Next Article in Journal
Barriers and Facilitators in the Implementation of a Syndromic Antibiogram for Pediatric Patients Hospitalized in Maputo, Mozambique: A Qualitative Study Using the Dynamic Adaptation Process (DAP) Framework
Previous Article in Journal
Bloodstream Infections Due to Carbapenemase-Producing Escherichia coli: A Comprehensive Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Engineering of a Novel Amphibian Skin Peptide Isolated from Agua Rica Leaf Frog (Callimedusa ecuatoriana) into Active Antimicrobial Agents
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 15
Issue 2
10.3390/antibiotics15020177
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Liposomal Encapsulation Reduces the Cytotoxic Effects of Gramicidin S in Monolayer and Spheroid Fibroblast Cultures

by
Ihor Perepelytsia
1,
Galyna Bozhok
2,
Volodymyr Berest
1,*,
Valentina Gallo
3,
Marco Pizzi
3,
Larysa Sichevska
1 and
Oleksii Skorokhod
4,*
1
Department of Molecular and Medical Biophysics, School of Radio Physics, Biomedical Electronics and Computer Systems, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, 4 Svobody Sq, 61022 Kharkiv, Ukraine
2
Department of Cryoendocrinology, Institute for Problems of Cryobiology and Cryomedicine of the NAS of Ukraine, 23 Pereyaslavska St., 61016 Kharkiv, Ukraine
3
Advanced Research Unit, ELTEK S.p.A., 15033 Casale Monferrato, Italy
4
Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, University of Turin, Via Accademia Albertina 13, 10123 Turin, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2026, 15(2), 177; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics15020177
Submission received: 27 December 2025 / Revised: 28 January 2026 / Accepted: 4 February 2026 / Published: 6 February 2026
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Gramicidin S (GS) is a cyclic antimicrobial peptide with strong antibacterial activity but significant cytotoxicity toward mammalian cells. This study evaluated GS-induced cytotoxicity in L929 fibroblast cells using both traditional 2D monolayer cultures and more physiologically relevant 3D spheroid models, and assessed whether liposomal encapsulation could mitigate toxicity and improve biocompatibility. Methods: L929 cells were cultured in monolayers and spheroids and treated with free GS or GS encapsulated in liposomes of varying lipid compositions. Cell viability and morphology were evaluated after 24 h of exposure using standard cytotoxicity assays. Results: Control liposomes, regardless of tested lipid type or concentration, showed no adverse effects on cell morphology or viability. Free GS caused pronounced, dose-dependent cytotoxicity in monolayers, decreasing viability to 11.0 ± 1.9% and 0.5 ± 1.1% at 50 and 75 µg/mL, respectively. By contrast, encapsulation in liposomes significantly reduced toxicity (p < 0.05), preserving 80.3–82.2% viability at 75 µg/mL depending on formulation, corresponding to protection factors exceeding 160-fold (80.3% vs. 0.5%). Spheroid cultures showed slightly higher resistance to GS; free GS reduced viability to 2.9%, while liposomal GS preserved it above 84.8%, depending on lipid composition. Conclusions: Liposomal encapsulation effectively reduces GS-induced cytotoxicity, likely by limiting direct membrane disruption. Moreover, spheroid models provide a more physiologically relevant and predictive platform for toxicity testing, while the results support nanoliposomes as a practical delivery strategy to enhance the safety of antimicrobial peptides during preclinical development.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Drug redeployment could be a fast-track strategy for addressing growing challenges such as microbial resistance, malaria, cancer treatment, and protein-folding diseases [1,2,3,4,5]. By improving drug delivery through appropriate vehicles or encapsulation strategies, it may be possible to broaden the therapeutic applicability of already approved drugs or active pharmaceutical ingredients, thereby reducing the need for prolonged and costly clinical trials focused on long-term safety and severe adverse effects [6,7,8].
One class of evolutionarily proven self-defense substances, antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), due to their unique structure and nonspecific mechanism of action, exhibit a range of additional beneficial effects with potential anti-inflammatory, anticancer, radioprotective, and cryoprotective properties [9,10].
Gramicidin S (GS), an antimicrobial cyclic peptide composed of 10 L- and D-amino acid residues and derived from Bacillus brevis, exhibits potent antibiotic activity [11,12]. The molecular mechanism by which GS disrupts cell membranes has been extensively studied. GS disrupts cell membranes through direct binding to the lipid bilayers of bacterial and eukaryotic cells. This interaction is primarily entropy-driven, with GS localized beneath the polar headgroup region of the membrane and its polar groups oriented toward the aqueous phase. The membranotropic activity of GS is determined by its amphiphilic structure: positively charged L-ornithine residues are located on one side of the molecule, while hydrophobic D-phenylalanine residues occupy the opposite side [13]. Electrostatic interactions with negatively charged bacterial lipids facilitate peptide insertion into the membrane, resulting in increased lipid cross-sectional area, reduced acyl-chain ordering, and bilayer thinning, which promotes pore formation and membrane lysis, similarly to other gramicidins [14]. Nuclear magnetic resonance 31P-NMR and X-ray diffraction studies demonstrate that GS induces phospholipid bilayer thinning at low concentrations and promotes the formation of non-lamellar phases at higher concentrations [15,16]. At micromolar concentrations, GS alters the transmembrane potential and impairs eukaryotic cell viability [17]. In addition to pore formation, GS can induce lipid phase segregation, leading to delocalization of essential membrane proteins and inhibition of cellular processes [18].
The available values for the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of GS range from 3 to 10 µg/mL [12]. Similar values have been reported for the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) [19,20]. GS also exhibits activity against certain pathogenic fungi, such as Candida spp., with a minimum fungicidal concentration (MFC) of approximately 200 µg/mL [12,21]. The promising antibacterial activity of GS is, unfortunately, associated with notable cytotoxicity toward eukaryotic cells [19]. GS exerts significant hemolytic toxicity and nephrotoxicity at concentrations of approximately 10 µg/mL and more [19,22]. The hemolytic effect of GS has been widely recognized since early studies [23]. In addition, GS has been shown to induce platelet disaggregation [24]; kinetic light-scattering analyses suggest that this process involves the detachment and dissociation of individual inactivated platelets from the surface of platelet aggregates. Furthermore, GS reduces the adhesive behavior of specific cell types and inhibits proliferation in multiple malignant cell lines [25]. While these effects are indicative of toxicity, they also point to a potential utility of GS as an antitumor agent; however, its pronounced adverse toxicity necessitates careful and cautious evaluation.
Liposomal nanocontainers are widely employed in targeted therapeutic applications, including cancer, antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and gene-based treatments, owing to their high biocompatibility and natural biodegradability [1,3,8,26,27]. Their well-defined physicochemical properties and predictable membrane behavior enable the design of controlled lipid-based systems for the efficient transport of bioactive compounds. Dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine (DPPC) is a widely distributed phospholipid and a major structural component of biological membranes. Owing to its bilayer-forming properties, DPPC is commonly used in the preparation of liposomal systems. The incorporation of cholesterol (CHOL) into DPPC-based bilayers is known to reduce membrane fluidity and permeability while enhancing overall membrane stability [28,29]. Cardiolipin (CL), a phospholipid characteristic of bacterial and mitochondrial membranes, is frequently employed to introduce negative surface charge into lipid assemblies. Modulating the cardiolipin content during liposome formulation enables controlled adjustment of surface electrostatic properties, such as the zeta potential [30,31]. These lipid characteristics can be strategically exploited to design lipid-based delivery systems optimized for specific biomedical applications. In particular, we tested different combinations and ratios of DPPC, CL, and CHOL for liposome preparation and characterization. Liposomes were characterized in terms of stability, surface charge, size, and other physicochemical properties using biochemical and biophysical methods, and the results have been previously reported [29]. The interaction between the liposomes and the carried drug, GS, was also investigated and reported [29,31]. In the present study, we performed our analysis of four types of liposomes, ranging from simple DPPC liposomes to more complex formulations composed of DPPC, CL, and CHOL in the most promising ratios identified in previous studies [31].
In this study, the antimicrobial peptide GS was investigated in its bound form to liposomal nanocarriers, designed to enhance GS delivery and, importantly, reduce its cytotoxicity. Various liposomal formulations, including those containing cardiolipin or cholesterol, have previously been evaluated for their interaction with GS [29,31]. In model membranes, GS exhibits a higher affinity for negatively charged lipids than for zwitterionic or neutral phospho- and glycolipids, with reduced interaction in the presence of cholesterol [29]. After insertion into the bilayer, GS preferentially associates with interfacial regions, perturbing lipid packing and compromising membrane integrity. As a result, GS disrupts liquid-crystalline bilayers and enhances nonspecific permeability in both model and biological membranes [15,16]. At low concentrations, GS induces bilayer thinning, whereas at higher concentrations it promotes the formation of inverted nonlamellar cubic phases in phospholipid dispersions [29,31]. In this study, in addition to our previous work that mostly focused on the biochemical and biophysical properties of liposomal formulations, we investigate the biological effects of liposome-encapsulated GS.
The L929 fibroblast cell line was used in this study to compare the toxicity of liposome-carried GS with that of free GS. This cell line is widely employed in compound toxicity and biocompatibility assays [32] in accordance with International Organization for Standardization, ISO 10993-5 and ISO 10993-12 guidelines. L929 cells can grow as confluent monolayers or be cultured into 3D spheroid structures, which more accurately mimic the complex, three-dimensional architecture of tissues and tumors [33,34].
The aim of this study was to assess the extent of interaction between GS-loaded liposomes and both monolayer cultures and three-dimensional spheroids, based on the hypothesis that liposomal encapsulation and lipid composition critically modulate GS–cell interactions and thereby reduce GS-induced cytotoxicity. We investigated how variations in liposomal composition influence cellular adhesion and viability. These analyses provide insight into liposome–cell interactions across different cellular architectures, supporting the rational optimization of GS-liposomal formulations to improve biocompatibility and therapeutic efficacy in biomedical applications.

2. Results

2.1. Effects of GS-Free Control Liposomes on Cells

Liposomes, previously investigated by our team as potential carriers for GS, must first be evaluated for their inherent effects on cellular function, independent of any pharmaceutical loading, under the assumption of a neutral baseline activity. Given their ability to fuse with the cell surface membrane, liposomes may induce localized alterations in membrane composition and structure, which could influence key cellular processes such as viability and adhesion. These effects could be particularly dependent on the lipid composition and concentration of the liposomes.
Therefore, in the initial phase of this study, we assessed the impact of various lipid formulations and concentrations of unloaded (control “pure”) liposomes on fundamental cellular behaviors—specifically viability and monolayer confluence.
Morphologically, following 24-h incubation with pure liposomes, no significant changes were observed in the visual structure of L929 cells cultivated as a monolayer, regardless of liposome concentration or lipid composition. A representative image of L929 cells incubated with DPPC/CL/CHOL liposomes (85/5/10 mol%) is shown in Figure 1a. The cellular morphology was predominantly oval or polygonal (Figure 1a,b). The cells contained a clearly visible nucleus with one or several nucleoli. Nuclei appeared round, with a homogeneous structure and no signs of fragmentation. Cells undergoing mitosis were also visible in the field of view (Figure 1a,b).
To assess the effect of liposomal lipid composition on cellular viability, cells were incubated for 24 h with liposomes of distinct lipid profiles, and viability percentages were subsequently quantified (Table 1). Cell condition was assessed through fluorescein diacetate/ethidium bromide (FDA/EB) staining for viability. Liposome treatment for 24 h, across all tested lipid compositions and liposome quantity, did not reduce the viability of L929 cells nor cause their detachment from the culture surface. Monolayer cell viability remained consistently 98.5–99.8% (Table 1), closely matching the control untreated cells, which were previously established and referenced as having 100% viability. These results indicate no significant deviation from the control benchmark. Based on these results, a liposomal suspension volume of 400 µL was selected for subsequent experiments, and in control conditions where liposomes were not added, the total volume was normalized to ensure equivalence across all experimental conditions.

2.2. Effects of GS on Cells in Monolayer Culture

In the subsequent phase, cell viability in the L929 cell line was assessed following incubation with free GS at concentrations of 10, 25, 50, and 75 µg/mL. While treatment with 10 and 25 µg/mL resulted in a slight reduction in cell viability during 1-h exposition, exposure to 50 and 75 µg/mL induced strong statistically significant decline, with viability dropping to 18.6 ± 2.9% and 1.9 ± 1.6%, respectively (Table 2). For 24 incubation time, cell viability decreased to 11.0 ± 1.9% and 0.5 ± 1.1% at GS concentrations of 50 and 75 µg/mL, respectively.

2.3. Effects of GS-Loaded Liposomes on Cells in Monolayer Culture

In the next phase, the viability of L929 cells was analyzed following incubation with liposomes of various lipid compositions loaded with GS at concentrations of 10, 25, 50, and 75 µg/mL, and viability was assessed using FDA/EB staining. The results indicated that liposomes loaded with the GS at 10 and 25 µg/mL did not significantly affect cell viability. However, treatment with liposomes containing GS at concentrations of 50 and 75 µg/mL led to a slight decrease in cell viability, depending on the composition of the liposomes (Table 3). For example, for more complex liposomes, contained DPPC/CL/CHOL, the 50 and 75 µg/mL of GS decreased vitality to 79.0 ± 15.1% and 80.3 ± 9.2% correspondingly (Table 3), representing a reduction of approximately 20% compared to the intact control liposomes (Table 1).
The partial impact on L929 cells following treatment with liposome-encapsulated GS was significantly lower compared to the pronounced cytotoxic effect observed with free GS (Table 2). At a concentration of 50 µg/mL, cell viability was 7.2-fold higher with liposomal GS (79.0%) than with free GS (11.0%), while at 75 µg/mL, viability was improved by 160.6-fold (80.3% vs. 0.5%, Table 2 and Table 3), highlighting the protective role of liposomal delivery in mitigating GS-induced toxicity.
Following the viability assays, the proliferative capacity of L929 monolayer cells was evaluated by assessing monolayer confluence. At GS concentrations of 10 µg/mL and 25 µg/mL, a slight reduction in monolayer confluence was observed across all liposome formulations (Table 4). However, monolayer confluence was notably affected at higher GS concentrations (Table 4). In liposomes composed of DPPC/CL/CHOL with 50 and 75 µg/mL GS, confluence significantly declined to 71.6 ± 5.0% and 69.0 ± 11.2%, respectively (Table 4), indicating an approximate 30% reduction compared to the control sample without GS (Table 4, first column).

2.4. Effects of GS on Cells in Spheroid Culture

At next step, we developed and tested spheroid forms of L9292 cells to establish a more complex, organism-like cellular model and to evaluate the three-dimensional mode of interaction between carrier liposomes and cells. Liposomes of varying compositions were added to the spheroids and incubated for 1–24 h. As shown in Figure 2, no significant changes in the structural integrity of the spheroids were observed after treatment with control GS-free liposomes. No signs of spheroid destruction were detected; they retained their rounded shape. The morphology of cells migrating from the spheroids was typical of the L9292 cell line, displaying a single well-defined nucleus with one or more nucleoli. The nuclei were round, homogeneous in structure, and showed no signs of fragmentation.
Structural (morphological) observations of spheroids treated with free GS revealed only minor, non-significant changes after 1 h of exposure at concentrations of 10 and 25 µg/mL. In contrast, treatment with GS at higher concentrations elicited pronounced toxic responses in L929 cells already after 1 h: cell morphology was changed and cell viability dropped to 34.8 ± 18.7% for 50 µg/mL GS (Table 5). A 24-h treatment with GS further significantly reduced cell viability in spheroids to 34.5 ± 15.8%, 18.1 ± 12.0%, 5.3 ± 5.6%, and 2.9 ± 3.8% following exposure to 10, 12, 50, and 75 µg/mL GS, respectively (Table 5).

2.5. Effects of GS-Loaded Liposomes on Cells in Spheroid Culture

Finally, we assessed the viability of L929 cells cultured as spheroids following treatment with liposome-encapsulated GS to evaluate whether liposomal delivery could mitigate GS-induced toxicity. Across all tested lipid compositions and GS concentrations, liposome-carried GS caused only minimal, non-significant effect on the cell viability (Table 6). For instance, liposomes composed solely of DPPC and loaded with 75 µg/mL GS reduced viability from 92.9 ± 6.1% to 84.8 ± 7.8%, without statistical significance. Liposomes of more complex composition (DPPC/CL/CHOL) at the same GS concentration showed also no viability reduction, with values of 89.2 ± 6.9% and 89.9 ± 0.8%, respectively (Table 6).
The study of GS effects at various concentrations on the viability of L929 cell lines revealed strong differences in cellular responses to the GS depending on culture conditions. Cells grown in monolayers exhibited high sensitivity to GS and cells forming spheroids showed greater resistance to GS. These results highlight the potential advantages of three-dimensional (3D) cultures over two-dimensional (2D) cultures in supporting cell survival under antimicrobial exposure, and highlight the relevance of culture format in future GS-related research across varying cellular microenvironments.

3. Discussion

Two-dimensional cell cultures are widely used in cytotoxicity studies due to their simplicity, but they have notable limitations, including a monolayer structure, restricted cell–cell interactions, and greater exposure to nutrients and oxygen than in vivo conditions [35,36]. The 3D models help address these limitations by better mimicking intercellular connections and communication. Consequently, spheroid-based 3D cultures provide more accurate predictions of pharmacological treatment outcomes than 2D models [37,38]. We applied both cellular models to evaluate the cytotoxic effects of the free and encapsulated GS.
In this study, we reported a significant reduction in the cytotoxicity of GS toward L929 fibroblast cells when GS was delivered in liposomal form. To support cell viability, we demonstrated that at 50 µg/mL, GS-liposomes with a more complex DPPC/CL/CHOL composition preserved 2D-cultured L929 cell viability at 79.0%, compared to just 11.0% with free GS. This pronounced difference suggests that liposomal encapsulation reduces direct cellular exposure to GS by altering its interaction with the cell membrane. The liposomal carrier likely promotes a diffuse kinetic of GS release, resulting in a slower, more homogeneous distribution of the active compound over time rather than an immediate high local concentration. Such a release profile may act as a protective barrier, mitigating acute cytotoxic effects while maintaining bioavailability. Zeta potential plays a crucial role in the activity of free antimicrobial peptides by governing their electrostatic interactions with target cells and membranes, whereas liposomal formulation markedly alters surface charge and, consequently, modulates AMP–target interactions, particularly during the initial contact phase. In the present study, the precise mechanisms underlying GS interactions with cellular membranes were not directly investigated; elucidating these processes will constitute an important focus of our future research.
At a GS concentration of 75 µg/mL, cell viability was 80.3% with liposomal GS, but drastically dropped to just 0.5% with free GS. This remarkable protection factor (160.6-fold) highlights the ability of liposomal encapsulation to mitigate the threshold-dependent cytotoxicity of free GS by attenuating its rapid membrane-disruptive effects [39]. Proliferative properties were assessed by measuring monolayer confluence (Table 4). At GS concentrations of 10–15 µg/mL, only a slight effect on cell adhesion and proliferation was observed across all liposome formulations, whereas higher GS concentrations led to a more pronounced reduction in cell confluency. These changes may indicate the onset of early cellular stress responses, potentially involving focal adhesion–associated proteins such as integrins, focal adhesion kinase, and paxillin, which are critical for cell–substrate attachment and mechanotransduction [40,41]. In parallel, alterations in actin cytoskeletal dynamics, including remodeling of F-actin, and modulation of actin-regulatory proteins such as cofilin or Rho GTPases, may contribute to the observed effects [42,43]. Even when GS is delivered in liposomal form, these responses could reflect transient changes in cell surface receptor expression, membrane lipid organization, or downstream signaling pathways (e.g., FAK–PI3K–Akt or MAPK signaling), ultimately affecting cell spreading and proliferation without inducing overt cytotoxicity [9,11,30,44]. These mechanisms represent promising avenues for future investigation and will be explored in subsequent studies.
The effects of GS on fibroblast spheroid models showed a similar trend. The pronounced toxicity of free GS was markedly attenuated when GS was delivered via liposomal carriers. Free GS resulted in cell viabilities of 34.5 and 18.1% at concentrations of 10 and 25 µg/mL, respectively, with near-complete loss of viability at 50 and 75 µg/mL. In contrast, liposomal GS provided strong cytoprotection across all tested concentrations. Notably, at 75 µg/mL, liposomal formulations restored cell viability to levels ranging from 84.8% to 94.7%, depending on lipid composition. The results obtained with liposomal formulations of GS do not increase its intrinsic antimicrobial activity but significantly enhance its practical therapeutic potential by expanding the safety margin. Liposomal encapsulation markedly reduces GS-induced cytotoxicity toward mammalian cells, the main limitation to its clinical application, thereby enabling the use of high antimicrobial concentrations that would otherwise be restricted by toxicity and improving the overall therapeutic index.
The exact mechanism of action of GS and its liposomal formulation remains to be fully elucidated. It is evident that the initial interaction of GS with the cell membrane triggers a cascade of structural changes [14,39], ranging from subtle regulatory alterations to rapid membrane disruption at higher GS concentrations as described in Introduction section. Liposomal encapsulation effectively reduces GS-induced cytotoxicity, likely by limiting direct membrane disruption. In addition, the effect of GS on Na+/K+-ATPase has been reported [45]. Although this effect is less pronounced than that observed for gramicidin A, it may nonetheless contribute to GS-induced cytotoxicity. GS can also affect mitochondrial membranes by increasing their permeability to alkali metal cations, leading to uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation, altered respiration, and mitochondrial swelling, indicative of disrupted membrane integrity and ion gradients [46]. Such mitochondrial damage is plausibly accompanied by oxidative stress and lipid peroxidation, resulting in oxidative modification and functional impairment of proteins, as demonstrated for other gramicidins and membrane-active toxic compounds [47,48]. Importantly, such effects are likely attenuated in eukaryotic cells when GS is associated with liposomes and therefore represent a plausible mechanistic component that warrants further in-depth investigation. Note that GS release kinetics data are not currently available, as additional studies are required to assess different experimental conditions and liposome interactions with target membranes and cells.
Another critical aspect is the potential of GS to induce oxidative stress, or conversely its susceptibility to free radical mediated damage, which remains unclear and warrants further investigation. GS exposure may influence the intracellular balance of reactive oxygen species, potentially through effects on mitochondrial electron transport chain complexes or activation of NADPH oxidases (NOX1/NOX4). GS has been shown to interact with mitochondrial membranes [46], which may contribute to ROS production. Elevated ROS levels could promote lipid peroxidation of membrane, leading to the formation of reactive aldehydes such as malondialdehyde (MDA) and 4-hydroxynonenal (4-HNE), which are known to disrupt membrane integrity and protein function [49,50,51]. Moreover, some publications fail to specify the exact type of gramicidin used [52], which complicates the interpretation of results.
An emerging perspective in drug delivery emphasizes the repurposing of clinically approved compounds via innovative delivery platforms, optimizing their therapeutic index while circumventing conventional pharmacokinetic limitations. We investigated the effects of the known but only partially characterized antimicrobial peptide GS, administered in both free and liposome-encapsulated formats, on the morphofunctional properties of L929 fibroblast cells cultured under two-dimensional monolayer and three-dimensional spheroid conditions. Unlike two-dimensional cultures, spheroids known to exhibit greater resistance to antitumor agents [53]. This is due to the unique structure of spheroids, where the gradient of substances in the inner region differs from the peripheral one. In addition, the cells of the inner layers of the spheroid are in a dormant state, demonstrating a decrease in oxygen and nutrient consumption. As a result, a population of cells remains in the spheroid center, showing reduced sensitivity to toxic agents compared to peripheral cells. This phenomenon should be taken into account when interpreting research results, as central cells may remain intact, affecting survival outcomes in response to active pharmacological compounds. Since spheroids recapitulate key cellular states associated with tumor metastasis and dissemination, enhancing the sensitivity of spheroid-based cultures to antitumor agents represents a significant experimental and therapeutic challenge. This biological complexity must be carefully accounted for when designing, conducting, and interpreting studies aimed at evaluating treatment efficacy in three-dimensional cellular models.
In future studies, a more comprehensive investigation of DPPC/CL/CHOL formulations for GS delivery is warranted, as this lipid composition is attracting increasing interest for the delivery of various therapeutic agents, including antitumoral anthracyclines [44,54]. At the same time, the expanding scope of antimicrobial peptide applications underscores the growing need for effective delivery systems capable of mitigating cytotoxicity and improving therapeutic performance [7,8,55,56]. The reported results are particularly relevant for the development of safer antimicrobial formulations, including advanced topical applications, localized delivery systems, and, following further validation, potentially systemic administration. In addition, the improved safety profile may broaden the applicability of GS in biomedical contexts where membrane activity is desirable, such as antibiofilm strategies or combination therapies.
Additionally, incorporating specific agents—such as proteolytic enzymes or modulators of gap junctional intercellular communication—into the liposomal formulation appears promising for facilitating drug penetration and extracellular matrix degradation, which is actively synthesized by spheroid cells [57]. By improving GS diffusion through the matrix, this strategy may enhance intratumoral delivery and therapeutic efficacy. Moreover, such an approach could advance our understanding of liposome–spheroid interactions and support the development of more effective drug delivery strategies in three-dimensional cellular models.

4. Materials and Methods

All chemicals were sourced from Merck–Sigma-Aldrich (Darmstadt, Germany) and were of analytical grade or higher purity.

4.1. Preparation and Characterization of Gramicidin S–Containing Liposomes

Liposomes were prepared following the protocol described previously [58], with minor adjustments. Briefly, stock solutions were prepared by dissolving L-α-dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine (DPPC), cardiolipin (CL), and cholesterol (CHOL) in ethanol at concentrations of 100 mg/mL, 5 mg/mL, and 10 mg/mL respectively. These lipids were then blended in ratios: 100% DPPC for pure DPPC liposomes; 95 mol% DPPC and 5 mol% CL for DPPC/CL; 90 mol% DPPC and 10 mol% CHOL for DPPC/CHOL liposomes, and 85 mol% DPPC, 5 mol% CL and 10 mol% CHOL for DPPC/CL/CHOL. To remove any residual organic solvents, the lipid mixture was first subjected to nitrogen drying and then placed under reduced pressure using a rotary vacuum evaporator (Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany) for at least 3 h at 40 °C. This process ensured the formation of a consistent and well-dehydrated lipid film. The film was hydrated with Hanks’ Balanced Salt Solution (pH 7.4) to yield a liposomal suspension. Lipid membrane extrusion was performed at 45 °C, above the main phase transition temperature of the lipid (Tm approx. 41 °C), to ensure that the bilayer remained in the fluid (liquid-crystalline) phase during hydration and vesicle formation. Extrusion through polycarbonate membranes with a nominal pore size of 100 nm produced liposomes with mean diameters of 80–100 nm and a polydispersity index (PDI) of 0.24, as determined by dynamic light scattering, at a final lipid concentration of 10 mM in aqueous medium. Gramicidin S (GS, PubChem CID: 73357) was dissolved in ethanol and loaded into liposomes. The encapsulation efficiency was 86 ± 5% for the more complex DPPC/CL/CHOL lipid formulation and was comparable for the other lipid formulations under the temperature conditions used in this study. Encapsulation efficiency was determined as the percentage of GS loaded into the liposomes. GS concentration was quantified using a biological activity assay (see Section 4.2). Specifically, the concentration of GS in aliquots collected immediately before addition to the liposome suspension (prior to association) and in the final unbound GS fraction after completion of the association incubation was determined. Note, a systematic investigation of encapsulation efficiency across a broader range of formulation parameters and experimental conditions is currently underway in separated study to establish and further optimize GS loading.
For liposome-carried GS, drug release profiles were studied using the dialysis method in separate study. GS, when spontaneously released from the liposomes, diffused through a dialysis membrane into the release medium (L929 cell culture medium) at 37 °C under gentle stirring. Released GS was quantified using a biological activity assay. For the more complex DPPC/CL/CHOL (85/5/10 mol%) lipid composition, the spontaneous drug release into the medium after 1 h, 24 h, and 48 h was 8.7 ± 3.2%, 15.3 ± 4.2%, and 18.1 ± 6.1%, respectively.
The antibacterial efficacy of liposome-loaded GS was not the primary objective of this study; however, to verify that GS retained antibacterial activity, the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was determined. The MIC values were 2 µg/mL for free GS and 8 µg/mL for DPPC/CL/CHOL liposome-associated GS against E. coli. In present study, the amount of GS encapsulated in liposomes was calculated to yield final concentrations of 10, 25, 50, and 75 µg/mL in the culture medium. All L929 cell treatments were normalized based on the encapsulated GS content, accounting for encapsulation efficiency, to ensure equivalent GS exposure between free and liposomal formulations. The dose range was selected based on the reported hemolytic concentrations of GS, which is approximately 10 µg/mL or higher (19, 22).
Precision during drying, rehydration, and incubation was maintained by weighing samples with a Mettler XP26 microbalance (Mettler-Toledo, Columbus, OH, USA). The zeta potential of liposomes with various compositions under different conditions was examined in our previous work [31]. In particular, the DPPC/CL/CHOL formulation used in this study and identified as the most promising exhibited a zeta potential of −28 ± 3 mV. Liposome stability during storage was investigated in a separate study [31], which demonstrated that the lipid structures remained stable for at least 10 days at 4 °C, while GS was retained within the liposomes in the corresponding cell culture medium for up to 5 days, with leakage below 5%. Nevertheless, in the present study, liposomes were used immediately following preparation.

4.2. Determination of GS Concentration by Biological Activity Assay

The concentration of GS was determined using a biological activity assay. A calibration curve was generated using GS standard solutions ranging from 0 to 200 µg/mL. Escherichia coli (ATCC 25922) was used as the indicator strain. Bacterial cultures were incubated with GS standards in Luria–Bertani (LB) medium at 37 °C with shaking at 180 rpm for defined time intervals (1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 16, and 24 h). After incubation, bacterial growth was evaluated using three independent readout methods: (i) optical density measurement by spectrophotometry at 600 nm (OD600); (ii) colony-forming unit (CFU) enumeration on agar plates; and (iii) imaging analysis, performed using a proprietary device (SmartAst, developed by Eltek S.p.A., Casale Monferrato, Alessandria, Italy). This system consists of a centrifuge equipped with integrated optics combined with a microfluidic device, enabling direct analysis of bacterial proliferation within a short time using very small sample volumes (a few microliters). As described in [59], bacterial growth becomes detectable by this device from the earliest duplication cycles, whereas the kinetics of growth inhibition are determined by the biological characteristics and mode of action of the antibacterial agent. The concordance and reproducibility of all three methods were verified prior to the start of the experiments.

4.3. Cultivation of L929 Cell Line in Mololayer and Spheroid Forms

L929 fibroblast cells were cultivated in DMEM/F12 medium (Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium/Nutrient Mixture F-12; Biowest, Nuaillé, France), supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, along with 50 μg/mL each of penicillin and streptomycin (Biowest, France). Cultures were maintained at 37 °C in a humidified incubator under a 5% CO2 atmosphere. For monolayer formation, cells were seeded into plastic culture flasks (SPL Life Sciences, Republic of Korea) at an initial density of 2 × 105 cells/mL and confluence was reached. To compare confluence values, the confluence of untreated control cell cultures was set as 100%.
Low attachment plates (Corning, CA, USA) were applied for spheroid formation. L929 fibroblast cells were seeded into 6-well plates at an initial density of 2–5 × 105 cells/mL. Initial cell aggregation was observed in the first 3 days, followed by compaction and spheroid formation on the 5th day. Spheroids were cultured for 10–12 days. Half of the nutrient medium was changed every 3 days. Spheroids were collected by centrifugation, filtered through a mesh with a pore diameter of 200 μm to exclude large spheroids then filtered through a mesh with a pore diameter of 30 μm to remove single cells and small cell aggregates. The diameter of the resulting spheroids was 100–200 μm. The representative spheroids are shown in Figure 3. Note, oversized spheroids were excluded from the experimental analysis to ensure experimental consistency and reliability. It is described that when the spheroid size increases beyond a critical diameter, diffusion limitations for oxygen, nutrients, and test compounds become significant. Indeed, large spheroids often develop hypoxic or necrotic cores, which can markedly alter cellular metabolism, viability, and drug sensitivity. Moreover, limited drug penetration into the inner layers of oversized spheroids can lead to heterogeneous exposure, resulting in variable or underestimated treatment effects. This size-dependent heterogeneity increases experimental variability and compromises the comparability of results across samples. Therefore, filtering out large spheroids ensured a more uniform population with predictable diffusion properties, improved reproducibility, and more accurate interpretation of treatment-induced effects.

4.4. Cell Treatment by GS or Liposome-Carried GS

To evaluate the cytotoxic effects of free GS or GS delivered via liposomes, L929 cells were incubated for 1 or 24 h at 37 °C in a CO2-enriched atmosphere. Treatments included either free GS, within a concentration range of 10 to 75 µg/mL, or liposomal formulations containing GS at matching concentrations, prepared using various lipid compositions (see above). For each experimental condition, either 100 or 400 µL of liposome suspension in DMEM/F12 medium was added to each well. To ensure uniform distribution and enhance interaction between the liposomes and the cells, the plates were gently agitated at regular intervals.

4.5. Determination of Cell Viability

To assess cell viability, two fluorescent probes, fluorescein diacetate (FDA) and ethidium bromide (EB), commonly used in molecular biology were employed [60,61,62,63]. FDA is a nonpolar, nonfluorescent molecule that readily crosses the plasma membrane and is hydrolyzed by intracellular esterases in viable cells, releasing fluorescent, polar fluorescein. Fluorescein accumulates within living cells, interacts with intracellular components, and emits green fluorescence at 520 nm upon excitation at 488–490 nm. In contrast, EB penetrates only cells with compromised plasma membranes and binds to double-stranded nucleic acids. Upon DNA binding, ethidium bromide undergoes a shift in its excitation and emission spectra from ultraviolet absorption peaks at approximately 210 nm and 285 nm in solution to longer wavelengths, typically 300–360 nm for excitation and 485–526 nm for emission. Free ethidium bromide fluoresces at around 605 nm, whereas DNA-bound ethidium bromide exhibits a slight blue shift, emitting at approximately 590 nm, and can be efficiently excited at 543 nm. Stained samples were analyzed using a confocal laser scanning microscope (LSM 510 META, Carl Zeiss, Germany), with excitation at 488 nm for FDA and 543 nm for EB, and emission detection at 520 nm and 590 nm, respectively. Cell viability was expressed as a percentage and defined as the ratio of cells exhibiting only green fluorescence to the total number of cells, multiplied by 100%, based on the evaluation of at least 100 high-power fields (HPF). In selected experiments, the MTT assay was additionally performed to confirm the viability data. The viability percentages obtained by the MTT assay were statistically consistent with those determined using the HPF-based method.
For spheroids, to ensure high-quality quantitative analysis of cells within three-dimensional structures, Z-stacks (15 nm intervals) were acquired using a confocal microscope. A representative image is shown in Figure 4 for methodological illustration. The quantification was conducted with LSM Image Examiner (version 3.2, Carl Zeiss, Germany) software, where images in stacks were analyzed in the depth up to 100 µm. The percentage of dead cells was defined as the ratio of cells showing EB positivity, while the percentage of live cells was defined as the ratio of cells showing fluorescein diacetate (FDA) positivity, multiplied by 100%. Cell viability was calculated and presented in the Results as the percentage of live cells.

4.6. Determination of Cell Monolayer Confluence

The confluence of the hematoxylin–eosin-stained monolayer was assessed using a previously described method [25] by scanning the bottom of the well plate with an Epson Perfection V10 scanner (Epson, Nagano, Japan). The relative area occupied by the adherent cell monolayer was quantified using AxioVision Rel. 4.8 software (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) and expressed as a percentage.

4.7. Statistical Analysis

Data from five independent cellular and liposome preparations (biological replicates) are presented in the tables as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Statistical significance was assessed using the Mann–Whitney U test for pairwise comparisons or the Kruskal–Wallis test for overall group comparisons, performed with IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (version 29.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). An asterisk (*) indicates statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.

4.8. Data Sharing Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we investigated the effects of the antimicrobial peptide GS, administered in both free and liposome-encapsulated formats, on the morphofunctional properties of L929 fibroblast cells cultured under two-dimensional monolayer and three-dimensional spheroid conditions. Our findings demonstrated a significant reduction in GS-induced toxicity when delivered via liposomal carriers, particularly in spheroid cultures. These results underscore the potential of liposomal delivery systems to enhance biocompatibility and modulate cellular responses across dimensional culture models that better mimic native tissue architecture.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.B., G.B. L.S. and O.S.; methodology, I.P., L.S., G.B., V.G., M.P. and V.B.; validation, L.S., G.B. and I.P.; formal analysis, L.S., O.S., I.P., G.B. and V.B.; investigation, L.S., G.B., V.G., M.P. and I.P.; resources, V.B.; data curation, L.S., G.B., I.P., O.S. and V.B.; writing— original draft preparation, L.S., G.B. and V.B.; writing—review and editing, O.S. and V.B.; visualization—V.B., G.B. and O.S.; project administration, V.B. and O.S.; funding acquisition, V.B. and O.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine grant 0126U000986.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

V.B. acknowledges financial support from the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine grant “Physical design of nanoplatforms for controlling the bioactivity of antimicrobial peptides”, from Krzysztof Skubiszewski Foundation as part of the program “Urgent Aid for the Preservation of the Research Capabilities of Ukraine” and from the Ukraine Optics and Photonics Researcher Grant, a collaborative initiative by the Nanophotonics journal, De Gruyter, Sciencewise Publishing and the Optica Foundation.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors Valentina Gallo and Marco Pizzi were employed by the company ELTEK S.p.A., Casale Monferrato (AL), Italy. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
4-HNE4-hydroxynonenal
AktProtein kinase B (Akt)
AMPAntimicrobial peptide
CHOLCholesterol
CIDCompound Identifier
CFUColony-forming unit
CLCardiolipin
DMEM/F12Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium/Nutrient Mixture F-12
DPPCDipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine
EBEthidium bromide
FAKFocal adhesion kinase
FDAFluorescein diacetate
GSGramicidin S
HPFHigh-power field
ISOInternational Organization for Standardization
LSMLaser Scanning Microscope
MAPKMitogen-activated protein kinase
MDAMalondialdehyde
NADPHNicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate
NOXNADPH oxidase
ODOptical density
PCPhosphatidylcholine
PDIPolydispersity index
PI3KPhosphoinositide 3-kinase
ROSReactive oxygen species
Rho GTPaseRas homologous guanosine triphosphatase
SDStandard deviation
2DTwo-dimensional
3DThree-dimensional

References

  1. Alsaab, H.O.; Al-Hibs, A.S.; Alzhrani, R.; Alrabighi, K.K.; Alqathama, A.; Alwithenani, A.; Almalki, A.H.; Althobaiti, Y.S. Nanomaterials for Antiangiogenic Therapies for Cancer: A Promising Tool for Personalized Medicine. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 1631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ayi, K.; Giribaldi, G.; Skorokhod, A.; Schwarzer, E.; Prendergast, P.T.; Arese, P. 16alpha-bromoepiandrosterone, an antimalarial analogue of the hormone dehydroepiandrosterone, enhances phagocytosis of ring stage parasitized erythrocytes: A novel mechanism for antimalarial activity. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2002, 46, 3180–3184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  3. Isaev, V.G.; TTs, G.; Skorokhod, A.A.; Parovichnikova, E.N.; Tiurina, N.G.; Kucher, R.A.; Vitvitskiĭ, V.M.; Ataullakhanov, F.I.; Savchenko, V.G. [Immobilized forms of daunorubicin in patients with acute leukemia]. Ter. Arkhiv 1999, 71, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Skorokhod, O.A.; Davalos-Schafler, D.; Gallo, V.; Valente, E.; Ulliers, D.; Notarpietro, A.; Mandili, G.; Novelli, F.; Persico, M.; Taglialatela-Scafati, O.; et al. Oxidative stress-mediated antimalarial activity of plakortin, a natural endoperoxide from the tropical sponge Plakortis simplex. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2015, 89, 624–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Henriques, B.J.; Lucas, T.G.; Gomes, C.M. Pharmacological Chaperones and Proteostasis Modulators in the Therapy of Lysosomal Storage Disorders. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Skorokhod, O.A.; Garmaeva, T.T.; Vitvitsky, V.M.; Isaev, V.G.; Parovichnikova, E.N.; Savchenko, V.G.; Ataullakhanov, F.I. Pharmacokinetics of erythrocyte-bound daunorubicin in patients with acute leukemia. Med. Sci. Monit. 2004, 10, PI55–PI64. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  7. Wang, Y.; Kalyvas, J.T.; Evans, J.D.; Toronjo-Urquiza, L.; Horsley, J.R.; Abell, A.D. Expanding the therapeutic window of gramicidin S towards a safe and effective systemic treatment of methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2025, 283, 117128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. de Oliveira, K.B.S.; Leite, M.L.; Melo, N.T.M.; Lima, L.F.; Barbosa, T.C.Q.; Carmo, N.L.; Melo, D.A.B.; Paes, H.C.; Franco, O.L. Antimicrobial Peptide Delivery Systems as Promising Tools Against Resistant Bacterial Infections. Antibiotics 2024, 13, 1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Gaspar, D.; Veiga, A.S.; Castanho, M.A.R.B. From Antimicrobial to Anticancer Peptides: A Review. Front. Microbiol. 2013, 4, 294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  10. Drayton, M.; Deisinger, J.P.; Ludwig, K.C.; Raheem, N.; Müller, A.; Schneider, T.; Straus, S.K. Host Defense Peptides: Dual Antimicrobial and Immunomodulatory Action. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 11172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gause, G.F.; Brazhnikova, M.G. Gramicidin S and its use in the treatment of infected wounds. Nature 1944, 154, 703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kondejewski, L.H.; Farmer, S.W.; Wishart, D.S.; Hancock, R.E.; Hodges, R.S. Gramicidin S Is Active Against Both Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bacteria. Int. J. Pept. Protein Res. 1996, 47, 460–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Guan, Q.; Huang, S.; Jin, Y.; Campagne, R.; Alezra, V.; Wan, Y. Recent Advances in the Exploration of Therapeutic Analogues of Gramicidin S, an Old but Still Potent Antimicrobial Peptide. J. Med. Chem. 2019, 62, 7603–7617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ovsyannikova, T.M.; Kovalenko, A.O.; Berest, V.P.; Borikov, O.Y. Changes in electrophysical characteristics of red blood cells induced by gramicidin S. Biophys. Bull. 2021, 45, 32–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Prenner, E.J.; Lewis, R.N.; McElhaney, R.N. The interaction of the antimicrobial peptide gramicidin S with lipid bilayer model and biological membranes. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1999, 1462, 201–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Staudegger, E.; Prenner, E.J.; Kriechbaum, M.; Degovics, G.; Lewis, R.N.; McElhaney, R.N.; Lohner, K. X-ray studies on the interaction of the antimicrobial peptide gramicidin S with microbial lipid extracts: Evidence for cubic phase formation. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2000, 1468, 213–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Ashrafuzzaman, M. The Antimicrobial Peptide Gramicidin S Enhances Membrane Adsorption and Ion Pore Formation Potency of Chemotherapy Drugs in Lipid Bilayers. Membranes 2021, 11, 247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wenzel, M.; Rautenbach, M.; Vosloo, J.A.; Siersma, T.; Aisenbrey, C.H.M.; Zaitseva, E.; Laubscher, W.E.; van Rensburg, W.; Behrends, J.C.; Bechinger, B.; et al. The Multifaceted Antibacterial Mechanisms of the Pioneering Peptide Antibiotics Tyrocidine and Gramicidin S. mBio 2018, 9, e00802-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  19. Swierstra, J.; Kapoerchan, V.; Knijnenburg, A.; van Belkum, A.; Overhand, M. Structure, toxicity and antibiotic activity of gramicidin S and derivatives. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2016, 35, 763–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Berditsch, M.; Afonin, S.; Reuster, J.; Lux, H.; Schkolin, K.; Babii, O.; Radchenko, D.S.; Abdullah, I.; William, N.; Middel, V.; et al. Supreme activity of gramicidin S against resistant, persistent and biofilm cells of staphylococci and enterococci. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 17938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hopfer, R.L.; Mehta, R.; Lopez-Berestein, G. Synergistic antifungal activity and reduced toxicity of liposomal amphotericin B combined with gramicidin S or NF. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1987, 31, 1978–1981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Wang, C.; Hong, T.; Cui, P.; Wang, J.; Xia, J. Antimicrobial peptides towards clinical application: Delivery and formulation. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2021, 175, 113818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Herrell, W.E.; Heilman, D. Experimental and clinical studies on gramicidin. J. Clin. Investig. 1941, 20, 583–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  24. Hackl, E.V.; Berest, V.P.; Gatash, S.V. Interaction of polypeptide antibiotic gramicidin S with platelets. J. Pept. Sci. 2012, 18, 748–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Alabedalkarim, N.M.; Berest, V.P.; Moiseieva, N.M.; Bozhok, G.A.; Bondarenko, T.P. The antimicrobial peptide gramicidin S alters proliferation and inhibits adhesion of L929 cell line fibroblasts. Biophys. Bull. 2023, 49, 43–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pashynska, V.A.; Kosevich, M.V. Biophysical investigations of molecular mechanisms of action of chemotherapeutic agents. 2. Antimicrobial and antimalarial agents. Biophys. Bull. 2019, 6, 28–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pashynska, V.A.; Kosevich, M.V.; Kuzema, P.O.; Gomory, A.; Drahos, L. Mass spectrometry study of ascorbyl palmitate as an agent for nanosomes formation. Biophys. Bull. 2023, 49, 20–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Perepelitsa, I.; Berest, V.; Bozhok, G. Study of the Interaction of Antimicrobial Peptides, in Particular Gramicidin S With Cell Membranes. Probl. Cryobiol. Cryomed. 2024, 34, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vashchenko, O.V.; Berest, V.P.; Sviechnikova, L.V.; Kutsevol, N.V.; Kasian, N.A.; Sofronov, D.S.; Skorokhod, O. Modifying Membranotropic Action of Antimicrobial Peptide Gramicidin S by Star-like Polyacrylamide and Lipid Composition of Nanocontainers. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 8691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  30. Smith, M.C.; Crist, R.M.; Clogston, J.D.; McNeil, S.E. Zeta potential: A case study of cationic, anionic, and neutral liposomes. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2017, 409, 5779–5787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Berest, V.; Sichevska, L.; Gorobchenko, O.; Perepelytsia, I.; Bozhok, G.; Skorokhod, O. Lipid Composition of Nanocarriers Shapes Interactions of Cyclic Antimicrobial Peptide Gramicidin S with Their Membranes. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 6946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  32. Cannella, V.; Altomare, R.; Chiaramonte, G.; Di Bella, S.; Mira, F.; Russotto, L.; Pisano, P.; Guercio, A. Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Endodontic Pins on L929 Cell Line. BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 3469525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kapałczyńska, M.; Kolenda, T.; Przybyła, W.; Zajączkowska, M.; Teresiak, A.; Filas, V.; Ibbs, M.; Bliźniak, R.; Łuczewski, Ł.; Lamperska, K. 2D and 3D cell cultures—A comparison of different types of cancer cell cultures. Arch. Med. Sci. 2018, 14, 910–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  34. Ehrhart, F.; Schulz, J.C.; Katsen-Globa, A.; Shirley, S.G.; Reuter, D.; Bach, F.; Zimmer-mann, U.; Zimmermann, H. A comparative study of freezing single cells and sphe-roids: Towards a new model system for optimizing freezing protocols for cryobank-ing of human tumours. Cryobiology 2009, 58, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Kadletz, L.; Heiduschka, G.; Domayer, J.; Schmid, R.; Enzenhofer, E.; Thurnher, D. Evaluation of spheroid head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cell models in comparison to monolayer cultures. Oncol. Lett. 2015, 10, 1281–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Sankar, P.S.; Mat, M.F.C.; Muniandy, K.; Xiang, B.L.S.; Ling, P.S.; Hoe, S.L.L.; Khoo, A.S.B.; Mohana-Kumaran, N. Modeling nasopharyngeal carcinoma in three dimensions. Oncol. Lett. 2017, 13, 2034–2044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Riedl, A.; Schlederer, M.; Pudelko, K.; Stadler, M.; Walter, S.; Unterleuthner, D.; Unger, C.; Kramer, N.; Hengstschlager, M.; Kenner, L.; et al. Comparison of cancer cells in 2D vs 3D culture reveals differences in AKT-mTOR-S6K signaling and drug responses. J. Cell Sci. 2017, 130, 203–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Moisieiev, A.I.; Kovalenko, I.F.; Bozhok, G.A.; Gordiyenko, O.I. Theoretical approaches to determination of optimal cryopreservation regimens for cell spheroids of different cultivation terms. Biophys. Bull. 2021, 46, 7–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mogi, T.; Kita, K. Gramicidin S and polymyxins: The revival of cationic cyclic peptide antibiotics. Cell Mol. Life Sci. 2009, 66, 3821–3826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  40. Katoh, K. Integrin and Its Associated Proteins as a Mediator for Mechano-Signal Transduction. Biomolecules 2025, 15, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Le Coq, J.; Acebrón, I.; Rodrigo Martin, B.; López Navajas, P.; Lietha, D. New insights into FAK structure and function in focal adhesions. J. Cell Sci. 2022, 135, jcs259089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Skorokhod, O.A.; Barrera, V.; Heller, R.; Carta, F.; Turrini, F.; Arese, P.; Schwarzer, E. Malarial pigment hemozoin impairs chemotactic motility and transendothelial migration of monocytes via 4-hydroxynonenal. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2014, 75, 210–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bamburg, J.R.; Minamide, L.S.; Wiggan, O.N.; Tahtamouni, L.H.; Kuhn, T.B. Cofilin and actin dynamics: Multiple modes of regulation and their impacts in neuronal development and degeneration. Cells 2021, 10, 2726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Vashchenko, O.V.; Ruban, O.A.; Zupanets, I.V.; Vashchenko, P.V.; Ivaniuk, O.I. Kinetic biopharmaceutical studies of a new paracetamol–glucosamine analgetic drug. Biophys. Bull. 2023, 50, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Takada, Y.; Matsuo, K.; Kataoka, T. Gramicidin A directly inhibits mammalian Na+/K+-ATPase activity. Mol. Cell Biochem. 2008, 319, 99–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Sholtz, K.F.; Solovjeva, N.A.; Kotelnikova, A.V.; Snezhkova, L.G.; Miroshnikov, A.I. Effect of gramicidin S and its derivatives on the mitochondrial membrane. FEBS Lett. 1975, 58, 140–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  47. Xue, Y.W.; Itoh, H.; Dan, S.; Inoue, M. Gramicidin A accumulates in mitochondria, reduces ATP levels, induces mitophagy, and inhibits cancer cell growth. Chem. Sci. 2022, 13, 7482–7491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  48. Voloshchuk, O.M.; Kopylchuk, H.P.; Ursatyy, M.S.; Kovalchuk, K.A.; Skorokhod, O. Alterations in Adenylate Nucleotide Metabolism and Associated Lipid Peroxidation and Protein Oxidative Damage in Rat Kidneys Under Combined Acetaminophen Toxicity and Protein Deficiency. Antioxidants 2026, 15, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Viedma-Poyatos, Á.; González-Jiménez, P.; Langlois, O.; Company-Marín, I.; Spickett, C.M.; Pérez-Sala, D. Protein Lipoxidation: Basic Concepts and Emerging Roles. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  50. Valacchi, G.; Virgili, F.; Cervellati, C.; Pecorelli, A. OxInflammation: From Subclinical Condition to Pathological Biomarker. Front. Physiol. 2018, 9, 858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  51. Skorokhod, O.; Valente, E.; Mandili, G.; Ulliers, D.; Schwarzer, E. Micromolar Dihydroartemisinin Concentrations Elicit Lipoperoxidation in Plasmodium falciparum-Infected Erythrocytes. Antioxidants 2023, 12, 1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Malik, A.; Bissinger, R.; Liu, G.; Liu, G.; Lang, F. Enhanced eryptosis following gramicidin exposure. Toxins 2015, 7, 1396–1410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  53. Imamura, Y.; Mukohara, T.; Shimono, Y.; Funakoshi, Y.; Chayahara, N.; Toyoda, M.; Kiyota, N.; Takao, S.; Kono, S.; Nakatsura, T.; et al. Comparison of 2D- and 3D-culture models as drug-testing platforms in breast cancer. Oncol. Rep. 2015, 33, 1837–1843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Alrbyawi, H.; Boddu, S.H.S.; Poudel, I.; Annaji, M.; Mita, N.; Arnold, R.D.; Tiwari, A.K.; Babu, R.J. Cardiolipin for Enhanced Cellular Uptake and Cytotoxicity of Thermosensitive Liposome-Encapsulated Daunorubicin toward Breast Cancer Cell Lines. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 11763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Drayton, M.; Kizhakkedathu, J.N.; Straus, S.K. Towards Robust Delivery of Antimicrobial Peptides to Combat Bacterial Resistance. Molecules 2020, 25, 3048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  56. Zheng, S.; Tu, Y.; Li, B.; Qu, G.; Li, A.; Peng, X.; Li, S.; Shao, C. Antimicrobial peptide biological activity, delivery systems and clinical translation status and challenges. J. Transl. Med. 2025, 23, 292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  57. Lo Cicero, A.; Campora, S.; Lo Buglio, G.; Cinà, P.; Lo Pinto, M.; Scilabra, S.D.; Ghersi, G. Enhancing therapeutic efficacy through degradation of endogenous extracellular matrix in primary breast tumor spheroids. FEBS J. 2025, 292, 3494–3507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  58. Gorbenko, G.P.; Trusova, V.; Molotkovsky, J.G. Förster Resonance Energy Transfer Study of Cytochrome c-Lipid Interactions. J. Fluoresc. 2018, 28, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Gallo, V.; Ruiba, A.; Zanin, M.; Begnamino, P.; Ledda, S.; Pesce, T.; Melioli, G.; Pizzi, M. Evaluation of bacterial proliferation with a microfluidic-based device: Antibiochip. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0223932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  60. Graham-Evans, B.; Tchounwou, P.B.; Cohly, H.H.P. Cytotoxicity and Proliferation Studies with Arsenic in Established Human Cell Lines: Keratinocytes, Melanocytes, Dendritic Cells, Dermal Fibroblasts, Microvascular Endothelial Cells, Monocytes and T-Cells. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2003, 4, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Haralambiev, L.; Nitsch, A.; Jacoby, J.M.; Strakeljahn, S.; Bekeschus, S.; Mustea, A.; Ekkernkamp, A.; Stope, M.B. Cold Atmospheric Plasma Treatment of Chondrosarcoma Cells Affects Proliferation and Cell Membrane Permeability. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 2291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Skorokhod, O.; Barrera, V.; Valente, E.; Ulliers, D.; Uchida, K.; Schwarzer, E. Malarial pigment-induced lipoperoxidation, inhibited motility and decreased CCR2 and TNFR1/2 expression on human monocytes. Redox Exp. Med. 2025, 2025, e240017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Trufanova, N.; Trufanov, O.; Bozhok, G.; Revenko, O.; Cherkashina, D.; Pakhomov, O.; Petrenko, O. Hypothermic Storage of Mesenchymal Stromal Cell-based Spheroids at a Temperature of 22 °C. Probl. Cryobiol. Cryomed. 2024, 34, 186–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Antibiotics 15 00177 g001
Figure 1. Representative live phase-contrast micrographs of an L929 cell monolayer incubated with (a) and without (b) liposomes composed of dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine, cardiolipin, and cholesterol (DPPC/CL/CHOL, 85/5/10 mol%). Images were acquired using a LSM 510 META microscope (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany).
Figure 1. Representative live phase-contrast micrographs of an L929 cell monolayer incubated with (a) and without (b) liposomes composed of dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine, cardiolipin, and cholesterol (DPPC/CL/CHOL, 85/5/10 mol%). Images were acquired using a LSM 510 META microscope (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany).
Antibiotics 15 00177 g001
Antibiotics 15 00177 g002
Figure 2. Representative live-phase contrast micrographs of L929 cell spheroids incubated with liposomes for 24 h. Control spheroids without liposome treatment (a) and spheroid treated with liposomes with different composition: DPPC (b), DPPC/CL (c), DPPC/CHOL (d), and DPPC/CL/CHOL (e). Representative live phase-contrast micrographs of L929 cell spheroids. Images were acquired using a LSM 510 META microscope (Carl Zeiss, Germany).
Figure 2. Representative live-phase contrast micrographs of L929 cell spheroids incubated with liposomes for 24 h. Control spheroids without liposome treatment (a) and spheroid treated with liposomes with different composition: DPPC (b), DPPC/CL (c), DPPC/CHOL (d), and DPPC/CL/CHOL (e). Representative live phase-contrast micrographs of L929 cell spheroids. Images were acquired using a LSM 510 META microscope (Carl Zeiss, Germany).
Antibiotics 15 00177 g002
Antibiotics 15 00177 g003
Figure 3. Representative live phase-contrast micrographs of L929 cell spheroids. Images were acquired using a LSM 510 META microscope (Carl Zeiss, Germany).
Figure 3. Representative live phase-contrast micrographs of L929 cell spheroids. Images were acquired using a LSM 510 META microscope (Carl Zeiss, Germany).
Antibiotics 15 00177 g003
Antibiotics 15 00177 g004
Figure 4. Representative Z-stack fluorescent images of L929 cell spheroids stained with FDA/EB. Non-viable cells were identified by red–orange fluorescence, appearing as small red signals. Images were acquired using a confocal laser scanning microscope LSM 510 META with excitation at 488 nm for FDA and 543 nm for EB, and emission detection at 520 nm and 590 nm, respectively.
Figure 4. Representative Z-stack fluorescent images of L929 cell spheroids stained with FDA/EB. Non-viable cells were identified by red–orange fluorescence, appearing as small red signals. Images were acquired using a confocal laser scanning microscope LSM 510 META with excitation at 488 nm for FDA and 543 nm for EB, and emission detection at 520 nm and 590 nm, respectively.
Antibiotics 15 00177 g004
Table 1. Viability of L929 cells treated by GS-free liposomes by liposomal lipid composition and suspension volume (FDA/EB staining, 24-h monolayer incubation, n = 5).
Table 1. Viability of L929 cells treated by GS-free liposomes by liposomal lipid composition and suspension volume (FDA/EB staining, 24-h monolayer incubation, n = 5).
Liposomal Composition100 µL400 µL
control99.8 ± 0.3%98.5 ± 0.5%
DPPC, 100 mol%99.8 ± 0.1%99.2 ± 0.4%
DPPC/CL, 95/5 mol%99.7 ± 0.1%98.5 ± 0.6%
DPPC/CHOL, 90/10 mol%99.5 ± 0.2%99.5 ± 0.7%
DPPC/CL/CHOL, 85/5/10 mol%99.8 ± 0.3%98.5 ± 0.5%
Table 2. Viability of L929 cell monolayers treated with GS at concentrations of 10, 25, 50, and 75 µg/mL was assessed using fluorescein diacetate/ethidium bromide (FDA/EB) staining (1-h and 24-h incubation). Statistical significance (p < 0.05) compared to control liposomes without GS is indicated by an asterisk (*, p < 0.05; n = 5).
Table 2. Viability of L929 cell monolayers treated with GS at concentrations of 10, 25, 50, and 75 µg/mL was assessed using fluorescein diacetate/ethidium bromide (FDA/EB) staining (1-h and 24-h incubation). Statistical significance (p < 0.05) compared to control liposomes without GS is indicated by an asterisk (*, p < 0.05; n = 5).
GS Concentration
10 µg/mL25 µg/mL50 µg/mL75 µg/mL
Viability after 1 h, %94.7 ± 0.690.1 ± 4.118.6 ± 2.9 *1.9 ± 1.6 *
Viability after 24 h, %38.8 ± 7.1 *19.9 ± 10.1 *11.0 ± 1.9 *0.5 ± 1.1 *
Table 3. Viability of L929 cells treated by GS-contained liposomes by liposomal lipid composition and encapsulated GS concentration (FDA/EB staining, 24-h monolayer incubation). Statistical significance (p < 0.05) compared to control liposomes without GS is indicated by an asterisk (*, p < 0.05; n = 5).
Table 3. Viability of L929 cells treated by GS-contained liposomes by liposomal lipid composition and encapsulated GS concentration (FDA/EB staining, 24-h monolayer incubation). Statistical significance (p < 0.05) compared to control liposomes without GS is indicated by an asterisk (*, p < 0.05; n = 5).
GS Concentration (Liposomes)
Liposomal Composition10 µg/mL25 µg/mL50 µg/mL75 µg/mL
DPPC, 100 mol%96.6 ± 3.792.2 ± 4.487.7 ± 8.481.6 ± 9.1 *
DPPC/CL, 95/5 mol%98.1 ± 4.690.1 ± 5.188.9 ± 3.4 *80.9 ± 7.5 *
DPPC/CHOL, 90/10 mol%97.4 ± 3.691.9 ± 5.785.1 ± 6.1 *82.2 ± 5.6 *
DPPC/CL/CHOL, 85/5/10 mol%97.7 ± 6.290.7 ± 2.279.0 ± 15.1 *80.3 ± 9.2 *
Table 4. Monolayer confluence (%) of L929 cells after 24 h incubation with GS-loaded liposomes of different lipid compositions and GS concentrations. Statistical significance relative to GS-free control liposomes is indicated by an asterisk (*, p < 0.05; n = 5).
Table 4. Monolayer confluence (%) of L929 cells after 24 h incubation with GS-loaded liposomes of different lipid compositions and GS concentrations. Statistical significance relative to GS-free control liposomes is indicated by an asterisk (*, p < 0.05; n = 5).
GS Concentration (Liposomes)
Liposomal Composition010 µg/mL25 µg/mL50 µg/mL75 µg/mL
DPPC, 100 mol%98.5 ± 1.293.4 ± 4.291.9 ± 6.870.9 ± 4.1 *67.6 ± 7.2 *
DPPC/CL, 95/5 mol%97.4 ± 2.292.8 ± 5.690.1 ± 3.270.3 ± 5.7 *67.1 ± 4.1 *
DPPC/CHOL, 90/10 mol%97.2 ± 1.790.7 ± 6.690.7 ± 2.275.1 ± 16.0 *72.2 ± 15.2 *
DPPC/CL/CHOL, 85/5/10 mol%98.1 ± 1.391.9 ± 3.790.2 ± 1.271.6 ± 5.0 *69.0 ± 11.2 *
Table 5. Viability of L929 cells in spheroids treated by GS at 10, 25, 50, and 75 µg/mL (FDA/EB staining, 1-h and 24-h incubation). Statistical significance (p < 0.05) compared to control without GS is indicated by an asterisk (*, p < 0.05; n = 5).
Table 5. Viability of L929 cells in spheroids treated by GS at 10, 25, 50, and 75 µg/mL (FDA/EB staining, 1-h and 24-h incubation). Statistical significance (p < 0.05) compared to control without GS is indicated by an asterisk (*, p < 0.05; n = 5).
GS Concentration
10 µg/mL25 µg/mL50 µg/mL75 µg/mL
Viability after 1 h, %92.3 ± 12.593.4 ± 10.134.8 ± 18.7 *19.2 ± 8.9 *
Viability after 24 h, %34.5 ± 15.8 *18.1 ± 12.0 *5.3 ± 5.6 *2.9 ± 3.8 *
Table 6. Viability of spheroid L929 cells treated by GS-contained liposomes by liposomal lipid composition and encapsulated GS concentration (FDA/EB staining, 24-h incubation). Statistical comparison with control liposomes without GS was performed (n = 5), and no significant differences were observed (p < 0.05).
Table 6. Viability of spheroid L929 cells treated by GS-contained liposomes by liposomal lipid composition and encapsulated GS concentration (FDA/EB staining, 24-h incubation). Statistical comparison with control liposomes without GS was performed (n = 5), and no significant differences were observed (p < 0.05).
GS Concentration (Liposomes)
Liposomal Composition025 µg/mL50 µg/mL75 µg/mL
DPPC, 100 mol%92.9 ± 6.1%93.6 ± 5.5%89.2 ± 6.2%84.8 ± 7.8%
DPPC/CL, 95/5 mol%91.9 ± 5.8%87.3 ± 8.3%89.4 ± 3.1%91.5 ± 4.9%
DPPC/CHOL, 90/10 mol%96.4 ± 4.3%90.1 ± 6.4%92.4 ± 3.3%94.7 ± 2.1%
DPPC/CL/CHOL, 85/5/10 mol%89.2 ± 6.9%85.8 ± 7.2%87.9 ± 2.9%89.9 ± 0.8%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Perepelytsia, I.; Bozhok, G.; Berest, V.; Gallo, V.; Pizzi, M.; Sichevska, L.; Skorokhod, O. Liposomal Encapsulation Reduces the Cytotoxic Effects of Gramicidin S in Monolayer and Spheroid Fibroblast Cultures. Antibiotics 2026, 15, 177. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics15020177

AMA Style

Perepelytsia I, Bozhok G, Berest V, Gallo V, Pizzi M, Sichevska L, Skorokhod O. Liposomal Encapsulation Reduces the Cytotoxic Effects of Gramicidin S in Monolayer and Spheroid Fibroblast Cultures. Antibiotics. 2026; 15(2):177. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics15020177

Chicago/Turabian Style

Perepelytsia, Ihor, Galyna Bozhok, Volodymyr Berest, Valentina Gallo, Marco Pizzi, Larysa Sichevska, and Oleksii Skorokhod. 2026. "Liposomal Encapsulation Reduces the Cytotoxic Effects of Gramicidin S in Monolayer and Spheroid Fibroblast Cultures" Antibiotics 15, no. 2: 177. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics15020177

APA Style

Perepelytsia, I., Bozhok, G., Berest, V., Gallo, V., Pizzi, M., Sichevska, L., & Skorokhod, O. (2026). Liposomal Encapsulation Reduces the Cytotoxic Effects of Gramicidin S in Monolayer and Spheroid Fibroblast Cultures. Antibiotics, 15(2), 177. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics15020177

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