Moses Bio1, Pallavi Rajaputra, Gregory Nkepang, Youngjae You. 1. Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences and ‡Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center , Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73117, United States.
Abstract
We recently developed "photo-unclick chemistry", a novel chemical tool involving the cleavage of aminoacrylate by singlet oxygen, and demonstrated its application to visible light-activatable prodrugs. In this study, we prepared an advanced multifunctional prodrug, Pc-(L-CA4)2, composed of the fluorescent photosensitizer phthalocyanine (Pc), an SO-labile aminoacrylate linker (L), and a cytotoxic drug combretastatin A-4 (CA4). Pc-(L-CA4)2 had reduced dark toxicity compared with CA4. However, once illuminated, it showed improved toxicity similar to CA4 and displayed bystander effects in vitro. We monitored the time-dependent distribution of Pc-(L-CA4)2 using optical imaging with live mice. We also effectively ablated tumors by the illumination with far-red light to the mice, presumably through the combined effects of photodynamic therapy (PDT) and released chemotherapy drug, without any sign of acute systemic toxicity.
We recently developed "photo-unclick chemistry", a novel chemical tool involving the cleavage of aminoacrylate by singlet oxygen, and demonstrated its application to visible light-activatable prodrugs. In this study, we prepared an advanced multifunctional prodrug, Pc-(L-CA4)2, composed of the fluorescent photosensitizer phthalocyanine (Pc), an SO-labile aminoacrylate linker (L), and a cytotoxic drug combretastatin A-4 (CA4). Pc-(L-CA4)2 had reduced darktoxicity compared with CA4. However, once illuminated, it showed improved toxicitysimilar to CA4 and displayed bystander effects in vitro. We monitored the time-dependent distribution of Pc-(L-CA4)2 using optical imaging with live mice. We also effectively ablated tumors by the illumination with far-red light to the mice, presumably through the combined effects of photodynamic therapy (PDT) and released chemotherapy drug, without any sign of acute systemic toxicity.
The use of visible
and near-infrared (NIR) light, penetrable to
deep tissue, is an attractive method of spatiotemporally controlling
drug release from various drug delivery forms, such as prodrugs, liposomes,
polymers, and other nano- and macrodelivery systems.[1] However, because of its lower energy, it is difficult to
directly cleave a chemical bond using such light. Thus, novel mechanisms
using lower energy light to trigger the release of biologically active
compounds have been a major topic of interest.[2] The photodynamic process and the unique chemistry of singlet oxygen
(SO) were adopted to mediate lower energy light release of drugs.[3−11] SO is formed during the photodynamic process and reacts with electron-rich
olefins to form unstable dioxetanes. These dioxetanes decompose to
release drugs.Aminoacrylate was an ideal SO-cleavable linker.[8] We named the cleavage of aminoacrylate by SO
“photo-unclick
chemistry”, and demonstrated the release of the anticancer
drug combretastatin A-4 (CA4) from its prodrug using this method.
We prepared CMP-L-CA4, a CA4 prodrug that can be activated by far-red
light (690 nm), by combining a SO-labile aminoacrylate linker, a core-modified
porphyrin (CMP) photosensitizer, and CA4.[10] The prodrug released CA4 and enhanced cytotoxicity upon illumination.
The released CA4 damaged cancer cells, demonstrating our system’s
ability to generate bystander effects in vitro. We
found that the antitumor effects of CMP-L-CA4 were superior to the
effects of its pseudo-prodrug CMP-NCL-CA4 (NCL = noncleavable linker).
The pseudo-prodrug cannot release CA4 even after illumination in vivo.Optical imaging is a valuable tool for tracking
fluorescent or
luminescent molecules. The ability to optically image the light-activatable
prodrug is useful for determining an illumination time when the prodrug
is at its maximum concentration at the target site. It can be utilized
in real time at a low cost. If the prodrug accumulates in the target
sites, we can use optical imaging to detect the target areas, as well
as to treat the disease. We expected that we could optically image
our photounclickable prodrug in vivo using a fluorescent
photosensitizer. Thus, we could track the prodrugs and then treat
the tumor with the combined effects of photodynamic therapy (PDT)
and local chemotherapy (Figure 1a). The released
drug could damage the cancer cells that survived the initial PDT damage
through bystander effects (Figure 1b).
Figure 1
(a) Multifunctional
prodrug for optical imaging and combined treatment
with PDT and local chemotherapy. (b) Bystander effects from the released
drugs can kill cancer cells that survive PDT damage. [The lifetime
of SO is short (submicrosecond scale). Thus, direct cell damage by
SO occurs only during illumination. The light dose used for imaging
will be much lower than the light dose used for treatment. Thus, we
do not expect any significant damage during optical imaging.]
(a) Multifunctional
prodrug for optical imaging and combined treatment
with PDT and local chemotherapy. (b) Bystander effects from the released
drugs can kill cancer cells that survive PDT damage. [The lifetime
of SO is short (submicrosecond scale). Thus, direct cell damage by
SO occurs only during illumination. The light dose used for imaging
will be much lower than the light dose used for treatment. Thus, we
do not expect any significant damage during optical imaging.]We generated Pc-(L-CA4)2, an advanced multifunctioning
CA4 prodrug, for both fluorescence optical imaging and combination
therapy with PDT and released CA4. We chose phthalocyanine (Pc) because
Pc is a fluorescent photosensitizer that can generate both fluorescence
and singlet oxygen.[12−14] Although fluorescence emission and SO generation
are competing processes, Pc has uniquely balanced yields of both functionality
(i.e., Si-Pc: Φ1O2 = 0.22 and Φf = 0.4) with a high molar extinction coefficient (ε).[15,16] Its brightness (BT) is greater than that of CMP (e.g., ε =
150,000 M–1 cm–1 at 675 nm, BT
= 6000 M–1 cm–1 for Pc vs ε
= 5000 at 690 nm, BT = 50 M–1 cm–1 for CMP).[17,18] We prepared Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 as its pseudo-prodrug. This pseudo-prodrug is similar to
Pc-(L-CA4)2 in structure, but cannot release CA4 upon illumination.
It will mimic the PDT effects of Pc-(L-CA4)2, but cannot
induce damage from released CA4. We evaluated the cytotoxic effects
of these two prodrugs with and without illumination, the inhibition
of tubulin polymerization, the in vitro bystander
effects, tumor localization using optical imaging, and the antitumor
effects.
Results and Discussion
Synthesis
We developed a synthetic
scheme using high-yield
reactions, such as esterification, nucleophilic substitution, and
the yne-amine reaction, to make the process easily adaptable to other
alcohol-containing drugs (Scheme 1). CA4 was
esterified at room temperature to yield compound 1. Alkylation
of CA4 gave compound 2. A nucleophilic substitution reaction
of silicon phthalocyanine dichloride (Pc-Cl2) yielded compound 3. Pc-(L-CA4)2 was synthesized through a click
(yne-amine) reaction of compounds 1 and 3. Under the basic condition, Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 was synthesized
by N-alkylation of compounds 2 and 3. Overall,
the synthesis was straightforward and all steps gave high yields (>73%
each step).
We
formulated the prodrugs using PEG–PLA [poly(ethylene glycol)-poly(d,l-lactide)] copolymermicelles to take advantage
of the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect to enhance
the delivery to tumor.[19] The nanosized
PEG–PLA polymermicelle was expected to provide three advantages:
(1) passive targeting to tumors via the EPR effect,[20,21] (2) prolonged circulation in the plasma, and (3) solubilization
of the nonpolar prodrug. The biodegradable and nontoxic PEG–PLA
micelle of paclitaxel (PCX) was approved by the FDA.[22,23] PEG–PLA polymermicelles of Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 were readily prepared. The zeta potentials and mean diameters
of the micelles of Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 were determined by dynamic light scattering (DLS) (zeta potential
= 11.64 ± 1.38 mV, 16.81 ± 1.67 mV and mean diameter = 71.96
± 1.34 nm, 75.07 ± 1.45 nm, respectively). To visualize
the formation of the polymeric micelles, we used transmission electron
micrographs (TEM). TEM images of the micelles showed consistent particle
sizes (61–78 nm for Pc-(L-CA4)2 and 65–80
nm for Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 micelles). The prodrug concentrations
in the micelles were 211 and 210 μM, respectively. The stability
of the micelles was monitored by their particle sizes and zeta potentials
at 4 °C under dark conditions. These values remained within 95%
of the initial values for up to 21 days.(a) Particle size distribution
and TEM images (inset) of micelles
of (a) Pc-(L-CA4)2 and (b) Pc-(NLC-CA4)2.
Effects of Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 on Tubulin Polymerization
CA4 is known to inhibit tubulin
polymerization by binding to the colchicine binding pocket of tubulin.[24,25] Because the bulky groups (Pc-L and Pc-NCL) are attached to CA4,
we expected lower inhibitory activity of tubulin polymerization. We
determined the effects of these prodrugs using the tubulin polymerization
assay, in which fluorescence emission increases as tubulins polymerize
(Figure 3a). The polymerization enhancer PCX
and polymerization inhibitor CA4 were used as positive controls. Consistent
with our data on the previous CA4 prodrug CMP-L-CA4,[10] both Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 had significantly (p < 0.02) lower inhibitory
activity (23% and 17%, respectively) than the parent drug CA4 (100%,
Figure 3b).
Figure 3
Effects of 3 μM each of PCX, CA4,
Pc-(L-CA4)2,
and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 on tubulin polymerization: (a) one data
set of representative kinetic traces (data from two more experiments
are found in Figure S1, Supporting Information) and (b) inhibition of tubulin polymerization by CA4, Pc-(L-CA4)2, and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 after 1 h incubation (±SD
of three experiments).
Effects of 3 μM each of PCX, CA4,
Pc-(L-CA4)2,
and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 on tubulin polymerization: (a) one data
set of representative kinetic traces (data from two more experiments
are found in Figure S1, Supporting Information) and (b) inhibition of tubulin polymerization by CA4, Pc-(L-CA4)2, and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 after 1 h incubation (±SD
of three experiments).
Dark and Phototoxicity
Due to the dramatic reduction
of the inhibition of tubulin polymerization, it was expected that
Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 would have lower
darktoxicity (cytotoxicity without illumination) than CA4. Using
MCF-7 cells, we found that the darktoxicity of the prodrugs decreased
by 19- and 101-fold [IC50D values = 9, 173, and 916 nM
for CA4, Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2, respectively].
Pc-L and Pc-NCL reduced the cytotoxicity, presumably by interfering
with its binding to tubulin (Figure 3). However,
illumination enhanced the toxicity of both the prodrug and the pseudo-prodrug
[IC50P = 6 nM and 34 nM for Pc-(L-CA4)2 and
Pc-(NCL-CA4)2, respectively].Dark and phototoxicity
of Pc-L-(CA4)2 and Pc-NCL-(CA4)2.
Bystander Effects by Pc-(L-CA4)2
The difference
in the magnitudes of phototoxicity and darktoxicity effects may be
the result of each prodrug using a different mechanism. While Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 can only kill cells via the PDT effects of SO, Pc-(L-CA4)2 can potentially kill cells by both PDT effects and released
CA4. To prove this mechanistic difference, we tested the bystander
effects after the illumination. After treating the cells in wells
of 24-well plates with the prodrug or pseudo-prodrug, one-half of
each well was exposed to light. At 48 h post-illumination, live cells
were stained with Calcein AM, and the center of each well was imaged
using a fluorescence microscope.Because the lifetime of SO
in aqueous medium/biological systems is very short (∼40 ns),[26] SO generated in the illuminated half of the
well cannot kill the cells in the unilluminated half. SO should decay
before reaching the other half of the well (diffusion distance of
SO = ∼20–200 nm).[27,28] However, the released
CA4 can induce bystander effects because it can diffuse to the unilluminated
half of the well. As we expected, bystander effects were found in
the Pc-(L-CA4)2-treated wells: cells in the nonilluminated
side were damaged as much as cells in the illuminated side (Figure 5b). However, wells treated with Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 had cell damage only in the illuminated halves of the wells
(Figure 5c). This clearly supported our hypothesis
that illuminated Pc-(L-CA4)2 releases CA4 that can induce
bystander effects, which is consistent with data from our previous
study with CMP-L-CA4.[10]
Figure 5
Fluorescence live cell
images of the center of each well treated
with (a) vehicle (diluting solution without a prodrug), (b) 25 nM
Pc-(L-CA4)2, and (c) 25 nM Pc-(NCL-CA4)2. The
left half of each well was illuminated with a 690 nm diode laser (11
mW/cm2 for 15 min). At these concentrations, Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 did not produce any significant
dark toxicity.
Fluorescence live cell
images of the center of each well treated
with (a) vehicle (diluting solution without a prodrug), (b) 25 nM
Pc-(L-CA4)2, and (c) 25 nM Pc-(NCL-CA4)2. The
left half of each well was illuminated with a 690 nm diode laser (11
mW/cm2 for 15 min). At these concentrations, Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 did not produce any significant
darktoxicity.
Preclinical Optical Imaging
in Live Mice
One of our
major goals was to make Pc-(L-CA4)2 detectable in tissues
using fluorescence optical imaging. We expected that the fluorescent
photosensitizer Pc would provide sufficient fluorescence emission
for this goal. To deliver the prodrugs to tumors by EPR effects, we
prepared PEG–PLA polymermicelles of Pc-(L-CA4)2 or Pc-(NCL-CA4)2. As a control formulation, we also made
solutions of these prodrugs in 5% Cremophor EL, which does not produce
EPR effects. Balb/c mice with SC tumors (colon-26 cells, 4–6
mm in length) were injected retro-orbitally with 2 μmol/kg of
the prodrug. Then, the mice were imaged at various postinjection time
points (Figure 6 and Figure
S4). As anticipated, we could clearly see the fluorescence
emissions from the two prodrugs in live mice.
Figure 6
Fluorescence
optical images of the mice after retro-orbital injection
of 2 μmol/kg of prodrug: (a) Pc-(L-CA4)2 in polymer
micelles, (b) Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 in polymer micelles, (c) Pc-(L-CA4)2 in 5% Cremophor solution, and (d) Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 in 5% Cremophor solution. BG: background image before prodrug injection.
Scale bar unit: fluorescence arbitrary unit.
The imaging data
revealed two important findings. First, the images from the mice that
received the polymermicelles of both prodrugs showed “hot
spots” in tumors, with a peak at around 24 h postinjection,
presumably due to the EPR effects of the nanosized polymermicelles.
These hot spots were more evident in the mice who received injections
of Pc-(L-CA4)2. Second, the “hot spots” resulting
from formulations with the polymermicelles persisted longer than
those “hot spots” resulting from formulations with Cremophorsolutions. The polymermicelles appeared to delay the clearance of
the prodrugs from the system.Because the illumination for optical
imaging could theoretically
generate SO and thus release CA4 from Pc-(L-CA4)2, we monitored
the body weight change and tumor growth pattern of the mice imaged
with Pc-(L-CA4)2. We did not see any significant impact
on mouse body weight or tumor growth since the light dose used for
imaging was negligible [675 filter (660–690 nm) at ∼1.5
μW/cm2 for 2 s (3.0 × 10–6 J/cm2)]. The treatment used a (1.2 × 108)-fold higher light dose than the dose used for imaging.Fluorescence
optical images of the mice after retro-orbital injection
of 2 μmol/kg of prodrug: (a) Pc-(L-CA4)2 in polymermicelles, (b) Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 in polymermicelles, (c) Pc-(L-CA4)2 in 5% Cremophorsolution, and (d) Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 in 5% Cremophorsolution. BG: background image before prodrug injection.
Scale bar unit: fluorescence arbitrary unit.
Antitumor Efficacy
We expected that the new prodrug
Pc-(L-CA4)2 would show better antitumor effects than our
previous prodrug CMP-L-CA4, because Pc has superior light absorption
properties and the prodrug releases two CA4 instead of one. We used
BALB/c mice with SC tumors to evaluate the antitumor effects of the
prodrugs with illumination. Twenty-four hours post-retro-orbital injection
of 1 or 2 μmol/kg of the prodrug, the tumor was illuminated
by a 690 nm diode laser for 30 min at 100 mW/cm2 (180 J/cm2) or 200 mW/cm2 (360 J/cm2). These treatment
conditions were chosen based on data from pilot studies. Six groups
were used to assess the antitumor effects of the prodrug and pseudo-prodrug:
G1, negative control; G2, [CA4 (1 μmol/kg) + no hv]; G3, [Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 (1 μmol/kg) + hv (100 mW/cm2)]; G4, [Pc-(L-CA4)2 (1 μmol/kg) + hv (100 mW/cm2)]; G5, [Pc-(L-CA4)2 (2 μmol/kg) + hv (100 mW/cm2)]; and G6,
[Pc-(L-CA4)2 (2 μmol/kg) + hv (200 mW/cm2)]. Antitumor effects were monitored by measuring tumor volume (Figure 7a and b). [The tumor growth curves of G5 and G6
were nearly identical to G4 until day 15. So, these curves were omitted
from Figure 7a for clarity (Figure S2).]
Figure 7
Antitumor effects. (a) Tumor growth curves,
drug IV administration:
once a day on day −1, illumination 24 h postdrug administration
[hv#: 100 mW/cm2 for 30 min (180 J/cm2) or 200 mW/cm2 for 30 min (360 J/cm2)], 5
mice per group except the control group (4 mice). Error bars represent
SE. In inset: the order of tumor size was G1 > G3 > G4 during
day
1 to day 4 [** p < 0.01 (G1 vs G3, from day 1
to day 4) and ## p < 0.01 (G3 vs G4, from day
1 to day 4)]. (b) Kaplan–Meier plot of response to treatment.
(c) H&E staining of tumors 24 h post-illumination from (i) control
mice or mice treated with (ii) Pc-(NCL-CA4)2, or (iii)
Pc-(L-CA4)2. Prodrug administration and illumination conditions
were same as for those in (a). VT, viable tumor; DT, damaged tumor;
and DS, damaged skin.
We found outstanding antitumor effects
in the mice treated with Pc-(L-CA4)2, G4–G6. After
24 h illumination, all tumors shrank to a nonmeasurable size and remained
so for almost 15 days (Figure 7a). Mice in
group G4 experienced tumor growth only after day 16 (Figure S2). All mice in G4–G6 lived until day 30, while
tumorsize of all 4 mice in the control group (G1) reached >800
mm3 in 12 days (Figure 7b). The
PDT effects
resulting from Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 treatment (G3) had a significant
impact on tumorsize until day 3 (p < 0.05). However,
after day 3, the tumors grew back at a rate similar to the tumors
in the control group G1. Throughout the observation period, Pc-(L-CA4)2 treatment yielded significantly better antitumor effects
(p < 0.01), than Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 treatment.
Thus, it seemed that the PDT effects alone might not be sufficient
to produce such a robust antitumor effect as seen in group G4. We
hypothesized that our findings stemmed from the contribution of the
released CA4 in addition to PDT effects. Interestingly, no mice in
G1–G6 experienced a significant decrease in body weight (Figure S3).The histological data were
consistent with the antitumor effects
(Figure 7c). After 24 h of treatment, tumors
were collected and stained with H&E to visualize the tissue damage.
While mice treated with Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 experienced tissue
damage only on the skin, mice receiving Pc-(L-CA4)2 also
experienced direct tumor damage. In fact, the volume of tumors treated
with Pc-(L-CA4)2 shrank to about 1/8 of the volume of the
tumors in the control group.Antitumor effects. (a) Tumor growth curves,
drug IV administration:
once a day on day −1, illumination 24 h postdrug administration
[hv#: 100 mW/cm2 for 30 min (180 J/cm2) or 200 mW/cm2 for 30 min (360 J/cm2)], 5
mice per group except the control group (4 mice). Error bars represent
SE. In inset: the order of tumorsize was G1 > G3 > G4 during
day
1 to day 4 [** p < 0.01 (G1 vs G3, from day 1
to day 4) and ## p < 0.01 (G3 vs G4, from day
1 to day 4)]. (b) Kaplan–Meier plot of response to treatment.
(c) H&E staining of tumors 24 h post-illumination from (i) control
mice or mice treated with (ii) Pc-(NCL-CA4)2, or (iii)
Pc-(L-CA4)2. Prodrug administration and illumination conditions
were same as for those in (a). VT, viable tumor; DT, damaged tumor;
and DS, damaged skin.
Conclusion
We successfully demonstrated a multifunctional
photounclickable
prodrug that can be visualized by optical imaging, and ablates tumors
with a combination of PDT and local chemotherapy. The prodrug Pc-(L-CA4)2 and its pseudo-prodrug Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 were prepared
in high yields through a facile and flexible scheme. The cytotoxicity
of these prodrugs was lower than that of the parent drug CA4, but
both prodrugs showed enhanced cytotoxicity upon illumination.The mechanisms of cell damage of Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 combined with illumination should be different. While the
use of Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 and illumination killed cancer cells
through PDT effects, the use of Pc-(L-CA4)2 and illumination
combined these PDT effects with local chemotherapy through the released
CA4. This was supported by the bystander effects demonstrated in vitro. Through the use of optical imaging, we found that
both prodrugs were detected at the therapeutic dose within tumors.
Optical imaging also provided the information about the PK profiles
of the prodrugs so that we could find the optimal time point for illumination.
As expected, the antitumor effects in mice treated with Pc-(L-CA4)2 were dramatically better than in mice treated with Pc-(NCL-CA4)2. Treatment with either Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 or CA4 produced
minimal antitumor effects, suggesting that the outstanding antitumor
effects of Pc-(L-CA4)2 may have been a result of the synergistic
effects of PDT and chemotherapy.In addition to confirming that
our current SO-activatable prodrug
strategy provides improved antitumor efficacy, we demonstrated the
innovative use of a fluorescent photosensitizer within the prodrug.
Using optical imaging, we were able to noninvasively generate PK information
about the prodrug without causing any observable acute toxicity to
mice. Our multifunctional prodrug strategy includes (1) activation
by the clinical translatable far-red light (or NIR), (2) the unique
combination of PDT and local chemotherapy, and (3) the dual function
of optical imaging and treatment with one prodrug. We anticipate that
this strategy will be applicable to various drug delivery forms, clinically
approved drugs, and advanced drug delivery systems targeted at tumors.
Experimental Section
CA4,[29] compound 1,[9] and compound 2(10) were synthesized
as reported previously.
The purity of the biologically evaluated compoundsPc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 was confirmed to be >95%
by
high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) (Figures S9 and S10).
Compound 3
1-(2-Hydroxyethyl)-piperazine
(1.91 g, 14.70 mmol) and pyridine (2.5 mL) were added to a solution
of silicon(IV) phthalocyanine dichloride (Pc-Cl2, 1 g,
1.63 mmol) in 50 mL toluene. The reaction mixture was refluxed for
12 h. The solvent was then removed under reduced pressure. The residue
was dissolved in CH2Cl2 and washed with water.
The solvent of the combined organic layers was removed by evaporation,
and the crude was recrystallized with CHCl3/n-hexane (1:4 v/v) to give a blue solid compound 3 (1.22
g, 94%). 1H NMR (300 MHz, CD2Cl2)
δ −1.19 (t, J = 5.8 Hz, 4H), −0.82
(t, J = 5.8 Hz, 1H), 0.28 (m, 8H), 1.75 (m, 8H),
8.30–8.40 (m, 8H, Pc-Hβ), 9.55–9.69
(m, 8H, Pc-Hα); 13C NMR (300 MHz, CD2Cl2) δ 123.4, 131.0, 135.9, 149.2; HRMS ESI
(m/z): [M + H]+ calculated
for C44H43N12O2Si, 799.3401;
found, 799.3395.
Pc-(L-CA4)2
Compound 1 (46
mg, 0.13 mmol) and compound 3 (50 mg, 0.06 mmol) were
dissolved in 20 mL dry THF, and the solution was stirred at room temperature
for 15 min. The solvent was removed under reduced pressure to yield
the crude product, which was then recrystallized from CHCl3/n-hexane (1:5 v/v) to give Pc-(L-CA4)2 (83 mg, 87%). 1H NMR (300 MHz, CD2Cl2)) δ −1.96 (t, J = 5.6 Hz, 4H), −0.55
(t, J = 5.0 Hz, 4H), 0.29 (br s, 8H), 2.20 (br s,
8H), 3.67 (s, 12H), 3.72 (s, 6H), 3.77 (s, 6H), 4.34 (d, J = 12.8 Hz, 2H), 6.45 (d, J = 4.9 Hz, 4H), 6.62
(s, 4H), 6.84 (d, J = 8.1 Hz, 2H), 6.96 (s, 2H),
7.00 (s, 2H), 7.09 (d, J = 12.8 Hz, 2H), 8.38–8.43
(m, 8H, Pc-Hβ), 9.65–9.70 (m, 8H, Pc-Hα); 13C NMR (300 MHz, CD2Cl2) δ 55.8, 56.6, 60.4, 81.8, 105.9, 111.8, 123.5, 123.9,
126.6, 128.7, 129.1, 129.8, 131.2, 132.5, 135.8, 137.2, 140.3, 149.3,
151.1, 152.2, 153.0, 167.2; HRMS ESI (m/z): [M + H]+ calculated for C86H83N12O14Si, 1535.5921; found, 1535.5914.
Pc-(NCL-CA4)2
Anhydrous K2CO3 (68 mg, 0.500
mmol) and compound 3 (200 mg,
0.25 mmol) were added to a solution of compound 2 (218
mg, 0.50 mmol) in 10 mL dry DMF. The reaction mixture was stirred
at room temperature for 12 h. The K2CO3 was
removed by suction filtration and the solvent was removed under reduced
pressure. The crude product was then recrystallized from CHCl3/n-hexane (1:5 v/v) to give Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 (302 mg, 80%). 1H NMR (300 MHz, CD2Cl2) δ −1.96 (t, J = 5.6
Hz, 4H), −0.78 (t, J = 5.8 Hz, 4H), 0.41 (br
s, 8H), 1.50 (m, 2H), 1.90 (m, 2H), 2.18 (m, 2H), 2.49 (m, 2H), 3.32
(s, 4H), 3.60 (br s, 8H), 3.65 (s, 12H), 3.75 (s, 6H), 3.80 (s, 6H),
6.46 (m, 4H), 6.51 (m, 4H), 6.74 (m, 2H), 6.81 (m, 2H), 6.92 (m, 2H),
8.38 (m, 8H, Pc-Hβ), 9.66 (m, 8H, Pc-Hα); 13C NMR (300 MHz, CD2Cl2) δ
55.8, 60.4, 105.1, 111.4, 113.6, 115.2, 117.5, 123.4, 126.7, 126.8,
126.9, 130.9, 132.8, 135.9, 149.1; HRMS ESI (m/z): [M + H]+ calculated for C86H91N12O12Si, 1511.6649; found, 1511.6612.
Preparation of Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 Micelles
Briefly, 3 mg of Pc-(L-CA4)2 or Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 was dissolved in 1.3 mL of THF. Ten mg of mPEG–PLA
(cat #AK09, vendor: Polyscitech) was dissolved in 1 mL of THF. 600
μL of the 3 mg of Pc-(L-CA4)2 or Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 dissolved in 1.3 mL THF was added to the mPEG-PLA-THF mixture.
The volume of the resulting mixture was reduced to 300 μL under
reduced pressure. The 300 μL of the mixture of Pc-(L-CA4)2 or Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 and mPEG–PLA was added
to 3 mL of distilled water dropwise while stirring. The mixture was
stirred for 3 h, after which the organic solvent was evaporated under
reduced pressure at 40 °C. The resultant solution was filtered
through a 0.2 μm filter. The concentration of Pc-(L-CA4)2 or Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 micelles was determined by diluting
the micelles in THF: the absorbance was measured by absorbance of
Pc group. The concentration was calculated from the molar extinction
coefficient (EC) of Pc-(L-CA4)2 or Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 at 675 nm in THF (EC of Pc-(L-CA4)2 = 205,000; Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 = 206,110 M–1 cm–1) using
the Beer–Lambert law. The concentrations of Pc-(L-CA4)2 or Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 micelles were determined to be
211 and 210 μM, respectively. Freshly prepared Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 micelles were used for all the
experiments.
Cremophor Solution
2.0 mM stock
solutions of Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 prepared
in THF were further
diluted with 5% Cremophor EL in PBS to achieve appropriate concentrations.
Characterization of Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 Micelles
The Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 micelles in an aqueous solution were characterized by measuring
their hydrodynamic diameter and zeta potential via dynamic light scattering
(DLS). The size measurement was carried out at a concentration of
1.0 mg/mL of Pc-(L-CA4)2 or Pc-(NCL-CA4)2. Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 micelles were also imaged by
transmission electron microscopy (TEM) at 20,000× operating at
80 kV. TEM samples were prepared by depositing 20 μL of diluted
Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 micelle solution
on a 300 mesh copper TEM grid with a carbon film. The sample grid
was air-dried before the measurements were taken.
Tubulin Polymerization
Assay
A fluorescence-based tubulin
polymerization assay was conducted using a kit supplied by Cytoskeleton,
Inc. (cat # BK011P). The basic principle is that an increase in fluorescence
will occur as a fluorescence reporter is incorporated into microtubules
during the course of polymerization. The assay was performed following
the experimental procedure described in version 2.1 of the tubulin
polymerization assay kit manual. Briefly, a drug in DMSO stock solution
was added to a mixture of tubulin and GTP in a buffer solution, to
give a final concentration of 3 μM. The reaction mixture was
incubated at 37 °C. Fluorescence was monitored (excitation =
360 nm and emission = 450 nm) every 2 min for 1 h. PCX and CA4 were
included in the assay as positive controls, as well as a vehicle-only
negative control.
Dark and Phototoxicity
The cytotoxicity
of Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 was determined
with and without
illumination. MCF-7 cells were maintained in minimum essential medium
(α-MEM) supplemented with 10% bovine growth serum, 2 mM l-glutamine, 50 units/mL penicillin G, 50 μg/mL streptomycin,
and 1.0 μg/mL fungizone. MCF-7 cells (5000 cells/well) were
seeded on 96-well plates in the medium and incubated for 24 h at 37
°C in 5% CO2. Stock Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 micelle solutions (200 μM) were prepared in distilled
water. The stock solutions were further diluted with medium to obtain
the necessary final concentrations. The diluted solution (10 μL)
was then added to each well (190 μL). The plates were incubated
for 24 h and then removed from the incubator. For the phototoxicity
study: The uncovered plate was illuminated for 30 min using a diode
laser (690 nm, 5.6 mW/cm2). To ensure uniformity of the
light during the illumination, each plate was shaken gently on an
orbital shaker (Lab-line, Barnstead International). For the darktoxicity
study: Plates were kept in the dark for 30 min and then returned to
the incubator. After 3 days, cell viability was determined using an
MTT assay. Briefly, a 10 μL solution of MTT (10 mg in 1 mL PBS
buffer) was added to each well and the plate was incubated for 4 h
at room temperature or 37 °C. Then, the MTTsolution was removed
and the cells were dissolved in 200 μL of DMSO. The absorbance
of each well was measured at 570 nm with background subtraction at
650 nm. Cell viability was quantified by measuring the absorbance
of the treated wells compared to that of the untreated control wells,
and expressed as a percentage.
Bystander Effect
Colon-26 cells were seeded at 5000
cells/well on 24-well plates and incubated for 24 h. Stock Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 micelle solutions (200 μM)
were prepared in distilled water. 200 μM of the stock solutions
were added to wells (1 mL) to obtain appropriate final concentrations
of both Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 at 25
nM. After 24 h incubation, the plates were illuminated from the bottom
with a 690 nm diode laser at 11 mW/cm2 for 15 min. During
illumination, half of each well was blocked with black masking tape
(cat# T743-1.0, vendor: Thorlabs). The illuminated plates were incubated
for an additional 48 h. Then, a Calcein AM live cell staining assay
(cat # 4892-010-K, vendor: Molecular, Probes Tervigen) was performed.
The cells were washed once with 1 mL Calcein AM wash buffer, then
250 μL fresh wash buffer and 250 μL working reagent were
added to the wells. The cells were incubated for 30 min. Fluorescent
images were obtained with an Olympus IX51 inverted microscope with
a green fluorescence channel to visualize live cells. All images were
taken at 10× magnification.
In Vivo Optical Imaging
The concentrations
of Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 micelles in
aqueous solution were determined by diluting 10 μL of the formulation
stock in 1 mL of THF and measuring the absorbance of phthalocyanine.
The concentration was calculated from the EC of Pc-(L-CA4)2 at 672 nm in THF (EC of Pc-(L-CA4)2 = 205,000;
Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 = 206,110 M–1 cm–1) using the Beer–Lambert law.We used four- to six-week-old
BALB/c mice to investigate the biodistribution and tumor targeting
ability of the polymeric micelles. The mice were shaved before the
imaging experiments, and were imaged using the IVIS Imaging system.
The mice were injected with Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 in the micelle formulation (2 μmol/kg, i.v.). As a
comparison, the prodrugs were also evaluated in the Cremophorsolution.
Fluorescence images were taken 0, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h after
retro-orbital injection. Before taking the images, the mice were anesthetized
in an acrylic chamber with a 2.5% isoflurane/air mixture. The following
parameters were used to acquire images with Living Image software:
fluorescence mode, exposure time: 2 s, binning: medium, F/Stop: 2,
excitation: 675 filter (660–690 nm), and emission: 720 filter
(710–730 nm). During post processing, image counts were adjusted
to 3 × 104 as minimum and 6.0 × 104 a.u. as maximum color scale.
Antitumor Efficacy Study
Four- to six-week-old BALB/c
mice (18–20 g) were used for the murinetumor model. The mice
were implanted SC with 2 × 106 colon 26 cells in PBS
(100 μL) on the lower back of the neck. Tumor growth was monitored
using digital calipers. The longest axis of the tumor (1) and the
axis perpendicular to l (w) were used to calculate tumor volume (lw2/2). Mice with tumors 5–6 mm in diameter were used
for the experiments.We used stock solutions of Pc-(L-CA4)2 and Pc-(NCL-CA4)2 micelles in aqueous solution
and further dilutions to achieve final doses as follows: [CA4, (1
μmol/kg each)], [Pc-(NCL=CA4)2, (1 μmol/kg
each) ], [Pc-(L-CA4)2, (1 μmol/kg each)], and [Pc-(L-CA4)2, (2 μmol/kg each)]. To each mouse, 200 μL of
sample was injected via IV once on day −1. Twenty-four hours
later mice were anesthetized by IP injection of 80 mg/kg ketamine
and 6 mg/kg xylazine. Tumors were illuminated with a 690 nm diode
laser at 100 mW/cm2 or 200 mW/cm2 for 30 min
−180 or 360 J/cm2, respectively. Tumorsize was
measured every day after the treatment.
Histology Study (H&E
Staining)
To evaluate antitumor
effect, mice from various groups were euthanized 24 h after laser
illumination and tumors were collected. The specimens were fixed in
10% buffered formalin, embedded in paraffin, and ∼4 mm diameter
tissue sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin following
a standard procedure at the tissue pathology core facility at OUHSC.
The sections were viewed and photographed by bright-field microscopy
at 4× magnification.
Statistical analysis
Student’s t test was used for statistical analysis. P values
less than 0.05 were considered significant.
Authors: Abugafar M L Hossion; Moses Bio; Gregory Nkepang; Samuel G Awuah; Youngjae You Journal: ACS Med Chem Lett Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 4.345
Authors: Yali Kong; Jolanta Grembecka; Michael C Edler; Ernest Hamel; Susan L Mooberry; Michal Sabat; Jayson Rieger; Milton L Brown Journal: Chem Biol Date: 2005-09
Authors: Youngjae You; Scott L Gibson; Russell Hilf; Sherry R Davies; Allan R Oseroff; Indrajit Roy; Tymish Y Ohulchanskyy; Earl J Bergey; Michael R Detty Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2003-08-14 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Goutam Ghosh; Mihaela Minnis; Ashwini A Ghogare; Inna Abramova; Keith A Cengel; Theresa M Busch; Alexander Greer Journal: J Phys Chem B Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 2.991