| Literature DB >> 25926887 |
Slgirim Lee1, Gyuhyung Jin1, Jae-Hyung Jang1.
Abstract
The integration of gene delivery technologies with electrospun nanofibers is a versatile strategy to increase the potential of gene therapy as a key platform technology that can be readily utilized for numerous biomedical applications, including cancer therapy, stem cell therapy, and tissue engineering. As a spatial template for gene delivery, electrospun nanofibers possess highly advantageous characteristics, such as their ease of production, their ECM-analogue nature, the broad range of choices for materials, the feasibility of producing structures with varied physical and chemical properties, and their large surface-to-volume ratios. Thus, electrospun fiber-mediated gene delivery exhibits a great capacity to modulate the spatial and temporal release kinetics of gene vectors and enhance gene delivery efficiency. This review discusses the powerful characteristics of electrospun nanofibers, which can function as spatial interfaces capable of promoting controlled and efficient gene delivery.Entities:
Keywords: Controlled gene delivery; Electrospun nanofibers; Gene delivery; Sustained release; Tissue engineering
Year: 2014 PMID: 25926887 PMCID: PMC4414388 DOI: 10.1186/1754-1611-8-30
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biol Eng ISSN: 1754-1611 Impact factor: 4.355
Figure 1ECM-analogue morphology of electrospun PCL nanofibers imaged using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The scale bar indicates 1 μm. The image was reproduced from [48], Copyright 2011, with permission from Elsevier.
Classification of electrospun nanofiber-mediated gene delivery approaches
| Vector loading methods | Vectors | Genes | Target cells | Results | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vector encapsulation | Virus (Ad) | GFP, RFP | HEK293T | • Sustained and controlled viral release for 30 days. | [ |
| • Localized gene expression from electrospun scaffolds. | |||||
| Plasmid DNA | β-Gal, GFP | MC3T3-E1 | • Gene expression by the released DNA 48 h after seeding | [ | |
| • Burst release of majority of encapsulated plasmid DNA within 30 minutes. | |||||
| Cdk2i, EGFPi | MCF-7 cell | • Sustained release over 21 days | [ | ||
| • ~40% decrease in proliferation of breast cancer cells compared with control scaffold | |||||
| EGFP | Rat fibroblasts | • Extended release of pDNA and transgene expression over 60 days. | [ | ||
| Virus (AAV) | GFP | NIH3T3 | • Sustained viral release for 7 days. | [ | |
| • Maintained transgene expression (>90%) on the scaffolds for 7 days. | |||||
| Plasmid DNA/chitosan nanoparticle | BMP-2 | hMSC | • Sustained release for 45 ~ 55 days | [ | |
| • DNA/chitosan nanoparticles encapsulated electrospun scaffolds as a favorable DNA delivery device with regard to cell transfection efficiency and cell viability | |||||
| Plasmid DNA/LEL polyplex | β-Gal, GFP | MC3T3 | • Transgene expression on DNA-incorporating electrospun scaffolds 24 h after seeding. | [ | |
| • Sustained release for 7 days. | |||||
| siRNA/CPP polyplex | Col1A1 silencing | Human dermal fibroblasts, | • Prolonged | [ | |
| • | |||||
| Plasmid DNA/PEI | EGFP | NIH3T3 | • Controlled release time from 6 days to 25 days by internal structures and porogens. | [ | |
| • 10-fold increased gene expression on the scaffolds compared to simple pDNA/PELA blends. | |||||
| VEGF/eGFP & bFGF/eGFP | HUVEC | • Sustained release for 4 weeks | [ | ||
| • Significantly higher vessel densities | |||||
| bFGF/GFP | BEF, | • Sustained release for 26 days | [ | ||
| • 4 ~ 6-fold increased bFGF expression compared with post-electrospinning delivery after 7 day incubation | |||||
| • Significantly higher wound recovery rate compared with post-electrospinning delivery | |||||
| siRNA/chitosan polyplex | EGFP silencing | EGFP expressing human lung carcinoma cell lines | • Sustained and controlled delivery for 30 days. | [ | |
| • Prolonged | |||||
| siRNA | GAPDH silencing | HEK293, NIH3T3 | • Sustained release of siRNA for 28 days. | [ | |
| • Gene silencing on scaffolds in presence of additional transfection agents. | |||||
| • Enhanced gene silencing capability with additional transfection agents in the media. | |||||
| siRNA/transfect-ion reagent complex | GAPDH silencing | NIH3T3 | • Sustained release of siRNA and gene silencing on the scaffolds for at least 28 days. | [ | |
| • Improved gene silencing capability with transfection agents supplemented in the media. | |||||
| Solid-in-oil dispersion of plasmid DNA | Luciferase | N/A | • Release profile controlled by degrading rates of fibers. | [ | |
| • 10-fold increases in functional integrity of released pDNA compared to mixed mesh. | |||||
| Plasmid DNA/calcium phosphate nanoparticle | VEGF/eGFP & bFGF/eGFP | HUVEC, hAoSMC | • Sustained release for 4 weeks | [ | |
| • Significantly higher densities of blood vessels and mature vessels | |||||
| Vector immobilization | Virus (AAV) | GFP, Luciferase | HEK293T | • Three-dimensional and uniaxially aligned transgene expression | [ |
| • 4-fold enhanced transgene expression levels compared to 2D electrospun scaffolds. | |||||
| Plasmid DNA | EGFP | Glioblastoma cells | • Transgene expression by the released DNA from the fibers (maximum transfection efficiency > 90%). | [ | |
| Luciferase | COS-7 | • Retained gene expression on the fibers for 5 days after seeding. | [ | ||
| • 2-fold increased gene delivery efficiency of electrospun fibers over that of flat films. | |||||
| GFP, Dsred | HEK293, MSC, | • 10-fold increase in gene expression intensity compared to PCL fibers | [ | ||
| EGFP-N1 | NIH3T3, i | • MMP-2 responsive release of DNA | [ | ||
| • Significantly enhanced gene expression in wound tissue compared to naked DNA delivery | |||||
| Luciferase, KGF | NIH3T3, | • Sustained expression for 7 days | [ | ||
| • 65% smaller epithelial gap in KGF scaffold treated wounds than in untreated wounds | |||||
| hEGF | HDF, | • MMP-2 responsive release of DNA | [ | ||
| • Approximately 2-fold increased wound closure compared with non-treated wounds | |||||
| EGFP | MC3T3-E1 | • Controlled gradients of pDNA concentration and gene expression level by spatially regulating rates of chemical reactions. | [ | ||
| Virus (AAV) | GFP | HEK293T | • Patterned and localized gene vectors and gene expression on the scaffolds. | [ | |
| • 2-fold increase in transfection efficiency compared with unmodified virus delivery. | |||||
| Plasmid DNA/liposome | RUNX2/eGFP | hBMSC | • Long-term gene expression for 21 days | [ | |
| • Improved osteogenic differentiation of stem cells | |||||
| siRNA/PEI polyplexes & siRNA/ transfection reagent complex | TSP-2 silencing | hAoSMC | • Down-regulated TSP-2 mRNA expression | [ | |
| Plasmid DNA/chitosan nanoparticle | BMP-2 |
| • Different bone healing performance depending on the loading methods | [ | |
| • Improved bone healing for DNA/chitosan nanoparticles adsorbed electrospun scaffolds at 4 weeks of treatment | |||||
| siRNA | MMP-2 silencing | HDF, | • MMP-2 responsive release of DNA | [ | |
| • Faster wound recovery rate compared with siRNA solution delivery | |||||
| Plasmid DNA/ssPEI | Luciferase, RFP, VEGF | H9C2 myoblastic cell | • Enhanced transfection efficiency compared to bolus delivery | [ | |
| • Successful expression of the VEGF gene in the cells | |||||
| siRNA/ transfection reagent complex | REST silencing | NPC | • Enhanced neural marker expression and neuronal differentiation | [ |
Figure 2Blending approaches for controlled gene delivery. (A) Schematic illustration demonstrating gene vector encapsulations within electrospun fibers. The right three panels display strategies for controlled delivery using the blending-approaches via (B) modulating the environmental conditions, (C) including water-soluble polymers and (D) providing additives (D).
Figure 3Core-sheath electrospun nanofibrous systems for controlled gene delivery. (A) Two representative methods to form core-sheath electrospun nanofibers: coaxial (left) and emulsion (right) electrospinning. (B) Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) image of an individual core-sheath nanofiber fabricated using coaxial electrospinning. Core and sheath are composed of viruses dispersed in Minimal Essential Medium and PCL, respectively. Scale bar is 2 μm. Reprinted from [30], Copyright 2009, with permission from Elsevier. (C) A scheme depicting gene vector encapsulation within the core layer for controlled release. The core-sheath fibrous formulations contribute (D) to preventing the direct contact of gene vectors in the core layer with organic solvents in the sheath layer, (E) to regulating delivery modes by producing porous sheath layers, and (F) to enhancing delivery efficiencies by modifying the sheath layers with polycationic polymers.
Figure 4Substrate-mediated gene delivery from electrospun nanofibers. Gene vectors can be simply adsorbed on the fibrous surfaces via (A) physisorption, (B) electrostatic interaction, and (C) layer-by-layer deposition techniques. (D) Gene vectors can be specifically immobilized on the chemically modified fibrous surfaces to further enhance the mutual interactions between vectors and fibers.
Figure 5SEM image of uniaxially patterned PCL nanofibers fabricated by utilizing rotating mandrels. The scale bar indicates 10 μm. The image was adapted with permission from [33]. Copyright 2014 American Chemical Society.
Figure 6BMP-2 plasmid loaded electrospun scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. (A) In vitro release curve of three groups of scaffolds [56], Copyright 2007. Reproduced with permission from Elsevier. (B) Radiographs of nude mice tibias after 2 and 4 weeks of implantation of scaffolds. Bone fragment without implantation of any scaffold is denoted as control and white arrows identify bone defects [82], Copyright 2009. Reproduced with permission from Elsevier. (Group A: PLGA/HAp composite fiber with naked DNA coated outside, Group B: PLGA/HAp composite fiber with DNA-loaded chitosan nanoparticles coated outside, Group C: PLGA/HAp composite fiber with DNA-loaded chitosan nanoparticles encapsulated inside. The number indicates HAp contents in composite. X1: 0/100, X2: 5/95, X3: 10/90 (HAp/PLGA w/w%)).
Figure 7Improved skin regeneration by electrospun fibers with plasmid bFGF polyplex. (A) The representative images of skin wounds after treatment with Fb2 (pbFGF polyplex, blend), Fa2 (without pbFGF) and Fa2 + Polyplex (pbFGF polyplex infiltrated Fa2) fibrous mats for 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks, using untreated wound as control. Bars represent 10 mm. (B) Wound areas at different time points after treatment (n = 10). Reprinted with permission from [84]. Copyright 2012 American Chemical Society.
Figure 8Immunofluorescence analysis of NPCs differentiated on plain, siNEG PD-fiber and siREST PD-fiber for 7 days. (A) Immunostaining for Tuj1 (early neuronal marker, red), Map2 (late neuronal marker, green), GFAP (glial marker, yellow) and O4 (glial marker, yellow). Nuclei were counterstained with DAPI (blue). (B) Quantification of immunostaining results showing percentage positive staining of various neural and glial cell markers for NPCs cultured on all PD-fiber samples. *indicates p < 0.05 (ANOVA). # and ## indicate p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 (ANOVA) when PD-fiber samples were compared to respective PD-film samples. Mean ± SE, n = 3 [88], Copyright 2013. Reproduced with permission from Elsevier.