| Literature DB >> 25815071 |
Hale Ünal1, Naile Öztürk2, Erem Bilensoy3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to design and evaluate hybrid cyclodextrin (CD) nanocapsules intended for the oral delivery of the anticancer agent camptothecin (CPT) in order to maintain drug stability in the body and to improve its eventual bioavailability. For this reason, an amphiphilic cyclodextrin (CD) derivative per-modified on the primary face 6OCAPRO was used as core molecule to form nanocapsules with the nanoprecipitation technique. Nanocapsules were further coated with the cationic polymer chitosan to improve the cellular uptake and interaction with biological membranes through positive surface charge. Nanocapsules were evaluated for their in vitro characteristics such as particle size, zeta potential, drug loading and release profiles followed by cell culture studies with the MCF-7 and Caco-2 cell line evaluating their anticancer efficacy and permeability. The CD nanocapsules were imaged by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The concentration of CPT entrapped in nanocapsules was determined by reversed phase HPLC. The in vitro release study of CPT was performed with a dialysis bag method under sink conditions mimicking the gastric and intestinal pH. The hydrolytic stability of CPT in nanocapsules was investigated in simulated gastric and intestinal fluids (SGF, SIF).Entities:
Keywords: amphiphilic cyclodextrin; camptothecin; core-shell; nanocapsule; oral chemotherapy
Year: 2015 PMID: 25815071 PMCID: PMC4362320 DOI: 10.3762/bjoc.11.22
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Beilstein J Org Chem ISSN: 1860-5397 Impact factor: 2.883
Effect of polymer concentration on particle size and polydispersity index (PDI). Data represent the mean results ± SD values of three different batches.
| Polymer concentration (% w/v) | Particle size (nm) | PDI ± SD |
| 0.05 | 154.2 ± 3.2 | 0.10 ± 0.04 |
| 0.1 | 161.5 ± 3.7 | 0.11 ± 0.09 |
| 0.2 | 268.4 ± 4.0 | 0.19 ± 0.10 |
| 0.5 | 347.6 ± 5.6 | 0.32 ± 0.19 |
Effect of oil concentration on particle size and polydispersity index (PDI). Data represent the mean results ± SD values of three different batches.
| Oil concentration (% v/v) | Particle size (nm) | PDI ± SD |
| 0.3 | 179.2 ± 2.4 | 0.07 ± 0.02 |
| 1.0 | 182.5 ± 1.7 | 0.10 ± 0.04 |
| 3.0 | 296.0 ± 3.5 | 0.24 ± 0.10 |
Effect of organic to aqueous phase ratio (O/A) on the particle size and PDI. Data represent the mean results ± SD values of three different batches.
| O/A | Particle size (nm) | PDI ± SD |
| 1:1 | 341.2 ± 4.7 | 0.31 ± 0.14 |
| 1:2 | 182.5 ± 1.6 | 0.09 ± 0.01 |
| 1:4 | 178.3 ± 2.5 | 0.07 ± 0.02 |
Mean diameter, polydispersity index (PDI) and zeta potential values of CPT loaded nanocapsules. Data represent the mean results ± SD values of three different batches.
| Formulations | Diameter (nm) | PDI | Zeta potential (mV) |
| 6OCAPRO | 187.50 ± 5.20 | 0.11 ± 0.04 | −11.4 ± 1.2a |
| CS-6OCAPRO | 204.20 ± 6.10 | 0.14 ± 0.06 | +10.3 ± 0.7a |
aIndicates a significant difference between formulations (P < 0.05).
Figure 1Scanning electron microphotographs of A) 6OCAPRO nanocapsules and B) CS-6OCAPRO nanocapsules.
Associated drug (%), entrapment efficiency (%) and entrapped drug quantity (µg/mL) of 6OCAPRO and CS-6OCAPRO nanocapsules. Data represent the mean results ± SD values of three different batches.
| Formulations | Associated drug % | Entrapped drug quantity (µg/mL) |
| 6OCAPRO | 46.96 ± 2.7 | 33.4 ± 1.1a |
| CS-6OCAPRO | 50.70 ± 3.1 | 40.3 ± 0.7a |
aIndicates a significant difference between formulations (P < 0.05).
Figure 2In vitro release profiles of CPT from anionic and cationic CD nanocapsules in pH 1.2 PBS A) in 2 hours and B) in pH 7.4 PBS in 72 hours. Data represent the mean results ± SD values of three different batches.
Stability of various CPT formulations in simulated GI fluids.
| Formulations | Parameters | Mean particle size (nm) | PDI | Zeta potential (mV) | |||
| Initial | Final | Initial | Final | Initial | Final | ||
| 6OCAPRO | SGFa pH 1.2 | 187.3 | 189.4 | 0.091 | 0.121 | −10.4 | −5.92 |
| SIFb pH 6.8 | 187.3 | 199.7 | 0.091 | 0.175 | −10.4 | −7.68 | |
| CS-6OCAPRO | SGF pH 1.2 | 197.8 | 185.9 | 0.102 | 0.123 | +17.1 | 19.20 |
| SIF pH 6.8 | 197.8 | 203.7 | 0.102 | 0.115 | +17.1 | 18.45 | |
aSimulated gastric fluid and bsimulated intestinal fluid.
Figure 3Cell viability of blank 6OCAPRO and CS-6OCAPRO nanocapsules against L929 cells after 48 h incubation. Data represent the mean results ± SD (n = 4).
Figure 4Viability of MCF-7 cells cultured with CPT loaded 6OCAPRO and CS-6OCAPRO nanocapsules in comparison with CPT in solution form at the same concentration. Data represents the mean results ± SD (n = 4). P < 0.05 indicates a significant difference between formulations.
Figure 5Apparent permeability coefficient (Paap) of different CPT formulations: CPT in DMSO solution, CPT loaded 6OCAPRO and CS-6OCAPRO nanocapsules. Data represent the mean results ± SD (n = 4). P < 0.05 indicates a significant difference between formulations.