| Literature DB >> 25177862 |
Guo-Xia Liu1, Gui-Qing Fang2, Wei Xu3.
Abstract
Combinations of chemotherapeutic drugs with nucleic acidEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25177862 PMCID: PMC4200808 DOI: 10.3390/ijms150915287
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Scheme 1Schematic illustration of formation of HA/FA/PPD (hyaluronic acid (HA) and folate (FA)-modified liposomes). Firstly, PEI (polyethylenimine) bind DNA to form the condensed cationic PEI/DNA complexes, which were chosen as the cationic core of the liposomes. Subsequently, PTX (paclitaxel) and PEI/DNA complexes were co-loaded in the DSPE-PEG2000-FA-modified liposomes, forming the FA-modified cationic liposomes (FA/PPD). Lastly, the cationic FA/PPD was added to the anionic HA solution to obtain the HA coated FA/PPD (HA/FA/PPD) by electrostatic attraction.
Figure 1Formation of PEI/DNA complexes. (A) Agarose gel electrophoresis retardation assay of PEI/DNA complexes with different N/P ratio. Lanes 1–8: PEI/DNA complexes at N/P ratios of 0.5/1, 1/1, 2/1, 4/1, 6/1, 8/1, 10/1 and 12/1, respectively; (B) Zeta potential of PEI/DNA complexes with different N/P ratio.
Figure 2Characteristics of FA/PPD (n = 3). (a) Particle size; (b) Zeta Potential; and (c) Transmission electron microscope (TEM) morphology.
Figure 3Formation and characterization of HA/FA/PPD (n = 3). (A) Particle size and zeta potential of liposomes with different mass ratio of HA and FA/PPD; (B) Particle size, zeta potential and TEM morphology of finally obtained HA/FA/PPD.
Figure 4Stability of HA/FA/PPD in different media. (A) The turbidity change of HA/FA/PPD in presence of plasma with different incubation time; (B) Stability of FA/PPD against DNase I. Lanes 1–5: FA/PPD incubated with DNase I for 0.5, 1, 2, 3 and 4 h, respectively; and (C) Stability of of HA/FA/PPD against DNase I. Lanes 1–5: HA/FA/PPD incubated with DNase I for 0.5, 1, 2, 3 and 4 h, respectively.
Figure 5In vitro release study. (A) In vitro release of PTX from HA/FA/PPD, FA/PPD and Taxol®; (B) TEM morphology of HA/FA/PPDafter 12 h incubation in the release media (n = 3). ** p < 0.01, statistically significant difference between Taxol® and FA/PPD; ## p < 0.01, statistically significant difference between Taxol® and HA/FA/PPD.
Figure 6Cytotoxicity of various concentrations of HA/FA/PD, FA/PD, HA/FA/PPD and Taxol® on B16 (A,B) and HepG2 (a,b) cells (n = 3). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, statistically significant difference between FA/PPD and HA/FA/PPD; # p < 0.05, statistically significant difference between Taxol® and HA/FA/PPD.
Figure 7Transfection efficiency of dual targeting HA/FA/PPD on B16 cells (n = 3). Lipofectamine™ 2000/pDNA and FA/PPD were served as controls. Left panel: Fluorescent micrographs of HA/FA/PPD, FA/PPD and Lipofectamine™ 2000 with or free of 10% serum following 48 h incubation (×20); Right panel: Transfection efficiency quantitatively determined by flow cytometry. ** p < 0.01, p < 0.01.
Figure 8In vitro targeting cellular uptake of Rho-PTX (Rhodamine-PTX) labeled HA/FA/PPD on B16 cells (n = 3). HA/FA/PPD incubated with B16 cells for 0.5 or 2 h, respectively, while FA/PPD and PPD were served as controls.
Figure 9In vitro co-delivery efficacy of dual targeting HA/FA/PPD on HepG2 cells (n = 3). HA/FA/PPD incubated with HepG2 cells for 4 h, while FA/PPD and PPD served as controls. p < 0.01, p < 0.05.