Nanoparticles as an alternative treatment for bovine mastitis -A review

Article information

Anim Biosci. 2025;38(7):1291-1304

Publication date (electronic) : 2025 February 27

doi : https://doi.org/10.5713/ab.24.0590

Beatriz Elena Castro-Valenzuela ¹^,

, Moisés Armides Franco-Molina ¹^,

, Cristina Rodríguez-Padilla ¹

¹Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo Léon, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Laboratorio de Inmunología y Virología, San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León, México

^*Corresponding Author: Beatriz Elena Castro-Valenzuela, Tel: +52-614-434-1448, E-mail: bety.castro89@gmail.com, Moisés Armides Franco-Molina, Tel: +52-818-329-4115, E-mail: moyfranco@gmail.com

Received 2024 August 21; Revised 2024 October 9; Accepted 2024 December 24.

Abstract

Nanotechnology is causing revolutionary changes in different disciplines such as food, pharmacology, medical, and agriculture. Nanotechnology allows for the development of materials or devices with unique physical, chemical, and biological properties that differ from their precursor materials, such as nanoparticles. These have gained significant relevance in veterinary medicine, with the potential to be the future treatment for bovine mastitis. Losses in the global dairy industry of up to USD 35 billion annually caused by this pathology have been determined. Despite advances in the genetic selection of dairy cattle and management practices, the control of bovine mastitis remains inadequate. Antibiotics have been the most prevalent treatment for this condition. However, the residues of the antibiotics in milk compromises its quality. Furthermore, the emergence of bacterial resistance has necessitated the search for alternative strategies for treating mammary gland infections, opening a field of opportunities for the nanoparticle-based therapy. This review addresses key topics to elucidate the potential use of these nanoparticles as a treatment strategy for bovine mastitis.

Keywords: Antibacterial; Bovine Mastitis; Dairy Cattle; Nanoparticles; Nanotechnology

INTRODUCTION

Mastitis is the most prevalent, significant, and costly disease of dairy farms since it represents substantial economic losses by causing a reduction in milk yield and quality, premature slaughter and replacements of animals, and costs in veterinary services and drugs [1]. Furthermore, it can cause reduced fertility and metabolic dysfunctions in affected animals. Total annual economic losses from mastitis worldwide have been estimated at USD 35 billion [2]. Despite implementing management practices and advances in the genetic selection of dairy cattle, the control of bovine mastitis remains inadequate [3,4]. Mastitis is a pathology characterized by inflammation in the mammary gland parenchyma, the most common cause being infectious agents [5]. The main pathogens causing mastitis are Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus spp., and Escherichia coli [6,7]. Currently, the most common therapy used for its control is antibiotics, however, the presence of residues of these drugs in milk, the emergence of bacterial resistance [8–10], and the constant concern about the spreading of these strains to humans, make it necessary to search for alternative strategies to prevent and eliminate infections in the mammary gland. Through nanotechnology, it is possible to develop materials at the nanometric level with unique physical, chemical, and biological properties, different from those of their precursor materials, such as nanoparticles (NPs). The NPs have a greater area: volume ratio and have unique chemical and physical properties, its physical properties permit them to be promising antimicrobial agents. Therefore, NPs are currently of great interest due to the appearance of an increasing number of multidrug pathogens resistant to traditional antibiotics. Nanometric-sized particles are applied in human, veterinary, pharmaceutical medicine, and other disciplines with multiple applications [11]. Nowadays, metallic, and polymeric NPs, alone or combined have been evaluated: Pt, Ag, Au, Cu, ZnO, Cu/Ag, Cu/CuO, and chitosan [12–18], at least in vitro, for combated the bovine mastitis. Nonetheless, even though promising results have been obtained, it is necessary to develop low-cost alternatives within the reach of any dairy producer. This review addressed topics of interest to elucidate the potential use of these NPs as both a preventive method and a treatment for bovine mastitis.

GLOBAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE DAIRY INDUSTRY

The world population is increasing constantly, according to the FAO it is expected that by the year 2050, there will be 9.73 billion inhabitants in the world. This represents a significant challenge for agricultural and food systems, which must increase their production by 50% compared to 2013 [19] to meet the growing food demands of the population. Therefore, it is necessary to optimize the efficiency of the agricultural sector.

Among the economic activities of the primary sector, milk production stands out due to its faster growth rate compared to other major agricultural products. Milk production occurs worldwide and has increased by more than 60%, rising from 530 million tons (Mt) in 1988 to 852 Mt in 2019. This growth is attributed to factors such as population growth, increased income, urbanization, and changes in diet in countries like China and India [20]. Also, it is forecast to grow by 1.6% annually between 2020 and 2029. Therefore, it is estimated that by 2029, global milk production will reach 997 Mt, with bovine cattle contributing 81% of this production [21]. More than 80% of the world’s population, or about 6 billion people, regularly consume liquid milk or other dairy products, which are trusted sources of nutrition and commodities worldwide [20].

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF MASTITIS

The productivity of the dairy cow is influenced by a wide range of factors, including climatic variations, changes in nutritional management, bromatological factors, health, and reproductive value, as well as the animal’s genetic potential. Among these factors, health greatly impacts production costs [22]. Within this category, mastitis is particularly notable as one of the most prevalent, significant, and costly diseases affecting the dairy industry [12].

Mastitis is considered the disease that represents the most economic losses in the dairy sector since it reduces milk yield and quality, obtaining milk unsuitable for sale (discarded milk), premature slaughter of animals and replacements, and expensive service veterinarians and drugs [16,23]. Additionally, cows with mastitis can have reduced fertility and metabolic dysfunctions, which causes important losses in production costs.

A study conducted in China from 2015 to 2017, found that the monthly economic losses associated with clinical mastitis ranged from 12,000 to 76,000 US dollars per farm [24]. In the U.S.A., it is estimated that these losses amount to up to 2 trillion dollars annually, while globally, direct losses are estimated to reach 35 trillion US dollars in direct losses [2].

BOVINE MASTITIS PATHOLOGY

Mastitis is a disease characterized by infection and inflammation of the mammary gland caused by multiple factors, which can be classified into two groups: the first contemplates microorganisms and the second incorrectly applied techniques during milking, metabolic disorders, udder injuries, and various stress factors [25]. This is because the teat orifice is the first line of defense against the invasion of mastitis-causing pathogens into the teat canal and mammary gland, so the presence of high bacterial contamination increases the opportunity for entry of more bacteria into the teat orifice and causes infections [26]. Mastitis caused by potentially pathogenic microorganisms is more common [27] because milk serves as an excellent culture medium for many of these pathogens. Regardless of the cause, mastitis is characterized by damage to the parenchymal tissue of the udder, leading to a reduction in the number and activity of epithelial cells and, consequently, a decrease in milk production [28].

Classification of mastitis

Mastitis is generally classified into clinical and subclinical forms, depending on the severity of the infection [29]. The severity is influenced by factors such as the nature of the causal pathogen, the age, and breed of the animal, it is health status, immunological condition, and stage of lactation [30].

Clinical mastitis is easily detected since it is characterized by the presence of physiological symptoms such as loss of appetite, fever, dehydration, or depression; and alterations in the udder (inflammation, swelling, etc.), as well as in the milk (presence of clots, scales, watery appearance, viscosity, etc.) [29].

Unlike clinical mastitis, subclinical mastitis is not easily detected since there are no apparent physical changes in the mammary gland or the milk. Therefore, tests are necessary to identify indicators of inflammation in the mammary gland for diagnosis of the type of mastitis [30]. This condition is characterized by an increased somatic cell count (SCC); mainly due to leukocytes. Consequently, the traditional method for detecting inflammation in the udder involves counting these cells [29].

Traditional methods bovine mastitis detection

SCC is considered a universal detection indicator for mastitis and is widely used to determine milk quality in individual quarters of the udder [31], due to its cost and easy data collection [25]. The somatic cells present in the milk of healthy cows are mainly macrophages (66% to 88%), in addition to neutrophils, epithelial and mononuclear cells. The proportion of neutrophils is only 1% to 11% in a healthy quarter but increases to 90% or more in an intramammary infected (IMI) quarter, SCC has been extensively used as an indicator of IMI since 1960. The limit of SCC in a healthy quarter is 200,000 cells/mL [31].

SCC can also be estimated using the California Mastitis Test (CMT), an indirect assay based on the DNA content of milk. This test consists of a detergent that contains bromocresol blue, which is used to lyse the plasma membrane of somatic cells; consequently, DNA and cellular proteins are released and precipitate, forming a viscous gel-like matrix when added to milk [25]. The viscosity is proportional to the number of leukocytes present in the sample. The advantages of this test are that it is inexpensive, fast, and can be done in the field, near the animal analyzed [30]. Thus, a cow is diagnosed with clinical mastitis if it presents at least a quarter of the udder with modified appearance milk: with clots or scales or milk with a watery appearance. A cow is diagnosed with subclinical mastitis if the last SCC is greater than 200,000 cells per mL or if the CMT was positive on the day of sampling, despite a normal appearance of the milk [32].

Most frequent pathogens involved in mastitis

Mastitis induces permanent and irreversible damage to milk-producing glandular tissue [28]. Today, 137 different microorganisms have been identified as causing bovine mastitis, including bacteria, viruses, yeasts, and algae, with bacteria being the main causative agents of the disease (95%). The bacteria that cause the most common forms of mastitis are Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus dysgalactiae, Streptococcus uberis, E. coli, Mycoplasma spp. and Klebsiella spp. [4,33,34].

Biofilm formation, virulence factor:

Microorganisms possess virulence factors that enable them to survive under adverse conditions, one of which is the formation of biofilms. A biofilm is a multicellular structure with a specific composition, consisting of water and extracellular polymeric substances, mainly made up of polysaccharides, proteins, nucleic acids, and surfactants. This structure allows microorganisms to adhere strongly to both biotic and abiotic surfaces, protecting against environmental damage. The exopolysaccharide matrix may also be impermeable to antimicrobials, inhibiting their penetration into the biofilm [35].

Biofilms are groups of microorganisms embedded in an extracellular matrix of polysaccharides produced by the microorganisms themselves. This matrix is irreversibly associated with the surface to which it is attached, which may include host tissue. This leads to chronic infections, as the biofilm protects bacteria from antibiotics and makes the microorganisms more effective at invading mammary epithelial cells [28].

TECHNIQUES FOR THE CONTROL OF BOVINE MASTITIS

Despite implementing management practices and advances in the genetic selection of dairy cattle, the control of bovine mastitis remains inadequate. Antibiotics are currently the most effective strategy for treating and preventing future IMIs. However, the misuse and overuse of antibiotics in managing bovine mastitis have led to the development of resistant pathogens [16]. As a result, this antibiotic-centered approach has notable drawbacks, including increased antibiotic resistance, low infection clearance rates, and the presence of antibiotic residues in milk. According to a report by the World Health Organization, bacterial resistance to antibiotics poses a global threat to public health, ranking alongside climate change and terrorism. This underscores the urgent need for the development of new, safe, and cost-effective antibiotics [13]. Additionally, antibiotic resistance in microorganisms can be transmitted from animals to humans through the food chain, raising potential concerns for human health.

Management of dairy cattle in the dry period (intramammary sealant)

Management of the dairy cow in the dry period is crucial for the health of the udder since it is a period where the ideal conditions for the regeneration of the mammary tissue are created [36].

At the end of a milk production cycle, the epithelium of the cow’s teat duct produces keratin that physically traps bacteria and blocks their migration to the mammary gland cistern. This barrier produced naturally by epithelium also has antimicrobial activity due to the bacteriostatic fatty acids (lauric, myristic, palmitoleic, and linoleic), and the fibrous proteins it possesses [37]. The nipple orifice and duct are considered the most important physical barriers of the defense system against the penetration of microorganisms into the mammary gland. Despite this, the time it takes the teat canal to close varies between animals. In one study, it was shown that 50% of the teat canals closed 7 days after drying off, 45% closed within the following 50 to 60 days of the dry period, and the remaining 5% did not close until after 90 days of drying off [38]. Due to this, in dairy cattle production systems, the use of intramammary internal sealants has been implemented, which currently has bismuth subnitrate as its active principle, since this compound is biologically inert [39], acts as a physical barrier in the teat canal of dry cows and has antibacterial activity [40]. Additionally, the use of internal sealants at dry-off has been shown to significantly reduce the incidence of IMIs and clinical mastitis in dairy cows by up to 23% [41,42].

Despite the successful results reported, the dairy industry still needs to improve these parameters. For this reason, conventional dry-off sealants (bismuth subnitrate) combined with commercial antibiotics have been used to prevent the occurrence of mastitis. The results obtained with this combination have proven to be more effective for preventing mastitis than when applied separately [43].

The emergence of multidrug-resistant strains has taken place worldwide, depending on the region, strains resistant to certain antibiotics have been found. In Mexico, the bovine mastitis isolates showed a resistance pattern to beta-lactam antibiotics, and protein synthesis inhibitors mainly penicillin, clindamycin, and cefotaxime [44]. In Taiwan, E. coli isolates from the cases of clinical mastitis showed resistance to cloxacillin, tetracycline, neomycin, gentamycin, ampicillin, ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, and ceftazidime [45]; in some European countries, the highest antimicrobial resistance was observed against benzylpenicillin and oxytetracycline [46]. Isolated bacteria causing mastitis resistant to penicillin, amoxicillin, oxytetracycline, and methicillin have been found in Asia [47]. This shows that resistance can be generated to almost any type of antibiotic and, although its use has not been banned, strategies have been developed to reduce their usage. One of them is the Alliance for the Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture (RUMA) of the United Kingdom, an intersectoral organization that aims to reduce or refine antimicrobials in animal agriculture, due to the resistance generated to these drugs by their excessive and indiscriminate use [48].

RESISTANCE OF PATHOGENS TO MASTITIS TREATMENT

Nowadays, several strains of multidrug-resistant bacteria have been isolated from cases of bovine mastitis such as coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CNS) [9,49]; Streptococcus dysgalactiae [50]; Streptococcus uberis [9,51]; E. coli [9,52]; Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus agalactiae [8,27,49,53]. All these strains can cause severe infections, but in the case of S. aureus, this is due to its ability to form biofilm on the surfaces of its host, since it is also an evasion mechanism for the immune system [54]. This demonstrates the constant increase in strains resistant to drugs involved in causing this pathology.

ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS AGAINST MASTITIS

Pathogens have developed mechanisms to persist in the udder, such as biofilm formation and internalization in bovine epithelial cells [13]. Due to the emergence of multidrug-resistant strains of mastitis-causing pathogens, new therapies are needed to reduce or replace antibiotic therapies. Some of them are the use of plant extracts with antimicrobial activity, immunotherapy, vaccines, supplementation with vitamins and minerals, probiotics, management practices in the dry period of the dairy cow, bacteriophages [55], and NPs [56–58].

Based on the microorganisms identified as causes of mastitis, various vaccines have been developed to protect against one or more pathogens. Although these vaccines are commercially available (Lysigin, Startvac, Mastivac, etc.) their effectiveness remains variable and inconsistent [59–64], due to the vaccination may improve health by reducing the severity of infection, but it does not prevent the disease effectively (Table 1).

Table 1

Effectiveness of vaccines used against bovine mastitis

Besides antibiotics and vaccines nowadays there are other strategies to combat bovine mastitis, such as plant-derived compounds, probiotics, and bacteriophages. In the case of plant-derive, different compounds have been evaluated, such as oil essentials (rosemary, Thymus serpyllum, Thymus vulgaris) or extracted medicinal plants and exhibited antimicrobial efficacy, as well as limited or no side effects compared to conventional drugs [72,73]. However, although several scientific papers discuss the potential of natural compounds as alternatives against infections in animal production, only a limited number of studies provide robust scientific evidence, due to the use of plant-derived, they have some disadvantages. Toxicologic effects need to be studied given the complexity of their composition; the establishment of a standardized extraction process is necessary because their biological activity is strongly associated with phases of the process extraction, type of solvent, storage conditions, final concentration of active compounds, and other factors that can cause variations between in the effectiveness of the extract [73].

Probiotic microorganisms have demonstrated prevention of mastitis, thanks to induced inhibition and antagonistic activity against pathogens causing mastitis, such as S. aureus. Because can interact with pathogens, adhere to epithelial cells, auto-aggregation, and co-aggregation pathogens, produce antagonistic metabolites, compete for nutrients, and have immunomodulatory activity [59]. Nevertheless, although some reports show the benefits of their administration locally, it is necessary to determine the best route of administration, and maintaining the adequate concentration of probiotics to achieve their effectiveness is expensive [74].

Lytic activity of bacteriophages against pathogens causing bovine mastitis has been evaluated, at least, in vitro methods demonstrating that the phages possess bactericidal activity [75,76]. Nonetheless, some studies showed significant degradation or inactivation of the phages when they are inside the mammary gland [77]. Therefore, more in vivo studies must be realized to demonstrate the efficacy of bacteriophages in therapeutic applications; as well as to determine an adequate volume and concentration for their administration. On the other hand, is essential to evaluate the cost-benefit of the use of this alternative therapy.

In the context of alternative strategies to combat mastitis, the use of NPs is the most promising option, due to their excellent bactericidal effect and the low cost involved in their production. The NPs have a higher area:volume ratio and unique chemical and physical properties that allow them to penetrate deeper into the interior of cellular structures freely passing through the barriers of organisms and besides, whereby both polymeric and metallic NPs exhibit potential as antimicrobial agents, at least in vitro. Additionally, to the fact that the concentrations necessary to achieve this effect are very low [13,15,17,78]. However, the safety of these materials in living organisms still needs to be confirmed to ensure that their use does not result in unwanted effects, such as cytotoxicity in healthy tissues. Evaluations on the use of NPs in vivo models are very limited. Currently, there is only one study where the use of metallic NPs on mastitis was assessed in a murine model (Table 2).

Table 2

Antimicrobial properties of nanoparticles on pathogens causing bovine mastitis

NANOPARTICLES IN THE TREATMENT OF MASTITIS

Polymeric nanoparticles

Some experiments have been carried out, at least in vitro, to evaluate the effect of chitosan on mastitis-causing pathogens, in one of them it was found that chitosan has antimicrobial activity against different strains of Staphylococcus aureus and CNS isolated from cases of bovine mastitis, but when it is administered as a NP (138 nm of diameter) this activity increases. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values of the NPs were found in a range of 200 to 400 μg/mL for S. aureus and 400 to 800 μg/mL for CNS. The minimum bactericidal concentration of the NPs was 400 μg/mL for all S. aureus strains and 800 μg/mL for most CNS strains. This study showed that chitosan NPs cause damage to the plasma membrane of the bacterium causing lysis. Additionally, these NPs can inhibit the formation of biofilms of the bacteria, and the effective concentration with antibacterial activity (12.5 μg/mL) is not toxic for bovine cell lines [14].

Another investigation demonstrated that the bactericidal effect of chitosan NPs on pathogens causing bovine mastitis and their ability to inhibit biofilm formation depends on the size of the NPs, the smaller the NPs are more efficient. In addition, it was observed that NPs are capable of internalizing in S. aureus and do not promote the production of proinflammatory cytokines. Furthermore, it has also been shown that chitosan NPs with a spherical shape of 19.1 nm in diameter obtained by ionic gelation have antimicrobial activity against Pseudomonas sp. isolated from a case of bovine mastitis infection, as well as they are capable of inhibiting biofilm formation in an initial stage and dispersing the stability of the mature biofilm [16].

Metal nanoparticles

Mechanisms of action of metal nanoparticles against mastitis

The mechanism of action of NPs as antimicrobial agents is similar to that of commercial antibiotics, meaning they can act through one or more mechanisms to inhibit the growth or kill invading organisms [79,80]. These mechanisms focus mainly on molecular aspects, including damage to molecules such as DNA, proteins, and cell membranes, physical disruption of cell structures (such as the cell wall, plasma membrane, ribosomes, etc.), as well as the generation of new molecules, like reactive oxygen species (ROS) and alteration in signal transduction [81,82].

The mechanisms of action of NPs include disruption of the cell membrane, disruption of the electron transport chain, ROS production, and damage to the pump of proton efflux, all contribute to damage in the cytoplasm, plasmid, DNA content, and protein synthesis [87].

Nanomaterials have an advantage over other antibacterial molecules in attacking microorganisms capable of forming biofilms because their surface area greatly exceeds their size, and they can easily penetrate this structure. One pathway by which biofilm production is inhibited is through inhibition of Quorum sensing signaling, where in Gram-negative bacteria, small diffusible autoinducers such as N-acyl homoserine lactones combine with related receptors to produce complexes that act as signaling molecules and are identified by intracellular kinases, in the case of Gram-positive bacteria, modified oligopeptides or self-induced peptides act as said molecules. These complexes activate phosphorylation cascades to induce phosphorylation of a response regulatory protein. In both cases, these complexes bind to a DNA promoter region responsible for activating transcription factors of certain virulence factors, such as the genes necessary for biofilm production. The inhibition of “quorum sensing” involves the inactivation of molecular signals for the formation of bacterial biofilm [94,95].

Another mechanism of action is that the ROS produced by metallic NPs can directly damage constituents within the bacterium’s cytoplasm, such as causing DNA damage in the nucleolus. DNA damage can also occur due to the release of metallic ions, which disrupt hydrogen bonding between antiparallel polynucleotide strands. Additionally, DNA denaturation can result from intercalation between purine and pyrimidine bases [82]. Furthermore, NPs have been found to dephosphorylate tyrosine residues, leading to inhibition of signal transduction inside the cell.

A particular mechanism specific to metallic NPs is the release of ions. For example, in the case of silver (Ag), some reports indicate that spherical NPs exhibit greater antimicrobial activity than other shapes, such as discoidal or triangular forms. This activity increases since spherical NPs have a larger surface area facilitating the release of more Ag ions, thereby enhancing antimicrobial efficacy [96].

In vitro effect of metallic nanoparticles against bovine mastitis

Several metallic NPs have been evaluated for their antimicrobial activity against mastitis-causing pathogens. For example, zinc oxide NPs (ZnO NPs) synthesized by self-combustion reaction with a diameter of 174 nm were tested using the plate diffusion method. It was observed that these NPs could generate growth inhibition halos of bacteria isolated from clinical mastitis cases, such as E. coli and K. pneumoniae, but did not exhibit any bactericidal effect on S. aureus. The probable action mechanism of the ZnO NPs is due to the release of metal ions in solutions that are exposed to bacterial cells, which can penetrate the cell wall and cause toxicity to the bacteria. Moreover, ZnO NPs can induce the production of ROS and cause membrane alterations [13].

The biocidal activity of commercially available gold (Au), silver (Ag), copper (Cu), and platinum (Pt) NPs have also been evaluated by turbidimetry on mastitis-causing pathogenic microorganisms such as E. coli, Streptococcus uberis, S. aureus, Candida albicans, and Candida krusei. The NPs with the highest cytotoxicity were Ag and Cu, while Au NPs exhibited weak activity, and Pt NPs had no biocidal effect [12]. These results can be because NPs exert their effect simultaneously against different structures and pathways, unlike antibiotics with only specific sites of action.

To increase the bactericidal effect of NPs, NPs of various metals have been studied in combination, and to reduce the risk of toxicity towards eukaryotic cells, NPs synthesized with plant extracts have also been evaluated. For this reason, the biocidal effect of AgNPs and CuNPs independently and combined on the microorganisms S. aureus and E. coli, the main bacteria involved in inflammation of the mammary gland in bovines, has been determined in vitro, and it was found that these NPs can reduce the viability of these pathogens and that in combination their effect is enhanced. In addition, these particles did not have a cytotoxic effect on mammary gland tissue cell lines [15]. Additionally, it has been found that AgNPs and CuNPs evaluated individually and in combination inhibit the formation of biofilms of bacteria causing mastitis: Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus dysgalactiae, Salmonella spp., Enterococcus faecalis, Enterobacter cloacae, Candida albicans, E. coli, and S. aureus. Moreover, the combination of NPs was the most effective, reducing the biofilm by 100% at a concentration of 200 ppm and MIC of 12.5 ppm for S. aureus, 3.125 ppm for S. agalactiae and 6.5 ppm for all other microorganisms [17]. The Ag-Cu NPs complex caused the greatest biofilm reduction. These NPs or their agglomerates are too large to penetrate the biofilm, but they can interact with planktonic cells to prevent this spread and reduce biofilm formation [15,17].

AgNPs can inhibit the formation of biofilms by S. aureus and E. coli bacteria. In the case of E. coli, the AgNPs have been seen to be capable of decreasing the transcriptional activity of the genes that code for biofilm formation: bcs A, csgA, fliC, motA, wcaF, fimA. It has also been shown that when combining antibiotic treatments capable of inhibiting protein synthesis with AgNPs, they have a synergistic effect against S. aureus isolated from cases of bovine mastitis [81].

Another interesting experiment determined that copper oxide (CuO) NPs synthesized with ginger extract as reducer agent (sizes 23.38 and 46.64 nm) and NPs synthesized with garlic extract as reducer agent (sizes 26 to 56 nm) exhibit antimicrobial activity against multidrug-resistant S. aureus. These NPs produce growth inhibition halos of this bacterium ranging from 2.05 to 5.65 mm in diameter for ginger NPs and 1.25 to 11 mm in diameter for garlic NPs. The effect of CuO NPs involves the production of ROS, leading to bacterial lysis [18].

Iron oxide NPs have been incorporated into MALDI-TOF detection systems for the diagnosis of bovine mastitis [97]. Furthermore, they have been explored as an alternative treatment for several bacterial strains associated with mastitis infections [91]. However, the results have been controversial. Studies conducted on Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria have reported that iron oxide NPs do not inhibit bacterial growth and may interfere with the antibacterial effect of ciprofloxacin [92].

On the other hand, alternative synthesis methods for iron oxide NPs have shown promising results, including the inhibition of biofilm formation by Staphylococcus aureus [93]. Additionally, other reports have demonstrated that iron oxide NPs exhibit a high inhibitory effect on Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus licheniformis, a moderate effect on Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus brevis, Vibrio cholerae, Streptococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and E. coli, but no inhibitory effect on Shigella flexneri and Pseudomonas aeruginosa [91].

However, not all the results obtained with metallic NPs have been successful. For instance, is the case where AgNPs showed reasonable antimicrobial activity (MIC≤16 μg/mL) and inhibition of biofilm formation at concentration of 64 μg/mL against multidrug-resistant Streptococcus agalactiae isolated from mastitis cases, but when comparing these results against cinnamon oil, cinnamon alone had a better effect (MIC≤ 0.063 μg/mL and inhibition of biofilm formation of 4 μg/mL) than even in combination with NPs [15].

Another discouraging result was the finding that S. aureus can develop resistance to the antimicrobial effect of AuNPs and AgNPs. Also, these NPs exhibited cytotoxic effects in Wistar rats. In this experiment, it was found that the MIC of AgNPs with sizes of 10 and 20 nm, and AuNPs with diameters of 10 and 20 nm for 198 different strains of S. aureus was 14.70±1.19 μg/mL, 9.15±0.13 μg/mL, 24.06±2.36 μg/mL, and 18.52±1.26 μg/mL, respectively. However, most of the strains developed strong resistance to AgNPs treatment, whereas only two strains were resistant to 10 nm AuNPs and three strains to 20 nm AuNPs. Organ histopathology revealed that the 2 mg/kg dose of NPs damaged the brain, liver, kidney, heart, spleen, and lung. Thus, it was found that S. aureus strains could develop resistance less frequently against AuNPs than AgNPs and that they are toxic in rats at a dose of 2 mg/kg [79].

But what information is available regarding the bismuth NPs? Despite the promising results on antimicrobial activity with this element, and the known enhancement of activity when bismuth (Bi) is administered in NP form [98], such NPs have not been evaluated for preventing or combating bovine mastitis. However, the antimicrobial activity of Bi NPs has been tested in vitro against microorganisms including Campylobacter jejuni, Listeria monocytogenes, Yersinia enterocolitica, Salmonella typhimurium, E. coli, Mycoplasma argini, Acholeplasma ladidlawii, Bacillus anthracis, Leptospira Pomona [85], S. aureus, and Candida albicans [86], some of which could be causative agents of bovine mastitis. Additionally, Bi NPs have been shown to reduce microbial biofilm formation [87-89] and exhibit antiviral activity [58].

In 2019, Martínez et al., demonstrated that chitosan-based membranes supplemented with lipophilic Bi NPs caused complete inhibition of biofilm formation and 90% to 98% growth inhibition of six different oral pathogens: Poryphyromonas gingivalis, Methicillin-resistant S. aureus, Candida albicans, E. coli, Enterococcus faecalis, and Streptococcus gordonii.

Finally, Bi NPs reduced with Moringa oleifera leaf extract with a diameter of 40.4 to 57.8 nm were evaluated and it was found that the MIC for E. coli and S. aureus was 500 μg/mL [90].

In vivo effect of metallic nanoparticles against bovine mastitis

The toxicity of some metallic NPs has been evaluated, but only in short-term experiments in cell cultures. However, the results of other studies have not been reassuring [79,98]. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out more experiments to demonstrate the safety of the application of NPs in living organisms.

Only one type of metallic NPs has been evaluated in vivo, largely due to the difficulties associated with working with large ruminants like cattle, which involved significant economic implications for maintaining experimental units. Some researchers argue that murine models are not suitable for studying bovine mastitis due to the physiological differences between these species. After lactation ends, the mammary gland undergoes involution; in mice, this process involves extensive degeneration of mammary epithelial or alveolar cells, leading to a primary ductal morphology [99]. In contrast, cattle experience minimal cell loss during post-lactation involution [100].

However, recently a study was conducted in which mastitis caused by S. aureus was induced in Wistar rats, which were then treated with CuNPs and compared with rats treated intramuscularly with conventional antibiotic (gentamicin). The results were encouraging. Administration of CuNPs at a concentration of 6.25 μg/mL produced a significant zone of inhibition in an in vitro sensitivity test and showed minimal toxicity in fibroblast cell lines. Clinical signs in the CuNPs-treated group improved within three days of treatment, whereas improvement in the gentamicin-treated group, was observed by the 4th day. On the 5th day of treatment, the bacterial load, mammary glands weight, total oxidative state, and oxidative stress index were significantly lower in the CuNPs group compared to the commercial antibiotic group. Additionally, CuNPs treatment showed a marked improvement in histopathological changes compared to the gentamicin-treatment group. Therefore, it was concluded that CuNPs could offer a potential alternative therapeutic regimen for the treatment of mastitis in bovines [78].

Despite the limited in vivo studies on the administration of metallic NPs, it is known that some medical devices containing AgNPs can release silver ions into the bloodstream, where they accumulate in organs such as the liver, spleen, and kidney. This accumulation can lead to severe toxicity and potentially death [83]. In rats treated with AgNPs, these NPs can accumulate in specific tissues, including the spleen, liver, lungs, and kidneys, where Ag ions may be generated. These ions can cause chromosome damage, suggesting possible genotoxicity associated with AgNPs [84].

CONCLUSION

Mastitis represents one of the main challenges for the dairy industry, and despite various techniques implemented to combat it, they have often proven inefficient. Currently, bovine mastitis is commonly treated with antibiotics. However, this approach faces a major drawback: the emergence of multidrug-resistant pathogen strains. Therefore, developing new, safe, and cost-effective treatments is crucial. In this context, both polymeric and metallic NPs exhibit potential as antimicrobial agents, at least in vitro. However, the safety of these materials in living organisms still needs to be confirmed to ensure that their use does not result in unwanted effects, such as cytotoxicity in healthy tissues.

Notes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTION

Conceptualization: Castro-Valenzuela BE.

Formal analysis: Castro-Valenzuela BE, Franco-Molina MA.

Validation: Franco-Molina MA, Rodríguez-Padilla C.

Investigation: Castro-Valenzuela BE, Franco-Molina MA, Rodríguez-Padilla C.

Writing - original draft: Castro-Valenzuela BE.

Writing - review & editing: Castro-Valenzuela BE, Franco-Molina MA, Rodríguez-Padilla C.

FUNDING

Not applicable.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank M. Sc. Alejandra Arreola Triana for proofreading this article.

DATA AVAILABILITY

Upon reasonable request, the datasets of this study can be available from the corresponding author.

ETHICS APPROVAL

Not applicable.

DECLARATION OF GENERATIVE AI

No AI tools were used in this article.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

Not applicable.

References

1. Aghamohammadi M, Haine D, Kelton DF, et al. Herd-level mastitis-associated costs on Canadian dairy farms. Front Vet Sci 2018;5:100. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00100.

2. University of Glasgow. Potential biomarkers of mastitis in dairy cattle milk identified [Internet]. Phys.org 2016. [cited 2022 Sep 12]. Available from: https://phys.org/news/2016-07-potential-biomarkers-mastitis-dairy-cattle.html.

3. Gonçalves JL, de Campos JL, Steinberger AJ, et al. Incidence and treatments of bovine mastitis and other diseases on 37 dairy farms in wisconsin. Pathogens 2022;11:1282. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11111282.

4. Bradley AJ. Bovine mastitis: an evolving disease. Vet J 2002;164:116–28. https://doi.org/10.1053/tvjl.2002.0724.

5. Watts JL. Etiological agents of bovine mastitis. Vet Microbiol 1988;16:41–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1135(88)90126-5.

6. Zhang Z, Chen Y, Li X, Wang X, Li H. Detection of antibiotic resistance, virulence gene, and drug resistance gene of staphylococcus aureus isolates from bovine mastitis. Microbiol Spectr 2022;10:e00471–22. https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.00471-22.

7. Naqvi SA, De Buck J, Dufour S, Barkema HW. Udder health in Canadian dairy heifers during early lactation. J Dairy Sci 2018;101:3233–47. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13579.

8. Marques VF, Motta CCD, Soares BDS, et al. Biofilm production and beta-lactamic resistance in Brazilian Staphylococcus aureus isolates from bovine mastitis. Braz J Microbiol 2017;48:118–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjm.2016.10.001.

9. Boireau C, Cazeau G, Jarrige N, et al. Antimicrobial resistance in bacteria isolated from mastitis in dairy cattle in France, 2006–2016. J Dairy Sci 2018;101:9451–62. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-14835.

10. Nam HM, Lee AL, Jung SC, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus and characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from bovine mastitis in Korea. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2011;8:231–8. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2010.0661.

11. Mody VV, Siwale R, Singh A, Mody HR. Introduction to metallic nanoparticles. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2010;2:282–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-7406.72127.

12. Wernicki A, Andrzej Puchalski, Renata Urban-Chmiel, et al. Antimicrobial properties of gold, silver, copper and platinum nanoparticles against selected microorganisms isolated from cases of mastitis in cattle. Med Weter 2014;70:564–7.

13. Hozyen HF, Ibrahim ES, Khairy EA, El-Dek SI. Enhanced antibacterial activity of capped zinc oxide nanoparticles: a step towards the control of clinical bovine mastitis. Vet World 2019;12:1225–32. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2019.1225-1232.

14. Orellano MS, Isaac P, Breser ML, et al. Chitosan nanoparticles enhance the antibacterial activity of the native polymer against bovine mastitis pathogens. Carbohydr Polym 2019;213:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.02.016.

15. Kalińska A, Jaworski S, Wierzbicki M, Gołębiewski M. Silver and copper nanoparticles—an alternative in future mastitis treatment and prevention? Int J Mol Sci 2019;20:1672. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20071672.

16. Rivera Aguayo P, Bruna Larenas T, Alarcón Godoy C, et al. Antimicrobial and antibiofilm capacity of chitosan nanoparticles against wild type strain of Pseudomonas sp. isolated from milk of cows diagnosed with bovine mastitis. Antibiotics 2020;9:551. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics9090551.

17. Lange A, Grzenia A, Wierzbicki M, et al. Silver and copper nanoparticles inhibit biofilm formation by mastitis pathogens. Animals 2021;11:1884. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11071884.

18. Ul-Hamid A, Dafalla H, Hakeem AS, Haider A, Ikram M. In-vitro catalytic and antibacterial potential of green synthesized cuo nanoparticles against prevalent multiple drug resistant bovine mastitogen staphylococcus aureus. Int J Mol Sci 2022;23:2335. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23042335.

19. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The future of food and agriculture. Trends and challenges FAO; 2017.

20. World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Milk’s impact on the environment [Internet] WWF; c2019. [cited 2023 Apr 13]. Available from: https://www.worldwildlife.org/magazine/issues/winter-2019/articles/milk-s-impact-on-the-environment.

21. Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos (OCDE) / Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). OCDE-FAO Perspctivas agrícolas 2020–2029 OCDE/FAO; 2020.

22. Miller GY, Dorn CR. Costs of dairy cattle diseases to producers in Ohio. Prev Vet Med 1990;8:171–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-5877(90)90009-7.

23. Ismail ZB. Mastitis vaccines in dairy cows: Recent developments and recommendations of application. Vet World 2017;10:1057. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2017.1057–1062.

24. He W, Ma S, Lei L, et al. Prevalence, etiology, and economic impact of clinical mastitis on large dairy farms in China. Vet Microbiol 2020;242:108570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2019.108570.

25. Adkins PR, Middleton JR. Methods for diagnosing mastitis. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2018;34:479–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2018.07.003.

26. Fitzpatrick SR, Garvey M, Jordan K, Flynn J, O’Brien B, Gleeson D. Screening commercial teat disinfectants against bacteria isolated from bovine milk using disk diffusion. Vet World 2019;12:629–37. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2019.629-637.

27. Días RS, Eller MR, Duarte VS, et al. Use of phages against antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from bovine mastitis. J Anim Sci 2013;91:3930–9. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5884.

28. Zhao X, Lacasse P. Mammary tissue damage during bovine mastitis: causes and control. J Anim Sci 2008;86:57–65. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0302.

29. Watts JL. Bovine mastitis. In : Carter GR, Cole JR Jr, eds. Diagnostic Procedure in veterinary bacteriology and mycology 15th edth ed. Academic Press; 1990. p. 469–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-161775-2.50038-4.

30. Viguier C, Arora S, Gilmartin N, Welbeck K, O’Kennedy R. Mastitis detection: current trends and future perspectives. Trends Biotechnol 2009;27:486–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2009.05.004.

31. Kaşikçi G, Ö Çetin, Bingöl EB, Gündüz MC. Relations between electrical conductivity, somatic cell count, California mastitis test and some quality parameters in the diagnosis of subclinical mastitis in dairy cows. Turk J Vet Anim Sci 2012;36:49–55. https://doi.org/10.3906/vet-1103-4.

32. Botrel MA, Haenni M, Morignat E, Sulpice P, Madec JY, Calavas D. Distribution and antimicrobial resistance of clinical and subclinical mastitis pathogens in dairy cows in Rhône-Alpes, France. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2010;7:479–87. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2009.0425.

33. Heikkilä AM, Liski E, Pyörälä S, Taponen S. Pathogen-specific production losses in bovine mastitis. J Dairy Sci 2018;101:9493–504. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-14824.

34. Dalanezi FM, Joaquim SF, Guimarães FF, et al. Influence of pathogens causing clinical mastitis on reproductive variables of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2020;103:3648–55. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-16841.

35. Zhang DX, Li Y, Yang XQ, et al. In vitro antibiotic susceptibility, virulence genes distribution and biofilm production of Staphylococcus aureus isolates from bovine mastitis in the Liaoning province of China. Infect Drug Resist 2020;13:1365–75. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S247765.

36. Krömker V, Leimbach S. Mastitis treatment—reduction in antibiotic usage in dairy cows. Reprod Domest Anim 2017;52:21–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/rda.13032.

37. Zigo F, Vasil M, Ondrašovičová S, Výrostková J, Bujok J, Pecka-Kielb E. Maintaining optimal mammary gland health and prevention of mastitis. Front Vet Sci 2021;8:607311. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.607311.

38. Williamson JH, Woolford MW, Day AM. The prophylactic effect of a dry-cow antibiotic against Streptococcus uberis. N Z Vet J 1995;43:228–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.1995.35898.

39. Meaney WJ, Twomey DP, Flynn J, Hill C, Ross RP. The use of a bismuth-based teat seal and the bacteriocin lacticin 3147 to prevent dry period mastitis in dairy cows. In : Proceedings of the British Mastitis Conference 2001; 2001 October 10; Garstang, UK: The Dairy Group; 2001. p. 24–32.

40. Notcovich S, Williamson NB, Flint S, Yapura J, Schukken YH, Heuer C. Effect of bismuth subnitrate on in vitro growth of major mastitis pathogens. J Dairy Sci 2020;103:7249–59. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-17830.

41. Dufour S, Wellemans V, Roy JP, Lacasse P, Ordonez-Iturriaga A, Francoz D. Non-antimicrobial approaches at drying-off for treating and preventing intramammary infections in dairy cows. Part 1. Meta-analyses of efficacy of using an internal teat sealant without a concomitant antimicrobial treatment. Anim Health Res Rev 2019;20:86–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252319000070.

42. Rabiee AR, Lean IJ. The effect of internal teat sealant products (Teatseal and Orbeseal) on intramammary infection, clinical mastitis, and somatic cell counts in lactating dairy cows: a meta-analysis. J Dairy Sci 2013;96:6915–31. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-6544.

43. Wanjala NW, Gitau GK, Muchemi GM, Maka DN. Effect of bismuth subnitrate teat canal sealant with ampicillin-cloxacillin combination in control of bovine mastitis in selected farms in Kenya. Int J Vet Sci 2020;9:331–6. https://doi.org/10.37422/IJVS/20.049.

44. León-Galván MF, Barboza-Corona JE, Lechuga-Arana AA, et al. Molecular detection and sensitivity to antibiotics and bacteriocins of pathogens isolated from bovine mastitis in family dairy herds of central Mexico. BioMed Res Int 2015;2015:615153. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/615153.

45. Su Y, Yu CY, Tsai Y, Wang SH, Lee C, Chu C. Fluoroquinolone-resistant and extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli from the milk of cows with clinical mastitis in Southern Taiwan. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2016;49:892–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmii.2014.10.003.

46. Burović J. Isolation of bovine clinical mastitis bacterial pathogens and their antimicrobial susceptibility in the Zenica region in 2017. Vet Stanica 2020;51:47–52. https://doi.org/10.46419/vs.51.1.5.

47. Chandrasekaran D, Venkatesan P, Tirumurugaan KG, et al. Pattern of antibiotic resistant mastitis in dairy cows. Vet World 2014;7:389–94. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2014.389-394.

48. Bellini J. Antimicrobial resistance: how changes have improved practices in the UK dairy industry. Livestock 2021;26:180–5. https://doi.org/10.12968/live.2021.26.4.180.

49. Saidi R, Mimoune N, Baazizi R, Benaissa MH, Khelef D, Kaidi R. Antibiotic susceptibility of Staphylococci isolated from bovine mastitis in Algeria. J Adv Vet Anim Res 2019;6:231–5. https://doi.org/10.5455/javar.2019.f337.

50. Zhang D, Zhang Z, Huang C, et al. The phylogenetic group, antimicrobial susceptibility, and virulence genes of Escherichia coli from clinical bovine mastitis. J Dairy Sci 2018;101:572–80. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13159.

51. Tomazi T, de Souza Filho AF, Heinemann MB, Santos MVD. Molecular characterization and antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of Streptococcus agalactiae isolated from clinical mastitis in dairy cattle. PLOS ONE 2018;13:e0199561. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199561.

52. Yang F, Zhang S, Shang X, Wang L, Li H, Wang X. Characteristics of quinolone-resistant Escherichia coli isolated from bovine mastitis in China. J Dairy Sci 2018;101:6244–52. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-14156.

53. Elemo KK, Bedada BA, Kebeda T. Prevalence, risk factors and major bacterial causes of bovine mastitis in smallholder dairy farms in and around Sinana District, Bale Zone, South Eastern Ethiopia. Glob J Sci Front Res: D Agric Vet 2018;18:31–43.

54. Brouillette E, Malouin F. The pathogenesis and control of Staphylococcus aureus-induced mastitis: study models in the mouse. Microbes Infect 2005;7:560–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2004.11.008.

55. Rainard P, Foucras G. A critical appraisal of probiotics for mastitis control. Front Vet Sci 2018;5:251. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00251.

56. Dego OK. Current status of antimicrobial resistance and prospect for new vaccines against major bacterial bovine mastitis pathogens. In : Aral F, Payan-Carreira R, Quaresma M, eds. Animal reproduction in veterinary medicine IntechOpen; 2020. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94227.

57. Gomes F, Henriques M. Control of bovine mastitis: old and recent therapeutic approaches. Curr Microbiol 2016;72:377–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-015-0958-8.

58. Claudio CR, Chellam S. Bismuth nanoparticles: antimicrobials of broad-spectrum, low cost and safety. In : Seifalian A, de Mel A, Kalaskar DM, eds. Nanomedicine One Central Press; 2014. p. 429–37.

59. Tashakkori N, Horamian K, Toosi B, Moghadam MF, Farzaneh N, Heidarpour M, Mashayekhi K. Evaluating the effectiveness of two mastitis vaccines in a dairy farm in Mashhad, Iran. In : Proceedings of the e 21st Annual Conference of the European Society for Domestic Animal Reproduction (ESDAR); 2017 August 24–26; Bern, Switzerland. Wiley Blackwell; 2017. p. 138.

60. Freick M, Frank Y, Steinert K, Hamedy A, Passarge O, Sobiraj A. Mastitis vaccination using a commercial polyvalent vaccine or a herd-specific Staphylococcus aureus vaccine: results of a controlled field trial on a dairy farm. Tierarztl Prax Ausg G Grosstiere Nutztiere 2016;44:219–29. https://doi.org/10.15653/TPG-150912.

61. Wilson DJ, Grohn YT, Bennett GJ, González RN, Schukken YH, Spatz J. Comparison of J5 vaccinates and controls for incidence, etiologic agent, clinical severity, and survival in the herd following naturally occurring cases of clinical mastitis. J Dairy Sci 2007;90:4282–8. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0160.

62. Landin H, Mörk MJ, Larsson M, Waller KP. Vaccination against Staphylococcus aureus mastitis in two Swedish dairy herds. Acta Vet Scand 2015;57:81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13028-015-0171-6.

63. Bradley AJ, Breen JE, Payne B, White V, Green MJ. An investigation of the efficacy of a polyvalent mastitis vaccine using different vaccination regimens under field conditions in the United Kingdom. J Dairy Sci 2015;98:1706–20. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8332.

64. Mata F, Jesus MS, Pinto RP, Mata A. A meta-analysis of the mastitis vaccination efficacy in dairy cattle. Open Vet J 2023;13:179–87. https://doi.org/10.5455/OVJ.2023.v13.i2.5.

65. Badr AA, Bakry NM, Al-Amry KF, Ahmed SAEH. Efficacy of Lysigin Vaccine in the prevention of mastitis in dairy cattle. Vet Me J 2023;69:56–68. https://doi.org/10.21608/vmjg.2023.238524.1027.

66. Tenhagen BA, Edinger D, Baumgärtner B, Kalbe P, Klünder G, Heuwieser W. Efficacy of a herd-specific vaccine against Staphylococcus aureus to prevent post-partum mastitis in dairy heifers. J Vet Med Series A 2001;48:601–7. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0442.2001.00397.x.

67. Mella A, Ulloa F, Valdés I, Olivares N, Ceballos A, Kruze J. Evaluation of a new vaccine against Staphylococcus aureus mastitis in dairy herds of southern Chile. I. Challenge trial. Austral J Vet Sci 2017;49:149–60. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0719-81322017000300149.

68. Middleton JR, Ma J, Rinehart CL, Taylor VN, Luby CD, Steevens BJ. Efficacy of different LysiginTM formulations in the prevention of Staphylococcus aureus intramammary infection in dairy heifers. J Dairy Res 2006;73:10–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029905001354.

69. Scott HM, Sargeant JM, Ireland MJ, et al. Effects of a core antigen vaccine against gram-negative bacteria on physiologic and yield parameters of dairy cows during late lactation and the dry period. J Dairy Sci 1998;81:1928–35. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(98)75765-0.

70. Vidlund J, Gelalcha BD, Gillespie BE, et al. Efficacy of novel staphylococcal surface associated protein vaccines against Staphylococcus aureus and non-aureus staphylococcal mastitis in dairy cows. Vaccine 2024;42:1247–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.01.067.

71. Magaš V, Vakanjac S, Pavlović V, et al. Efficiency evaluation of a bivalent vaccine in the prophylaxis of mastitis in cows. Acta Vet 2013;63:525–36. https://doi.org/10.2298/AVB1306525M.

72. Kovačević Z, Radinović M, Čabarkapa I, Kladar N, Božin B. Natural agents against bovine mastitis pathogens. Antibiotics 2021;10:205. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10020205.

73. Lopes TS, Fontoura PS, Oliveira A, Rizzo FA, Silveira S, Streck AF. Use of plant extracts and essential oils in the control of bovine mastitis. Res Vet Sci 2020;131:186–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2020.04.025.

74. Kober AKM, Saha S, Islam MA, et al. Immunomodulatory effects of probiotics: a novel preventive approach for the control of bovine mastitis. Microorganisms 2022;10:2255. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10112255.

75. Guo M, Gao Y, Xue Y, et al. Bacteriophage cocktails protect dairy cows against mastitis caused by drug resistant Escherichia coli infection. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2021;11:690377. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2021.690377.

76. Porter J, Anderson J, Carter L, Donjacour E, Paros M. In vitro evaluation of a novel bacteriophage cocktail as a preventative for bovine coliform mastitis. J Dairy Sci 2016;99:2053–62. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9748.

77. Gill JJ, Pacan JC, Carson ME, Leslie KE, Griffiths MW, Sabour PM. Efficacy and pharmacokinetics of bacteriophage therapy in treatment of subclinical Staphylococcus aureus mastitis in lactating dairy cattle. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006;50:2912–8. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.01630-05.

78. Taifa S, Muhee A, Bhat RA, et al. Evaluation of therapeutic efficacy of copper nanoparticles in staphylococcus aureus-induced rat mastitis model. J Nanomater 2022;2022:7124114. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7124114.

79. Elbehiry A, Al-Dubaib M, Marzouk E, Moussa I. Antibacterial effects and resistance induction of silver and gold nanoparticles against Staphylococcus aureus-induced mastitis and the potential toxicity in rats. MicrobiologyOpen 2019;8:e00698. https://doi.org/10.1002/mbo3.698.

80. Hamida RS, Ali MA, Goda DA, Al-Zaban MI. Lethal mechanisms of nostoc-synthesized silver nanoparticles against different pathogenic bacteria. Int J Nanomedicine 2020;15:10499–517. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S289243.

81. Yu L, Shang F, Chen X, et al. The anti-biofilm effect of silver-nanoparticle-decorated quercetin nanoparticles on a multi-drug resistant Escherichia coli strain isolated from a dairy cow with mastitis. PeerJ 2018;6:e5711. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5711.

82. Kazemi J, Ahmadi M, Dastmalchi SH, Adibhesami M. Antibacterial effect of silver nanoparticles along with protein synthesis-inhibiting antibiotics on Staphylococcus aureus isolated from cattle mastitis. Biol J Microorg 2014;:15–22.

83. Sardari RRR, Zarchi SR, Talebi A, et al. Toxicological effects of silver nanoparticles in rats. Afr J Microbiol Res 2012;6:5587–93. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJMR11.1070.

84. Wen H, Dan M, Yang Y, et al. Acute toxicity and genotoxicity of silver nanoparticle in rats. PLOS ONE 2017;12:e0185554. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185554.

85. Rieznichenko LS, Gruzina TG, Dybkova SM, Ushkalov VO, Ulberg ZR. Investigation of bismuth nanoparticles antimicrobial activity against high pathogen microorganism. Am J Bioterror Biosecur Biodef 2015;2:1004.

86. Vazquez-Munoz R, Arellano-Jimenez MJ, Lopez-Ribot JL. Bismuth nanoparticles obtained by a facile synthesis method exhibit antimicrobial activity against Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans. BMC Biomed Eng 2020;2:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42490-020-00044-2.

87. Rostamifar S, Azad A, Bazrafkan A, Modaresi F, Atashpour S, Jahromi ZK. New strategy of reducing biofilm forming bacteria in oral cavity by bismuth nanoparticles. BioMed Res Int 2021;2021:6695692. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6695692.

88. Azad A, Rostamifar S, Modaresi F, Bazrafkan A, Rezaie Z. Assessment of the Antibacterial Effects of Bismuth Nanoparticles against Enterococcus faecalis. BioMed Res Int 2020;2020:5465439. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5465439.

89. Hernandez-Delgadillo R, Velasco-Arias D, Diaz D, et al. Zerovalent bismuth nanoparticles inhibit Streptococcus mutans growth and formation of biofilm. Int J Nanomedicine 2012;7:2109–13. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S29854.

90. Das PE, Majdalawieh AF, Abu-Yousef IA, Narasimhan S, Poltronieri P. Use of a hydroalcoholic extract of Moringa oleifera leaves for the green synthesis of bismuth nanoparticles and evaluation of their anti-microbial and antioxidant activities. Materials 2020;13:876. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13040876.

91. Shi SF, Jia JF, Guo XK, et al. Reduced Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation in the presence of chitosan-coated iron oxide nanoparticles. Int J Nanomedicine 2016;11:6499–506. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S41371.

92. Masadeh MM, Karasneh GA, Al-Akhras MA, et al. Cerium oxide and iron oxide nanoparticles abolish the antibacterial activity of ciprofloxacin against gram positive and gram negative biofilm bacteria. Cytotechnology 2015;67:427–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10616-014-9701-8.

93. Ismail RA, Sulaiman GM, Abdulrahman SA, Marzoog TR. Antibacterial activity of magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles synthesized by laser ablation in liquid. Mater Sci Eng C 2015;53:286–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2015.04.047.

94. Makvandi P, Wang CYZ, Zare EN, Borzacchiello A, Niu LN, Tay FR. Metal-based nanomaterials in biomedical applications: antimicrobial activity and cytotoxicity aspects. Adv Funct Mater 2020;30:1910021. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201910021.

95. Du Y, Li T, Wan Y, Liao P. Signal molecule-dependent quorum-sensing and quorum-quenching enzymes in bacteria. Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr 2014;24:117–32. https://doi.org/10.1615/critreveukaryotgeneexpr.2014008034.

96. Cheon JY, Kim SJ, Rhee YH, Kwon OH, Park WH. Shape-dependent antimicrobial activities of silver nanoparticles. Int J Nanomedicine 2019;14:2773–80. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S196472.

97. Magro M, Zaccarin M, Miotto G, et al. Analysis of hard protein corona composition on selective iron oxide nanoparticles by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry: identification and amplification of a hidden mastitis biomarker in milk proteome. Anal Bioanal Chem 2018;410:2949–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-018-0976-z.

98. Shakibaie M, Hajighasemi E, Adeli-Sardou M, Doostmohammadi M, Forootanfar H. Antimicrobial and anti-biofilm activities of Bi subnitrate and BiNPs produced by Delftia sp. SFG against clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Proteus mirabilis. IET Nanobiotechnol 2019;13:377–81. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-nbt.2018.5102.

99. Ossowski L, Biegel D, Reich E. Mammary plasminogen activator: correlation with involution, hormonal modulation and comparison between normal and neoplastic tissue. Cell 1979;16:929–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(79)90108-9.

100. Zhao X, Ponchon B, Lanctôt S, Lacasse P. Invited review: accelerating mammary gland involution after drying-off in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 2019;102:6701–17. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-16377.

Article information Continued

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Antigens	Vaccine type	Effectiveness	Shortcomings	References
Staphylococcus aureus	Bacterin (whole cell inactivated)	Reduction of the progression of clinical symptoms Induction of a strong short-term immune response	Not prevent mastitis or reduce the incidence	[65–68]
Escherichia coli J5 Staphylococcus aureus	Whole cell inactivated. S. aureus expresses Slime Associated Antigenic Complex (SAAC)	Reduction of the severity of clinical signs and duration of intramammary infections	Not reduce the rate of intramammary infections	[59,60,62,63]
Staphylococcus aureus Streptococcus agalactiae Streptococcus dysgalactiae Streptococcus uberis Streptococcus pyogenes Escherichia coli Corynebacterium pyogenes	Whole cell inactivated	Not reported	Not reduce the incidence of clinical mastitis, not lessen the severity of symptoms	[59]
Escherichia coli J5	Whole cell inactivated	Reduction of the severity of infection	Not reduce rates of coliforms mastitis or all types of clinical mastitis	[61,69]
Staphylococcus aureus Staphylococcus chromogenes	Surface-associated proteins	Reduction in the incidence of staphylococcal mastitis.	Conferred partial protection from natural infection.	[70]
Staphylococcus aureus Streptococcus agalactiae	Whole cell inactivated	Increase the concentration of IgG in the milk of vaccinated cows	Not reduce rates of intramammary infections	[71]

Nanoparticles	Pathogen	Advantages	Disadvantages	References
Chitosan	Staphylococcus aureus Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus Pseudomonas spp.	Damage to the plasma membrane of the bacterium causes lysis. Inhibit the formation of biofilms of the bacteria Not toxic for bovine cell lines Not promote the production of proinflammatory cytokines	Not reported in vivo evaluations	[14,16]
ZnO	Escherichia coli Klebsiella pneumoniae Staphylococcus aureus	Bactericidal effect on E. coli and K. pneumoniae	Not exhibit a bactericidal effect on S. aureus Not reported in vivo evaluations	[13]
Au (commercial)	E. coli Streptococcus uberis S. aureus Candida albicans Candida krusei	Reported cytotoxicity against S. aureus in Wistar rats	Exhibit weak bactericidal activity The pathogenic strains developed strong resistance against this NPs	[12,79]
Ag (commercial)	E. coli Streptococcus uberis S. aureus Candida albicans Candida krusei	Highest bactericidal effect	Cytotoxicity in eukaryotic cells The pathogenic strains developed strong resistance against this NPs	[12,79–84]
Cu (commercial)	E. coli Streptococcus uberis S. aureus Candida albicans Candida krusei	Highest bactericidal effect	Cytotoxicity in eukaryotic cells	[11,78]
Pt (commercial)	E. coli Streptococcus uberis S. aureus Candida albicans Candida krusei	Not reported	Not biocidal effect	[12]
Ag and Cu reduced with plant extracts	Staphylococcus aureus Escherichia coli Streptococcus agalactiae Streptococcus dysgalactiae Salmonella spp. Enterococcus faecalis Enterobacter cloacae Candida albicans	Cytotoxic on pathogens Not have a cytotoxic effect on mammary gland tissue cell lines Inhibit the formation of biofilms	Not reported in vivo evaluations	[15,17]
CuO reduced with ginger extract	Multidrug-resistant S. aureus	Exhibit bactericidal activity	Not reported in vivo evaluations	[18]
CuO reduced with garlic extract	Multidrug-resistant S. aureus	Exhibit bactericidal activity	Not reported in vivo evaluations	[18]
AgNPs reduced with cinnamon oil	Multidrug-resistant Streptococcus agalactiae	Showed reasonable antimicrobial Inhibition of biofilm formation	Cinnamon oil alone had a better effect than AgNPs	[15]
BiNPs	Campylobacter jejuni Listeria monocytogenes Yersinia enterocolitica Salmonella typhimurium E. coli Mycoplasma argini Acholeplasma ladidlawii Bacillus anthracis Leptospira Pomona S. aureus Candida albicans Poryphyromonas gingivalis Methicillin-resistant S. aureus Enterococcus faecalis Streptococcus gordonii	Exhibit antimicrobial activity Reduce microbial biofilm formation	Not reported in vivo evaluations	[85–90]
Fe₂O₃ NPs	Bacillus subtilis Bacillus licheniformis S. aureus Bacillus brevis Vibrio cholerae, Streptococcus aureus S.epidermidis E. coli Shigella flexneri Pseudomonas aeruginosa	Inhibition of biofilm formation	They have not been tested on clinical mastitis isolates Conflicting results regarding the antibacterial effect	[91–93]