| Literature DB >> 25514405 |
Jaromir Gumulec1, Michaela Fojtu2, Martina Raudenska3, Marketa Sztalmachova4, Anna Skotakova5, Jana Vlachova6, Sylvie Skalickova7, Lukas Nejdl8, Pavel Kopel9, Lucia Knopfova10, Vojtech Adam11, Rene Kizek12, Marie Stiborova13, Petr Babula14, Michal Masarik15.
Abstract
Doxorubicin is an effective chemotherapeutic drug, however, its toxicity is a significant limitation in therapy. Encapsulation of doxorubicin inside liposomes or ferritin cages decreases cardiotoxicity while maintaining anticancer potency. We synthesized novel apoferritin- and liposome-encapsulated forms of doxorubicin ("Apodox" and "lip-8-dox") and compared its toxicity with doxorubicin and Myocet on prostate cell lines. Three different prostatic cell lines PNT1A, 22Rv1, and LNCaP were chosen. The toxicity of the modified doxorubicin forms was compared to conventional doxorubicin using the MTT assay, real-time cell impedance-based cell growth method (RTCA), and flow cytometry. The efficiency of doxorubicin entrapment was 56% in apoferritin cages and 42% in the liposome carrier. The accuracy of the RTCA system was verified by flow-cytometric analysis of cell viability. The doxorubicin half maximal inhibition concentrations (IC50) were determined as 170.5, 234.0, and 169.0 nM for PNT1A, 22Rv1, and LNCaP, respectively by RTCA. Lip8-dox is less toxic on the non-tumor cell line PNT1A compared to doxorubicin, while still maintaining the toxicity to tumorous cell lines similar to doxorubicin or epirubicin (IC50 = 2076.7 nM for PNT1A vs. 935.3 and 729.0 nM for 22Rv1 and LNCaP). Apodox IC50 was determined as follows: 603.1, 1344.2, and 931.2 nM for PNT1A, 22Rv1, and LNCaP.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25514405 PMCID: PMC4284748 DOI: 10.3390/ijms151222960
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Scheme of encapsulation of doxorubicin into (A) the liposome modified by cholesterol and (B) apoferritin. (C) Size distribution of liposome and (D) microphotography of liposomes. Liposomes are highlighted with a circle (red circle = 100 nm and orange circle = 200 nm); (E) Size distribution of apoferritin. Absorbtion spectra in the range 230–800 nm of (F) 100 µg/mL Myocet; (G) Epirubicin; (H) Liposome (a), Doxorubicin (b), Encapsulated Doxorubicin into the liposome (c); (I) Apoferritin (a), Doxorubicin (b), Encapsulated Doxorubicin into the apoferritin (c); Emission spectra in the range 520–820 nm of (J) 100 µg/mL Myocet; (K) Epirubicin; (L) Liposome (a), Doxorubicin (b), Encapsulated Doxorubicin into the liposome (c); (M) Apoferritin (a), Doxorubicin (b), Encapsulated Doxorubicin into the apoferritin (c). The excitation wavelength was 510 nm.
Figure 2(A) Calibration curves of doxorubicine determined in phosphate buffer pH 7.4 with various content of serum as follows: (a) 0%, (b) 5%, (c) 7.5%, and (d) 10%; (B) Current signals of the released doxorubicin (related to the enclosed concentration) from liposome (a) and apoferritin (b) in phosphate buffer at pH 7.4 over a 60-min period; (C) Current signals of the released doxorubicin from liposome (a) and apoferritin (b) in 5% serum phosphate buffer at pH 7.4 over a 60-min period. Displayed as a mean ± S.E.
Comparison of half-maximal inhibition concentrations (IC50) for particular cell lines, cytostatics and used assay. S.E., standard error. Differences were considered significant, when p < 0.05. * Significantly different from doxorubicin (Analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni post hoc testing) † Significantly different from epirubicin (ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc testing) ‡ Significantly different from lip-8-dox (ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc testing) § Significantly different from apodox (ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc testing) ‖ Significantly different from myocet (ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc testing) $ Significantly different from MTT (ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc testing).
| Factor | Level of Factor | IC50 (Mean ± S.E.) | Significant Difference (At | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cytostatic | Epirubicin | 21 | 118.0 ± 27.2 | ‡, §, ‖ |
| Doxorubicin | 18 | 268.9 ± 43.6 | §, ‖ | |
| Apodox | 22 | 1095.0 ± 163.8 | *, †, ‖ | |
| Lip-8 | 16 | 1014.5 ± 209.8 | †, ‖ | |
| Myocet | 21 | 1915.4 ± 417.3 | *, †, ‡, § | |
| Cell line | PNT1A | 36 | 936.3 ± 167.9 | |
| 22RV1 | 32 | 834.5 ± 161.5 | ||
| LNCaP | 30 | 915.1 ± 299.6 | ||
| Method | MTT | 31 | 1200.1 ± 316.1 | |
| RTCA | 67 | 756.1 ± 98.1 | $ |
Comparison of RTCA-based half-maximal concentrations (IC50). S.E., standard error. Differences were considered significant, when p < 0.05; * Significantly different from lip-8-dox PNT1A (ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc testing); † Significantly different from myocet 22Rv1 (ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc testing).
| Factor | Cytostatic | Cell Line | IC50 (Mean ± S.E.) | Significant Difference (At | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| epirubicin | PNT1A | 3 | 12.2 ± 3.5 | * | |
| 22RV1 | 6 | 49.2 ± 10.5 | *, † | ||
| LNCaP | 6 | 107.9 ± 57.0 | *, † | ||
| doxorubicin | PNT1A | 5 | 170.5 ± 40.0 | *, † | |
| 22RV1 | 3 | 234.0 ± 82.1 | * | ||
| LNCaP | 3 | 169.0 ± 32.9 | * | ||
| apodox | PNT1A | 6 | 603.1 ± 256.8 | * | |
| 22RV1 | 5 | 1344.2 ± 342.4 | |||
| LNCaP | 5 | 931.2 ± 274.4 | |||
| Lip-8 | PNT1A | 4 | 2076.7 ± 353.6 | ||
| 22RV1 | 3 | 935.3 ± 113.5 | |||
| LNCaP | 3 | 729.0 ± 44.1 | |||
| myocet | PNT1A | 8 | 1047.1 ± 279.5 | ||
| 22RV1 | 4 | 1657.1 ± 662.9 | |||
| LNCaP | 3 | 1440.0 ± 164.6 |
Figure 3Analysis of prostatic cell line growth treated with modified forms of doxorubicin using RTCA xCELLigence and determination of viable cell numbers by propidium iodide exclusion (inset). Cell lines shown in columns, modified doxorubicin forms in rows. Cell growth expressed as “cell index” on y-axis is based on impedance measurement. Increasing concentrations of antineoplastic agents in range 0–40 µM are depicted by green color gradient. Inset: viable cell numbers analyzed after treatment with IC50 concentrations of individual cytostatics on individual cell lines as determined by RTCA. FSC-A, forward scatter. Grey line indicate gating threshold for propidium iodide (PI)-positive (upper–left) and -negative cells (lower–right). Percentages in subsequent gating regions indicate number of PI-positive and -negative cells.
Figure 4Determination of viability of prostatic cell lines treated with modified forms of doxorubicin using MTT assay (A–C); (D) verification of real-time cell impedance-based cell growth method (RTCA)-determined IC50 value. Red line indicates theoretical 50% viability. No significant difference was observed using one sample t-test.