| Literature DB >> 25386104 |
Zhongyang Kou1, Xin Wang2, Renshun Yuan1, Huabin Chen1, Qiaoming Zhi1, Ling Gao1, Bin Wang1, Zhaoji Guo1, Xiaofeng Xue1, Wei Cao1, Liang Guo2.
Abstract
A new class of two-dimensional (2D) nanomaterial, transition metal pan> class="Chemical">dichalcogenides (TMDCs) such as MoS2, MoSe2, WS2, and WSe2 which have fantastic physical and chemical properties, has drawn tremendous attention in different fields recently. Herein, we for the first time take advantage of the great potential of MoS2 with well-engineered surface as a novel type of 2D nanocarriers for gene delivery and therapy of cancer. In our system, positively charged MoS2-PEG-PEI is synthesized with lipoic acid-modified polyethylene glycol (LA-PEG) and branched polyethylenimine (PEI). The amino end of positively charged nanomaterials can bind to the negatively charged small interfering RNA (siRNA). After detection of physical and chemical characteristics of the nanomaterial, cell toxicity was evaluated by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. Polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) was investigated as a well-known oncogene, which was a critical regulator of cell cycle transmission at multiple levels. Through knockdown of PLK1 with siRNA carried by novel nanovector, qPCR and Western blot were used to measure the interfering efficiency; apoptosis assay was used to detect the transfection effect of PLK1. All results showed that the novel nanocarrier revealed good biocompatibility, reduced cytotoxicity, as well as high gene-carrying ability without serum interference, thus would have great potential for gene delivery and therapy.Entities:
Keywords: MoS2 nanosheet; RNA interference; Two-dimensional (2D) nanomaterial
Year: 2014 PMID: 25386104 PMCID: PMC4216190 DOI: 10.1186/1556-276X-9-587
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanoscale Res Lett ISSN: 1556-276X Impact factor: 4.703
Figure 1Synthesis and characterization of MoSand MoS-PEG. (a) A scheme showing the preparation of MoS2-PEG-PEI and the subsequent loading with siRNA. (b) AFM images of MoS2 before and after PEGylation. (c, d) AFM measured diameter (c) and thickness (d) distributions of MoS2 and MoS2-PEG. Over 100 nanosheets were counted for each sample.
Figure 2Characterization of different layers of MoSnanosheets. (a) Hydrodynamic sizes of MoS2, PEGylated MoS2, and MoS2-PEG-PEI. (b) Zeta potentials of MoS2 nanosheets before and after two layers of polymer coatings measured in water.
Figure 3cell toxicity assay of different layers of MoSnanosheets. Relative viabilities of HepG2 (a), HeLa (b), and 293 T (c) cells determined by the MTT assay after incubation with various concentrations of MoS2, MoS2-PEG, and MoS2-PEG-PEI for 24 h. (d) Percentages of DHE-positive cells (cells with significant oxidative stress) after incubation with various concentrations of MoS2, MoS2-PEG, and MoS2-PEG-PEI for 24 h. H2O2 (200 μM) incubated cells were used as the control. Error bars were based on four parallel samples.
Figure 4Cell uptake and siRNA transfection. (a) Confocal microscopy images of HepG2 cells after incubation with MoS2–PEG–PEI/FAM-siRNA for 4 h. The fluorescence from DAPI (blue colored) and FAM-siRNA fluorescence (green colored) showed well co-localization inside cells. (b) Western blotting results to determine PLK1 expression of HepG2 cells after various treatments indicated. β-Actin was also detected as the internal control. (c) Quantitative determination of PLK1 expression for different samples based on Western blotting data from (b). (d) The expression levels of PLK1 mRNA determined by qPCR. PLK1 mRNA levels were expressed as a relative index normalized against β-actin. Error bars were based on triplicated samples. P values were calculated by the Student’s t-test: ∗, #p <0.05 (n =3).
Figure 5RNAi-induced cancer therapy. (a) Flow cytometry analysis data of HepG2 cells after being treated. (b) Fluorescence micrographs showing the calcein-AM (green, for living cells) and PI (red, for dead cells) double-stained HepG2 cells. Scale bar: 100 μm. Error bars in (a) is based on triplicated samples. P values were calculated by the Student’s t-test: ∗p <0.05 (n =3).