJ, Jahangir MA, Zafar A, Alshehri S, Yasir M, et al. Clarithromycin-loaded ocular chitosan nanoparticle: formulation, optimization, characterization, ocular irritation, and antimicrobial activity. Int J Nanomedicine. 2020:7861–75. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S269004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011976.r001

Decision Letter 0

Charles L Jaffe, Aiman Abu Ammar

12 Oct 2023

Dear Dr Kazemirad,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Chitosan nanoparticles improve the effectivity of miltefosine against Acanthamoeba" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Reviewer 2:

I've completely gone through the manuscript titled "Chitosan nanoparticles improve the effectivity of miltefosine against Acanthamoeba" ". The authors report the effects of miltefosine loaded chitosan nanoparticles against the two forms of Acanthamoaba namely, cultured trophozoites and cyst form. The cytotoxicity and hemolytic effects of the MF-CS-NPs were also determined on Vero cell line and human RBCs, respectively. This is a well-conceived and well-carried-out study that have yielded valuable data. However, before this paper can be published, a number of flaws must properly be taken care of. The authors should have a native English speaker revise the manuscript before resubmitting it in order to correct the annoying spelling, grammatical, syntactic, and stylistic errors.

General and specific comments for the authors

Introduction

• The introduction is not for the authors perform a review about the subject but to clearly show why the study is relevant and how the data obtained will contribute to the management of AK. Most of the references cited in this part are outdated.

• The authors are advised to pay special emphasis on recent challenges in treatment options of AK.

Methods

• How the authors confirm the synthesis of NPs

• How the authors standardized the dosing in the experiments

• The authors are advised to perform TEM microscopy of the MF-CS-NPs

• No information is given about how long the isolate of Acanthamoaba used was obtained.

• The authors should clearly mention the positive and negative control in their experiments

• How the authors measured the encapsulation efficacy and drug loading content of the MF-CS-NPs

• Penicillin and streptomycin from which source? company, country and city name

• It would be interesting if the authors could perform the experiments in three incubation periods i-e 24h, 48,72h respectively.

• In In vitro assay the authors used various concentrations of 9.8, 19.6, 39.2, 78.125, 156.25, 312.5, and 199 625 µg/ml against trophozoites while 156.25, 312.5, 625, 1250, 2500 and 5000 µg/ml for cyst. What was the reason for choosing these concentrations?

Results

The results are well presented. The readers can easily be able to understand what the figures and tables represents.

Fig 8 must be removed as it not giving any scientific information

Discussion

The discussion must be written more straightforward. Rather than repeating background information in the first alinea that has already been given in the Introduction. The authors should have briefly mentioned the rationale for carrying out the study and give a short version of their findings, and then continue in the subsequent alineas to discuss each finding.

Conclusion

Conclusion must be informative. The authors should mentioned their results in this section.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Aiman Abu Ammar

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Charles Jaffe

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer 2:

I've completely gone through the manuscript titled "Chitosan nanoparticles improve the effectivity of miltefosine against Acanthamoeba" ". The authors report the effects of miltefosine loaded chitosan nanoparticles against the two forms of Acanthamoaba namely, cultured trophozoites and cyst form. The cytotoxicity and hemolytic effects of the MF-CS-NPs were also determined on Vero cell line and human RBCs, respectively. This is a well-conceived and well-carried-out study that have yielded valuable data. However, before this paper can be published, a number of flaws must properly be taken care of. The authors should have a native English speaker revise the manuscript before resubmitting it in order to correct the annoying spelling, grammatical, syntactic, and stylistic errors.

General and specific comments for the authors

Introduction

• The introduction is not for the authors perform a review about the subject but to clearly show why the study is relevant and how the data obtained will contribute to the management of AK. Most of the references cited in this part are outdated.

• The authors are advised to pay special emphasis on recent challenges in treatment options of AK.

Methods

• How the authors confirm the synthesis of NPs

• How the authors standardized the dosing in the experiments

• The authors are advised to perform TEM microscopy of the MF-CS-NPs

• No information is given about how long the isolate of Acanthamoaba used was obtained.

• The authors should clearly mention the positive and negative control in their experiments

• How the authors measured the encapsulation efficacy and drug loading content of the MF-CS-NPs

• Penicillin and streptomycin from which source? company, country and city name

• It would be interesting if the authors could perform the experiments in three incubation periods i-e 24h, 48,72h respectively.

• In In vitro assay the authors used various concentrations of 9.8, 19.6, 39.2, 78.125, 156.25, 312.5, and 199 625 µg/ml against trophozoites while 156.25, 312.5, 625, 1250, 2500 and 5000 µg/ml for cyst. What was the reason for choosing these concentrations?

Results

The results are well presented. The readers can easily be able to understand what the figures and tables represents.

Fig 8 must be removed as it not giving any scientific information

Discussion

The discussion must be written more straightforward. Rather than repeating background information in the first alinea that has already been given in the Introduction. The authors should have briefly mentioned the rationale for carrying out the study and give a short version of their findings, and then continue in the subsequent alineas to discuss each finding.

Conclusion

Conclusion must be informative. The authors should mentioned their results in this section.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: Yes, the objectives of the study is clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated and the study design is appropriate to address the stated objectives.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: Yes, the results are clearly and completely presented and the figures (Tables, Images) are of sufficient quality for clarity

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: Yes, the conclusions are supported by the data presented

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Nagwa Mostafa El-Sayed

Reviewer #2: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011976.r003

Decision Letter 1

Charles L Jaffe, Aiman Abu Ammar

7 Feb 2024

Dear Dr Kazemirad,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Chitosan nanoparticles improve the effectivity of miltefosine against Acanthamoeba' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Aiman Abu Ammar

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Charles Jaffe

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011976.r004

Acceptance letter

Charles L Jaffe, Aiman Abu Ammar

24 Feb 2024

Dear Dr Kazemirad,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Chitosan nanoparticles improve the effectivity of miltefosine against Acanthamoeba," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. The colorimetric assay for miltefosine based on the colored complex formation with ammonium ferric thiocyanate.

    (A) The colored complex results from different concentrations of 0, 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 μg/mL MF, photographed by the authors (B) the calibration curve of the colorimetric assay.

    (TIF)

    pntd.0011976.s001.tif (549.6KB, tif)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Respond to reviewers.docx

    pntd.0011976.s002.docx (152.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES