| Literature DB >> 24202451 |
Yuma Yamada1, Ryosuke Suzuki, Hideyoshi Harashima.
Abstract
The focus of recent research has been on the development of siRNA vectors to achieve an innovative gene therapy. Most of the conventional vectors are siRNA nanoparticles complexed with cationicEntities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24202451 PMCID: PMC3875945 DOI: 10.3390/cancers5041413
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Structures of the mono-cationic detergents (MCD).
| Group | Name | Basic structure | R (L-chain) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-C | C-1 | -C14H25 | |
| C-2 | -C16H33 | ||
| Type-D | D-1 | -C12H25 | |
| D-2 | -C16H33 | ||
| Type-E | E-1 | -C12H25 | |
| E-2 | -C14H29 | ||
| E-3 | -C16H33 |
Figure 1Relationship between the N/P ratio and diameter or zeta-potential of siRNA/MCD nanoparticles prepared using various MCDs. In this experiment, siRNA targeting GFP was used for preparing the nanoparticles. (A): the diameters (a) and zeta-potentials (b) of siRNA/MCD nanoparticles formed using Type-C in a series of N/P ratios: gray circles, C-1; closed circles, C-2; (B): the diameters (a) and zeta-potentials (b) of siRNA/MCD nanoparticles formed using Type-D at a series of N/P ratios: open triangles, D-1; closed triangles, D-2; (C): the diameters (a) and zeta-potentials (b) of siRNA/MCD nanoparticles formed using Type-E in a series of N/P ratios: open squares, E-1; gray squares, E-2; closed squares, E-3. Data are the means (n = 1–3).
Figure 2Evaluation of the gene silencing efficiency and cell viability. Gene silencing efficiencies and cell viability were evaluated, when 0.1 μg of siRNA was transfected into HeLa cells stably expressing luciferase. (A) Gene silencing efficiencies of R8-D-MEND (E3) (closed circles) and Lipofectamine 2000 (open circles) were evaluated at 12, 24, 48 and 72 h after transfection. Significant differences between the R8-D-MEND (E3) and Lipofectamine 2000 were determined by two-tail unpaired student’s t-test (** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05). Data are means ± S.D. (n = 3–4). (B), Cell viabilities of R8-D-MEND (E3) (closed bar) and Lipofectamine 2000 (open bar) were evaluated at 48 h after transfection. No significant differences between the R8-D-MEND (E3) and Lipofectamine 2000 were found when the two-tail unpaired student’s t-test was applied. Data are the means ± S.D. (n = 3–4).
Characteristics of nanoparticles of siRNA targeting Luciferase formed using various MCDs Data are represented by the mean ± S.D. (n = 3–6).
| MCD (N/P ratio) | siRNA/MCD nanoparticle | R8-D-MEND | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Size (nm) | Zeta potential (mV) | PDI | Size (nm) | Zeta potential (mV) | PDI | |
| C-1 (1.0) | 130 ± 65 | −15.5 ± 19.3 | 0.48 ± 0.08 | 111 ± 9 | 32.4 ± 3.6 | 0.22 ± 0.04 |
| C-2 (5.0) | 131 ± 60 | 13.1 ± 5.6 | 0.35 ± 0.11 | 110 ± 3 | 43.3 ± 3.1 | 0.24 ± 0.06 |
| D-1 (5.0) | 51 ± 18 | −13.1 ± 7.7 | 0.32 ± 0.15 | 92 ± 13 | 30.3 ± 13.4 | 0.20 ± 0.03 |
| D-2 (5.0) | 85 ± 27 | 10.2 ± 3.9 | 0.25 ± 0.02 | 123 ± 10 | 45.0 ± 3.6 | 0.18 ± 0.03 |
| E-1 (2.5) | 85 ± 26 | −34.6 ± 11.4 | 0.28 ± 0.08 | 105 ± 9 | 30.9 ± 6.4 | 0.20 ± 0.05 |
| E-2 (7.5) | 60 ± 8 | 4.9 ± 3.4 | 0.24 ± 0.03 | 109 ± 11 | 43.7 ± 0.8 | 0.20 ± 0.03 |
| E-3 (5.0) | 67 ± 7 | 32.6 ± 2.5 | 0.33 ± 0.06 | 113 ± 7 | 51.0 ± 2.5 | 0.26 ± 0.02 |
Figure 3Investigation of the relationship between the hydrophobicity of the MCD and the gene silencing efficiency of the R8-D-MEND (MCD). The gene silencing efficiencies at 12 h after transfection were evaluated as described in Materials and Methods. Closed bars, 0.1 μg of siRNA; open bars, 0.04 μg of siRNA. Data are means ± S.D. (n = 3).
Characteristics of nanoparticles of siRNA targeting GFP prepared using various MCDs at a range of N/P ratios.
| Nanoparticles prepared using C-1 | Nanoparticles prepared using C-2 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/P ratio | Size (nm) | Zeta potential (mV) | PDI | N/P ratio | Size (nm) | Zeta potential (mV) | PDI |
| 0.25 | 94 | −37.9 | 0.72 | 0.25 | 162 | −42.9 | 0.63 |
| 0.5 | 124 | −29.8 | 0.55 | 0.5 | 2520 | −19.9 | 0.37 |
| 1 | 66 | −28.8 | 0.33 | 2.5 | 616 | 1.6 | 0.6 |
| 1.5 | 90 | −37.5 | 0.36 | 3.75 | 584 | 10.7 | 0.57 |
| 2 | 90 | −28.6 | 0.26 | 5 | 151 | 18.7 | 0.43 |
| 2.5 | 1480 | −28.1 | 0.58 | 6.25 | 108 | 19.9 | 0.27 |
| 5 | 1650 | −9.3 | 0.39 | 7.5 | 58 | 27.7 | 0.37 |
| 10 | 1360 | 0.8 | 0.56 | 8.75 | 84 | 29.3 | 0.42 |
| 10 | 57 | 31.7 | 0.36 | ||||
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.25 | 244 | −5.6 | 0.67 | 0.25 | 156 | −47.8 | 0.44 |
| 0.5 | 302 | −19.9 | 0.35 | 0.5 | 2560 | −18.6 | 0.7 |
| 2.5 | 162 | −18.5 | 0.34 | 2.5 | 888 | 4.5 | 0.62 |
| 3.75 | 113 | −34.4 | 0.34 | 3.75 | 69 | 18.3 | 0.24 |
| 5 | 123 | −37.0 | 0.22 | 5 | 95 | 18.7 | 0.32 |
| 6.25 | 69 | −35.0 | 0.3 | 6.25 | 82 | 21 | 0.34 |
| 7.5 | 55 | −31.9 | 0.21 | 7.5 | 65 | 30.4 | 0.36 |
| 8.75 | 99 | −33.5 | 0.24 | 8.75 | 50 | 30 | 0.34 |
| 10 | 102 | −35.0 | 0.25 | 10 | 53 | 31.3 | 0.36 |
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.25 | 713 | −19.9 | 0.85 | 0.25 | 133 | −50.2 | 0.41 |
| 0.5 | 198 | −20.0 | 0.49 | 0.5 | 129 | −29.6 | 0.24 |
| 1.25 | 324 | −20.7 | 0.66 | 2.5 | 3140 | −9.3 | 0.455 |
| 2.5 | 74 | −34.2 | 0.28 | 3.75 | 918 | 0.3 | 0.45 |
| 3.75 | 159 | −29.1 | 0.18 | 5 | 221 | 8.2 | 0.386 |
| 5 | 165 | −28.5 | 0.14 | 6.25 | 132 | 12.9 | 0.22 |
| 7.5 | 2030 | −20.5 | 0.7 | 7.5 | 53 | 16.5 | 0.26 |
| 10 | 2160 | −18.8 | 0.6 | 8.75 | 54 | 16.9 | 0.28 |
| 10 | 63 | 20.5 | 0.313 | ||||
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| 2.5 | 54 | 25.2 | 0.27 | ||||
| 3.75 | 63 | 40.1 | 0.25 | ||||
| 5 | 53 | 39.7 | 0.36 | ||||
| 7.5 | 45 | 44.4 | 0.32 | ||||
| 10 | 57 | 42.8 | 0.42 | ||||
Data are represented by the mean (n = 1–3).
Characteristics of SUV and R8-SUV.
| Size (nm) | Zata potential (mV) | |
|---|---|---|
| SUV | 74 ± 10 | −66.8 ± 8.9 |
| R8-SUV | 86 ± 14 | 29.9 ± 11.3 |
Data are represented by the mean ± S.D. (n = 6).