Theranostics Aspects of Various Nanoparticles in Veterinary Medicine

Abstract

Nanoscience and nanotechnology shows immense interest in various areas of research and applications, including biotechnology, biomedical sciences, nanomedicine, and veterinary medicine. Studies and application of nanotechnology was explored very extensively in the human medical field and also studies undertaken in rodents extensively, still either studies or applications in veterinary medicine is not up to the level when compared to applications to human beings. The application in veterinary medicine and animal production is still relatively innovative. Recently, in the era of health care technologies, Veterinary Medicine also entered into a new phase and incredible transformations. Nanotechnology has tremendous and potential influence not only the way we live, but also on the way that we practice veterinary medicine and increase the safety of domestic animals, production, and income to the farmers through use of nanomaterials. The current status and advancements of nanotechnology is being used to enhance the animal growth promotion, and production. To achieve these, nanoparticles are used as alternative antimicrobial agents to overcome the usage alarming rate of antibiotics, detection of pathogenic bacteria, and also nanoparticles being used as drug delivery agents as new drug and vaccine candidates with improved characteristics and performance, diagnostic, therapeutic, feed additive, nutrient delivery, biocidal agents, reproductive aids, and finally to increase the quality of food using various kinds of functionalized nanoparticles, such as liposomes, polymeric nanoparticles, dendrimers, micellar nanoparticles, and metal nanoparticles. It seems that nanotechnology is ideal for veterinary applications in terms of cost and the availability of resources. The main focus of this review is describes some of the important current and future principal aspects of involvement of nanotechnology in Veterinary Medicine. However, we are not intended to cover the entire scenario of Veterinary Medicine, despite this review is to provide a glimpse at potential important targets of nanotechnology in the field of Veterinary Medicine. Considering the strong potential of the interaction between the nanotechnology and Veterinary Medicine, the aim of this review is to provide a concise description of the advances of nanotechnology in Veterinary Medicine, in terms of their potential application of various kinds of nanoparticles, secondly we discussed role of nanomaterials in animal health and production, and finally we discussed conclusion and future perspectives of nanotechnology in veterinary medicine.

Keywords: animal production; antimicrobial; diagnostic; drug delivery; livestock; nanoparticles.

Figure 1

Type of nanoparticles used in application of veterinary medicine and animal production.

Figure 2

Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) of silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) (A) TEM images of AgNPs synthesized by culture supernatant of Bacillus marisflavi (B). Size distribution of AgNPs from TEM images.

Figure 3

Effect of silver nanoparticles on S. aureus and P. aeruginosa, E. coli, and S. uberis from mastitis-infected goats. (A) Cell viability of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa treated with AgNPs. (B) Cell viability of E. coli, and S. uberis treated with AgNPs. Bacterials cells were incubated with various concentrations of AgNPs. Bacterial survival was determined at 24 h by a CFU (colony forming unit) count assay. The experiment was performed with various controls, including a positive control (AgNPs and NB, without inoculum) and a negative control (NB and inoculum, without AgNPs). The results are expressed as the means ± SD of three separate experiments, each of which contained three replicates. Treated groups showed statistically significant differences from the control group by Student’s t test (p < 0.05).

Figure 4

(A) TEM images of AuNPs (B). Size distribution of AuNPs from TEM images. TEM images of several fields were used to measure AuNPs particle size; micrographs (left panels); and, size distributions based on TEM images (right panels) of AuNPs ranging from 2 nm to 12 nm.

Figure 5

Effect of AuNPs on Staphylococcus spp., Salmonella spp., Streptococcus spp., and Campylobacter spp. in chicken. Staphylococcus spp., Salmonella spp., Streptococcus spp., and Campylobacter spp. cells were incubated with various concentrations of AuNPs. (A) Cell viability of Staphylococcus spp. and Salmonella spp. treated with AuNPs. (B) Cell viability of Streptococcus spp. and Campylobacter spp. treated with AuNPs. Bacterial survival was determined at 24 h by a CFU count assay. The experiment was performed with various controls, including a positive control (AuNPs and NB, without inoculum) and a negative control (NB and inoculum, without AuNPs). The results are expressed as the means ± SD of three separate experiments, each of which contained three replicates. Treated groups showed statistically significant differences from the control group by Student’s t test (p < 0.05).

Figure 6

TEM of ZnO-NPs (A) TEM images of ZnO-NPs (B). Size distribution of ZnO-NPs from TEM images.

Figure 7

Antibacterial activity of ZnO-NPs on Staphylococcus epidermis, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Streptococcus agalactiae and E. coli. Staphylococcus epidermis, Streptococcus agalactiae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and E. coli cells were incubated with various concentrations of ZnO-NPs. (A) Cell viability of Staphylococcus epidermis and Klebsiella pneumoniae treated with ZnO-NPs. (B) Cell viability of Streptococcus agalactiae and E. coli treated with ZnO-NPs. Bacterial survival was determined at 24 h by a CFU count assay. The experiment was performed with various controls including a positive control (ZnO-NPs and NB, without inoculum) and a negative control (NB and inoculum, without ZnO-NPs). The results are expressed as the means ± SD of three separate experiments, each of which contained three replicates. Treated groups showed statistically significant differences from the control group by Student’s t test (p < 0.05).

Figure 8

TEM images of (A) GO, (B) rGO, and (C) rGO–Ag nanocomposite. TEM images of fields were used to measure GO, rGO, and rGO–Ag particle.

Figure 9

Effect of graphene oxide (GO), reduced graphene oxide (rGO), and GO-Ag on cell survival of Staphylococcus agalactiae, Klebsiella spp., Staphylococcus aureu and Enterobacter spp.