Significant differences in biochemical parameters between normal and tumor tissues offer an opportunity to chemically design drug carriers which respond to these changes and deliver the drugs at the desired site. For example, overexpression of the matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) enzyme in the extracellular matrix of tumor tissues can act as a trigger to chemically modulate the drug delivery from the carriers. In this study, we have synthesized an MMP-9-cleavable, collagen mimetic lipopeptide which forms nanosized vesicles with the POPC, POPE-SS-PEG, and cholesteryl-hemisuccinate lipids. The lipopeptide retains the triple-helical conformation when incorporated into these nanovesicles. The PEG groups shield the substrate lipopeptides from hydrolysis by MMP-9. However, in the presence of elevated glutathione levels, the PEG groups are reductively removed, exposing the lipopeptides to MMP-9. The resultant peptide-bond cleavage disturbs the vesicles' lipid bilayer, leading to the release of encapsulated contents. These PEGylated nanovesicles are capable of encapsulating the anticancer drug gemcitabine with 50% efficiency. They were stable in physiological conditions and in human serum. Effective drug release was demonstrated using the pancreatic ductal carcinoma cells (PANC-1 and MIAPaCa-2) in two-dimensional and three-dimensional "tumor-like" spheroid cultures. A reduction in tumor growth was observed after intravenous administration of the gemcitabine-encapsulated nanovesicles in the xenograft model of athymic, female nude mice.
Significant differences in biochemical parameters between normal and tumor tissues offer an opportunity to chemically design drug carriers which respond to these changes and deliver the drugs at the desired site. For example, overexpression of the matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) enzyme in the extracellular matrix of tumor tissues can act as a trigger to chemically modulate the drug delivery from the carriers. In this study, we have synthesized an MMP-9-cleavable, collagen mimetic lipopeptide which forms nanosized vesicles with the POPC, POPE-SS-PEG, and cholesteryl-hemisuccinate lipids. The lipopeptide retains the triple-helical conformation when incorporated into these nanovesicles. The PEG groups shield the substrate lipopeptides from hydrolysis by MMP-9. However, in the presence of elevated glutathione levels, the PEG groups are reductively removed, exposing the lipopeptides to MMP-9. The resultant peptide-bond cleavage disturbs the vesicles' lipid bilayer, leading to the release of encapsulated contents. These PEGylated nanovesicles are capable of encapsulating the anticancer drug gemcitabine with 50% efficiency. They were stable in physiological conditions and in human serum. Effective drug release was demonstrated using the pancreatic ductal carcinoma cells (PANC-1 and MIAPaCa-2) in two-dimensional and three-dimensional "tumor-like" spheroid cultures. A reduction in tumor growth was observed after intravenous administration of the gemcitabine-encapsulated nanovesicles in the xenograft model of athymic, female nude mice.
Stimulus-responsive
nanomaterials deliver encapsulated drugs preferentially
at the target site, enhancing the therapeutic benefits and minimizing
drug-related cytotoxicity.[1] Several extraneous
sources of energy, such as temperature, light, magnetic field, ultrasound,
etc., have been used to release the encapsulated drugs from the nanomaterials.[2] Internal stimulus-responsive carriers use the
inherent biochemical differences between physiological and cancerous
tissues when delivering the drugs to the affected site.[3] Because several enzymes are overexpressed in
the cancerous tissues, the enzymes have been used as triggers to release
the contents from appropriate carriers.[4]The extracellular matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) proteolytic
enzymes
are overexpressed in many types of tumors and play a crucial role
in cancer invasion and metastasis.[5] MMP-2
and MMP-9 have been investigated as triggers by employing enzyme-responsive
peptides on the surface of the carriers.[6] However, in a dynamic physiological environment, the drug carrier
needs to be stable before it reaches the tumor site. Coating the nanoparticles
with poly(ethylene glycol) polymer (PEGylation) reduces the unintended
interactions with circulating proteins.[7] This PEG coating reduces the interfacial tension and hinders protein
adsorption on the nanoparticles’ surface.[8] Hence, PEGylated nanoparticles accumulate at the tumor
site due to the enhanced permeation and retention (EPR) effect.[9] However, at the tumor site, the PEG layer needs
to be removed from the carriers to elicit the desired effects.[10]Matrix metalloproteinase levels are often
elevated in the extracellular
matrix of various cancers, including pancreatic cancer.[11] In the present study, we have synthesized an
MMP-9-cleavable, collagen mimetic lipopeptide which formed nanosized
vesicles with 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine
(POPC), cholesteryl-hemisuccinate, and the synthesized reduction sensitive,
PEGylated 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine
lipid (POPE-SS-PEG5000). The PEG5000 in POPE-SS-PEG5000 was incorporated to render long circulating characteristic
to nanovesicles. In the extracellular matrix of the tumors, we anticipated
that the POPE-SS-PEG5000polymer would undergo reduction
by glutathione and shed the PEG chains. The de-PEGylation from the
surface of nanovesicles will expose the MMP-9-responsive, collagen
mimetic lipopeptides to enzymatic hydrolysis. The resultant destabilization
of the nanovesicles will trigger the release of the encapsulated drugs
(Figure 1). We note that, besides MMP-9, the
increased levels of extracellular MMP-2 and intracellular glutathione
(GSH) in tumors have been used to shed PEG from the surface of the
drug carrier for in vitro studies.[8,9,12−15]
Figure 1
Schematic representation of nanovesicles
incorporating MMP-9 substrate
lipopeptides and reduction-sensitive POPE-SS-PEG which render the
nanovesicles responsive to extracellular, elevated levels of MMP-9
and GSH.
Schematic representation of nanovesicles
incorporating MMP-9 substrate
lipopeptides and reduction-sensitive POPE-SS-PEG which render the
nanovesicles responsive to extracellular, elevated levels of MMP-9
and GSH.We validated and optimized this
delivery strategy by monitoring
the release profiles of the encapsulated dye carboxyfluorescein in
the presence of physiologically relevant concentrations of GSH and
MMP-9. Subsequently, the anticancer drug gemcitabine was encapsulated
in the optimized nanovesicles, and cytotoxicity was determined by
employing two-dimensional monolayer cultures of humanpancreatic cancer
cells. However, we note that the conventional monolayer cultures of
cancer cells lack the three-dimensional, cell–cell interactions
that are encountered with the in vivo environments.[16] Three-dimensional, spheroid cell cultures have
been proposed to bridge this gap between conventional monolayer cultures
and animal-model studies.[17] The human pancreatic
cancer cell line PANC-1 forms such spheroids which can provide the
three-dimensional architecture encountered by drug carriers in vivo.[18] In this study, we
tested the cytotoxicity of gemcitabine-encapsulated nanovesicles in
PANC-1 cell spheroids and also in a mouse xenograft model.
Materials and Methods
The POPE-S-S-PEG disulfide lipid
was synthesized as shown in Scheme 1. Synthetic
details for this lipid, as well as for
the LP lipopeptide, are provided in the Supporting
Information.
Scheme 1
Synthetic Scheme for POPE-SS-PEG
Preparation of Carboxyfluorescein Encapsulated
Nanovesicles
The nanovesicles (liposomes) were prepared by
mixing POPC lipid (Avanti Polar Lipids), synthesized lipopeptide LP,
POPE-SS-PEG5000, and cholesteryl hemisuccinate in molar
proportions of 60:30:5:5, respectively. All the lipids were dissolved
in chloroform. The chloroform was removed using a rotary evaporator
to form a thin lipid film in a round-bottom flask. The film was further
vacuum-dried overnight inside a desiccator. The film was then hydrated
at 60 °C for 2 h with 100 mM carboxyfluorescein solution prepared
in HEPES buffer (pH 7.4). The formed vesicles were subjected to ultrasonication
for 45 min using an Aquasonic bath sonicator (model 250D, power level
9). The resulting vesicles were then extruded through 0.8 μm
and, subsequently, 0.2 μm filters to obtain vesicles with a
uniform size. To remove the unencapsulated dye, the vesicles were
passed through a Sephadex G50-size exclusion column, and an orange
band of carboxyfluorescein-encapsulated nanovesicles was collected.
These vesicles were used for the release and imaging experiments.
Since a large excess of carboxyfluorescein was used, we did not estimate
the percentage of the dye encapsulated.
Preparation
of Gemcitabine-Encapsulated Nanovesicles
Gemcitabine was
encapsulated in the nanovesicles with the pH gradient
method.[19] Nanovesicles of lipid composition
POPC (Avanti Polar Lipids), LP, POPE-SS-PEG, cholesteryl hemisuccinate,
and lissamine rhodamine lipid (Avanti Polar Lipids) were prepared
by dissolving them in chloroform in the molar proportions of 59:30:5:5:1,
respectively. Chloroform was then evaporated under reduced pressure,
and the resulting thin film of lipids was dried under a vacuum desiccator.
This film was hydrated with 2 mL of 20 mM citric acid buffer (pH 4).
The resulting vesicles were subjected to ultrasonication for 45 min
(at power level 9) and were then extruded through a 0.2 μm filter.
Nanovesicles were collected after being passed through a Sephadex
G50 gel-filtration column. Lissamine rhodamine lipid (1 mol %) was
incorporated in these nanovesicles to impart color, and to aid in
visualizing the vesicles during size exclusion chromatography. These
eluted nanovesicles (pH 7.4) were incubated with 1 mg/mL aqueous solution
of gemcitabine at 60 °C for 2 h. The gemcitabine solution was
added to the nanovesicles to create a lipid–drug ratio of 10:1.
Drug-carrying nanovesicles were again passed through the Sephadex
G50 column to remove nonencapsulated gemcitabine. Entrapment efficiency
of the nanovesicle was then calculated to be 50% (Supporting Information). These nanovesicles were used for
cytotoxicity studies.
Size and Morphology Analysis
The
hydrodynamic diameters of the vesicles were measured using a dynamic
light scattering (DLS) instrument (Malvern Zetasizer Nano-ZS90). Measurements
were conducted at a scattering angle of 90° using a polystyrene,
latex disposable cuvette. An equilibration time of 120 s was kept
constant for all measurements. For each sample, 6 readings were recorded
averaging 6 runs for the same sample. In order to observe size changes
in the presence of added MMP-9 and GSH, the nanovesicles that encapsulated
gemcitabine were incubated with MMP-9 and GSH. Size changes were monitored
for 24 h with DLS, and the morphology change was observed using an
atomic force microscope (AFM). For AFM imaging, the nanovesicles were
deposited on a mica sheet and were imaged using a MultiMode atomic
force microscope with a Nanoscope IIIa controller and a J-type piezo
scanner (Veeco Metrology Group, Santa Barbara, CA). An antimony (n)
doped Si tip was used for obtaining images in the tapping mode.
Release Studies
The release of the
encapsulated dye was monitored with a fluorescence spectrofluorometer
(Spectramax-M5, Molecular Devices, Inc.). Carboxyfluorescein (100
mM) was encapsulated in liposomes, and the release was monitored as
a function of time (excitation, 480 nm; emission, 515 nm). Release
from the nanovesicles was recorded for 60 min in 30 s intervals. The
experiments were carried out in a 96-well plate (6 repeats for each
measurement). Each well contained 20 μL of nanovesicles and
160 μL of HEPES buffer (pH 8) with added Ca2+ and
Zn2+ ions (10 mM, osmolarity adjusted to 290 with NaCl).
Recombinant humanMMP-9 was prepared in our laboratory, as described
previously.[20,21] Contents released in response
to added recombinant MMP-9 (2 μM) and GSH (50 μM) were
monitored for 60 min. Release in human serum (10%) was also monitored
for 60 min. After 60 min, Triton-X100 was added to each well to disrupt
the nanovesicles, and emission intensity was measured. This intensity
was considered to be for complete release of the encapsulated dye,
and the percentage released for each experiment was calculated using
the following formula:
Cell Culture
Pancreatic cancer cell
lines PANC-1 and MIAPaCa-2 were obtained from American Type Culture
Collection (Manassas, VA). PANC-1 cells were cultured in RPMI media
(without phenol red) that were supplemented with 2% antibiotics (penicillin,
streptomycin) and 10% v/v fetal bovine serum. The MIAPaCa-2 cells
were cultured in DMEM media that were supplemented with 2% horse serum
and 2% antibiotics. All cell lines were grown at 37 °C in a humidified
atmosphere containing 5% CO2.
Alamar
Blue Assay with a Monolayer Cell Culture
Cytotoxicity of
the encapsulated gemcitabine was measured by treating
the PANC-1 and MIAPaCa-2 cells with nanovesicles. The cells were incubated
(1,000 per well) in a 96-well plate after trypsinizing the flask and
making a cell suspension. RPMI media (100 μL) were added to
each well. Cells were allowed to grow for one doubling time. The plate
was divided into three groups: control, gemcitabine-treated, and gemcitabine-encapsulated
nanovesicle treated. Six replicates were recorded for each sample.
The control group did not receive any treatment. Phosphate buffer
saline (PBS)-encapsulated liposomes were also employed as control
for cell viability studies. Gemcitabine-treated cells received 5 μM,
10 μM, and 20 μM gemcitabine, and nanovesicle-treated
cells received an equivalent amount of encapsulated gemcitabine. The
treatment was carried out for 3 days, and cell toxicity was recorded
after 72 h with the Alamar Blue assay by following the supplier’s
(Life Technologies) protocol. Alamar Blue solution (10 μL) was
added to all the wells and incubated for 2 h, and the absorbance was
recorded at 585 nm for cytotoxicity calculation. Toxicity of PBS encapsulated
nanovesicles was observed by incubating MIAPaCa-2 cells (1000 per
well) in a 96-well plate with nanovesicles representing lipid concentrations
ranging from 5 μg/mL to 100 μg/mL. Alamar Blue assay was
carried out to observe cell viability of MIAPaCa-2 cells after incubating
for 72 h with the nanovesicles.
Estimation
of Cell-Secreted MMP-9 Concentration
Conditioned media from
confluent cultures of PANC-1 and MIAPaCa-2
cells were collected, and a concentration of secreted MMP-9 was estimated
by using a commercially available MMP-9 ELISA kit (RayBio Tech). The
manufacturer’s instructions were followed to estimate the MMP-9
secreted by the cells.
Three-Dimensional Spheroid
Cell Culture
Based on the ELISA results, the PANC-1 cell
line was selected for
the spheroid culture because it showed the highest levels of secreted
MMP-9. In order to prepare the cell spheroids, agar molds, each having
the capability to form 96 spheroids of uniform size, were created.
To prepare the plates, a slightly modified protocol provided by Microtissues
(http://www.microtissues.com/3dcellculture_protocols/Casting_Equilibrating_and_Seeding_the_3D_Petri_Dish.pdf ) was used. The prepared plates were equilibrated with RPMI media
for 1 h at 37 °C and placed in 6-well plates, and 2 mL of RPMI
media was added to each well to provide nutrition for the cells seeded
in the plates. Agar plates were then seeded with 75 μL of cell
suspension containing 10,000 cells in each plate, which formed spheroids
after 3 days of incubation at 37 °C. These spheroids were used
for cell-viability and oxidative-stress studies.
Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH) Assay
LDH was measured
using a kit supplied by G-Biosciences (Cytoscan
LDH Cytotoxicity assay). The manufacturer’s instructions were
followed to measure the LDH released in response to cytotoxicity caused
by the release of gemcitabine from the nanovesicles. This assay was
carried out using 1-day, 3-day, and 5-day old spheroids.
Alamar Blue Assay with 3-D Cell Culture
Plates containing
96 spheroids molds were prepared, and cells were
allowed to grow for 5 days in order to form spheroids. These plates
were divided into 3 groups on the basis of the treatment they received:
control, drug treated, and drug-encapsulated nanovesicles. Each group
contained 6 plates with 96 spheroids. The control group received the
same nutrition media as the other groups. The drug-treated group received
10 μM gemcitabine, and the test group received drug-encapsulated
nanovesicles (encapsulating 10 μM gemcitabine). Spheroids in
all groups received the treatment for 72 h. Subsequently, all the
media surrounding the micromold were removed. The spheroids were treated
with TryPLE (Life Technologies) and were incubated for 1 h at 37 °C
to ensure dissociation of all the cells in the spheroid. RPMI media
(3 mL) were added to each plate and were triturated to remove all
the cells from the plate. From the cell suspension obtained, 100 μL
from each plate was seeded on a new clear-bottom, 96-well plate (repeated
6 times for each well). Additional growth medium (100 μL) was
added to all the wells receiving the cell suspension. The cells were
allowed to grow for one doubling time, and the Alamar Blue assay was
carried out per the manufacturer’s protocol, as described before.
Confocal Fluorescence Microscopic Imaging
Carboxyfluorescein-encapsulated nanovesicles were used to visualize
the release of contents in 7-day-old spheroids of PANC-1 cells. Nanovesicles
devoid of lipopeptide LP were used as a control. The spheroids were
treated in the plate with the control and sample nanovesicles by incubating
for 4 h at 37 °C. The spheroids were then washed (3×) with
culture media. Spheroid-holding plates were then centrifuged to dislodge
spheroids in the media. These spheroids were then imaged using a Zeiss
AxioObserver Z1, inverted microscope with an LSM700 laser-scanning
head attachment and a 20× 0.4 LD Plan-Neofluar objective. The
first and last appearance of the fluorescence in the sample-treated
spheroids was set as the scanning range. The same comparison range
was selected for the control spheroids. Images were processed with
Zeiss AxioVision Rev. 4.8.1 image-analysis software (Carl Zeiss, Thornwood,
NY).
In Vivo Imaging
For in vivo imaging, athymic, Nude-Foxn1 (female,
5–6 week old), nude mice were used. PANC-1 cells (3 million)
were injected subcutaneously. A well-developed tumor was observed
after 21 days, and this animal was used for the imaging studies. Carboxyfluorescein-encapsulated
(50 mM) nanovesicles (60 μL) were injected via the tail vein.
Images were recorded using a reflectance imaging system (Kodak in vivo system FX, Carestream Health, Inc., Rochester, NY).
The whole-body fluorescence images were acquired using the FITC channel
(excited at 480 nm and recorded at 680/720 nm) after 5 s of exposure.
Images were recorded to monitor the release of carboxyfluorescein
at the tumor site 6 and 24 h after injection. The images were further
processed using Kodak Molecular Imaging software (version 4.0).
In Vivo Studies
In vivo studies were carried out using a xenograft
model for athymic, Nude-Foxn1 (female, 5–6 week old), nude
mice (IACUC-approved protocol number A13066). PANC-1 cells (3 million)
were injected subcutaneously into the nude mice, and the cells were
allowed to grow at the injected site for 15 days. After the tumors
developed, mice were divided into the control, positive control, and
test groups (n = 3 for each group). The control group
received a phosphate buffer (pH 7.4, osmolarity 325 mOsm/kg), animals
in the positive control group received gemcitabine (10 mg/kg/week)
encapsulated in PEGylated liposomes devoid of LP, and the test group
received a 10 mg/kg/week dose of gemcitabine-encapsulated in the deigned
MMP-9 responsive PEG cleavable nanovesicles. The treatment was administered
for 4 weeks via tail-vein injection. The tumor size was recorded each
week, and the tumor volume was calculated using the following formula:
volume = (width)2 × length/2. The mice’s weights
were recorded throughout the study, and the mice were closely monitored
for any sign of toxicity.
Results
and Discussion
Coating the drug carriers with a layer of
poly(ethylene glycol)
or another hydrophilic polymer imparts the long-circulating property.
However, efficient interactions between the drug carrier and tumor
microenvironment require the removal of the protective PEG coating
from the surface of the carrier at the target site.[22] In order to impart this feature to the nanovesicles, we
synthesized a reduction-sensitive PEGylated lipidPOPE-SS-PEG5000 (Scheme 1). The product was confirmed
by NMR and MALDI mass spectral analysis (Supporting
Information). We anticipated that the long PEG chains would
protect the MMP-9 substrate lipopeptide LP from cleavage in the presence
of low levels of MMP-9 (50–100 nM; found in the blood), and
would provide long-circulating characteristics to the nanovesicles.
Increased oxidative stress often results in elevated levels of glutathione
(GSH) in tumor tissues.[23] The sulfhydryl
group of reduced glutathione participates in the thiol exchange,[24] and this reaction is expected to reduce the
disulfide bonds of the POPE-SS-PEG5000lipid. We anticipate
that the resultant exposure of the collagen mimetic, substrate lipopeptides
to the elevated MMP-9 levels in the tumor extracellular matrix will
initiate the hydrolysis of the lipopeptides, leading to destabilization
of the nanovesicles.The lipopetideLP was designed to act as
a substrate for the extracellular
enzyme MMP-9.[25] We have previously demonstrated
that LP can be successfully incorporated into the liposomal lipid
bilayer and that the resultant vesicles undergo “uncorking”
in the presence of elevated levels of catalytically active MMP-9,
releasing the encapsulated contents.[20] We
have also established that other cancer-associated MMPs, which do
not hydrolyze triple helical peptides (e.g., MMP-7, MMP-10), are ineffective
in releasing contents from these liposomes.[21,25] However, MMP-2 and MMP-9 have similar substrate selectivity[26,27] and are likely to hydrolyze LP. The collagen-mimetic, MMP-9, cleavable
LP was synthesized by microwave-assisted, solid-phase peptide synthesis
and was purified by reverse-phase HPLC (Supporting
Information). The MMP-9 cleavage site for LP is located between
the amino acids glycine and isoleucine.[25] The collagen-mimetic, triple-helical structural characteristic of
purified LP was confirmed by CD spectroscopy, showing a positive peak
at 220 nm and a negative peak at 198 nm (Supporting
Information).[28]LP retained
its triple helical structure when incorporated into
nanovesicles composed of POPC (65%), POPE-SS-PEG (5%), and cholesteryl
hemisuccinate (5%) (Figure 2A, black trace).
We observed that the triple helicity of nanovesicle-incorporated LP
was unchanged upon treatment with GSH (50 μM) for 1 h (Figure 2A, red trace). However, the triple helicity of LP
was considerably reduced when incubated with 2 μM recombinant
humanMMP-9 for 60 min (Figure 2B, red trace).
Figure 2
CD spectra
of nanovesicles (black trace) and nanovesicles treated
with 50 μM GSH (red trace) did not show any change in triple
helicity (A), but treatment with MMP-9 (red trace) showed changes
in the triple helicity of the nanovesicles (black trace) (B).
CD spectra
of nanovesicles (black trace) and nanovesicles treated
with 50 μM GSH (red trace) did not show any change in triple
helicity (A), but treatment with MMP-9 (red trace) showed changes
in the triple helicity of the nanovesicles (black trace) (B).The nanocarriers’ size
is crucial for passive tumor targeting
because the drug carriers accumulate at the target site by infiltration
through the leaky vasculature.[29] The nanovesicles
composed of POPC:LP:cholesteryl hemisuccinate:POPE-SS-PEG (60:30:5:5)
were prepared with the thin film hydration method, followed by sonication
and extrusion. The size of the prepared nanovesicles was assessed
by dynamic light scattering at a 90° angle. The size of the vesicles
immediately after passing through the size-exclusion column was observed
to be 86 ± 18 nm with a polydispersity index (PDI) of 0.3. The
size of these nanovesicles was retained for 24 h at room temperature.
Treatment with MMP-9 (2 μM) and GSH (50 μM) for 24 h at
room temperature increased the average size to 109 ± 20 nm with
a PDI of 0.4 (Figure 3). Treatment with 50
μM GSH only led to a slight reduction in the sizes of the liposomes,
possibly indicating the removal of the PEG groups (Supporting Information, Figure S4). Treatment with only MMP-9
(2 μM) resulted in a slight increase in the liposomal size (Supporting Information, Figure S4). A similar
size increase was also observed when we repeated the experiment at
37 °C (Table S1, Supporting Information).
Figure 3
Nanovesicles treated with the MMP-9 (2 μM) and GSH (50 μM)
showed an increased size with time (black squares, n = 6). The size of the untreated nanovesicles was not affected at
room temperature (red circles, n = 6). The straight
lines connecting the observed data points are shown in the plot.
Nanovesicles treated with the MMP-9 (2 μM) and GSH (50 μM)
showed an increased size with time (black squares, n = 6). The size of the untreated nanovesicles was not affected at
room temperature (red circles, n = 6). The straight
lines connecting the observed data points are shown in the plot.This change in size upon incubation
with MMP-9 indicates that the
hydrolysis of the triple-helical substrate peptides by MMP-9 leads
to substantial structural changes in the vesicles, resulting in the
increased average diameter. The size change was also observed in the
AFM imaging (Figure 4). The observed size of
the nanovesicles increased after 24 h of treatment with MMP-9 and
GSH at room temperature. Although the nanovesicles were expected to
decrease in size as result of leakage through the bilayer, we observed
an increase in the size of the nanovesicles treated with MMP-9 and
GSH. After cleavage of the lipopeptides by MMP-9, nanovesicles undergo
“uncorking” and release the encapsulated contents. This
leads to the loss of integrity of the nanovesicles, possibly resulting
in nonspecific aggregates of larger size. The liposomes which were
not treated with MMP-9 showed less variation in size after 24 h.
Figure 4
AFM images
for the gemcitabine-encapsulated nanovesicles (A) before
and (B) after 24 h of incubation with GSH (50 μM) and MMP-9
(2 μM).
AFM images
for the gemcitabine-encapsulated nanovesicles (A) before
and (B) after 24 h of incubation with GSH (50 μM) and MMP-9
(2 μM).For quantitative estimation
of contents release from the nanocarrier
we encapsulated carboxyfluorescein (100 mM) in the nanovesicles. The
release was monitored as a function of time in the presence of added
GSH (50 μM) and MMP-9 (2 μM) in pH 8.0 buffer. We have
previously demonstrated that the release of liposomal contents requires
catalytically active MMP-9.[21] An increased
release was observed with both the GSH and MMP-9 treatments. The nanovesicles
exhibited about a 5% release over 1 h, in the presence of basal concentration
of GSH observed in circulation (2-μM) (Figure 5, black squares). However, up to 22% of the encapsulated carboxyfluorescein
was released after 1 h of exposure to elevated levels of GSH found
in tumor extracellular microenvironment (50 μM, Figure 5, red circles). To mimic the tumor’s extracellular
matrix environment, the nanovesicles were exposed to elevated levels
of MMP-9 (2 μM) and GSH (50 μM). In these conditions,
we observed a 45% content release in 60 min (Figure 5, blue triangles). These release profiles can be fitted with
a single exponential-rate equation with rate constants of (12.5 ±
0.6) × 10–2 s–1 for 2 μM
MMP-9, (11.1 ± 2.2) × 10–2 s–1 for 2 μM GSH, and (80.5 ± 0.1) × 10–2 s–1 in the presence of 2 μM MMP-9 and 50
μM GSH. Note that the rate of content release was substantially
higher in the presence of MMP-9 and GSH, as observed in the extracellular
microenvironment of tumors. Based on literature reports[30,31] and these observations, we conclude that the elevated levels of
GSH are reductively removing the PEG groups from the POPE-S-S-PEGlipids. This facilitates the hydrolysis of LP by MMP-9, leading to
the release of liposomal contents. We observed similar results when
the release experiments were conducted at 37 °C (Supporting Information, Figure S4). As another
control, we incubated the liposomes (without any added GSH and MMP-9)
in buffers of different pH values (5.0, 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0) at room
temperature, and at 37 °C. We did not observe any significant
release from the liposomes as a function of pH (release <5%).
Figure 5
Cumulative
release profiles from nanovesicles under circulatory
conditions (2 μM GSH, black squares), in response to MMP-9 (2
μM, red circles), and with an extracellular tumor mimicking
the environment composed of MMP-9 (2 μM) and GSH (50 μM,
blue triangles). The traces represent the fitted curves using a single
exponential-rate equation.
Cumulative
release profiles from nanovesicles under circulatory
conditions (2 μM GSH, black squares), in response to MMP-9 (2
μM, red circles), and with an extracellular tumor mimicking
the environment composed of MMP-9 (2 μM) and GSH (50 μM,
blue triangles). The traces represent the fitted curves using a single
exponential-rate equation.A major challenge in designing an internal, stimulus-sensitive
system is the stability of the carriers in circulation before reaching
the target site. To test the stability of the prepared nanovesicles,
we monitored the release of carboxyfluorescein in the presence of
10% human serum. The nanovesicles exhibited less than 5% release over
a period of 1 h in 10% human serum (Supporting
Information, Figure S2). The stability of nanovesicles in human
serum was suggestive of the designed nanovesicles’ stability
in circulatory conditions.Having demonstrated the release of
encapsulated dye, the in vitro and in vivo studies were carried
out using gemcitabine-encapsulated nanovesicles. Gemcitabine was encapsulated
in the nanovesicles with the pH gradient method, and entrapment efficiency
was observed to be 50%. These nanovesicles were used to assess cytotoxicity
for the pancreatic cancer cells (PANC-1 and MIAPaCa-2) in the monolayer
cultures. The cells were treated with gemcitabine and gemcitabine-encapsulated
nanovesicles for 72 h, and cell viability was measured with Alamar
Blue dye. Both free and encapsulated gemcitabine showed similar toxicity
for the PANC-1 (viability: 30–35%; Figure 6, blue bars) and MIAPaCa-2 cells (viability: 45–50%;
Figure 6, green bars). No apparent cytotoxicity
was observed from nanovesicles themselves (Figure S5, Supporting Information). However, both free and
liposome-encapsulated gemcitabine showed similar and dose-dependent
toxicity (Figure 6C). We quantified the levels
of secreted MMP-9 from these two cell lines by employing a commercially
available ELISA kit. The results showed a higher concentration of
MMP-9 in the conditioned media of PANC-1 cells (126 ± 23 pg/mL)
compared to MIAPaCa-2 cells (8 ± 4 pg/mL). It is likely that
the encapsulated gemcitabine was released from the nanovesicles by
the MMP-9 secreted into the conditioned culture media. Hence, free
and encapsulated gemcitabine demonstrated similar cytotoxicity, and
the effect was more for the PANC-1 cells compared to the MIAPaCa-2
cells. To corroborate this hypothesis, we repeated the liposomal contents
release experiments in the presence of the conditioned culture media
of the brain endothelial cells bEnd-3. These cells do not express
and secrete MMP-9 in the extracellular media.[32] We observed minimal contents release from the liposomes in the presence
of conditioned media from the bEnd-3 cells (Supporting
Information, Table S2).
Figure 6
Cell viability observed in the monolayer
(A) (n = 6) and spheroid (B) cultures (n = 3) of PANC-1
(blue) and MIAPaCa-2 cells (green) after 72 h treatment with gemcitabine
(10 μM), gemcitabine nanovesicles (encapsulating 10 μM
gemcitabine), and control nanovesicles encapsulating PBS (20 mM, pH
7.4). No significant difference was observed in cell viability of
PANC-1 cells in 2-D and 3-D cultures when treated with gemcitabine
or gemcitabine nanovesicles. Concentration dependent decrease in cell
viability (C) was observed when the MIAPaCa-2 cells were treated with
free gemcitabine (violet) or gemcitabine encapsulated nanovesicles
(orange) for 72 h.
Cell viability observed in the monolayer
(A) (n = 6) and spheroid (B) cultures (n = 3) of PANC-1
(blue) and MIAPaCa-2 cells (green) after 72 h treatment with gemcitabine
(10 μM), gemcitabine nanovesicles (encapsulating 10 μM
gemcitabine), and control nanovesicles encapsulating PBS (20 mM, pH
7.4). No significant difference was observed in cell viability of
PANC-1 cells in 2-D and 3-D cultures when treated with gemcitabine
or gemcitabine nanovesicles. Concentration dependent decrease in cell
viability (C) was observed when the MIAPaCa-2 cells were treated with
free gemcitabine (violet) or gemcitabine encapsulated nanovesicles
(orange) for 72 h.Subsequently, we cultured
spheroids of uniform size by using micromolds
in each well of a 6-well microplate. After seeding the PANC-1 cells,
the spheroid growth was monitored for 7 days. With the increased size,
the cells in the spheroid core undergo apoptosis due to a lack of
oxygen and nutrients, mimicking the hypoxic conditions observed in
tumor tissues.[33] This cell death in the
spheroid core is reflected in increased LDH levels in the culture
media.[34] We also observed a similar effect
in the spheroid cultures of the PANC-1 cells (Figure 7). We repeated the cytotoxicity assays with free and nanovesicle-encapsulated
gemcitabine, employing the PANC-1spheroids. We observed that the
cell viability was similar in spheroids treated with the free and
encapsulated drug (Figure 6B). We saw that
the cytotoxicity for the encapsulated gemcitabine was less in spheroids
compared to the two-dimensional cultures of the PANC-1 cells.
Figure 7
LDH released
in response to cell death due to the hypoxic conditions
in the spheroid core after 1, 3, and 5 days (n =
6, *p < 0.001, **p < 0.05).
LDH released
in response to cell death due to the hypoxic conditions
in the spheroid core after 1, 3, and 5 days (n =
6, *p < 0.001, **p < 0.05).To ascertain that the encapsulated
contents were released from
the nanovesicles and internalized in the PANC-1 cell spheroids, we
monitored the uptake with confocal fluorescence microscopy. For easier
visualization, these experiments were conducted with carboxyfluorescein-encapsulated
nanovesicles. We prepared analogous liposomes without incorporating
the MMP-9 substrate peptide LP and used these nanovesicles as the
control. Since our objective was to demonstrate that the encapsulated
dye is released by the tumorspheroids, we did not add any GSH to
the culture media. We observed that the control nanovesicles failed
to release the contents, and no significant dye internalization was
detected (Figure 8A). However, the nanovesicles
with LP efficiently released the encapsulated carboxyfluorescein and
the dye was internalized in the spheroids (Figure 8B).
Figure 8
Uptake of released carboxyfluorescein by the spheroids of the PANC-1
cells. Spheroids treated with MMP-9-responsive nanovesicles showed
an enhanced uptake of carboxyfluorescein released from the nanovesicle
(B) as compared to nanovesicles that lacked the MMP-9 responsive lipopeptide
(A).
Uptake of released carboxyfluorescein by the spheroids of the PANC-1
cells. Spheroids treated with MMP-9-responsive nanovesicles showed
an enhanced uptake of carboxyfluorescein released from the nanovesicle
(B) as compared to nanovesicles that lacked the MMP-9 responsive lipopeptide
(A).The nanovesicles were observed
to be stable in 10% human serum,
suggesting stability in circulation before reaching the tumor site
(Figure S2, Supporting Information). Live-animal
imaging after 6 and 24 h of tail-vain administration of carboxyfluorescein-encapsulated
nanovesicles confirmed the stability and the effective release capability
at the tumor site (Figure 9).
Figure 9
Carboxyfluorescein release
from nanovesicles was observed after
6 h (B) and 24 h (C) of injection via the tail vein in nude mice.
Panel A represents a white-light image, and the red circles indicate
the tumor-bearing site.
Carboxyfluorescein release
from nanovesicles was observed after
6 h (B) and 24 h (C) of injection via the tail vein in nude mice.
Panel A represents a white-light image, and the red circles indicate
the tumor-bearing site.Subsequently, we proceeded to demonstrate the effectiveness
of
the proposed delivery strategy by employing a xenograft mouse model
of humanpancreatic cancer. For these studies, we used 9 athymic,
female, Nude-Foxn1nu mice (5–6 weeks old). The mice were divided
into three groups (control, positive control, and test) and were injected
with 3 million PANC-1 cells subcutaneously. Tumors developed in the
animals, 15 days after subcutaneous injections. The objective of this
study was to demonstrate the release of encapsulated gemcitabine from
the PEGylated nanovesicles in response to elevated levels of proteolytic
enzyme MMP-9 in tumor extracellular matrix. Studies on the in vivo
toxicity of gemcitabine and benefit of using gemcitabine encapsulated
liposomes are already reported.[35,36] Hence, for our studies,
the control group received weekly injections (via the tail vain) of
buffer. The animals in positive control and test groups received injections
of gemcitabine-encapsulated nanovesicles (without and with LP, respectively;
dose: 10 mg/kg/week) for 4 weeks. The animals from both groups showed
lesser tumor growth as compared to the control (Figure 10). However, we observed that the animals receiving gemcitabine
encapsulated in PEGylated MMP-9 responsive nanovesicles showed more
pronounced reduction in tumor growth (Figure 10, blue triangles) as compared to animals receiving gemcitabine encapsulated
in PEGylated liposomes without LP (Figure 10, red circles). Weight for all the animals receiving gemcitabine
nanovesicles did not decrease during and after the treatment, indicating
the lack of toxicity for the nanovesicle formulations (Supporting Information). After 4 weeks of treatment,
we observed that the increased tumor volumes for the treated mice
were substantially less compared to the control group (Figure 10).
Figure 10
Percentage increase in tumor volume for the test group
(blue triangles, n = 3) was lower in LP-incorporated
nanovesicle-treated
mice as compared to the control (black squares, n = 3) and positive control treated mice (red circles, n = 3) (*p < 0.05, ** p <
0.05).
Percentage increase in tumor volume for the test group
(blue triangles, n = 3) was lower in LP-incorporated
nanovesicle-treated
mice as compared to the control (black squares, n = 3) and positive control treated mice (red circles, n = 3) (*p < 0.05, ** p <
0.05).
Conclusions
We have
successfully demonstrated that the elevated levels of MMP-9
and GSH in the extracellular matrix of tumor tissues can be used to
trigger contents release from suitably constructed nanovesicles. These
liposomes incorporate disulfide-linked PEG groups on the surface.
At the tumor site, elevated levels of glutathione reductively remove
the PEG groups, exposing the MMP-9 substrate peptide toward enzymatic
hydrolysis. The resultant destabilization of the lipid bilayer leads
to rapid release of encapsulated contents. We have successfully encapsulated
the anticancer drug gemcitabine and demonstrated that the cytotoxicity
of the released drug to pancreatic cancer cells (in monolayer and
spheroid cultures) is comparable to that for the nonencapsulated drug.
Internalization studies carried out using pancreatic cancer cell spheroids
showed that the incorporated MMP-9-responsive lipopeptide triggers
the drug release in the tumor’s extracellular matrix. In vivo imaging studies with the designed, long-circulating
nanovesicles exhibited circulatory stability. In vivo studies also confirmed the release of encapsulated gemcitabine in
the tumor microenvironment, showing a reduction in tumor growth rate
in nude mice. We observed better control over tumor growth with the
MMP-9 responsive nanovesicles compared to the PEGylated vesicles without
the MMP-9 substrate lipopeptide.
Authors: Mallory R Gordon; Bo Zhao; Francesca Anson; Ann Fernandez; Khushboo Singh; Celia Homyak; Mine Canakci; Richard W Vachet; S Thayumanavan Journal: Biomacromolecules Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 6.988
Authors: Nicholas E Clay; Joseph J Whittenberg; Jiayu Leong; Vivek Kumar; Jinrong Chen; Insil Choi; Evangelos Liamas; Jeremy M Schieferstein; Jae Hyun Jeong; Dong Hyun Kim; Zhenyu Jason Zhang; Paul J A Kenis; Il Won Kim; Hyunjoon Kong Journal: Nanoscale Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 7.790
Authors: Jiye Son; Daniela Kalafatovic; Mohit Kumar; Barney Yoo; Mike A Cornejo; María Contel; Rein V Ulijn Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 15.881