| Literature DB >> 24473144 |
Corina Danciu1, Codruta Soica2, Mircea Oltean3, Stefana Avram4, Florin Borcan5, Erzsebet Csanyi6, Rita Ambrus7, Istvan Zupko8, Delia Muntean9, Cristina A Dehelean1, Marius Craina10, Ramona A Popovici11.
Abstract
Genistein is one of the most studied phytocompound in the class of isoflavones, presenting a notable estrogenic activity and in vitro and/or in vivo benefits in different types of cancer such as those of the bladder, kidney, lung, pancreatic, skin and endometrial cancer. A big inconvenience for drug development is low water solubility, which can be solved by using hydrophilic cyclodextrins. The aim of this study is to theoretically analyze, based on the interaction energy, the possibility of a complex formation between genistein (Gen) and three different ramified cyclodextrins (CD), using a 1:1 molar ratio Gen:CD. Theoretical data were correlated with a screening of both in vitro and in vivo activity. Proliferation of different human cancer cell lines, antimicrobial activity and angiogenesis behavior was analyzed in order to see if complexation has a beneficial effect for any of the above mentioned activities and if so, which of the three CDs is the most suitable for the incorporation of genistein, and which may lead to future improved pharmaceutical formulations. Results showed antiproliferative activity with different IC50 values for all tested cell lines, remarkable antimicrobial activity on Bacillus subtilis and antiangiogenic activity as revealed by CAM assay. Differences regarding the intensity of the activity for pure and the three Gen complexes were noticed as explained in the text. The data represent a proof that the three CDs can be used for furtherer research towards practical use in the pharmaceutical and medical field.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24473144 PMCID: PMC3958832 DOI: 10.3390/ijms15021962
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1.3D representation of CDs clusters and Gen as follows: (a) RAMEB; (b) HPBCD; (c) HPGCD and (d) Genistein. Hydrogens are omitted for clarity.
Interaction energy of the three complexes.
| Solvent | Gen-RAMEB | Gen-HPBCD | Gen-HPGCD | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Gas Phase | −34.68 | −21.32 | −50.14 | −33.15 | −54.25 | −37.08 |
|
| ||||||
| DMSO | −30.07 | −19.55 | −43.84 | −31.01 | −48.38 | −36.27 |
|
| ||||||
| Water | −29.83 | −20.29 | −43.79 | −30.98 | −48.02 | −36.18 |
, Non-counterpoise correction;
, Counterpoise correction.
Stability constants for Gen complexes.
| Cyclodextrin | Stability constant (M−1) |
|---|---|
| RAMEB | 10.850 |
| HPBCD | 10.900 |
| HPGCD | 12.700 |
Figure 2.Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) for Gen; and its’s 1:1 CDs complexes, respectively pure CDs.
Figure 3.X-ray diffractograms for Gen and its 1:1 complexes as follows: (a) Gen-HPBCD; (b) Gen-HPGCD; (c) Gen-RAMEB.
Figure 4.Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) assay for: (a) Gen; (b) Gen: HPBCD; (c) Gen: HPGCD; (d) Gen: RAMEB; (e) HPBCD; (f) HPGCD; (g) RAMEB.
Figure 5.Dose-response curves of genistein (●) and the tested complexes prepared with RAMEB (□), HPBCD (Δ) and HPGCD (○) (1, 3, 10, 30, 60 and 90 μM) on four different human cancer cell lines: Hela, A431, MCF-7, A2780.
Calculated antiproliferative IC50 values for genistein and the tested complexes on four different human cancer cell lines.
| Compound | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| HeLa | A2780 | MCF7 | A431 | |
| Gen | 25.90 | 20.86 | 50.08 | 72.79 |
| Gen-RAMEB (1:1) | 21.07 | 22.80 | 59.47 | >90 |
| Gen-HPBCD (1:1) | 16.47 | 17.49 | 44.02 | 69.88 |
| Gen-HPGCD (1:1) | 19.09 | 19.84 | 50.40 | 74.35 |
IC50 represent the concentration of active agent necessarily to reduce proliferation to 50%. Mean value from two independent determinations with five parallel wells, standard deviation less than 15%.
Zone of inhibition (mm) for genistein and the tested complexes on the mentioned bacterial strains.
| Compound | Zone of inhibition (mm). Results are presented as mean values ± SD | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| Gen | 15 ± 0.46 | 9 ± 0.12 | 7 ± 0.23 | 6 ± 0.23 | 6 ± 0.15 | 6 ± 0.23 | 6 ± 0.12 |
| Gen-RAMEB (1:1) | 16 ± 0.32 | 9 ± 0.17 | 8 ± 0.19 | 6 ± 0.14 | 6 ± 0.13 | 6 ± 0.09 | 6 ± 0.17 |
| Gen-HPBCD (1:1) | 16 ± 0.20 | 9 ± 0.11 | 8 ± 0.13 | 6 ± 0.21 | 6 ± 0.19 | 6 ± 0.14 | 6 ± 0.22 |
| Gen-HPGCD (1:1) | 17 ± 0.28 | 9 ± 0.09 | 8 ± 0.11 | 6 ± 0.16 | 6 ± 0.17 | 6 ± 0.15 | 6 ± 0.13 |
Figure 6.Effects on angiogenesis for genistein (Gen) and the tested complexes prepared with RAMEB (Gen-RAMEB), HPBCD (Gen-HPBCD) and HPGCD (Gen-HPGCD) on the CAM: (a–h) Stereomicroscopic photographs of ex ovo samples, day 5: (a) Gen; (b) Blank-DMSO; (c) Gen-HPBCD; (d) HPBCD; (e) Gen-RAMEB; (f) RAMEB; (g) Gen-HPGCD; (h) HPGCD; (i) Vascular density mean scores induced by the samples on the CAM using 0–5 scale.