Next Article in Journal
Asymmetric Interfaces in Epitaxial Off-Stoichiometric Fe3+xSi1−x/Ge/Fe3+xSi1−x Hybrid Structures: Effect on Magnetic and Electric Transport Properties
Previous Article in Journal
Enhanced Heat Transfer for NePCM-Melting-Based Thermal Energy of Finned Heat Pipe
 
 
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Review of Microbial Mediated Iron Nanoparticles (IONPs) and Its Biomedical Applications

1
Department of Biotechnology, Institute of Integrative Biosciences, CECOS University, Peshawar 25100, Pakistan
2
Department of Biotechnology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad 45320, Pakistan
3
Laboratoire de Biologie des Ligneux et des Grandes Cultures (LBLGC), Plant Lignans Team, INRAE USC1328, Eure Et Loir Campus, Université d’Orléans, F28000 Chartres, France
4
State Key Laboratory of Bio-fibers, Eco-textiles Institute of Biochemical Engineering, College of Materials Science and Engineering, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China
5
State Key Laboratory of Biochemical Engineering, Key Laboratory of Green Process and Engineering, Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China
6
Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA 02125, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nanomaterials 2022, 12(1), 130; https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12010130
Received: 12 October 2021 / Revised: 8 December 2021 / Accepted: 16 December 2021 / Published: 31 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Nanofabrication and Nanomanufacturing)

Abstract

:
Nanotechnology is a booming avenue in science and has a multitude of applications in health, agriculture, and industry. It exploits materials’ size at nanoscale (1–100 nm) known as nanoparticles (NPs). These nanoscale constituents are made via chemical, physical, and biological methods; however, the biological approach offers multiple benefits over the other counterparts. This method utilizes various biological resources for synthesis (microbes, plants, and others), which act as a reducing and capping agent. Among these sources, microbes provide an excellent platform for synthesis and have been recently exploited in the synthesis of various metallic NPs, in particular iron. Owing to their biocompatible nature, superparamagnetic properties, small size efficient, permeability, and absorption, they have become an integral part of biomedical research. This review focuses on microbial synthesis of iron oxide nanoparticles using various species of bacteria, fungi, and yeast. Possible applications and challenges that need to be addressed have also been discussed in the review; in particular, their antimicrobial and anticancer potentials are discussed in detail along with possible mechanisms. Moreover, some other possible biomedical applications are also highlighted. Although iron oxide nanoparticles have revolutionized biomedical research, issues such as cytotoxicity and biodegradability are still a major bottleneck in the commercialization of these nanoparticle-based products. Addressing these issues should be the topmost priority so that the biomedical industry can reap maximum benefit from iron oxide nanoparticle-based products.

1. Introduction

Nanotechnology has revolutionized every field of science and technology and has a multitude of applications [1,2]. In the past, nanotechnology has seen exponential growth with numerous practical applications in health, electronics, cosmetics, and agriculture [3]. In the biomedical field, it has been utilized in diagnostics and treatment of various disorders [4]. The core building blocks of nanotechnology are nanoparticles (NPs). These nanoscale entities range in size from 1–100 nm [5,6]. In contrast to their bulk counterparts, NPs possess unique physiochemical, electrical, magnetic, and thermal properties [7]. Among other metallic NPs, iron NPs (IONPs) have been used extensively in biomedical applications owing to their small size, superparamagnetic properties, and lower biocompatibility. It has also been used in bioprocessing, targeted delivery, imaging, tissue engineering, and disease management [8,9,10]. In particular, the antimicrobial, anti-larvicidal, and antioxidant therapies are the most notable ones [11].
IONPs are mostly produced via physical and chemical methods [12]. However, these approaches are expensive, laborious, and are not safe for any biomedical purposes [12,13,14]. In order to find a viable approach, scientists used a more sophisticated method: green synthesis. This method offers much better alternatives which are more efficient, cost effective, ecofriendly, and safe. This technique utilizes biological resources such as microbial cells, algae, fungi, and plants [15]. It not only reduces the salt, but also aids in improving their stability and morphology, and reducing toxicity [13].
To date, various biological resources have been exploited in the fabrication of IONPs. However, microbial synthesis of IONPs has proven to be an efficient approach compared to others. Microorganisms can efficiently convert iron ions into IONPs using a variety of secondary metabolites and enzymes [16]. The green derived IONPs are safer, ecofriendly, and exhibit excellent biological potential [9]. Green derived IONPs have been used against various disorders including cancer, microbial infections, and antioxidant therapies [17,18]. Moreover, they have also shown excellent catalytic and imaging potentials [9,19]. This review focuses on microbial mediated IONPs using various species of bacteria, fungus, and yeast. Moreover, their biomedical applications have been discussed in detail, especially regarding cancer and antimicrobial therapies. Furthermore, possible directions and limitations are also highlighted. This review will provide a cogent insight for the researchers in nano-biotechnology.

2. Bacterial Mediated Synthesis

Bacterial mediated synthesis has emerged as a sustainable approach for the green synthesis of variety of NPs due to its diversity, adaptability to extreme conditions, and ecofriendly nature [20]. Bacteria have the ability to synthesize NPs both intracellularly and extracellularly, depending upon the bacterial strain used [21]. Table 1 provides a list of bacteria with the ability to produce IONPs using intracellular or extracellular mechanisms. A number of researchers have utilized bacteria as nano-factories for IONP synthesis. Magnetic IONPs were synthesized extra-cellularly using Bacillus cereus strain HMH1. As a result, highly stable spherical shaped NPs with an average size of 29.3 nm were produced. Bacterial secondary metabolites containing carboxyl groups with primary amines were found to be responsible for IONPs biosynthesis. The formulated polysaccharide coated IONPs mediated by Staphylococcus warneri have also been reported [22,23]. The resulting NPs were spherical in shape with an average diameter of 34 nm. The synthesized NPs exhibited high biocompatibility and could be an excellent tool for targeted therapies. Cytoplasmic extract of Lactobacillus casei have also been employed for the biosynthesis of spherical IONPs with an average size of 15 nm. [22]. Extracellular biosynthesis of IONPs was reported by Sundaram et al. (2012) using Bacillus subtilis extract [24]. The resulting IONPs were spherical shaped with an average size of 60 to 80 nm. The functional groups responsible for the reduction and capping of the said IONPs included Hydroxyl, alkyl, and carboxylic groups that caused the reduction of bulk salt into Fe2O3 NPs. Rajeswaran et al. (2020) used Streptomyces sp. (SRT12) for the synthesis of quasi-spherical IONPs with an average size of 65.0 to 86.7 nm. The resulting NPs showed potent antioxidant and bactericidal activity [17]. Proteus vulgaris (ATCC-29905) mediated IONPs also proved to be excellent anticancer and antimicrobial agents [18].
A number of researchers have conducted similar studies which have been summarized in Table 1. Difference in synthesis factors (pH, temperature, and species difference) significantly affects the characteristics (size and shape) of IONPs. If the synthesis route is accurately sustained and elucidated, it will improve the synthesis yield, and better morphologies and sizes will be obtained which could be scaled for commercial scale.

3. Fungus Mediated Synthesis

Similar to bacteria, myogenic synthesis has also gained a lot of attention due to its biocompatibility, low toxicity, comparatively economic nature, effortless synthesis, and eco-friendly protocols. Mycogenic synthesis of IONPs may be either extracellular or intracellular (Table 2), depending upon the type of microbial species used [44]. Aspergillus flavus has been used for the extracellular synthesis of spherical IONPs with an average size of 28–33 nm. Different functional groups such as alkyl, carboxylic acid, hydroxyl, and amide were responsible for the reduction and capping of Aspergillus flavus mediated IONPs [45]. Baskar et al. (2017) synthesized IONPs ranging in size from 40–100 nm using Aspergillus terreus. The resulting NPs showed remarkable anti-cancer potency, suggesting that IONPs can be employed in the future as a potential anticancer drug [46]. Trichoderma asperellum, Phialemoniopsis ocularis, and Fusarium incarnatum have also been reported for the biogenic synthesis of IONPs [47]. Aspergillus niger has been reported for the synthesis of magnetite IONPs. Synthesized NPs were characterized using XRD and SEM, which revealed the production of spherical shaped IONPs with average size of 15 to 18 nm. The biogenic IONPs showed excellent hyperthermia phenomena in cancer [44]. Adeleye et al. (2020) reported the use of Rhizopus stolonifer for the synthesis of IONPs. The NPs were stabilized by secondary metabolites containing a variety of functional groups such as thiol, carboxylic acid, hydroxyl, and alkyl groups [48]. Endophytic fungi Penicillium oxalicum has also been used for the synthesis of spherical IONPs with an ability to effectively catalyze degradation of methylene blue dye [19]. A detailed account of myogenic IONPs, their characterization, and potential applications has been provided in Table 2.
From previous studies, it has been shown that fungus could be an excellent candidate for synthesis of IONPs as compared to other biological sources. It has better yield, more complex proteins, and metabolites which can reduce and stabilize metal salts for longer periods of time. However, more detailed studies are needed to decipher the synthesis process in detail and reaction parameters should also be evaluated to achieve better yield and stability.
In addition, yeast is among some of the valuable species for the mass production of different kinds of nanoparticles. Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Cryptococcus humicola have been reported for the synthesis of magneto-sensitive IONPs. For the synthesis, the aforementioned species were incubated on laboratory temperature (22–25 °C) followed by the addition of precursor salt. The resulting mixture was then observed under magnetic field to check for the formulation of IONPs [49]. Candida bombicola has also been used for the synthesis of sophorolipids-functionalized IONPs. The synthesized NPs were characterized using TEM, FTIR, and XRD. The TEM results revealed crystalline IONPs with an average size of 8.5 nm and 4.5 nm. FTIR results indicated the presence of a carboxylic functional group [50]. Though very little has been revealed regarding the biosynthesis of IONPs from yeast to date, considering their rich metabolomic and proteomic profile, further studies should be directed to evaluate their potential and biosynthesis mechanism. Many other studies have also been conducted on the biogenic IONPs, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Fungus/yeast mediated iron nanoparticles.
Table 2. Fungus/yeast mediated iron nanoparticles.
S.noSpeciesLocation of Synthesis CharacterizationFunctional GroupShapeSize (nm)Ref.
1Alternaria alternataExtracellularSEM, TEM, and EDXNRCubic shape3–9[4]
2Pochonia chlamydosporiumBoth Extracellular and IntracellularTEM and FTIRNRNR20–40[10]
Aspergillus fumigatusBoth Extracellular and IntracellularTEM and FTRNRNR20–40[10]
3Fusarium OxysporumExtracellularTEM and FTIRNRSpherical20–40[44]
Actinomycetes specieExtracellularTEM and FTRNRSpherical20–40[44]
4Aspergillus oryzaeNRTEM and FTIRNR----10 and 24.6[51]
5Pochonia chlamydosporiumIntracellularTEM and FTRNRSpherical4–80[10]
6Pleurotus specieIntracellularTEM and FTIROH, NH2, and COOHNR----[52]
7Fusarium oxysporumExtracellularTEM and FTRAmide I and IICube10–40[53]
Verticillium specieExtracellularTEM and FTIRAmide I and IICube10–40[53]
10Aspergillus specieExtracellularTEM, Atomic Absorption SpectrophotometryNRNR50–20[19]
11Aspergillus japonicusExtracellularXRD, SEM, and EDSNRCubic60–70[54]
12Neurospora crassaNRSEM, XRD, EDX, and FTIROH, C–H, and Fe–OCoralline appearance,50[55]
13Trichoderma specie UV-Vis and FTIRC–H, C=O, C≡N, C=H, and OHNR----[56]
Yeast
14Cryptococcus humicolaNRTEM and X-raysNRSpherical8–9[49]
15Candida bombicolaExtracellularTEM, FTIR, and XRDCOOH 8.5–4.5[50]

4. Antimicrobial Potential of IONPs

Over the last few years, the emergence of microbial infections has increased dramatically. The rise of multidrug-resistant bacteria (MDR) is further worsening the situation and has become a global health challenge [6]. Recently, nanotechnology-based therapies have been exploited in disease diagnostics and formulations of novel therapeutic drugs against numerous diseases [3,57,58]. Among other NPs, green synthesized IONPs have also been exploited against various pathogenic strains of bacteria [4]. Due to their biocompatibility, safety, and ecofriendly nature, these nanoscale materials have attracted great interest as a novel antimicrobial agent and have been tested against a wide range of infectious pathogens [5,7,59] (Table 3). The antimicrobial potential of these NPs have not been clearly depicted; however, it is suggested that they kill microbes in the same way as their chemical counters [8]. The added advantage in the case of biosynthesized NPs, however, is the addition of capping agents. As most of the capping agents themselves possess antimicrobial potency, the ultimate antimicrobial potential of resulting NPs can be improved. Mostly, NPs kill microbial cells via diverse mechanisms including membrane destruction, organelles damage, biomolecular distortion, and by interfering with nucleic acid or protein biosynthesis in bacterial cells [3,9,57,58].
Bacterial cells are mostly killed via production of superoxide radicals (O2−), hydroxyl radicals (−OH), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and singlet oxygen (O2), collectively known as reactive oxygen species (ROS). ROS cause severe damage to nucleic acids and proteins in the microbial cell [10]. NPs interact with membrane proteins (thiol groups) and cause oxidative stress which results in protein denaturation and membrane impermeability. All of this eventually leads to microbial death [5]. Besides membrane disruption, it can also distort structural integrity and cellular architecture [8]. The antibacterial potential of IONPs is elucidated in Figure 1. The biogenic IONPs have also shown great potential to kill both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, but due to the complex structure of Gram-negative bacteria, it is more effective against Gram-positive bacterial strains [9,11].
These nanoantibiotics have a wide range of advantages over the traditional ones, such as they are less susceptible to microbial resistance; they may be functionalized to numerous preferred target sites; and the possibility of stimulating them with other sources such as pH, heat, light, and magnetic field [6,59]. The biogenic NPs have also shown remarkable antimicrobial potential against a wide range of microbial species and can combat over the rising threat of MDR [59]. In particular, when used along with other conjugates, they inhibited the biofilm formation and showed potent biocidal potential [14]. Despite the growing knowledge on antimicrobial activity against MDR and their strong antimicrobial potential, more studies are required to address their toxicity and elucidate their antimicrobial mechanism in in vivo models. Furthermore, in order to achieve optimal antimicrobial activity, the synthesis process should be optimized to avoid the size and morphological variability.

5. Anticancer Activity

Cancer is the second leading cause of deaths after cardiovascular diseases [6]. To date, no proper treatment is available for cancer; however, the quest to find novel anticancer agents is continuous [57]. Recently, nano-frontier has been exploited in various disease management. Among other NPs, iron has been exploited the most in diagnostics, treatment, or formulation of cancer drugs [58]. These therapeutic properties are attributed to their strong stability, biocompatibility, and specificity against diverse cancer cells [8,31,59]. Additionally, harnessing their magnetic hyperthermia potential can be used to kill cancerous cells selectively [11]. In the past, IONPs have been used in treatment of various cancers such as breast cancer, glioblastoma cancer, liver cancer (Hepatoma H22 cells), leukemia promyelocytic (HL60 cells), cellosaurus cell line (MOLT-4 cell), and prostate cancer [17]. In all treatments, IONPs exhibited strong cytotoxic potential against the aforementioned cancer cell lines. Microbe-mediated IONPs escalate oxidative stress and kill the cells by impeding their cell division and distorting macromolecules framework which ultimately leads to cell death via activating apoptosis [17,18,22,23,46]. The anticancer potential of IONPs is depicted in Figure 2. When mixed with other anticancer drugs, it significantly accelerated the antitumor potential [3]. Considering their anticancer potential, these nanoparticles can be tested in in vivo models to determine their effectiveness; however, their toxicity must be taken into account when it comes to humans.

6. Other Potential Applications

Beside the antimicrobial and anticancer potential of IONPs, they have also been exploited in drug delivery, antioxidant therapies, and catalysis [17,27]. For instance, they have been used in the degradation of methyl violet, chlorinated pollutants, and methylene blue dyes [35,48]. However, the current knowledge regarding their catalytic mechanism is miniscule, which needs to be addressed in order to employ them as a catalytic agent in remediation process. In agriculture practices, microbial mediated IONPs have been used on a test basis and have shown promising results as compared to chemical peers [28]. With such tremendous potential, they are believed to have a promising future in farming and could be used in the fabrication of novel fertilizers, bio-control agents, and advanced sensing technologies. However, certain limitations (Cytotoxicity and Eutrophication) need to be addressed before translating this technology into fields.

7. Conclusions

Considering the biocompatibility, safety, and minimal toxicity of green synthesized IONPs, they have been exploited in diagnosis, management, and treatment of various diseases. The most notable application in the medical field is their antimicrobial potential, which is attributed to their smaller size, large surface area, and biocidal potential. To date, a clear picture of the antimicrobial mechanism of action has not been elucidated. The antimicrobial mechanism of green synthesized IONPs is believed to be associated with reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, which can interfere with normal cellular metabolism and hemostasis across bacterial walls, shutting down organelles’ membranes and destroying membranes and nuclear materials. Moreover, green synthesized IONPs have also shown significant antimicrobial action against MDRs, which promises to provide leverage against antimicrobial resistance in the near future. With the currently limited literature, further studies are required to evaluate their in vivo efficacy and elucidate their antimicrobial potential in detail. Green synthesized IONPs have also shown excellent anti-cancer potential in many in vitro based studies. Green synthesized IONPs have a unique ability to induce apoptosis in cancer cells selectively via destruction of membranes, fragmenting the nuclear materials or hampering the enzyme and organelles functioning. However, little has been explored regarding their anticancer potential which needs to be studied in detail in both in vitro and in vivo experiments. Green synthesized IONPs have also been used in diagnostics and treatment of other diseases, but very little is known. Nevertheless, they are likely to have a dazzling future in the management of other incurable diseases, including hypertension and diabetes. Beside their medical applications, green synthesized IONPs have also been used in various agricultural practices and could be used as alternative to bio fertilizers and bio-control agents. With such a multitude of applications and promising results in various fields of science, the only hurdle in its commercialization is its toxicity. For now, toxicity of NPs remains a major bottleneck in translating these materials from lab to industry, which needs to be addressed further.

Author Contributions

M.N. and A.N. conceived the idea; R.K., N.S., I.R.B. and S.S.H. collected all the literature data; S.U. drafted the figures and mechanism; B.H.A., C.H., C.L., A.N. and J.C. reviewed and thoroughly helped in drafting the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Nadeem, M.; Khan, R.; Afridi, K.; Nadhman, A.; Ullah, S.; Faisal, S.; Mabood, Z.U.; Hano, C.; Abbasi, B.H. Green synthesis of cerium oxide nanoparticles (CeO2 NPs) and their antimicrobial applications: A review. Int. J. Nanomed. 2020, 15, 5951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Nadeem, M.; Abbasi, B.H.; Younas, M.; Ahmad, W.; Khan, T. A review of the green syntheses and anti-microbial applications of gold nanoparticles. Green Chem. Lett. Rev. 2017, 10, 216–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  3. Hashmi, S.S.; Shah, M.; Muhammad, W.; Ahmad, A.; Ullah, M.A.; Nadeem, M.; Abbasi, B.H. Potentials of Phyto-Fabricated nanoparticles as ecofriendly agents for Photocatalytic degradation of toxic dyes and waste water treatment, risk assessment and probable mechanism. J. Indian Chem. Soc. 2021, 98, 100019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mohamed, Y.; Azzam, A.; Amin, B.; Safwat, N.A. Mycosynthesis of iron nanoparticles by Alternaria alternata and its antibacterial activity. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2015, 14, 1234–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  5. Asha, A.; Sivaranjani, T.; Thirunavukkarasu, P.; Asha, S. Green synthesis of silver nanoparticle from different plants—A review. Int. J. Pure Appl. Biosci. 2016, 4, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Khan, I.; Saeed, K.; Khan, I. Nanoparticles: Properties, applications and toxicities. Arab. J. Chem. 2019, 12, 908–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nadeem, M.; Tungmunnithum, D.; Hano, C.; Abbasi, B.H.; Hashmi, S.S.; Ahmad, W.; Zahir, A. The current trends in the green syntheses of titanium oxide nanoparticles and their applications. Green Chem. Lett. Rev. 2018, 11, 492–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  8. Patil, R.M.; Thorat, N.D.; Shete, P.B.; Bedge, P.A.; Gavde, S.; Joshi, M.G.; Tofail, S.A.; Bohara, R.A. Comprehensive cytotoxicity studies of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles. Biochem. Biophys. Rep. 2018, 13, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sangaiya, P.; Jayaprakash, R.; Magnetism, N. A review on iron oxide nanoparticles and their biomedical applications. J. Supercond. Nov. Magn. 2018, 31, 3397–3413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kaul, R.; Kumar, P.; Burman, U.; Joshi, P.; Agrawal, A.; Raliya, R.; Tarafdar, J.C. Magnesium and iron nanoparticles production using microorganisms and various salts. Mater. Sci.-Pol. 2012, 30, 254–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bose, S.; Hochella, M.F., Jr.; Gorby, Y.A.; Kennedy, D.W.; McCready, D.E.; Madden, A.S.; Lower, B.H. Bioreduction of hematite nanoparticles by the dissimilatory iron reducing bacterium Shewanella oneidensis MR-1. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2009, 73, 962–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ali, A.; Hira Zafar, M.Z.; ul Haq, I.; Phull, A.R.; Ali, J.S.; Hussain, A. Synthesis, characterization, applications, and challenges of iron oxide nanoparticles. Nanotechnol. Sci. Appl. 2016, 9, 49–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  13. Wu, W.; Dey, D.; Memis, O.; Katnelson, A.; Mohseni, H.J.L. A Novel self-aligned and maskless process for formation of highly uniform arrays of nanoholes and nanopillars. Nanoscale Res. 2008, 3, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  14. Cheng, Z.; Tan, A.L.K.; Tao, Y.; Shan, D.; Ting, K.E.; Yin, X.J. Synthesis and characterization of iron oxide nanoparticles and applications in the removal of heavy metals from industrial wastewater. Int. J. Photoenergy 2012, 2012, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Agarwal, H.; Kumar, S.V.; Rajeshkumar, S. A review on green synthesis of zinc oxide nanoparticles—An eco-friendly approach. Resour.-Effic. Technol. 2017, 3, 406–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Arias, S.L.; Shetty, A.R.; Senpan, A.; Echeverry-Rendón, M.; Reece, L.M.; Allain, J.P. Fabrication of a functionalized magnetic bacterial nanocellulose with iron oxide nanoparticles. J. Vis. Exp. 2016, 111, e52951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  17. Rajeswaran, S.; Thirugnanasambandan, S.S.; Dewangan, N.K.; Moorthy, R.K.; Kandasamy, S.; Vilwanathan, R. Multifarious pharmacological applications of green routed eco-friendly iron nanoparticles synthesized by Streptomyces Sp. (SRT12). Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2020, 194, 273–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Majeed, S.; Danish, M.; Ibrahim, M.N.M.; Sekeri, S.H.; Ansari, M.T.; Nanda, A.; Ahmad, G. Bacteria mediated synthesis of iron oxide nanoparticles and their antibacterial, antioxidant, cytocompatibility properties. J. Clust. Sci. 2021, 32, 1083–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mathur, P.; Saini, S.; Paul, E.; Sharma, C.; Mehtani, P. Endophytic fungi mediated synthesis of iron nanoparticles: Characterization and application in methylene blue decolorization. Curr. Res. Green Sustain. Chem. 2021, 4, 100053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ghosh, S.; Ahmad, R.; Banerjee, K.; AlAjmi, M.F.; Rahman, S. Mechanistic Aspects of Microbe-Mediated Nanoparticle Synthesis. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Vetchinkina, E.; Loshchinina, E.; Kupryashina, M.; Burov, A.; Pylaev, T.; Nikitina, V. Green synthesis of nanoparticles with extracellular and intracellular extracts of basidiomycetes. PeerJ 2018, 6, e5237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Torabian, P.; Ghandehari, F.; Fatemi, M. Biosynthesis of iron oxide nanoparticles by cytoplasmic extracts of bacteria lactobacillus casei. Asian J. Green Chem. 2018, 2, 181–188. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kianpour, S.; Ebrahiminezhad, A.; Deyhimi, M.; Negahdaripour, M.; Raee, M.J.; Mohkam, M.; Rezaee, H.; Irajie, C.; Berenjian, A.; Ghasemi, Y. Structural characterization of polysaccharide-coated iron oxide nanoparticles produced by Staphylococcus warneri, isolated from a thermal spring. J. Basic Microbiol. 2019, 59, 569–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sundaram, P.A.; Augustine, R.; Kannan, M. Extracellular biosynthesis of iron oxide nanoparticles by Bacillus subtilis strains isolated from rhizosphere soil. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 2012, 17, 835–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bharde, A.A.; Parikh, R.Y.; Baidakova, M.; Jouen, S.; Hannoyer, B.; Enoki, T.; Prasad, B.; Shouche, Y.S.; Ogale, S.; Sastry, M.J.L. Bacteria-Mediated precursor-dependent biosynthesis of superparamagnetic iron oxide and iron sulfide nanoparticles. Langmuir 2008, 24, 5787–5794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Rosenfeldt, S.; Mickoleit, F.; Jörke, C.; Clement, J.H.; Markert, S.; Jérôme, V.; Schwarzinger, S.; Freitag, R.; Schüler, D.; Uebe, R.; et al. Towards standardized purification of bacterial magnetic nanoparticles for future in vivo applications. Acta Biomater. 2021, 120, 293–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Alphandéry, E. Applications of magnetosomes synthesized by magnetotactic bacteria in medicine. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2014, 2, 5. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  28. De França Bettencourt, G.M.; Degenhardt, J.; Torres, L.A.Z.; de Andrade Tanobe, V.O.; Soccol, C.R. Green biosynthesis of single and bimetallic nanoparticles of iron and manganese using bacterial auxin complex to act as plant bio-fertilizer. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2020, 30, 101822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Byrne, J.; Telling, N.; Coker, V.; Pattrick, R.; Van Der Laan, G.; Arenholz, E.; Tuna, F.; Lloyd, J.R. Control of nanoparticle size, reactivity and magnetic properties during the bioproduction of magnetite by Geobacter sulfurreducens. Nanotechnology 2011, 22, 455709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  30. Raĭkher, Y.L.; Stepanov, V.; Stolyar, S.; Ladygina, V.; Balaev, D.; Ishchenko, L.; Balasoiu, M. Magnetic properties of biomineral particles produced by bacteria Klebsiella oxytoca. Phys. Solid State 2010, 52, 298–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fani, M.; Ghandehari, F.; Rezaee, M.; Sciences, C. Biosynthesis of iron oxide nanoparticles by cytoplasmic extract of bacteria Lactobacillus Fermentum. J. Med. Chem. Sci. 2018, 1, 28–30. [Google Scholar]
  32. Zaki, S.A.; Eltarahony, M.M.; Abd-El-Haleem, D.A. Disinfection of water and wastewater by biosynthesized magnetite and zerovalent iron nanoparticles via NAP-NAR enzymes of Proteus mirabilis 10B. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 23661–23678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Crespo, K.A.; Baronetti, J.L.; Quinteros, M.A.; Páez, P.L.; Paraje, M.G. Intra-and extracellular biosynthesis and characterization of iron nanoparticles from prokaryotic microorganisms with anticoagulant activity. Pharm. Res. 2017, 34, 591–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Das, K.R.; Kerkar, S. Biosynthesis of iron nanoparticles by sulphate reducing bacteria and its application in remediating chromium from water. Int. J. Pharma Bio Sci. 2017, 8, 538–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Desai, M.P.; Pawar, K.D. Immobilization of cellulase on iron tolerant Pseudomonas stutzeri biosynthesized photocatalytically active magnetic nanoparticles for increased thermal stability. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2020, 106, 110169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Daneshvar, M.; Hosseini, M.R. From the iron boring scraps to superparamagnetic nanoparticles through an aerobic biological route. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 357, 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Hashimoto, H.; Yokoyama, S.; Asaoka, H.; Kusano, Y.; Ikeda, Y.; Seno, M.; Takada, J.; Fujii, T.; Nakanishi, M.; Murakami, R. Characteristics of hollow microtubes consisting of amorphous iron oxide nanoparticles produced by iron oxidizing bacteria, Leptothrix ochracea. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2007, 310, 2405–2407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Habibi, N. Immobilization of bacterial S-layer proteins from Caulobacter crescentus on iron oxide-based nanocomposite: Synthesis and spectroscopic characterization of zincite-coated Fe2O3 nanoparticles. Spectrochim. Acta Part A 2014, 125, 359–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Kim, Y.; Lee, Y.; Roh, Y. Microbial synthesis of iron sulfide (FeS) and iron carbonate (FeCO3) nanoparticles. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2015, 15, 5794–5797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Haikarainen, T.; Paturi, P.; Lindén, J.; Haataja, S.; Meyer-Klaucke, W.; Finne, J.; Papageorgiou, A.C. Magnetic properties and structural characterization of iron oxide nanoparticles formed by Streptococcus suis Dpr and four mutants. J. Biol. Inorg. Chem. 2011, 16, 799–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Jajan, L.H.-G.; Hosseini, S.N.; Ghorbani, M.; Mousavi, S.F.; Ghareyazie, B.; Abolhassani, M. Effects of environmental conditions on high-yield magnetosome production by Magnetospirillum gryphiswaldense MSR-1. Iran. Biomed. J. 2019, 23, 209. [Google Scholar]
  42. Elcey, C.; Kuruvilla, A.T.; Thomas, D. Synthesis of magnetite nanoparticles from optimized iron reducing bacteria isolated from iron ore mining sites. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2014, 3, 408–417. [Google Scholar]
  43. Dlamini, N.G.; Basson, A.K.; Pullabhotla, R.V. Wastewater treatment by a polymeric bioflocculant and iron nanoparticles synthesized from a bioflocculant. Polymers 2020, 12, 1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Abdeen, M.; Sabry, S.; Ghozlan, H.; El-Gendy, A.A.; Carpenter, E.E. Microbial-physical synthesis of Fe and Fe3O4 magnetic nanoparticles using Aspergillus niger YESM1 and supercritical condition of ethanol. J. Nanomater. 2016, 2016, 9174891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  45. Sidkey, N. Biosynthesis, Characterization And Antimicrobial Activity Of Iron Oxide Nanoparticles Synthesized By Fungi. Al-Azhar J. Pharm. Sci. 2020, 62, 164–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Baskar, G.; Chandhuru, J.; Praveen, A.; Fahad, K.S. Technology. Anticancer activity of iron oxide nanobiocomposite of fungal asparaginase. Int. J. Mod. Sci. Technol. 2017, 2, 98–104. [Google Scholar]
  47. Mahanty, S.; Bakshi, M.; Ghosh, S.; Chatterjee, S.; Bhattacharyya, S.; Das, P.; Das, S.; Chaudhuri, P.J. Green synthesis of iron oxide nanoparticles mediated by filamentous fungi isolated from Sundarban mangrove ecosystem, India. BioNanoScience 2019, 9, 637–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Adeleye, T.; Kareem, S.; Kekere-Ekun, A. Optimization Studies on Biosynthesis of Iron Nanoparticles using Rhizopus Stolonifer. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Ogbomoso, Nigeria, 22–24 October 2019; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; Volume 805, p. 012037. [Google Scholar]
  49. Vainshtein, M.; Belova, N.; Kulakovskaya, T.; Suzina, N.; Sorokin, V. Synthesis of magneto-sensitive iron-containing nanoparticles by yeasts. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 41, 657–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Baccile, N.; Noiville, R.; Stievano, L.; Van Bogaert, I. Sophorolipids-Functionalized iron oxide nanoparticles. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2013, 15, 1606–1620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  51. Tarafdar, J.C.; Raliya, R. Rapid, low-cost, and ecofriendly approach for iron nanoparticle synthesis using Aspergillus oryzae TFR9. J. Nanoparticles 2013, 2013, 141274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  52. Mazumdar, H.; Haloi, N. A study on biosynthesis of iron nanoparticles by Pleurotus sp. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Res. 2011, 1, 39–49. [Google Scholar]
  53. Bharde, A.; Rautaray, D.; Bansal, V.; Ahmad, A.; Sarkar, I.; Yusuf, S.M.; Sanyal, M.; Sastry, M.J.S. Extracellular biosynthesis of magnetite using fungi. Small 2006, 2, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bhargava, A.; Jain, N.; Barathi, M.; Akhtar, M.S.; Yun, Y.-S.; Panwar, J. Synthesis, Characterization and Mechanistic Insights of Mycogenic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles. In Nanotechnology for Sustainable Development; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 337–348. [Google Scholar]
  55. Li, Q.; Liu, D.; Wang, T.; Chen, C.; Gadd, G.M. Iron coral: Novel fungal biomineralization of nanoscale zerovalent iron composites for treatment of chlorinated pollutants. Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 402, 126263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kareem, S.; Adeleye, T.; Ojo, R. Effects of pH, Temperature and Agitation on the Biosynthesis of Iron Nanoparticles Produced by Trichoderma Species. In Proceedings of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Ogbomoso, Nigeria, 22–24 October 2019; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; p. 012036. [Google Scholar]
  57. Jeevanandam, J.; Barhoum, A.; Chan, Y.S.; Dufresne, A.; Danquah, M.K. Review on nanoparticles and nanostructured materials: History, sources, toxicity and regulations. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2018, 9, 1050–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  58. Arora, S.K.; Porter, A.L.; Youtie, J.; Shapira, P. Capturing new developments in an emerging technology: An updated search strategy for identifying nanotechnology research outputs. Scientometrics 2013, 95, 351–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Samrot, A.V.; Sahithya, C.S.; Selvarani, J.; Purayil, S.K.; Ponnaiah, P. A review on synthesis, characterization and potential biological applications of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles. Curr. Res. Green Sustain. Chem. 2021, 4, 100042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ahmed, V.; Kumar, J.; Kumar, M.; Chauhan, M.B.; Dahiya, P.; Chauhan, N.S. Functionalised iron nanoparticle–penicillin G conjugates: A novel strategy to combat the rapid emergence of β-lactamase resistance among infectious micro-organism. J. Exp. Nanosci. 2015, 10, 718–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Figure 1. Antibacterial potential of iron nanoparticles (INPs). (1) Cell wall destruction via interfering the normal homeostasis; (2) Cell membrane damage is caused by disorientation of the lipid bilayer via ROS production; (3) Ion channel misconfiguration occurs when transporter proteins are damaged; (4) Enzyme physiology is disrupted via inhibition of their catalytic domains; (5) Nucleic acid is damaged leading to fragmentation of DNA and RNA; (6) Biomolecules disruption occurs, in particular, in proteins and NPs; (7) Proteins denaturation via ROS; and (8) Organelles damage, in particular, mesomes.
Figure 1. Antibacterial potential of iron nanoparticles (INPs). (1) Cell wall destruction via interfering the normal homeostasis; (2) Cell membrane damage is caused by disorientation of the lipid bilayer via ROS production; (3) Ion channel misconfiguration occurs when transporter proteins are damaged; (4) Enzyme physiology is disrupted via inhibition of their catalytic domains; (5) Nucleic acid is damaged leading to fragmentation of DNA and RNA; (6) Biomolecules disruption occurs, in particular, in proteins and NPs; (7) Proteins denaturation via ROS; and (8) Organelles damage, in particular, mesomes.
Nanomaterials 12 00130 g001
Figure 2. Anticancer potential of microbes mediated Nanoparticles. (1), (2), (5), and (6) Iron nanoparticles interfere with organelles and enzymes functioning, particularly in mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, and Golgi bodies via reactive oxygen species (ROS) production and induces apoptosis. (3) Ion channel blockage leads to death of cancerous cells. (4) INPs kills cancerous cells by breaking nucleic acids, particularly in DNA. (8) Membrane polarity is disturbed.
Figure 2. Anticancer potential of microbes mediated Nanoparticles. (1), (2), (5), and (6) Iron nanoparticles interfere with organelles and enzymes functioning, particularly in mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, and Golgi bodies via reactive oxygen species (ROS) production and induces apoptosis. (3) Ion channel blockage leads to death of cancerous cells. (4) INPs kills cancerous cells by breaking nucleic acids, particularly in DNA. (8) Membrane polarity is disturbed.
Nanomaterials 12 00130 g002
Table 1. Bacterial mediated Iron nanoparticles.
Table 1. Bacterial mediated Iron nanoparticles.
S.noSpeciesLocation of SynthesisCharacterizationFunctional Group
Involved in Reduction
ShapeSize (nm)Ref
1Actinobacter sp. ExtracellularTEM, XRD, and FTIRFe–O bondCrystal50[25]
2Shewanella oneidensisNRTEM, XRD, and AFMNRPseudo-hexagonal shape11, 30, 99 [11]
3Magnetospirillum gryphiswaldenseExtracellularDLS, TEM, SAXS, and FTIRNRPolydispersed25–55[26]
4Magnetotactic bacteriaIntracellularTEMNRSpherical25–50[27]
5Paenibacillus polymyxaNRTEM, FTIR, and UV-VisO–H, C–H, CO2NH3, C=O, C=C, and N–HSpherical26.65[28]
6Geobacter
sulfurreducens
ExtracellularPXRD and TEMNRNR10–50[29]
7Klebsiella OxytocaNR----NRNR2–5[30]
8Lactobacillus FermentumIntracellularXRD and TEMNRSpherical10–15[31]
9Gluconacetobacter xylinusIntracellularSEMNRNR50[16]
10Proteus mirabilisNRXRD, EDX, TEM, UV-Vis, and Zeta sizerNRSpherical1.44–1.92[32]
11Escherichia coliExtracellularFESEM, EDX, TEM, and UV-VisNRSpherical23[33]
Pseudomonas aeruginosaExtracellularFESEM, EDX, TEM, and UV-VisNRSpherical23[33]
12Desulfotomacculum acetoxidansNRSEM-EDS and XRDNRNR21[34]
13Pseudomonas stutzeriNRXRD, FTIRUV-Vis, SEM, and TEMO–H, C–H, Fe–O, C=C, and N–HNR10–20[35]
14DesulfovibrioNRTEM, XRD, and FTIRNRNR19[34]
15Bacillus subtilisExtracellularFE-SEM, TEM, XRD, FTIR, DLS, and VSMO–H, C–H, Fe–O, C=C, and N–HRhombohedral37–97[36]
Bacillus pasteuriiNRFE-SEM, TEM, XRD, FTIR, DLS, and VSMO–H, C–H, Fe–O, C=C, N–HRhombohedral37–97[36]
Bacillus licheniformisNRFE-SEM, TEM, XRD, FTIR, DLS, and VSMO–H, C–H, Fe–O, C=C, and N–HRhombohedral37–97[36]
16Leptothrix ochraceaExtracellularSEM, EDX, and XRDNRhollow tube100[37]
17Caulobacter crescentusNRFE-SEM, XRD, AFM, and EDAXNRSpherical50[38]
18GeobacterspecieNRXRD, SEM-EDX, TEM-EDX, and ICP-AESNRNR50–60[39]
19Streptococcus suisNREXAFS and XRDNRNR----[40]
20Magnetospirillum gryphiswaldenseExtracellularTEMNRNR----[41]
21Thiobacillus thioparusNRSDS PAGE GelNRNR----[42]
22Alcaligenes faecalisExtracellularSEM, EDX, and FTIRHO–NH3NR [43]
Table 3. Microbial species tested against various microbes mediated IONP.
Table 3. Microbial species tested against various microbes mediated IONP.
S.noSpeciesInhibition MethodActivity AgainstRef.
1Proteus vulgarisDisc Diffusion methodSalmonella enterica,
Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholera, Salmonella typhi, and Staphylococcus epidermidis
[18]
2Streptomyces
(SRT12)
Disc Diffusion methodBacillus subtilis, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Shigella flexneri,
and Escherichia coli.
[17]
3Proteus mirabilisWell-diffusion methodE. coli, Salmonella typhi,
P. aeruginosa, Clostridium perfringens, Aspergillus Brasiliensis, and Candida Albicans
[32]
4Alternaria alternataWell-diffusion methodBacillus subtilis[4]
5Fusarium oxysporumDisc diffusion method Staphylococcusaureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus vulgaris, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Escherichia coli[24]
6Aspergillus flavusDiffusion agar techniqueStaphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Candida albicans, and Aspergillus Fumigatus[45]
7NPs-penicillin G conjugatesDisc Diffusion methodStaphylococcus aureus[60]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nadeem, M.; Khan, R.; Shah, N.; Bangash, I.R.; Abbasi, B.H.; Hano, C.; Liu, C.; Ullah, S.; Hashmi, S.S.; Nadhman, A.; Celli, J. A Review of Microbial Mediated Iron Nanoparticles (IONPs) and Its Biomedical Applications. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 130. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12010130

AMA Style

Nadeem M, Khan R, Shah N, Bangash IR, Abbasi BH, Hano C, Liu C, Ullah S, Hashmi SS, Nadhman A, Celli J. A Review of Microbial Mediated Iron Nanoparticles (IONPs) and Its Biomedical Applications. Nanomaterials. 2022; 12(1):130. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12010130

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nadeem, Muhammad, Rijma Khan, Nausheen Shah, Ishrat Rehman Bangash, Bilal Haider Abbasi, Christophe Hano, Chunzhao Liu, Sana Ullah, Syed Salman Hashmi, Akhtar Nadhman, and Jonathan Celli. 2022. "A Review of Microbial Mediated Iron Nanoparticles (IONPs) and Its Biomedical Applications" Nanomaterials 12, no. 1: 130. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12010130

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop