Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Fractional inhibition concentration of Fos-CuO NPs
| Test microorganism | Fos MIC (μg/mL) | CuO MIC (μg/mL) | Fos-CuO MIC (μg/mL) | FICI | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E. coli | 50,000 ± 0.5 | 0.86 ± 0.5 | 0.32 ± 0.5 | 0.37 | Synergy |
| P. aeruginosa | 56,000 ± 0.5 | 0.91 ± 0.5 | 0.53 ± 0.5 | 0.58 | Additive (borderline synergy) |
| S. aureus | 32,000 ± 0.5 | 0.89 ± 0.5 | 0.37 ± 0.5 | 0.42 | Synergy |
Interacting residues between fosfomycin-conjugated nanoparticle and biofilm-associated proteins in P_ aeruginosa
| Fosfomycin-conjugated nanoparticle | Protein | Interacting residues |
|---|---|---|
| Lec A | Ser111, Trp33 | |
| Pel A | Arg267, Arg271, Gln67, Ser51 | |
| Pel B | Thr387 | |
| gacA | Glu64 | |
| pslA | Leu 150 |
Minimum inhibition concentration and MBC of Fosfomycin, CuO NPs, and Fos-CuO NPs
| Test microorganism | Fos | CuO NPs | Fos-CuO NPs | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIC (mg/mL) | MBC (mg/mL) | MIC (μg/mL) | MBC (μg/mL) | MIC (μg/mL) | MBC (μg/mL) | |
| E. coli | 50 ± 0.5 | 65 ± 0.5 | 0.86 ± 0.5 | 1.72 ± 0.5 | 0.32 ± 0.5 | 0.64 ± 0.5 |
| P. aeruginosa | 56 ± 0.5 | 70 ± 0.5 | 0.91 ± 0.5 | 1.82 ± 0.5 | 0.53 ± 0.5 | 1.06 ± 0.5 |
| S. aureus | 32 ± 0.5 | 46 ± 0.5 | 0.89 ± 0.5 | 1.78 ± 0.5 | 0.37 ± 0.5 | 0.74 ± 0.5 |
The molecular docking scores between ligands and biofilm-associated proteins in P_ aeruginosa
| Protein | Ligands | Binding affinity (kcal/mol) |
|---|---|---|
| Lec A | CuO | −2.6 |
| Fosfomycin | −4.1 | |
| Fosfomycin-conjugated | −4.4 | |
| Pel A | CuO | −2.5 |
| Fosfomycin | −4 | |
| Fosfomycin-conjugated | −4.9 | |
| Pel B | CuO | −2.5 |
| Fosfomycin | −3.7 | |
| Fosfomycin-conjugated | −3.7 | |
| gacA | CuO | −2.6 |
| Fosfomycin | −4 | |
| Fosfomycin-conjugated | −3.9 | |
| pslA | CuO | −2.7 |
| Fosfomycin | −4.7 | |
| Fosfomycin-conjugated | −3.8 |