Chitosan polyplexes containing plasmid DNA (pDNA) have significant potential for pulmonary gene delivery applications. However, prior to using chitosan/pDNA polyplexes (CSpp) in clinical applications, their potential cytotoxicity needs to be investigated. In this study, we formulated 200-400 nm CSpp with amine to phosphate (N/P) ratios that ranged from 1 to 100. We compared two types of plasmids within CSpp: pDNA that was free of CpG sequences (CpG(-)) and pDNA that contained CpG sequences (CpG(+)). Both forms of CSpp showed low cytotoxicity when cultured with A549 and HEK293 cell lines in vitro. CSpp(CpG(-)) generated higher luciferase expression both in vitro, for A549 cells, and in vivo, compared with CSpp(CpG(+)). In addition, CSpp(CpG(-)) elicited milder inflammatory responses in mice one day subsequent to nasal instillation, as determined by proinflammatory cytokine levels within the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Our findings suggest that to achieve optimal gene expression with minimal cytotoxicity, inflammation, and oxidative stress, the N/P ratios and CpG sequences in the pDNA of CSpp need to be considered. These findings will inform the preclinical safety assessments of CSpp in pulmonary gene delivery systems.
Chitosan polyplexes containpan>inpan>g plasmid Dpan> class="Chemical">NA (pDNA) have significant potential for pulmonary gene delivery applications. However, prior to using chitosan/pDNA polyplexes (CSpp) in clinical applications, their potential cytotoxicity needs to be investigated. In this study, we formulated 200-400 nm CSpp with amine to phosphate (N/P) ratios that ranged from 1 to 100. We compared two types of plasmids within CSpp: pDNA that was free of CpG sequences (CpG(-)) and pDNA that contained CpG sequences (CpG(+)). Both forms of CSpp showed low cytotoxicity when cultured with A549 and HEK293 cell lines in vitro. CSpp(CpG(-)) generated higher luciferase expression both in vitro, for A549 cells, and in vivo, compared with CSpp(CpG(+)). In addition, CSpp(CpG(-)) elicited milder inflammatory responses in mice one day subsequent to nasal instillation, as determined by proinflammatory cytokine levels within the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Our findings suggest that to achieve optimal gene expression with minimal cytotoxicity, inflammation, and oxidative stress, the N/P ratios and CpG sequences in the pDNA of CSpp need to be considered. These findings will inform the preclinical safety assessments of CSpp in pulmonary gene delivery systems.
Chitosan is anpan> abundanpan>t
linpan>ear pan> class="Chemical">polysaccharide derived from crustacean shells and is composed
of random β-(1–4)-linked d-glucosamines (deacetylated
units) and N-acetyl-d-glucosamines (acetylated
units). It is a biodegradable and biocompatible polymer that has been
studied intensively for its therapeutic applications as a drug and
gene delivery system.[1−4] Chitosan has garnered interest as a cationic nonviral gene delivery
vector because of its (i) relative ease of preparation; (ii) low toxicity;
and (iii) ability to condense DNA which provides protection against
nuclease degradation.[5,6]Previous studies have shown
that chitosan/pDpan> class="Chemical">NA polyplexes (CSpp) are particularly promising as
gene delivery formulations for treatment of pulmonary pathologies
such as cystic fibrosis,[7,8] asthma,[9] and lung cancer.[10] Although
chitosan causes minimal cytotoxicity and is generally noninflammatory,
a drawback is its low transfection efficiency when compared to viral
vectors and nonviral synthetic vectors such as polyethylenimine (PEI).
Thus, most of the studies involving CSpp delivery have been focused
on strategies to improve transfection efficiency such as optimizing
the molecular weight and the degree of deacetylation of chitosan,[11−13] as well as establishing appropriate amine to phosphate ratios (N/P)
of chitosan/DNA polyplexes.[13] Mixing chitosan
with other cationic gene vectors[14,15] and/or modifying
the structure of chitosan has also resulted in enhanced transfection
efficiencies.[16,17]The toxicity of pure or
chemically modified pan> class="Chemical">chitosan has been investigated in its free form
as well as in the form of micro- and nanoparticles. Pure chitosan
is well-known to be nontoxic.[18] Culturing
chitosan nanoparticles, prepared by ionotropic gelation with pentasodium
tripolyphosphate (TPP), with a cell line derived from human conjuntival
epithelium, had no effect on cell viability compared to untreated
cells.[19] In addition, it has been reported
that CSpp have little or no significant impact on cell viability in vitro for a range of cell types.[20−22] This is in
contrast to commonly used transfection reagents such as LipofectAMINE
2000 which can be highly cytotoxic.[23] Despite
showing promise in cytotoxicity assays in vitro,
a thorough characterization of the cytotoxicity and inflammation induced
by CSpp in vivo, particularly with respect to pulmonary
delivery, needs further investigation.Aside from chitosan,
pDpan> class="Chemical">NA itself may also play a critical role in the cytotoxicity and
inflammation imparted by CSpp in vivo. Unmethylated
5′-cytosine-guanosine-3′ dinucleotide (CpG) sequences
in pDNA vectors can potentially induce inflammatory responses through
the production of proinflammatory cytokines, which, in turn, may result
in lowered transfection efficiencies.[24] Yew et al. reported that nasal instillation of complexes composed
of cationic lipids and CpG-depleted pDNA resulted in lower proinflammatory
cytokine levels in mouse bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) when compared
to the complexes comprising CpG-rich pDNA.[25] Additionally, Hyde et al. compared pulmonary inflammatory responses
to complexes comprising cationic liposomes and various plasmids containing
varying numbers of unmethylated CpG sequences per plasmid. It was
found that intranasal administration of complexes made with CpG-free
plasmids produced no inflammatory responses while the presence of
one unmethylated CpG sequence per plasmid was enough to trigger inflammatory
responses.[26] Lesina et al. showed that
PEI complexes with a CpG-free plasmid administered in aerosolized
form resulted in 60 times higher luciferase expression in the lung
than that of PEI complexes containing plasmids with unmethylated CpG
sequences.[27] Although both types of PEI
complexes increased cytokine levels at 1 h after administration, the
cytokine levels of mice treated with PEI complexes with CpG-free plasmids
reverted back to normal after 24 h while the others remained elevated.[28]The main goals of this study were to characterize
CSpp, evaluate their cytotoxicity in vitro, and determine
the degree of pulmonary inflammation following nasal delivery
to mouse lungs. CpG(−) and CpG(+) pDNA were compared to determine
whether unmethylated CpG sequences in plasmid DNA influence transfection
efficiency and inflammation.
Materials and Methods
Characterization of Chitosan/pDNA Polyplexes (CSpp)
Chitosan Purification
Low molecular weight chitosan
was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich, Co. (St. Louis, MO). The deacetylation
degree was 96.1%. The viscosity of 1% pan> class="Chemical">chitosan in 1% acetic acid was
35 cps. Chitosan was purified according to a previously published
method with some modifications.[29] Briefly,
1% (w/v) chitosan was dissolved in 1% (v/v) acetic acid and filtered
with Whatman 541 filter paper (GE Healthcare, Amersham Place Little
Chalfont, Buckinghamshire, U.K.). The supernatant was titrated with
1 NNaOH to pH ∼8.5 and then filtered to collect precipitated
chitosan. Insoluble chitosan was redispersed in 0.1 M sodium bicarbonate
solution, pH 8.3. Deproteinization and demetallization were performed
by adding 0.5% (w/v) sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and 20 mM ethylenediaminetetraacetic
acid (EDTA) disodium salt. Insoluble chitosan was filtered, dialyzed
(SnakeSkin dialysis tubing; 10K MWCO, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.,
Rockford, IL), and lyophilized. Purified chitosan tested negative
(mulus Amebocyte Lysate (LAL) assay (Lonza, Walkersville,
MD).[30]
Plasmid
Amplification and Purification
Two types of plasmids used
in this study were pCpG-Luc (CpG(−)) (InvivoGen, San Diego,
CA) and VR1255 (CpG(+)) (Vical, San Diego, CA). CpG(−) is completely
devoid of CpG motifs (4696 bps). The CpG(+) plasmid contains CpG motifs
(6413 bps). Both plasmids encode for luciferase. All plasmids were
purified using a GenElute HP Endotoxin-Free Plasmid Maxiprep Kit (Sigma-Aldrich),
according to the manufacturer’s protocol. pDNA concentration
was determinpan>ed usinpan>g a pan> class="Chemical">NanoDrop 2000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher
Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA).
Preparation
of CSpp
The CSpp were prepared by ionic interaction between
positively charged chitosan and negatively charged pDNA molecules.[20] In this study, dextran sulfate (sodium) (5 kDa,
Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) was introduced into the formulation
to weaken the complexation of chitosan and DNA in order to limit excessive
retention of DNA and thus ensure higher transgene expression.CSpp were forpan> class="Gene">mulated at different ratios of primary amine groups
in chitosan to phosphate groups in pDNA (N/P ratios). Chitosan solutions
were prepared by dissolving the lyophilized purified chitosan in 1%
(v/v) acetic acid solution, then adjusting to pH 5.5–5.7 using
1 NNaOH. Then 50 mM acetate buffer (pH 5.5) was added to the prepared
solution to achieve a final concentration of 5 mg/mL. Dextran sulfate
stock solution (1 mg/mL) was prepared in UltraPure DNase/RNase-Free
distilled water (Invitrogen, Grand Island, NY). Dextran sulfate:chitosan
(1:10 (w/w)) was used in this study. Plasmid DNA (CpG(−) or
CpG(+)) in UltraPure DNase/RNase-free distilled water (200 μg/mL)
was heated in a water bath to 50–55 °C prior to mixing.
All solutions were sterilized by filtering with a 0.22 μm syringe
filter (Millex-GS, Millipore Corporation, Billerica, MA). An equal
volume of the desired concentration of cationic solution was pipetted
into the anionic solution and then vortexed immediately for 20–30
s. The polyplex suspensions were incubated at room temperature for
30 min before use. The final concentrations of pDNA after polyplex
formation were 2.5 μg/50 μL (in vitro) and 12.5 μg/50 μL (in vivo).As a positive control in the in vitro transfection
experiments, branched PEI, MW 25 kDa (Sigma-Aldrich), was used to
make polyplexes at anpan> pan> class="Chemical">N/P ratio of 10. These types of PEI/pDNA polyplexes
(PEIpp) have previously displayed strong transfection efficiencies
generating high luciferase activity in HEK293, COS7, and HeLa cell
lines.[31] To prepare PEI/pDNA polyplexes,
a stock solution (1 mg/mL) of PEI in water was diluted to the desired
concentration and mixed with pDNA in the same manner as CSpp.
Determination of Size and Zeta Potential of Polyplexes
Particle size and zeta potential of CSpp (with varyinpan>g pan> class="Chemical">N/P ratios)
were measured using a Zetasizer Nano ZS particle analyzer (Malvern
Instrument Ltd., Southborough, MA). Size and zeta potential measurements
were performed on polyplexes that were dispersed in acetate buffer
solution, pH 5.46, at 25 °C.
Investigation
of the Ability of Chitosan to Bind with pDNA
CpG(+) plasmid
and the CSpp(CpG(+)) at pan> class="Chemical">N/P ratios of 1, 5, 10, 20, 60, and 100 were
mixed with 2× BlueJuice gel loading buffer (Invitrogen). The
final solutions/suspensions were loaded into the wells of a 1% (w/v)
agarose gel containing 0.5 μg/mL of ethidium bromide in 1×
Tris-acetate-EDTA (TAE) buffer. Gels were exposed to a constant current
of 100 mA for 2 h. DNA migration was then visualized with a UV transilluminator
(Spectroline, Westbury, NY).
Evaluating
of the Cytotoxicity of Chitosan/pDNA Polyplexes in Vitro
Cell Lines and Cell Culture
Adenocarcinomic
human alveolar basal epithelial cells (pan> class="CellLine">A549) were maintained in RPMI-1640
medium (Gibco, Life technologies, Grand Island, NY). Human embryonic
kidney 293 (HEK293) cells were purchased from the American Type Culture
Collection (ATCC, Rockville, MD) and were maintained in Dulbecco’s
modified Eagle medium (DMEM) (Gibco). All of the media were supplemented
with 10% fetal bovine serum (Atlanta Biologicals, Lawrenceville, GA),
10 mM HEPES (Gibco), 50 μg/mL gentamycin sulfate (Cellgro, Manassas,
VA), 1 mM sodium pyruvate (Gibco), and 1 mM Glutamax (Gibco). Cells
were incubated at 37 °C and 5% CO2.
Evaluation of the Cytotoxicity of CSpp
Twenty-four
hours prior to treatment, cells were seeded (1 × 104/well) into a 96-well plate. Treatments (CSpp at various pan> class="Chemical">N/P ratios,
PEI/pDNA polyplexes, and pDNA alone) were added in a volume of 100
μL/well (equivalent to 1 μg of pDNA) of serum-free medium.
Without aspiration, 100 μL of fresh complete medium was added
after 4 h of incubation. After 48 h, the treatment was aspirated and
replaced with 100 μL of fresh complete medium and 20 μL
of the MTS tetrazolium compound or CellTiter 96 Aqueous One Solution reagent (Promega Corporation, Madison, WI). The plate
was incubated at 37 °C at 5% CO2 and incubated for
1–4 h, and then the absorbance was recorded at 490 nm using
a Spectra Max plus 384 Microplate spectrophotometer (Molecular Devices,
Sunnyvale, CA). Relative cell viability values are expressed as the
percentage of UV absorbance from wells containing treated cells compared
to the control wells containing live cells treated with phosphate
buffered saline (PBS).
Estimation of Intracellular
Superoxide Levels
A549 or pan> class="CellLine">HEK293 cells were plated in 60
mm2 dishes (2 × 104 cells/dish) 24 h prior
to treatments. Cells were treated with different polyplexes containing
N/P 10, chitosan solution, PEI solution, or naked pDNA. After 48 h,
cells were harvested by trypsinizing the monolayer cultures. Cells
were subsequently washed with PBS containing 5 mM pyruvate and incubated
in a solution of PBS containing 5 mM pyruvate with 10 μM dihydroethidium
(DHE) for 40 min at 37 °C and 5% CO2. The control
tubes received 0.1% dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), and the electron transport
chain blocker antimycin A (Ant A) was used as a positive control.
Following the incubation the cells were filtered through 35 μm
mesh, transferred to flow tubes, and placed on ice to stop the reaction.
Samples were analyzed using a FACScan flow cytometer (Becton Dickinson
Immunocytometry Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA) using an excitation wavelength
of 488 nm and emission of 585 nm. The mean fluorescence intensity
(MFI) of 10,000 cells was recorded for each sample, and the mean of
three samples was calculated for each treatment group. The background
fluorescence was subtracted from each sample to generate the net MFI.
Each sample was normalized to the control group to yield the normalized
MFI (NMFI).
Evaluating Transfection
Efficiencies of CSpp in Vitro
Cells (HEK293
anpan>d pan> class="CellLine">A549 cell lines) were seeded (8 × 104 cells/well)
into a 24-well plate. After 24 h, 500 μL of serum-free medium
and 100 μL of the treatments (pDNA solution, the CSpp and PEI/pDNA
polyplexes) were added. Each treatment contained 5 μg of pDNA.
Additional complete medium (500 μL) was added 4 h after the
treatment. The medium was then replenished every 24 h. At 48 h, the
cells were treated with reporter lysis buffer (RLB) (Promega Corporation)
followed by two freeze–thaw cycles (frozen at −80 °C
for 20 min then thawed at room temperature for 30 min). Cell suspensions
were then transferred to microcentrifuge tubes and centrifuged at
16100g for 5 min, after which the supernatants were
collected. Luciferase expression was measured using a luciferase assay
system according to the company protocol (Promega Corporation). Briefly,
20 μL of each supernatant was added to 100 μL of the luciferase
assay reagent and luciferase activity was measured for 10 s using
a Lumat LB 9507 luminometer (EG&G Berthold, Wildbad, Germany).
The remaining supernatant was analyzed for protein concentration using
a Micro BCA protein assay kit (Pierce Biotechnology Inc., Rockford,
IL). The results are expressed as relative light units (RLU)/mg of
total protein.
Evaluating Transgene Expression
and Inflammatory Responses Induced by CSpp in Mouse Lungs
Animals
Mice (C57Bl/6, males, 6 weeks old) were purchased
from The Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, ME). pan> class="Species">Mice were kept in a
vivarium in polypropylene, fiber-covered cages in HEPA-filtered Thoren
caging units (Hazelton, PA, USA) in the Pulmonary Toxicology Facility
at the University of Iowa. Animals were acclimatized in the vivarium
for 10 days prior to the instillation exposures. Food (sterile Teklad
5% stock diet, Harlan, Madison, WI) and water (via an automated watering
system) was provided ad libitum, and a 12 h light–dark
cycle was maintained in the animal room. All animal protocols used
in these studies were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and
Use Committee and complied with NIH Guidelines.
Nasal Instillation
Mice were exposed to pan> class="Chemical">CSpp by nasal
instillation (dose 12.5 μg of pDNA/50 μL) twice with a
1 h interval between each dose. The mice were anesthetized with isoflurane
(3%) by inhalation using a precision Fortec vaporizer (Cyprane, Keighley,
U.K.). There were three control groups in these studies: (1) mice
without exposure; (2) mice exposed to chitosan solution; and (3) mice
exposed to CpG(+) alone. Mice were euthanized 24 h after nasal instillation,
bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid was collected and lungs
were harvested as previously described.[32]
Measuring Transgene Expression in Mouse
Lungs after Nasal Instillation of CSpp
The method used for
tissue preparation was adapted from Mohammadi et al.,[20] Manthorpe et al.,[33] and Stammberger
et al.[34] Lungs from euthanpan>ized pan> class="Species">mice were
washed with ice-cold PBS, weighed, and homogenized using a Tissue
Tearor (Biospec Products, Inc., Bartlesville, OK) in ice-cold reporter
lysis buffer (4 μL/mg of lung tissue) for 1 min. Lysates were
then passed through three freeze–thaw cycles (frozen at −80
°C for 20 min and thawed in a 37 °C water bath for 5 min).
Lysates were then centrifuged at 16100g for 5 min.
Supernatants were analyzed for luciferase expression in the same manner
as described in section 2.3.
Evaluating Pulmonary Inflammatory Responses
The lungs
from each euthanpan>ized pan> class="Species">mouse (n = 6) were lavaged via
cannulated trachea three times, in situ, with approximately 1 mL/wash
of sterile saline (0.9% (w/v) sodium chloride solution). Cells were
collected from BAL fluid by centrifugation at 800g for 5 min at 4 °C. The cell pellets were resuspended in Hanks’
balanced salt solution, and the total white cells were counted using
a hemocytometer. The remaining supernatants were stored at −80
°C and used for measuring total protein, LDH activity, and inflammatory
cytokine/chemokine concentrations. Different cell types were counted
after the BAL cells were placed on microscope slides, spun using Cytospin
4 (Thermo Shandon, Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA) at 800g for 3 min, and stained using a HEMA 3 stain set (Fisher Scientific
Company LLC, Midland, MI). A total of 400 cells (macrophages, neutrophils,
lymphocytes, and eosinophils) per mouse were counted.The concentration
of total protein in BAL fluid supernatants was determined using a
Bradford protein assay (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., Hercules, CA).
The activity of lactate dehydrogenase enzyme (LDH) in BAL fluid supernatants
was measured using a commercially available cytotoxicity detection
kit (LDH) (Roche Diagnostipan> class="Chemical">cs, Mannheim, Germany). Inflammatory cytokine/chemokine
(tumor necrosis factor [TNF]-α, interferon [IFN]-γ, interleukin
[IL]-6, IL-12 (p40), keratinocyte-derived cytokine [KC], and macrophage
inflammatory protein [MIP]-1α) levels in the BAL fluid were
determined using a multiplexed fluorescent bead-based immunoassay
(Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.). Values for data falling below the lower
limit of detection (LLOD) for each cytokine were imputed with LLOD/√2.[35]
Statistical Analysis
Data are expressed as mean ± SD. Statistical significance
was determined using a one-way ANOVA (anpan>alysis of varianpan>ce) with Bonferroni’s
pan> class="Gene">multiple comparison test. A p-value less than 0.05
was considered significant. Statistical analyses were performed using
GraphPad Prism version 5.02 for Windows (Graphpad Software, Inc.,
San Diego, CA).
Results and Discussion
Characterization of CSpp by Size and Zeta Potential
Sizes of the CSpp prepared for the inpan> vitro study
(2.5 μg of pDpan> class="Chemical">NA/50 μL) ranged between 200 and 400 nm for
all N/P ratios tested (Figure 1). The sizes
of the polyplexes at N/P ratios ranging from 1 to 20 were similar
(∼230 nm) for both CSpp(CpG(−)) and CSpp(CpG(+)) while
polyplexes progressively increased in size at N/P 60 (250–300
nm) and N/P 100 (300–350 nm). Both types of polyplexes had
narrow size distributions with an average polydispersity
index (PdI) equal to 0.136. At N/P 1, the cationic charge contributed
by chitosan was lower than the negative charge from pDNA. Thus, the
zeta potential values of both types of polyplex were negative (∼-25
mV). However, when the concentration of chitosan increased (at N/P
ratios of 5 to 100), all polyplexes tested were positively charged
(25–35 mV).
Figure 1
Particle sizes and zeta potentials of CSpp(CpG(−))
(A) and CSpp(CpG(+)) (B) at N/P 1–100 as measured by Zetasizer
Nano ZS in acetate buffer, pH 5.46, at 25 °C. Data are expressed
as mean ± SD (n = 3–5). ● = size
measurements. ■ = zeta potential measurements.
Particle sizes and zeta potentials of CSpp(CpG(−))
(A) and CSpp(CpG(+)) (B) at N/P 1–100 as measured by Zetasizer
Nano ZS in acetate buffer, pH 5.46, at 25 °C. Data are expressed
as mean ± SD (n = 3–5). ● = size
measurements. ■ = zeta potential measurements.Zetasizer Nanpan>o ZS measurements showed that particle
size inpan>creased when pDpan> class="Chemical">NA concentrations were increased above 2.5 μg/50
μL (data not shown). In contrast, concentrations below 2.5 μg
of pDNA/50 μL have previously been shown to have no effect on
the size of CSpp.[36] For the in
vitro experiments (sections 3.3 and 3.4) polyplexes were used at a concentration
of 2.5 μg of pDNA/50 μL. For the in vivo experiments (sections 3.5 and 3.6) the concentration was increased to 12.5 μg
of pDNA/50 μL in order to overcome the limitation of delivery
volume. This increase in pDNA concentration resulted in an increase
in polyplex size as well as a small amount of aggregation of the polyplexes
and was consistent with findings from other groups.[37,38] A bimodal distribution was observed in particle size measurements
for CSpp with a pDNA concentration of 12.5 μg/50 μL, N/P
10 (523.0 ± 3.8 nm, 94.6 ± 2.3% by volume and 4888.0 ±
355.3 nm, 5.4 ± 2.3% by volume). Concentrations of greater than
12.5 μg/mL pDNA resulted in substantial precipitation of the
polyplexes, rendering them unsuitable for pulmonary delivery.
Ability of Chitosan To Complex with pDNA
Plasmid DNA
complexed with chitosan did not migrate into an agarose matrix (1%
(w/v)) when an electric field was applied. The pDNA from CSpp remained
in the loading wells at N/P ratios >1 (Figure 2). This finding is consistent with the zeta potential data
showing a negative charge for CSppN/P = 1 and a positive charge for
CSppN/P ≥ 5 suggesting that, at N/P ratios
≥5, chitosan binds to all free pDNA molecules, creating polyplexes.
Figure 2
Gel retardation
assay in 1% agarose gel containing ethidium bromide: lane 1, DNA ladder;
lane 2, naked CpG(+) pDNA; lanes 3–8, CSpp(CpG(+)) with N/P
ratios of 1, 5, 10, 20, 60 and 100, respectively.
Gel retardation
assay in 1% agarose gel containing ethidium bromide: lane 1, DNA ladder;
lane 2, naked CpG(+) pDNA; lanes 3–8, CSpp(CpG(+)) with N/P
ratios of 1, 5, 10, 20, 60 and 100, respectively.These results may vary depending on the characteristics of
the chitosan, since the binding strength between chitosan and DNA
has been shown to be affected by the degree of deacetylation and the
molecular weight of the chitosan. Chitosan with a high molecular weight
and high degree of deacetylation binds to DNA more strongly than chitosan
with a relatively low molecular weight and low degree of deacetylation.[12,39]
Evaluation of in Vitro Cytotoxicity
Cell viability assays (see section 2.2.2) involving A549, a pan> class="Species">human lung epithelial cell line, and HEK293,
a humanembryonic kidney cell line, commonly used in transfection
studies, were used to test CSpp at N/P ratios of 1–100 using
both types of pDNA (CpG(−) or CpG(+)). All formulations of
CSpp tested resulted in at least 85–90% cell viability in A549
(Figures 3A and 3B)
and HEK293 (Figures 3C and 3D), with no significant differences compared to PBS-treated
control cells. In contrast, PEIpp at N/P 10 showed significantly lower
cell viabilities in both A549 (Figures 3A and 3B) and HEK293 (Figures 3C
and 3D) (∼25%, p-value
<0.001).
Figure 3
Cell viability of A549 (A, B) and HEK293 (C, D) cell lines treated
with CSpp(CpG(−)) (A, C) and CSpp(CpG(+)) (B, D) was determined
by MTS assay. Cells were treated with CSpp containing N/P ratios ranging
from 1 to 100. CpG(−) represents soluble CpG-free plasmid DNA
while CpG(+) represents soluble CpG-containing plasmid DNA. PEIss(CpG(−))
or PEIpp(CpG(+)) were PEI complexes with pDNA at N/P 10. Control =
cells treated with PBS. The cells were seeded into a 96-well plate
at a density of 1 × 104 cells per well one day prior
the experiment and exposed to the treatments for 48 h. Each treatment
contained 1 μg of pDNA per well. Data are expressed as mean
± SD (n = 3). Percent relative cell viability
compared to cells treated with PBS. *** p < 0.001.
Cell viability of A549 (A, B) and HEK293 (C, D) cell lines treated
with CSpp(CpG(−)) (A, C) and CSpp(CpG(+)) (B, D) was determined
by MTS assay. Cells were treated with CSpp containing N/P ratios ranging
from 1 to 100. CpG(−) represents soluble CpG-free plasmid DNA
while CpG(+) represents soluble CpG-containing plasmid DNA. PEIss(CpG(−))
or PEIpp(CpG(+)) were PEI complexes with pDNA at N/P 10. Control =
cells treated with PBS. The cells were seeded into a 96-well plate
at a density of 1 × 104 cells per well one day prior
the experiment and exposed to the treatments for 48 h. Each treatment
contained 1 μg of pDNA per well. Data are expressed as mean
± SD (n = 3). Percent relative cell viability
compared to cells treated with PBS. *** p < 0.001.In order to determine if treatment
with the polyplexes affects intracellular reactive oxygen species
(pan> class="Chemical">ROS) levels, superoxide levels were estimated using the oxidation
sensitive fluorescent dye, dihydroethidium (DHE). The results indicated
that A549 cells treated with CSpp, PEI polyplexes (PEIpp), chitosan
solution, or PEI solution showed significant increases (1.5–2.0-fold)
in DHE oxidation relative to the control group (p-value <0.001 and <0.01) (Figure 4A).
Treatment of HEK293 cells with the CSpp or the chitosan solution did
not significantly affect the DHE oxidation levels compared to the
control group. However, treatment with PEIpp, CpG(+) alone, or PEI
solution showed significant increases (1.5–3.0-fold) in DHE
oxidation (p-value <0.001 and <0.01) (Figure 4B). Both A549 and HEK293 cells treated with CSpp
containing either CpG(+) or CpG(−) had lower DHE oxidation
when compared with cells treated with PEIpp and PEI solution.
Figure 4
DHE oxidation
levels indicated as normalized mean fluorescence intensity (Normalized
MFI) showing estimates of relative intracellular superoxide levels
in A549 cells (A) and HEK293 cells (B) treated with indicated polyplexes.
Cells were treated with CSpp(CpG(−)) or CSpp(CpG(+)) containing
N/P 10. CS is chitosan solution without pDNA. PEIss(CpG(−))
or PEIpp(CpG(+)) are PEI complexes with pDNA at N/P 10. PEI is PEI
solution without pDNA. Control = cells treated with PBS. Data are
expressed as mean ± SD (n = 6–9). *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01.
DHE oxidation
levels indicated as normalized mean fluorescence intensity (Normalized
MFI) showing estimates of relative intracellular superoxide levels
in A549 cells (A) and HEK293 cells (B) treated with indicated polyplexes.
Cells were treated with CSpp(CpG(−)) or CSpp(CpG(+)) containing
N/P 10. CS is chitosan solution without pDNA. PEIss(CpG(−))
or PEIpp(CpG(+)) are PEI complexes with pDNA at N/P 10. PEI is PEI
solution without pDNA. Control = cells treated with PBS. Data are
expressed as mean ± SD (n = 6–9). *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01.The results from both cell lines showed CSpp had
a negligible impact on cell viability anpan>d cells treated with pan> class="Chemical">CSpp
trended toward lower DHE oxidation when compared to cells treated
with PEIpp. Malich et al. studied the sensitivity and specificity
of the MTS assay with human cell lines. They found that results from
the in vitro toxicity assay did not necessarily correlate
well with in vivo results.[40] The in vitro models might not be capable of elucidating
the inflammatory potency. Thus, the toxicity, oxidative stress levels,
and inflammatory response in an animal model needed to be assessed
before CSpp delivery systems can be used for clinical applications
(see section 3.5).
In Vitro Transfection Efficiencies of CSpp: Presence versus
Absence of CpG Sequences
The effect of the presence of CpG
sequences withinCSpp on tranpan>sfection efficiencies was expan> class="Chemical">amined initially in vitro using A549 and HEK293 cell lines. The transfection
efficiency of CSpp(CpG(−)) at an N/P ratio of 10 and 20 was
significantly higher than that of the control groups for A549 as shown
in Figure 5A. In contrast, relatively low transgene
expression was observed when CSpp(CpG(+)) were used to transfect A549
cells (Figure 5B). In the HEK293 cell line,
the luciferase expression pattern was similar for both CSpp(CpG(−))
and CSpp(CpG(+)) (Figures 5C and 5D). It has been reported that A549 cells express the Toll-like
receptor 9 (TLR-9), which recognizes CpG sequences in pDNA, and we
speculate that this may have had a detrimental effect on CSpp(CpG(+))-mediated
transfection of A549 cells.[41] Finally,
A549 cells gave higher luciferase expression than HEK293 cells when
treated with CSpp(CpG(−)). Mao et al., in studies investigating
transfection efficiencies of CSpp in cell lines of different lineages,
reported differences in luciferase expression levels indicating that
the transfection efficiency when using CSpp may be dependent on cell-type.[42]
Figure 5
Transfection efficiency of A549 (A, B) and HEK293 (C,
D) cells treated with CSpp(CpG(−)) (A, C) or CSpp(CpG(+)) (B,
D). Varying N/P ratios are indicated. Control = cells treated with
PBS. Each treatment contained 5 μg of pDNA/well. Data are expressed
as mean ± SD (n = 3–7). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. PEIpp N/P 10 was used as a positive control for transfection
(not shown in graphs). The luciferase expression of PEIpp-transfected
A549 cells was equal to 2.32 × 1010 ± 7.45 ×
109 RLU/mg (total protein) (for PEIpp(CpG(−)) and
2.54 × 1010 ± 1.62 × 1010 RLU/mg
(for PEIpp(CpG(+)). The luciferase expression in HEK293 cells was
5.38 × 1010 ± 3.96 × 109 RLU/mg
(for PEIpp(CpG(−)) and 4.23 × 1010 ± 2.92
× 1010 RLU/mg (for PEIpp(CpG(+)).
Transfection efficiency of A549 (A, B) and HEK293 (C,
D) cells treated with CSpp(CpG(−)) (A, C) or CSpp(CpG(+)) (B,
D). Varying N/P ratios are indicated. Control = cells treated with
PBS. Each treatment contained 5 μg of pDNA/well. Data are expressed
as mean ± SD (n = 3–7). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. PEIppN/P 10 was used as a positive control for transfection
(not shown in graphs). The luciferase expression of PEIpp-transfected
A549 cells was equal to 2.32 × 1010 ± 7.45 ×
109 RLU/mg (total protein) (for PEIpp(CpG(−)) and
2.54 × 1010 ± 1.62 × 1010 RLU/mg
(for PEIpp(CpG(+)). The luciferase expression in HEK293 cells was
5.38 × 1010 ± 3.96 × 109 RLU/mg
(for PEIpp(CpG(−)) and 4.23 × 1010 ± 2.92
× 1010 RLU/mg (for PEIpp(CpG(+)).
In Vivo Transfection Efficiencies
in Mouse Lungs: Effect of Presence versus Absence of CpG Sequences
in CSpp
The supernatant obtained from homogenized lungs of
pan> class="Species">mice treated with CSpp(CpG(−)) (at an N/P ratio of 10) demonstrated
significantly (p < 0.01) higher luciferase expression
(mean, 23846 RLU/mg of total protein; median, 23043) than mice treated
with CSpp(CpG(+)) (mean, 1969 RLU/mg of total protein; median, 777)
(Figure 6). In addition, only the group in
which mice were treated with CSpp(CpG(−)) expressed significantly
higher luciferase than the controls (p < 0.01).
These results are consistent with our in vitro data
using A549 cells. As such, a possible explanation for our in vivo transgene expression results is that CpG sequences
stimulate inflammatory responses that deleteriously affect transfection.
We subsequently performed experiments to investigate this possibility.
Figure 6
Luciferase
expression in mouse lungs after nasal instillation of indicated CSpp
formulations. CS = chitosan solution; control = no treatment. Each
treatment, aside from control and CS, contained 25 μg of pDNA
(12.5 μg pDNA/50 μg, 2× nasal instillations). Data
are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 6). ** p < 0.01.
Luciferase
expression inmouse lunpan> class="Disease">gs after nasal instillation of indicated CSpp
formulations. CS = chitosan solution; control = no treatment. Each
treatment, aside from control and CS, contained 25 μg of pDNA
(12.5 μg pDNA/50 μg, 2× nasal instillations). Data
are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 6). ** p < 0.01.
Inflammatory Responses Measured from BAL Fluids
The inflammatory response to CSpp was inpan>vestigated by anpan>alyzinpan>g BAL fluids from variously treated pan> class="Species">mice. Acute inflammatory
responses were assessed by enumeration of white blood cell types (macrophages,
neutrophils, and lymphocytes) 24 h subsequent to nasal instillation
of CSpp formulations. CSpp(CpG(−)) caused a significant 9-fold
increase in the total number of white blood cells in the BAL fluid
compared to control treatment, while CSpp(CpG(+)) caused a 7-fold
increase (albeit not statistically significant) over controls (Figure 7A). The majority of these infiltrating white cells
proved to be neutrophils (Figure 7B), which
represents a classical inflammatory response.
Figure 7
BAL cell counts: total
number of cells (A) and the number of macrophages, neutrophils, and
lymphocytes (B) in the BAL fluid/mouse after nasal instillation of
indicated CSpp formulations. CS = chitosan solution, CpG(+) = naked CpG(+)
pDNA solution. Control = no treatment. Each treatment (aside from
control and CS) contained 25 μg of pDNA (12.5 μg of pDNA/50
μg, 2× nasal instillations). Data are expressed as mean
± SD (n = 6). ** p < 0.01.
BAL cell counts: total
number of cells (A) and the number of macrophages, neutrophils, and
lymphocytes (B) in the BAL fluid/mouse after nasal inpan>stillation of
inpan>dicated pan> class="Chemical">CSpp formulations. CS = chitosan solution, CpG(+) = naked CpG(+)
pDNA solution. Control = no treatment. Each treatment (aside from
control and CS) contained 25 μg of pDNA (12.5 μg of pDNA/50
μg, 2× nasal instillations). Data are expressed as mean
± SD (n = 6). ** p < 0.01.Concentrations of total protein
in BAL fluid (an indicator of the increased permeability of the alveolar
capillary membrane) was significantly higher (compared to control)
inmice treated with pan> class="Gene">CSpp(CpG(+)). Total protein concentration was
also enhanced (but not significantly) in mice receiving CSpp(CpG(−))
(Figure 8A). Activity of LDH, which denotes
cell membrane damage, was not statistically different in BAL fluid
from mice treated with either CSpp(CpG(−)) or CSpp(CpG(+))
(Figure 8B). There were no statistically significant
differences for both total protein levels and LDH activity between
mice treated with CSpp(CpG(−)) and with CSpp(CpG(+)). Finally,
levels of cytokines (IL-6, IL-12, KC, and MIP-1α) were consistently
significantly higher in the BAL fluids from mice treated with CSpp(CpG(+))
compared to CSpp(CpG(−)) treated mice (Figure 9). Of particular distinction were IL-12 and KC levels. TNF-α
levels were also higher in the mice receiving CSpp(CpG(+)), however,
not significantly. These observed increases in inflammatory cytokines
could be due to the presence of CpG since it is well established that
triggering TLR-9 can result in a MyD88-dependent, NF-kB-mediated upregulation
of inflammatory cytokines, including IL-12.[43] We also tested for INF-γ; however, levels were below the lowest
limit of detection (0.95 pg/mL) in all samples analyzed (data not
shown).
Figure 8
Total protein and LDH activity levels: the concentration of total
protein (A) and LDH activity (B) in BAL fluids of mice subsequent
to nasal instillation of indicated CSpp formulations. CS = chitosan
solution, control = untreated. Each treatment, aside from control
and CS, contained 25 μg of pDNA (12.5 μg of pDNA/50 μg,
2× nasal instillations). Data are expressed as mean ± SD
(n = 6). *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01.
Figure 9
The concentration of proinflammatory cytokines/chemokines detected
in BAL fluid of mice subsequent to nasal instillation of indicated
CSpp formulations. CS = chitosan solution; control = untreated. LLOD
for TNF-α = 1.50 pg/mL (A), IL-6 = 0.96 pg/mL (B), IL-12 = 6.38
pg/mL (C), KC = 4.95 pg/mL (D), and MIP-1α = 1.3 pg/mL (E).
Each treatment, aside from control and CS, contained 25 μg of
pDNA (12.5 μg of pDNA/50 μg, 2× nasal instillations).
Data are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 6). *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Total protein and LDH activity levels: the concentration of total
protein (A) and LDH activity (B) in BAL fluids of mice subsequent
to nasal inpan>stillation of inpan>dicated pan> class="Chemical">CSpp formulations. CS = chitosan
solution, control = untreated. Each treatment, aside from control
and CS, contained 25 μg of pDNA (12.5 μg of pDNA/50 μg,
2× nasal instillations). Data are expressed as mean ± SD
(n = 6). *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01.The concentration of proinflammatory cytokines/chemokines detected
in BAL fluid of mice subsequent to nasal inpan>stillation of inpan>dicated
pan> class="Chemical">CSpp formulations. CS = chitosan solution; control = untreated. LLOD
for TNF-α = 1.50 pg/mL (A), IL-6 = 0.96 pg/mL (B), IL-12 = 6.38
pg/mL (C), KC = 4.95 pg/mL (D), and MIP-1α = 1.3 pg/mL (E).
Each treatment, aside from control and CS, contained 25 μg of
pDNA (12.5 μg of pDNA/50 μg, 2× nasal instillations).
Data are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 6). *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.The results gathered from the BAL fluids showed that both
CSpp(CpG(−)) anpan>d pan> class="Gene">CSpp(CpG(+)) induced inflammation, as determined
by an increased influx of neutrophils as well as increases in total
protein, LDH activity, and inflammatory cytokines. Mice treated with
chitosan solution alone trended toward increased cytokine levels in
their BAL fluid compared to untreated mice. These levels were further
enhanced for all cytokines tested when chitosan was complexed with
CpG(+) pDNA while CSpp(CpG(−)) treatment resulted in only marginally
higher levels (TNF-α, IL-6, MP-1α). Thus, in terms of
cytokine levels, chitosan polyplexes made from plasmids devoid of
CpG sequences induced lower inflammatory responses than polyplexes
harboring plasmids that contained CpG sequences.
Conclusions
The combination of plasmid DNA with pan> class="Chemical">chitosan
results in polyplexes with the potential for use in pulmonary gene
delivery systems. In this study, we formulated CSpp with 2 different
plasmids (CpG(−) and CpG(+)) at N/P ratios of 1, 5, 10, 20,
and 100. We found that CSpp(CpG(−)) generated superior transfection
efficiencies both in vitro (using A549 cells) and in vivo (mouse nasal instillation) when compared with CSpp(CpG(+)).
In addition, CSpp(CpG(−)) generated lower levels of proinflammatory
cytokines (TNF-α, IL-6, IL-12, KC, and MIP-1α) in the
BAL fluids. Our findings suggest that N/P ratios and plasmid CpG sequence
content of CSpp are important factors to consider in achieving optimal
gene expression with minimal toxicity and inflammation.
Authors: S Rajesh Kumar; V P Ishaq Ahmed; V Parameswaran; R Sudhakaran; V Sarath Babu; A S Sahul Hameed Journal: Fish Shellfish Immunol Date: 2008-05-13 Impact factor: 4.581
Authors: Andrea Adamcakova-Dodd; Larissa V Stebounova; Patrick T O'Shaughnessy; Jong Sung Kim; Vicki H Grassian; Peter S Thorne Journal: Part Fibre Toxicol Date: 2012-06-19 Impact factor: 9.400
Authors: Sheetal D'Mello; Satheesh Elangovan; Liu Hong; Ryan D Ross; D Rick Sumner; Aliasger K Salem Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater Date: 2014-09-17 Impact factor: 3.368
Authors: Angie S Morris; Andrea Adamcakova-Dodd; Sean E Lehman; Amaraporn Wongrakpanich; Peter S Thorne; Sarah C Larsen; Aliasger K Salem Journal: Toxicol Lett Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 4.372