| Literature DB >> 27022418 |
Vinit Kumar1, Stefano Palazzolo2, Samer Bayda2, Giuseppe Corona1, Giuseppe Toffoli1, Flavio Rizzolio1.
Abstract
DNA nanotechnology is an emerging and exciting field, and represents a forefront frontier for the biomedical field. The specificity of the interactions between complementary base pairs makes DNA an incredible building material for programmable and very versatile two- and three-dimensional nanostructures called DNA origami. Here, we analyze the DNA origami and DNA-based nanostructures as a drug delivery system. Besides their physical-chemical nature, we dissect the critical factors such as stability, loading capability, release and immunocompatibility, which mainly limit in vivo applications. Special attention was dedicated to highlighting the boundaries to be overcome to bring DNA nanostructures closer to the bedside of patients.Entities:
Keywords: Cancer; DNA; Doxorubicin; Drug delivery; Nanomedicine; Nanotechnology; Origami.; Self-assembly
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27022418 PMCID: PMC4805665 DOI: 10.7150/thno.14203
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Theranostics ISSN: 1838-7640 Impact factor: 11.556
Figure 1A) Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C) and Guanine (G) of DNA responsible for the robust complementary base pair interactions between DNA strands. B) Key features of DNA structures. C) Chemical structure of DNA stabilized by hydrogen bonds between the bases A-T and G-C. Copyright 2002, Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Benjamin Cummings.
Figure 2Schematic drawings of four DNA tiles are shown. Colored lines represent different oligonucleotide strands with arrowheads marking the 3 ends. DAE and DAO are double crossover complexes (also known as DX), TAO is an example of a triple crossover (or TX) tile, and the 4 × 4 tile is composed of four arms each of which contains a four-arm junction. Reproduced with permission from reference 27.
Figure 3In DNA origami: A) a long circular single-strand DNA scaffold is folded into a desired shape with the aid of hundreds of short staple strands. In the above example, circular single-stranded genome of M13 bacteriophage (M13mp18) is folded with the assistance of about 200 staple strands into a DNA nanocube with dimension of 35x36x42 nm during a thermal annealing process. Adapted with permission from reference 29. B) 3D structure with complex curvatures. Adapted with permission from reference 33. C) DNA gridiron nanostructures. Reproduced with permission from references 35,38. D) Design of 2D and 3D DNA canvas using single-stranded tiles/bricks. Adapted with permission from references 36,37.
Figure 4The first examples of the versatile DNA Origami technique. Top row, folding paths. A, square; B, rectangle; C, star; D, disk with three holes; E, triangle with rectangular domains; F, sharp triangle with trapezoidal domains and bridges between them (red lines in inset). Dangling curves and loops represent unfolded sequence. The lower panels contain the resulting DNA structures as imaged by AFM. All images and panels without scale bars are the same size, 165 nm x165 nm. Scale bars for lower AFM images: B, 1 µm; C-F, 100 nm. Reproduced with permission from reference 30.
Figure 5Scaffold DNA origami design concept: A) Schematic representation of DNA double helices. B) Two double helices are connected by interhelix crossovers. C) Scaffold strand routing to form three different DNA origami objects. D) For the same three DNA nanostructures, staples are highlighted with different colors to form the structures. E) Cylindrical representation of the three DNA nanostructures. Reproduced with permission from reference 40.
Figure 6Step-by-step guide of molecular self-assembly with scaffolded DNA origami. Reproduced with permission from reference 40.
Overview of different DNA nanostructures and their applications.
| N° | DNA Nanostructure | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AFM DLS PAGE (6%) | Doxo | > 4 < 23 hrs | N/A | 26 molecules/structure | 100% in 10hrs. <10% in 3hrs. | Macropinocytosis and caveolae-mediated endocytosis pathways | Breast cancer MCF7 (drug sensitive) and MCF7-ADR (Doxo resistant). | Doxo-tetrahedral is more effective on cell viability of MCF7-ADR than free doxo. Same efficacy on MCF7 cells. | N/A | N/A | N/A | [63] | |||
| AGE (2%) DLS TEM | Doxo | >30min | Mucin 1 (MUC1). Tumor surface marker | 1200 molecules/structure | N/A | Dynamin-dependent and clathrin-mediated endocytosis. Degradation in lysosomes | Breast cancer MCF7 (MUC1+), CHO-K1 (MUC1-) | Doxo-Aptamer six-point-star structure is more effective on cell viability of MUC1+ cell than free doxo. Same efficacy on MUC- cells. | N/A | N/A | N/A | [64] | |||
| AFM DLS PAGE (5%) | siRNA against GFP gene. DNA structure conjugated with folic acid. | N/A | Folic acid receptor (FAR) | 1-6 siRNA per tetrahedral (1 siRNa/edge) | N/A | N/A | HeLa cells (LUC+). KB cells (HeLa cell contaminant overexpressing folate receptor) | HeLa: LUC expression < 50%. KB: GFP expression <40% | KB xenograft tumours | siRNA no effect on LUC. siRNA-DNA- tetrahedral: IC 50 LUC expression: 1.8 mg/kg. | Tumor, Kidney | [65] | |||
| PAGE (3.5%); | N/A | Straptavidin (STV) and CpGs | 5hrs | N/A | N/A | N/A | Endocytosis. Antigen localized in lysosomes after 2 hours | RAW264.7 (macrophage, Abelson murine leukemia virus transformed). | Increased internalization of the complex tetrahedron-STV-CpG by APC cells | BALB/c immunocompetent mice | Mice immunized with the complex tetrahedron-STV-CpG developed a stronger and a longer immunitary response. | N/A | [66] | ||
| AFM AGE (3%) TEM | Doxo, epirubicin, daunorubicin | >45 hrs | Protein Tyrosin Kinase 7 (PTK7) | N/A | N/A | Endocytosis | CEM cells (human T-cell acute lymphocytic leukemia PTK7+) and Ramos (human B lymphocyte Burkitt's lymphoma PTK7-) | Drug-Aptamer-DNA-drug is more cytotoxic on PTK7+ cells than free drug. Same efficacy on PTK7- cells. | CEM (PTK7+) xenograft mouse model | Increased antitumor efficacy and reduced side effects of doxo delivered via Aptamer-DNA nanotrain. | [67] | ||||
| PAGE (7%) | N/A | Doxo | 35 hrs (half-life) | N/A | 172 molecules doxo/structure (at 15% of loading efficiency) | 50% of Doxo release from py-Doxo in PBS in 5 hrs and 3 hrs in FBS. Free Doxo in 20 minutes | py-Doxo is able to penetrate inside MDA-MB-231, release Doxo in the nucleus | MDA-MB-231, HepG2 | Decrease cell viability compared to free doxo | N/A | N/A | N/A | [68] | ||
| AGE (2%) TEM | Doxo | 48hr (T-tube) | N/A | N/A | 80% (T-tube) and 90% (S-tube) in 10 hrs | N/A | Breast cancer MDA-MB-231; MDA-MB-468; MCF-7 | In all the cell lines tested the T-DNA IC50 is ≈2 times lower than free Doxo. (calculated by our group) | N/A | N/A | N/A | [70] | |||
| AGE (2%) TEM | 62 CpG sequence specific for mouse Toll like receptor 9 | 6 hrs | Toll like receptor 9 (TLR9). | 62 binding sites per tube | N/A | N/A | Splenocytes from female C57BL/6 mice | N/A Immunoresponse through the TLR9. Nontoxic | N/A | N/A | N/A | [71] | |||
| AFM AGE (2%) DLS TEM | Fab antibody fragments | N/A | CD33, CDw328 | N/A | N/A | N/A | NKL | Increase apoptosis | N/A | N/A | N/A | [72] | |||
| AFM AGE (1%) | Doxo | N/A | N/A | >200000 molecules (calculated by our group) | ≈15% pH 7.4, 35% pH 5.5 in 48 hrs ≈25% in MCF7 cell lysate >40% with 50U DNAaseI | Endocytosis and localization of origami in lysosomes after 6 hours of treatment. | Breast cancer MCF7 and MCF7 resistant | MCF-7: 2.5µM and MCF-7 resistant >100μM. DNA origami loaded with doxo enhanced the cells death compared to free doxo on MCF7 doxo resistant cells. No differences between free doxo and origami doxo in regular MCF7. | N/A | N/A | N/A | [73] | |||
| AFM AGE (1%) DLS | Doxo | 24 hrs | N/A | >200000 molecules (calculated by our group) | ≈20% of Doxo is released in 48 hours at pH 7.4, ≈35% is released at pH 5.5 | N/A | Breast cancer MDA-MB-231 | No significant difference compared to the free doxo. | MDA-MB-231 cells Orthotopic breast cancer model | Increased EPR effect of DNA origami. Significant tumor reduction in mice treated with doxo-origami compared to free doxo | Tumor: Triangle > tube >square Tumor > liver > kidney > spleen | [74] | |||
| AGE (2%) TEM | siRNA (GFP) | 8hrs | Folic acid receptor (FAR) | N/A | N/A | Endosomal trapping (no release) | N/A | No effects on GFP expression | N/A | NA | NA | [86] | |||
AGE: Agarose gel electrophoresis. PAGE: Polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. TEM: Transmission electron microscopy. DLS: Dynamic light scattering. AFM: Atomic force microscopy. N/A: Not Applicable. Temp: Temperature. Inj: Injection. I.V.: Intravenous. Luc: Luciferase
Figure 7Schematic design of the DNA carrier-drug complex. A) Long, single-stranded DNA scaffold (M13mp18 phage genomic DNA, blue) hybridizes with rationally designed helper strands to fold into triangular, square, and tube origami shapes. The biodistribution of unstructured M13 DNA and different nanostructures of DNA origami was investigated in subcutaneous breast tumor model. After in vivo biodistribution, the triangle-shaped DNA origami demonstrated optimal tumor accumulation; it was then used for doxorubicin intercalation. The Watson-Crick base pairs in the double helices of DNA origami serve as docking sites for doxorubicin intercalation (DOX/DNA origami, red). B) Tail-injected DOX/DNA origami complexes were delivered via blood circulation, accumulating in the breast tumor of nude mice because of EPR effects. Reproduced with permission from reference 74.