| Literature DB >> 25880495 |
Rammohan Devulapally1, Thillai V Sekar1, Ramasamy Paulmurugan1.
Abstract
Entities:
Keywords: 4-hydroxytamoxifen (4-OHT); PLGA; anti-miR’s; breast cancer therapy; estrogen receptor; microRNA-21; polymer nanoparticles
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25880495 PMCID: PMC4687493 DOI: 10.1021/mp500852s
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Pharm ISSN: 1543-8384 Impact factor: 4.939
Figure 1(a) Synthesis and formulation of PLGA-b-PEG NPs. (b) Hydrodynamic particle size measurement of NPs prepared by EDE by dynamic light scattering (DLS). (c) DLS of NPs prepared by the w/o/w double emulsion method. (d) TEM images of PLGA-b-PEG NPs prepared by w/o/w double emulsion method. (e) Estimation of anti-miR-21 loading in PLGA NPs by imaging the co-loaded Cy5–anti-miR-21 using an IVIS spectrum optical CCD camera with excitation at 570 and a Cy5 emission filter after resolving the samples by 3% agarose gel electrophoresis.
NPs Size Using Various Organic Solvents at Different Sonication Times by Emulsion-Diffusion Evaporation (EDE)
| entry | sonication time (min) at 60% amplitude | organic solvent | Size (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | ethyl acetate | 115.7 ± 2.15 |
| 2 | 2 | ethyl acetate | 108.0 ± 1.60 |
| 3 | 4 | ethyl acetate | 104.1 ± 1.60 |
| 4 | 15 | ethyl acetate | 101.1 ± 1.77 |
| 5 | 1 | dichloromethane | 123.4 ± 2.32 |
| 6 | 5 | DMF | 112.3 ± 3.20 |
2% PVA in aqueous solution used for emulsification.
Average of three DLS measurements.
After sonication, NPs were stirred for 3 h to allow for organic solvent evaporation and hardening of the NPs.
Size, 4-OHT and Anti-miR-21 Loading Percentage, and Number of Anti-miR-21 Molecules Loaded per PLGA-b-PEG NP Prepared Using Emulsion-Diffusion Evaporation (EDE)
| entry | PLGA- | mean size
(nM) | polydispersity
index (PDI) | encapsulation
efficiency (%) | 4-OHT/anti-miR-21 loading % | anti-miR molecules/NP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | control NPs | 108.7 ± 9.3 | 0.125 | |||
| 2 | 4-OHT | 110.7 ± 11.6 | 0.131 | 89.5 ± 4.8/– | 4.8/– | |
| 3 | anti-miR-21 | 118.9 ± 8.4 | 0.128 | –/23.7 ± 10.6 | –/0.16 | 161 ± 67 |
| 4 | 4-OHT and anti-miR-21 | 134.5 ± 16.1 | 0.187 | 85 ± 6.2/20.6 ± 9.7 | 4.4/0.14 | 201 ± 93 |
Average of three independent experiments.
Size, Anti-miR-21 and 4-OHT Loading Percentage, and Number of Anti-miR-21 Molecules Loaded per PLGA-b-PEG NP Using the Water-in-Oil-in-Water (w/o/w) Method
| entry | PLGA- | mean size
(nM) | polydispersity
index (PDI) | encapsulation
efficiency (%) | 4-OHT/anti-miR-21 loading % | anti-miR-21 molecules/NP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | control NPs | 132.5 ± 22.6 | 0.154 | |||
| 2 | 4-OHT | 134.6 ± 18.4 | 0.191 | 78.4 ± 5.6 | 3.92 | |
| 3 | anti-miR-21 | 146.7 ± 16.3 | 0.162 | 58.2 ± 9.6 | 0.40 | 743 ± 122 |
| 4 | 4-OHT and anti-miR-21 | 167.8 ± 20.5 | 0.184 | 69.5 ± 8.1/51.5 ± 10.4 | 3.47/0.36 | 980 ± 197 |
Average of three independent experiments.
NPs Mean Sizes and Polydispersity Index (PDI) of PLGA-b-PEG NPs before and after Lyophilization Using Sucrose as a Lyoprotectant
| entry | lyophilization of NPs | size | PDI | size | PDI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | before lyophilization | 115.7 ± 2.15 | 0.125 ± 0.009 | 138.8 ± 0.9 | 0.151 ± 0.01 |
| 2 | after lyophilization without sucrose | 120.1 ± 1.75 | 0.136 ± 0.008 | 143.8 ± 1.8 | 0.160 ± 0.03 |
| 3 | after lyophilization with 10% sucrose | 117.4 ± 2.20 | 0.100 ± 0.008 | 139.6 ± 1.5 | 0.145 ± 0.02 |
| 4 | after lyophilization with 100% sucrose | 117.8 ± 1.35 | 0.116 ± 0.007 | 140.7 ± 1.2 | 0.147 ± 0.03 |
| 5 | after lyophilization with 1000% sucrose | 130.4 ± 1.55 | 0.143 ± 0.025 | 150.8 ±. 2.5 | 0.171 ± 0.04 |
Average of three DLS measurements.
Figure 2Time-dependent cellular uptake of 4-OHT and anti-miR-21 co-loaded PLGA NPs in MCF7 cells. (a) Microscopic images of Cy5 fluorescence from co-loaded Cy5–anti-miR-21 NPs. (b) Quantitative RT-PCR analysis of anti-miR-21 delivered by PLGA NPs in MCF7 cells over 6 days.
Figure 3(a) Antiproliferation effect of 4-OHT and anti-miR-21-loaded NPs in MCF7 cells (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, NS = not significant). (b) (i–v) Cell density by bright-field imaging: (i) control, (ii) treated with control NPs, (iii) treated with anti-miR-21 NPs, (iv) treated with free 4-OHT, and (v) treated with 4-OHT-Cy5-anti-miR-21 co-loaded NPs. (vi) Cy5 fluorescent signal from MCF7 cells treated with 4-OHT-Cy5-anti-miR-21 co-loaded NPs. (c) Flow cytometry analysis of MCF7 cells treated with free 4-OHT and anti-miR-21 NPs for 5 days.
Cell Cycle Analysis by FACS
| treatment conditions | dead cells | live cells | G0/G1 | S | G2/M |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| control cells | 0.42 | 99.5 | 61.1 | 33.1 | 6.48 |
| control NPs | 0.22 | 99.8 | 59.2 | 32.4 | 8.39 |
| free 4-OHT | 0.67 | 98.2 | 56.8 | 29.3 | 12.6 |
| 4-OHT NPs | 1.87 | 98.8 | 56.1 | 29.0 | 13.0 |
| anti-miR-21 NPs | 1.31 | 98.6 | 53.8 | 37.3 | 8.81 |
| 4-OHT + anti-miR-21 NPs | 0.53 | 98.8 | 50.1 | 29.1 | 20.1 |
Figure 4(a) Schematic illustration of NFluc–ER-LBD–CFluc fusion protein luciferase complementation activated by 4-OHT. (b) (i–iv) 4-OHT stability analysis in SkBr3–NFluc–ER-LBD–CFluc cells: (i) 4-OHT-ER Fluc-activation level after 24 h, (ii) 4-OHT-ER Fluc-activation level after 32 h, (iii) 4-OHT-ER Fluc-activation level after 48 h, and (iv) 4-OHT-ER Fluc-activation level after 72 h.
Figure 5Dose response in MCF7 cells treated with free 4-OHT, 4-OHT-loaded NPs, anti-miR-21-loaded NPs, and 4-OHT–anti-miR-21 co-loaded NPs by MTT assay (24 h, * p < 0.05 control NPs vs 4-OHT NPs at 1 and 5 μM, ** p < 0.01 μM control NPs vs 4-OHT + anti-miR-21 NPs at 1 and 5 μM; 48 h, † p < 0.01 control NPs vs 4-OHT NPs at 1 and 5 μM; †† p < 0.05 free 4-OHT vs 4-OHT + anti-miR-21 NPs at 1 and 5 μM; 72 h, ‡ p < 0.01 free 4-OHT ss 4-OHT + anti-miR-21 NPs at 1 and 5 μM, ‡‡ p < 0.01 control NPs vs 4-OHT NPs at 1 μM and 5 μM).
Figure 6Western blot analysis of MCF7 cells treated with free 4-OHT and 4-OHT with and without anti-miR-21 co-loaded NPs for 5 days. (a) Pseudocolor images of pS2, PTEN, and GAPDH proteins stained with respective antibodies and imaged by optical CCD camera. (b, c) Absolute quantification of photon signals from panel (a) for pS2 (* p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05) (b) and PTEN (* p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05) (c) proteins expression levels.