The properties of nanofiber scaffolds of polyurethane-Cinnamomum zeylanicum against pathogens of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus

  • H. Hosseinpor
  • A. Khaledi
  • D. EsmaeiliEmail author
Original Paper


This study designed to investigate the properties of antibacterial nanofiber scaffolds of polyurethane-Cinnamomum zeylanicum against virulence gene expression inhibition of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus that are important in burn wounds. With attention to burn wound infections in hospitals and mortality increase in patients, it is necessary to design nanodressing. Clinical isolates were confirmed by biochemical and microbiological tests. DNA of isolates was extracted and PCR used to confirm the alp gene of P. aeruginosa and Pv gene of S. aureus. Polyurethane nanofiber and cinnamon polymers were used to prepare the scaffold under the electrospinning process. Infrared spectroscopy, electron microscopy, and mechanical tensile tests were used to confirm the scaffolds. The susceptibility testing and minimum inhibitory concentration of polyurethane-cinnamon nanofiber scaffold were determined against P. aeruginosa and S. aureus. For confirmation of polyurethane-cinnamon nanofiber scaffold were used the cytotoxicity test (MTT), FTIR, mechanical tensile test, and a scanning electron microscope. The expression of virulence genes was investigated using the real-time RT-PCR technique. The results of the susceptibility testing indicated that P. aeruginosa and S. aureus were susceptible to polyurethane-cinnamon nanofiber scaffold. The MTT, FTIR, mechanical tensile test, and SEM confirmed the different features of the polyurethane-cinnamon nanofiber scaffold. Results of real-time PCR demonstrated that the expression levels of pv and alp genes after treatment decreased, respectively, 2.71- and 1.06-fold. Results indicated that the electrospun polyurethane-cinnamon nanofiber scaffold for the first time could inhibit both important pathogens of the hospital and the expression of the virulence genes. Considering the susceptibility of P. aeruginosa and S. aureus to and its inhibitory effect on an alp and pv genes, this system could probably be a candidate in wound dressing for commercial purposes to burn healing and infection inhibition.


Polyurethane-cinnamon Nanofiber Scaffold 



We would like to thank our colleagues at BMSU, for their help.

Authors’ contributions

DE conceived the project and designed the study. HH performed experiments. DE analyzed data and wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.


This work was supported by the authors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Urbanowski ML, Lykken GL, Yahr TL (2005) A secreted regulatory protein couples transcription to the secretory activity of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa type III secretion system. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102:9930–9935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Japoni A, Alborzi A, Kalani M, Nasiri J, Hayati M, Farshad S (2006) Susceptibility patterns and cross-resistance of antibiotics against Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from burn patients in the South of Iran. Burns 32:343–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barbieri J, Sun J (2004) Pseudomonas aeruginosa exoS and exoT. In: Cordat E, Barber D, Leipziger J, Pardo L, Stock C, Schmitt N, O’Donnell ME (eds) Reviews of physiology, biochemistry, and pharmacology. Springer, New York, pp 79–92Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hosseini SMJ, Naeini NS, Khaledi A, Daymad SF, Esmaeili D (2016) Evaluate the relationship between class 1 integrons and drug resistance genes in clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Open Microbiol J 10:188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abbasi A, Maddah SM, Mahboubi A, Khaledi A, Vazini H, Esmaeili D (2017) Investigate the inhibitory effects of Satureja khuzestanica essential oil against housekeeping fabD and exoA genes of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from Hospital Isolates using RT-PCR technique. Ann Med Health Sci ResGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karatuna O, Yagci A (2010) Analysis of quorum sensing-dependent virulence factor production and its relationship with antimicrobial susceptibility in Pseudomonas aeruginosa respiratory isolates. Clin Microbiol Infect 16:1770–1775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arora D, Jindal N, Kumar R, Romit M (2011) Emerging antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas-A challenge. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 3:82–84Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moore NM, Flaws ML (2011) Antimicrobial resistance mechanisms in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Clin Lab Sci 24:47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bowersox J (1999) Experimental staph vaccine broadly protective in animal studies. NIH News 27Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khademi F, Ghanbari F, Mellmann A, Najafzadeh MJ, Khaledi A (2016) Phylogenetic relationships among Staphylococcus aureus isolated from clinical samples in Mashhad, Iran. J Infect Public Health 9:639–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Argudín MÁ, Mendoza MC, Rodicio MR (2010) Food poisoning and Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxins. Toxins 2:1751–1773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jayaprakasha GK, Jagan Mohan Rao L, Sakariah KK (2003) Volatile constituents from Cinnamomum zeylanicum fruit stalks and their antioxidant activities. J Agric Food Chem 51:4344–4348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Du W-X, Avena-Bustillos RJ, Woods R, Breksa AP, McHugh TH, Friedman M et al (2012) Sensory evaluation of baked chicken wrapped with antimicrobial apple and tomato edible films formulated with cinnamaldehyde and carvacrol. J Agric Food Chem 60:7799–7804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Todd J, Friedman M, Patel J, Jaroni D, Ravishankar S (2013) The antimicrobial effects of cinnamon leaf oil against multi-drug resistant Salmonella Newport on organic leafy greens. Int J Food Microbiol 166:193–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li M, Guo Y, Wei Y, MacDiarmid AG, Lelkes PI (2006) Electrospinning polyaniline-contained gelatin nanofibers for tissue engineering applications. Biomaterials 27:2705–2715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Agarwal S, Wendorff JH, Greiner A (2008) Use of electrospinning technique for biomedical applications. Polymer 49:5603–5621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lu P, Ding B (2008) Applications of electrospun fibers. Recent Patents Nanotechnol 2:169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    You Y, Lee SJ, Min BM, Park WH (2006) Effect of solution properties on the nanofibrous structure of electrospun poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid). J Appl Polym Sci 99:1214–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Metzke M, O’Connor N, Maiti S, Nelson E, Guan Z (2005) Saccharide–peptide hybrid copolymers as biomaterials. Angew Chem 117:6687–6691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pham QP, Sharma U, Mikos AG (2006) Electrospinning of polymeric nanofibers for tissue engineering applications: a review. Tissue Eng 12:1197–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Duan B, Yuan X, Zhu Y, Zhang Y, Li X, Zhang Y et al (2006) A nanofibrous composite membrane of PLGA–chitosan/PVA prepared by electrospinning. Eur Polym J 42:2013–2022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kenawy E-R, Bowlin GL, Mansfield K, Layman J, Simpson DG, Sanders EH et al (2002) Release of tetracycline hydrochloride from electrospun poly(ethylene-co-vinyl acetate), poly (lactic acid), and a blend. J Control Rel 81:57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang S, Zhang Y, Wang H, Yin G, Dong Z (2009) Fabrication and properties of the electrospun polylactide/silk fibroin-gelatin composite tubular scaffold. Biomacromolecules 10:2240–2244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Patel JB, Tenover FC, Turnidge JD, Jorgensen JH (2011) Susceptibility test methods: dilution and disk diffusion methods. In: Carroll KC, Pfaller MA, Landry ML, McAdam AJ, Patel R, Richter SS, Warnock DW (eds) Manual of clinical microbiology, 10th edn. American Society of Microbiology, Washington, pp 1122–1143Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wayne P (2007) Clinical and laboratory standards institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, p 17Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yousefzadi M, Riahi-Madvar A, Hadian J, Rezaee F, Rafiee R, Biniaz M (2014) Toxicity of essential oil of Satureja khuzistanica: in vitro cytotoxicity and anti-microbial activity. J Immunotoxicol 11:50–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hiep NT, Lee B-T (2010) Electro-spinning of PLGA/PCL blends for tissue engineering and their biocompatibility. J Mater Sci Mater Med 21:1969–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Aoki S, Hirakata Y, Kondoh A, Gotoh N, Yanagihara K, Miyazaki Y et al (2004) Virulence of Metallo-β-lactamase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa in vitro and in vivo. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 48:1876–1878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hasan A, Memic A, Annabi N, Hossain M, Paul A, Dokmeci MR et al (2014) Electrospun scaffolds for tissue engineering of vascular grafts. Acta Biomater 10:11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhang Y, Liu X, Wang Y, Jiang P, Quek S (2016) Antibacterial activity and mechanism of cinnamon essential oil against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus. Food Control 59:282–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vasita R, Katti DS (2006) Nanofibers and their applications in tissue engineering. Int J Nanomed 1:15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Diaz-Gomez L, Alvarez-Lorenzo C, Concheiro A, Silva M, Dominguez F, Sheikh FA et al (2014) Biodegradable electrospun nanofibers coated with platelet-rich plasma for cell adhesion and proliferation. Mater Sci Eng C 40:180–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nanstad R, McCabe D, Swain R, Miller M (1992) Chemical composition and RT NDT determinations for Midland weld WF-70. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Oussalah M, Caillet S, Saucier L, Lacroix M (2007) Inhibitory effects of selected plant essential oils on the growth of four pathogenic bacteria: E. coli O157: H7, Salmonella typhimurium, Staphylococcus aureus, and Listeria monocytogenes. Food Control 18:414–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Abbasi A, Bahador A, Esmaeili D, Mahbubi A, Amiri M, Amiri M (2014) The study of inhibitory effects of Satureja khuzestanica against MDR isolates of pseudomonas aeruginosa. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 3:614–618Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zainab Waheed ZA, Dong Y, Han N, Liu S (2019) Data for holographic polymer nanocomposites with ordered structures and improved electro-optical performance by doping POS. Compos B 174Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zinatloo-Ajabshir S, Salehi Z, Amiri O, Salavati-Niasari M (2019) Simple fabrication of Pr2Ce2O7 nanostructures via a new and eco-friendly route; a potential electrochemical hydrogen storage material. J Alloys Compd 791(30):792–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zinatloo-Ajabshir S, SadatMorassaei M, Salavati-Niasari M (2019) Simple approach for the synthesis of Dy2Sn2O7 nanostructures as a hydrogen storage material from banana juice. J Clean Prod 222:103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang Y, ShiPan M, Zhong S, Wu Y, Yang R, Han Y, Zhou J (2017) Combined ANFIS and numerical methods to simulate ultrasound-assisted extraction of phenolics from chokeberry cultivated in China and analysis of phenolic composition. Technology 178:178–188Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Esmaeilli D, Mobarez AM, Salmanian AH, Hosseini AZ (2013) Bioactivity and immunological evaluation of LPS from different serotypes of Helicobacter pylori. Iran J Microbiol 5(2):142PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Microbiology and Applied Microbiology Research Center, Systems Biology and Poisonings InstituteBaqiyatallah University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  2. 2.Applied Virology Research CenterBaqiyatallah University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  3. 3.Infectious Diseases Research CenterKashan University of Medical ScienceKashanIran
  4. 4.Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of MedicineKashan University of Medical ScienceKashanIran

Personalised recommendations