Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 396, Issue 4, pp 1441–1450 | Cite as

Synchrotron FTIR microspectroscopy of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae after exposure to plasma-deposited nanosilver-containing coating

  • C. Saulou
  • F. Jamme
  • C. Maranges
  • I. Fourquaux
  • B. Despax
  • P. Raynaud
  • P. Dumas
  • M. Mercier-Bonin
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

The present work was focused on elucidating changes in the model yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae (cell composition, ultrastructure) after exposure to antimicrobial plasma-mediated nanocomposite films. In order to achieve this, a nanosilver-containing coating was deposited onto stainless steel using radiofrequency HMDSO plasma deposition, combined with simultaneous silver sputtering. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) confirmed the presence of silver nanoparticles embedded in an organosilicon matrix. In addition, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) demonstrated the nanoparticle-based morphology of the deposited layer. The antifungal properties towards S. cerevisiae were established, since a 1.4 log reduction in viable counts was observed after a 24-h adhesion compared to control conditions with the matrix alone. Differences in cell composition after exposure to the nanosilver was assessed for the protein region using, for the first time, synchrotron Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) microspectroscopy of single S. cerevisiae cells, through in situ mapping with sub-cellular spatial resolution. IR spectrum of yeast cells recovered after a 24-h adhesion to the nanosilver-containing coating revealed a significant downshift (20 cm−1) of the amide I peak at 1655 cm−1, compared to freshly harvested cells. This lower band position, corresponding to a loss in α-helix structures, is indicative of the disordered secondary structures of proteins, due to the transition between active and inactive conformations under nanosilver-induced stress conditions. No significant effect on the nucleic acid region was detected. The inhibitory action of silver was targeted against both cell wall and intracellular proteins such as enzymes. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) observations of the yeast ultrastructure confirmed serious morphological and structural damages. A homogeneous protein-binding distribution of nanosilver all over the cell was assumed, since the presence of electron-dense silver clusters was detected not only on the cell surface but also within the cell. For control experiments with the organosilicon matrix alone, no antimicrobial effect was observed, which was consistent with synchrotron FTIR results and TEM observations.

Keywords

Saccharomyces cerevisiae Nanosilver-containing coating Cold plasma Antifungal effect Synchrotron FTIR microspectroscopy Biological samples Interface/Surface analysis IR spectroscopy/Raman spectroscopy Thin films Biomaterials Nanoparticles/Nanotechnology 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research described in this paper was performed at the French national synchrotron facility SOLEIL (Gif-sur-Yvette, France), using the SMIS beamline (proposal no 20060176). The authors gratefully acknowledge the “BioPleasure” project of the Research National Agency (ANR-07-BLAN-0196-01) for funding. The authors wish to thank S. Zanna (LPCS, Paris, France) for XPS analysis. Thanks are also due to S. Le Blond du Plouy of the Electron Microscopy Centre TEMSCAN (Paul Sabatier University, Toulouse, France) for SEM images.

References

  1. 1.
    Hoyle BD, Costerton JW (1991) Prog Drug Res 37:91–105Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP (1999) Science 284:1318–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ramage G, Martínez JP, López-Ribot JL (2006) FEMS Yeast Res 6:979–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Briandet R, Leriche V, Carpentier B, Bellon-Fontaine MN (1999) J Food Prot 62:994–998Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pradier CM, Rubio C, Poleunis C, Bertrand P, Marcus P, Compère C (2005) J Phys Chem B 109:9540–9549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sambhy V, MacBride MM, Peterson BR, Sen A (2006) J Am Chem Soc 128:9798–9808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Favia P, Vulpio M, Marino R, d’Agostino R, Mota RP, Catalano M (2000) Plasmas Polym 5:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sardella E, Favia P, Gristina R, Nardulli M, d’Agostino R (2006) Plasma Process Polym 3:456–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jiang H, Manolache S, Lee Wong AC, Denes FS (2004) J Appl Polym Sci 93:1411–1422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Silver S, le Phung T, Silver G (2006) J Ind Microbiol Biotech 33:627–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feng QL, Wu J, Chen GQ, Cui FZ, Kim TN, Kim JO (2000) J Biomed Mater Res 52:662–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sondi I, Salopek-Sondi B (2004) J Colloid Interface Sci 275:177–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yang HC, Pon LA (2003) Drug Chem Toxicol 26:75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Despax B, Raynaud P (2007) Plasma Process Polym 4:127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guillemot G, Despax B, Raynaud P, Zanna S, Marcus P, Schmitz P, Mercier-Bonin M (2008) Plasma Process Polym 5:228–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saulou C, Despax B, Raynaud P, Zanna S, Marcus P, Mercier-Bonin M (2009) Appl Surf Sci. doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2009.04.118 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaminskyj SGW, Jilkine K, Szeghalmi A, Gough KM (2008) FEMS Microbiol Lett 284:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Szeghalmi A, Kaminskyj SGW, Gough KM (2007) Anal Bioanal Chem 387:1779–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jilkine K, Gough KM, Julian R, Kaminskyj SGW (2008) J Inorg Biochem 102:540–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mohlenhoff B, Romeo M, Wood BR, Diem M (2005) Biophys J 88:3635–3640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nguyen TH, Fleet GH, Rogers PL (1998) Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 50:206–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Toubas D, Essendoubi M, Adt I, Pinon JM, Manfait M, Sockalingum GD (2007) Anal Bioanal Chem 387:1729–1737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Galichet A, Sockalingum GD, Belarbi A, Manfait M (2001) FEMS Microbiol Lett 197:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sockalingum GD, Sandt C, Toubas D, Gomez J, Pina P, Beguinot I, Witthuhn F, Aubert D, Allouch P, Pinon JM, Manfait M (2002) Vib Spectrosc 28:137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barth A, Zscherp C (2002) Quart Rev Biophys 35:369–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kierans M, Staines AM, Bennett H, Gadd GM (1991) Biol Metals 4:100–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cioffi N, Torsi L, Ditaranto N, Tantillo G, Ghibelli L, Sabbatini L, Bleve-Zacheo T, D’Alessio M, Zambonin PG, Traversa E (2005) Chem Mater 17:5255–5262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kim JS, Kuk E, Yu KN, Kim JH, Park SJ, Lee HJ, Kim SH, Park YK, Park YH, Hwang CY, Kim YK, Lee YS, Jeong DH, Cho MH (2007) Nanomedicine 3:95–101Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Morones JR, Elechiguerra JL, Camacho A, Holt K, Kouri JB, Ramírez JT, Yacaman MJ (2005) Nanotechnology 16:2346–2353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Egger S, Lehmann RP, Height MJ, Loessner MJ, Schuppler M (2009) Appl Environ Microbiol 75:2973–2976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Perrone GG, Tan SX, Dawes IW (2008) Biochim Biophys Acta 1783:1354–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Liang Q, Zhou B (2007) Mol Biol Cell 18:4741–4749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    SAISIR (2008) Package of function for chemometrics in the MATLAB (R) environment. Dominique Bertrand coordinator (bertrand@nantes.inra.fr). Unité Biopolymères, Interactions, Assemblages. INRA, Rue de la Géraudière-BP 71627-44316 Nantes Cedex 3 FranceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Saulou
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • F. Jamme
    • 6
    • 7
  • C. Maranges
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • I. Fourquaux
    • 8
  • B. Despax
    • 4
    • 5
  • P. Raynaud
    • 4
    • 5
  • P. Dumas
    • 7
  • M. Mercier-Bonin
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 9
  1. 1.Université de Toulouse, INSA, UPS, INPT, LISBPToulouseFrance
  2. 2.INRA, UMR792 Ingénierie des Systèmes Biologiques et des ProcédésToulouseFrance
  3. 3.CNRS, UMR5504ToulouseFrance
  4. 4.Université de Toulouse, UPS, INPT, LAPLACEToulouse cedex 9France
  5. 5.CNRS, LAPLACEToulouseFrance
  6. 6.INRA-Département CEPIANantes cedex 3France
  7. 7.Synchrotron SOLEILGif-sur-YvetteFrance
  8. 8.Université Paul Sabatier, Centre de Microscopie Electronique Appliquée à la Biologie (CMEAB)Toulouse cedex 4France
  9. 9.Laboratoire d’Ingénierie des Systèmes Biologiques et des ProcédésINSAToulouse cedex 4France

Personalised recommendations