John-Michael Williford1, Maani M Archang2, Il Minn3, Yong Ren2, Mark Wo2, John Vandermark2, Paul B Fisher4, Martin G Pomper5, Hai-Quan Mao6. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 720 Rutland Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, United States; Institute for NanoBioTechnology and Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, United States. 2. Institute for NanoBioTechnology and Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, United States; Institute for NanoBioTechnology and Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, United States. 3. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions , 601 N. Caroline Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21287, United States. 4. Department of Human and Molecular Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1101 East Marshall Street, Richmond, Virginia 23298, United States; VCU Institute of Molecular Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1220 East Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia 23298, United States; VCU Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, 401 College Street, Richmond, Virginia 23298, United States. 5. Institute for NanoBioTechnology and Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, United States; Institute for NanoBioTechnology and Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, United States; Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, 601 N. Caroline Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21287, United States. 6. Institute for NanoBioTechnology and Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, United States; Institute for NanoBioTechnology and Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, United States; Translational Tissue Engineering Center and Whitaker Biomedical Engineering Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 400 N. Broadway, Baltimore, Maryland 21287, United States.
Abstract
Nanoparticle-mediated gene delivery is a promising alternative to viral methods; however, its use in vivo, particularly following systemic injection, has suffered from poor delivery efficiency. Although PEGylation of nanoparticles has been successfully demonstrated as a strategy to enhance colloidal stability, its success in improving delivery efficiency has been limited, largely due to reduced cell binding and uptake, leading to poor transfection efficiency. Here we identified an optimized PEGylation scheme for DNA micellar nanoparticles that delivers balanced colloidal stability and transfection activity. Using linear polyethylenimine (lPEI)-g-PEG as a carrier, we characterized the effect of graft length and density of polyethylene glycol (PEG) on nanoparticle assembly, micelle stability, and gene delivery efficiency. Through variation of PEG grafting degree, lPEI with short PEG grafts (molecular weight, MW 500-700 Da) generated micellar nanoparticles with various shapes including spherical, rodlike, and wormlike nanoparticles. DNA micellar nanoparticles prepared with short PEG grafts showed comparable colloidal stability in salt and serum-containing media to those prepared with longer PEG grafts (MW 2 kDa). Corresponding to this trend, nanoparticles prepared with short PEG grafts displayed significantly higher in vitro transfection efficiency compared to those with longer PEG grafts. More importantly, short PEG grafts permitted marked increase in transfection efficiency following ligand conjugation to the PEG terminal in metastatic prostate cancer-bearing mice. This study identifies that lPEI-g-PEG with short PEG grafts (MW 500-700 Da) is the most effective to ensure shape control and deliver high colloidal stability, transfection activity, and ligand effect for DNA nanoparticles in vitro and in vivo following intravenous administration.
Nanoparticle-mediated gene delivery is a promising alternative to viral methods; however, its use in vivo, particularly following systemic injection, has suffered from poor delivery efficiency. Although PEGylation of nanoparticles has been successfully demonstrated as a strategy to enhance colloidal stability, its success in improving delivery efficiency has been limited, largely due to reduced cell binding and uptake, leading to poor transfection efficiency. Here we identified an optimized PEGylation scheme for DNA micellar nanoparticles that delivers balanced colloidal stability and transfection activity. Using linear polyethylenimine (lPEI)-g-PEG as a carrier, we characterized the effect of graft length and density of polyethylene glycol (PEG) on nanoparticle assembly, micelle stability, and gene delivery efficiency. Through variation of PEG grafting degree, lPEI with short PEG grafts (molecular weight, MW 500-700 Da) generated micellar nanoparticles with various shapes including spherical, rodlike, and wormlike nanoparticles. DNA micellar nanoparticles prepared with short PEG grafts showed comparable colloidal stability in salt and serum-containing media to those prepared with longer PEG grafts (MW 2 kDa). Corresponding to this trend, nanoparticles prepared with short PEG grafts displayed significantly higher in vitro transfection efficiency compared to those with longer PEG grafts. More importantly, short PEG grafts permitted marked increase in transfection efficiency following ligand conjugation to the PEG terminal in metastatic prostate cancer-bearing mice. This study identifies that lPEI-g-PEG with short PEG grafts (MW 500-700 Da) is the most effective to ensure shape control and deliver high colloidal stability, transfection activity, and ligand effect for DNA nanoparticles in vitro and in vivo following intravenous administration.
Gene therapy remains
exciting as a therapeutic strategy for a number
human diseases, including cancer, metabolic disorders, and immune
deficiencies.[1−4] Although virus-based methods have largely been employed for these
applications, evident by their use in approximately 70% of gene therapy
clinical trials to date,[1] safety concerns
motivate the need to engineer alternative gene delivery systems.[5] Nonviral gene delivery strategies have been developed
to overcome these significant limitations posed by viral vectors,
namely the potential for immune responses, carcinogenesis based on
site-specific integration, limited DNA payload size, and difficulty
of large-scale vector production.[5−9] Nanoparticles comprise the main class of nonviral carriers, because
of their ability to protect the DNA from degradation, target specific
cells and tissues, and improve intracellular delivery of the payload.[3,10−14]Cationic polymers are commonly used to condense plasmid DNA
into
nanoparticles through electrostatic interactions.[3,15−17] Polymeric nanoparticles effectively deliver genetic
material in vitro, although their performance in vivo has demonstrated
varying degrees of efficacy following intravenous administration,
often showing transgene expression primarily in the lung.[18,19] These mixed results are likely due to the interaction between cationic
nanoparticles and serum components, leading to rapid aggregation,
entrapment in capillary beds, and/or capture and clearance by the
mononuclear phagocytic system (MPS).[20−23] Of the numerous polymers developed
for gene therapy applications, linear polyethylenimine (lPEI) remains
one of the most popular because of its demonstrated efficiency in
both cell culture and various animal models,[24,25] particularly following local administration,[26−28] although it
still suffers from aggregation issues in physiological media.[29,30]Surface coating of polymer/DNA nanoparticles has been widely
used
to improve their stability in biological environments, such as those
encountered following systemic administration. One popular surface
coating strategy has been PEGylation, typically through the use of
block or graft copolymers comprised of a polycation chain and a polyethylene
glycol (PEG) chain to form a core–shell, polyelectrolyte complex
micelle assembly.[15,31] PEGylated nanoparticles demonstrate
enhanced stability in serum, reducing aggregation, increasing circulation
time, and decreasing MPS clearance after intravenous injection.[32−34]In addition to the stability improvements conferred by PEGylation,
recent work has highlighted the importance of PEG in the ability to
control the shape of polymer/DNA nanoparticles for gene therapy applications.
For example, using a PEG-polyphosphoramidate (PPA) block copolymer,
DNA nanoparticle shape can be controlled through variation of solvent
polarity during nanoparticle formation, ranging from spherical to
rodlike and wormlike shapes.[35] Experimental
studies and molecular dynamics simulations highlighted the important
role of PEG in shape formation, as particles prepared without the
PEG block did not demonstrate an ability to tune the shape of polymer/DNA
micelles. We have recently observed similar results for PEG-polycation
graft copolymers, including PPA and lPEI, where increasing the PEG
grafting degree led to shape variation from more condensed spherical
and short rod shapes to longer rod- and wormlike shapes.[36,37]Although PEGylation provides significant benefits during circulation
and transport of nanoparticle delivery systems, several drawbacks
exist for successful gene delivery both in vitro and in vivo. The
dense PEG layer and accompanying near-neutral surface charge significantly
decreases interaction with the target cells of interest.[38−40] Because of the lowered cell uptake, transgene expression mediated
by PEGylated nanoparticles has been observed to drop by several orders
of magnitude.[39]In order to minimize
the drop in transfection efficiency associated
with PEG-polycation/DNA nanoparticles, we hypothesized that small
molecular weight PEG chains could be utilized to maintain nanoparticle
colloidal stability in physiological media without significantly reducing
its effectiveness as a gene delivery vehicle. In addition, previous
results suggest that with sufficient PEG grafting degree, shorter
PEG chains may still be used to control the shape of polymer/DNA nanoparticles,[37] a potential important parameter for in vivo
application given the demonstrated importance of nanoparticle shape
on cellular uptake, tissue diffusion, and transport properties in
several recent studies.[41−44]Here, we specifically compared the physicochemical
properties and
transfection ability of nanoparticles prepared with lPEI grafted with
PEG with molecular weight of 700 Da (PEG7H) to those of 2000 Da (PEG2K),
the minimum PEG length typically recommended to afford the major benefits
associated with PEGylation in the literature.[45,46] Many studies use PEG chain lengths much longer than this, ranging
from 3400 Da to 20 000 Da for various DNA delivery applications.[32,47−52] Here we report an lPEI-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticle system
for effective in vivo delivery applications, particularly for the
detection of metastiatic prostate cancer. A series of lPEI-g-PEG carriers with different PEG grafting densities and
PEG length (PEG7H and PEG2K) were used to assemble with plasmid DNA,
forming various shaped micellar nanoparticles. Their shapes, surface
characteristics, and colloidal stability in salt and serum-containing
media were correlated with their transfection efficiency in several
cell lines, both in the absence and presence of cell adhesion peptides.
Optimized carriers were tested following systemic injection in vivo
using both Balb/c mice and metastatic prostate cancer-bearing mice.
Using these nanoparticles, we demonstrated the ability of short PEG
grafts for successful nanoparticle stabilization and efficient in
vivo delivery. This work highlights a key design parameter for the
development of effective nonviral gene carriers with significant potential
for cancer detection and therapy.
Materials
and Methods
Synthesis and Characterization of lPEI-g-PEG
Copolymers
Linear polyethylenimine (lPEI, molecular weight
22 kDa, 2.15 mg), N-hydroxysulfosuccinimide (sulfo-NHS,
1.09 mg) and functionalized polyethylene glycol acetic acid (X-PEG-COOH,
average molecular weight 500, 700, or 2000 Da, X- represents methoxy
or SPDP terminal group) with different amounts according to the designed
grafting density were dissolved in 1 mL of 0.05 mol/L pH 4.75 phosphate
buffer. The pH of solution was monitored and kept in the range of
4.5–5.0 by adding either 1 M HCl or 1 M NaOH solution. 1-Ethyl-3-[3-(dimethylamino)propyl]
carbodiimide (EDC) hydrochloride (2.88 mg) was dissolved in 100 μL
of ultrapure water and immediately added to the reaction mixture.
Another 4 batches of EDC (same quantity) were added every other hour.
The final product was purified by ultracentrifugation using a membrane
with a molecular weight cutoff (MWCO) of 3500 Da. The 1H NMR spectrum of lPEI-g-PEG (2.3%) is shown in Figure S1. PEG grafting degree was characterized
by measuring the SPDP content of the polymer. Polymers were treated
with 50 mM dithiothreitol solution for 1 h to reduce SPDP, after which
the concentration of pyridine 2-thione was measured by UV spectrophotometry
at 343 nm according to the manufacturer’s protocol (Pierce,
Rockford, IL). Grafting density is denoted as a molar percentage of
amines in lPEI backbone modified by PEG.
Formation of lPEI-g-PEG/DNA Nanoparticles
VR1255C plasmid DNA (6.4
kb) encoding the gene for firefly luciferase
driven by the cytomegalovirus promoter was kindly provided by Vical
(San Diego, CA). Plasmid DNA was amplified in DH5α E.
coli and was purified using an EndoFree Giga Kit (Qiagen,
Valencia, CA) and dissolved at 1 mg/mL in endotoxin-free TE buffer.
For a typical nanoparticle preparation, 10 μg of DNA was diluted
in 100 μL of DI water to give a final concentration of 100 μg/mL
DNA. A solution of lPEI-g-PEG was diluted to 100
μL in DI water to give a final N/P ratio (ratio of amine in
lPEI to phosphate in DNA) of 8 as used in our previous studies with
PEG-polycation/DNA nanoparticles.[35−37] The polymer solution
was added to the DNA solution and mixed by rapid pipetting, after
which the polymer/DNA mixture was incubated for 10 min prior to further
use.
Transmission Electron Microscopy of lPEI-g-PEG/DNA
Nanoparticles
TEM imaging of nanoparticles was done by incubating
10 μL of lPEI-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticle solution
onto an ionized nickel grid covered with a carbon film. After 10 min,
the solution was removed, and a 6 μL drop of 2% uranyl acetate
was added to the grid. After 20 s, the staining solution was removed,
and the grid was dried at room temperature. The samples were imaged
with a Technai FEI-12 electron microscope. Nanoparticle sizes were
characterized from TEM images using ImageJ 1.44. Aspect ratios were
determined by dividing the length of the nanoparticle by the diameter.
At least 100 nanoparticles were measured from TEM images for each
preparation.
Nanoparticle zeta potential was measured using
a Zetasizer Nano ZS90 (Malvern Instruments, Southborough, MA). An
aliquot of 5 μg of DNA nanoparticle solution was diluted to
800 μL with DI water or 150 mM sodium chloride, added to a DTS1070-folded
capillary cell, and measured in the automatic mode.
To test the stability in physiological ionic strength solution,
a predetermined volume of 5 M NaCl solution was added to a 5 μg
DNA dose nanoparticle solution to give a final NaCl concentration
of 150 mM. The mixture solution was incubated for 15 min, and then
particle size was measured using dynamic light scattering method with
a Zetasizer Nano ZS90. To test the stability in serum, we incubated
an aliquot of nanoparticle solution containing 5 μg of DNA with
fetal bovine serum (FBS) at a final serum concentration of 5% (v/v)
for 15 min before measuring the particle size.
DNA Release from lPEI-g-PEG/DNA Nanoparticles
The release of DNA from
lPEI-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticles
was assessed in the presence of heparin sulfate as modified from our
previously reported protocol.[53] An aliquot
of 20 μL of nanoparticles solution containing 1 μg of
DNA was added to each well of a 96-well plate followed by the addition
of 80 μL of 1 mg/mL ethidium bromide solution. To this solution,
100 μL of heparin sulfate solution with increasing concentrations
in 300 mM NaCl solution was added to each well and mixed thoroughly,
giving final heparin sulfate concentrations ranging from 1 μg/mL
to 500 μg/mL in 150 mM NaCl. The solutions were incubated at
room temperature for 15 min, and the fluorescence intensity (λex = 510 nm, λem = 595 nm) was measured using
a fluorescence plate reader (SpectraMax Gemini XPS, Molecular Devices,
Sunnyvale, CA). The percentage of DNA released was calculated according
to a calibration curve of plasmid DNA subjected to the same conditions.
Ligand Conjugation to lPEI-g-PEG/DNA Nanoparticles
Ligands were conjugated to polymer/DNA nanoparticles prepared with
SPDP-PEG grafts through SPDP-thiol coupling chemistry. Cyclic RGD-thiol
ligand (PCI-3686-PI, Peptides International, Louisville, KY) was dissolved
in phosphate buffered saline (PBS) at 1 mg/mL according to the manufacturer’s
protocol. Peptide 947W (Ac-CCRRYVVLPRWLC, ChinaPeptides
Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) was dissolved in PBS at 1 mg/mL. Briefly,
lPEI-g-PEG(SPDP)/DNA nanoparticles were prepared
as described above. Following particle incubation for 10 min, a solution
containing the thiolated peptide at a 1:1 thiol:SPDP equivalent molar
ratio was added to the nanoparticle solution. The nanoparticles were
further incubated for 4 h to allow for peptide conjugation, after
which they were used for characterization and testing.
In Vitro Transfection
of lPEI-g-PEG/DNA Nanoparticles
The base
media for maintaining PC3-ML cells,[54] MDA-MB-231
cells, and HeLa cells were F-12K Nutrient Mixture
(Kaighn’s Modification, Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA), RPMI-1640
media, and Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium (DMEM),
respectively. All media were supplemented with 10% FBS and 100 U/mL
Penicillin/100 μg/mL Streptomycin, and cells were cultured at
37 °C and 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator. At 24
h prior to the transfection experiments, cells were seeded in 48-well
plates at a density of 2 × 104 cells/well. Various
nanoparticle solutions equivalent to 0.5 μg of DNA dose were
added to the cells and incubated for 4 h, followed which the media
were refreshed. After 48 h, media were removed, and cells were washed
with 1 × PBS (pH 7.4). One hundred microliters of reporter lysis
buffer (Promega, Madison, WI) was added to each well. Cells were then
subjected to two freeze–thaw cycles. Twenty microliters of
cell lysate from each well was assayed using a luciferase assay kit
(Promega, Madison, WI) on a luminometer (20/20n, Turner BioSystems,
Sunnyvale, CA). The luciferase activity was converted to the amount
of luciferase expressed using a recombinant luciferase protein (Promega)
as the standard and normalized against the total protein content in
the lysate using a BCA assay (Pierce, Rockford, IL).
In Vitro Cellular
Uptake of lPEI-g-PEG/DNA
Nanoparticles
Cellular uptake efficiencies were measured
in PC3-ML cells using tritium-labeled plasmid DNA. To prepare the
radiolabeled DNA, plasmid DNA was methylated with CpG methyl transferase
(M.SssL) (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA) and S-adenosyl-L-(methyl-3H)
methionine (PerkinElmer, Waltham, MA) according to the manufacturer’s
protocol. Briefly, nuclease-free water, 10× NEB buffer, S-adenosyl-L-(methyl-3H)
methionine, plasmid DNA, and M.SssL were mixed in order. The solution
was then incubated at 37 °C for 1 h, and the reaction was quenched
by heating to 65 °C for 20 min. The radiolabeled DNA was purified
using Miniprep Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA). Radiolabeled lPEI-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticles were prepared as above by mixing
radiolabeled DNA with nonradiolabeled DNA at 1/10 DNA weight ratio.
At 24 h prior to the transfection experiment, PC3 cells were seeded
in 48-well plates at a density of 2 × 104 cells/well.
Nanoparticles containing 0.5 μg of labeled DNA were added to
the cells according to the same protocol as described above in the
transfection experiments. After 4 h of incubation, the media in each
well was carefully removed, and the cells were washed with 200 μL
of PBS. One hundred microliters of reporter lysis buffer was added
to each well, and cells were subjected to two freeze–thaw cycles.
Cell lysate from each well (50 μL) was added to a scintillation
vial and mixed with 4 mL of scintillation fluid. The radioactivity
of each sample solution was measured on a liquid scintillation counter
(TRI-CARB 1900 TR, Packard, Downers Grove, IL). Cell uptake percentage
was calculated by dividing the radioactivity (in DPM) of each sample
with the radioactivity of the total dose of nanoparticles added to
each well.
In Vivo Transfection of lPEI-g-PEG/DNA Nanoparticles
All protocols for the use of animals
were approved by the Johns
Hopkins Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Nanoparticle
formulations consisting of 40 μg of a DNA dose in 250 μL
of 5% (v/v) glucose were administered via tail vein injection into
mice. In vivo jetPEI nanoparticle formulations were prepared at N/P
6 according to the manufacturer’s protocol (Polyplus Transfection,
France) and used as a positive control for all in vivo experiments.
Bioluminescence imaging was performed at predetermined time points.
Mice were anesthetized with 2% isoflurane and injected i.p. with 100 μL 30 mg/mL d-luciferin solution. Mice were
then transferred to an IVIS Spectrum Imaging System (Caliper Life
Sciences, Hopkinton, MA) and placed ventral side up. On 3 min intervals
after d-luciferin injection, bioluminescence signal was measured
for 1 min, until reaching the maximum signal strength. The whole body
luciferase expression was calculated using the maximum signal and
expressed as radiance (photons/s/cm2/sr). Gene expression
levels were also measured from the major organs following homogenization
using a luciferase assay kit. Briefly, mice were anesthetized and
sacrificed, and major organs were collected and weighed. Organs were
homogenized in 5 mL of PBS each using a tissue homogenizer (Heidolph,
Oak Grove, IL) at 15 000 rpm for 15 s intervals. Twenty microliter
of tissue lysate from each organ was assayed for gene expression using
a luciferase assay kit (Promega, Madison, WI) on a luminometer (20/20n,
Turner BioSystems, Sunnyvale, CA) and was normalized to the weight
of the tissue sample.
Establishment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer
Model
Metastatic
prostate cancer model was generated according to our previously established
protocol.[54] Briefly, 4 to 6-week old male
NOG (NOD/Shi-scid/IL-2Rγnull) mice
were obtained from the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center Animal
Core Facility (Johns Hopkins School of Medicine). PC3-ML cells were
expanded over 3 to 5 passages, harvested, and diluted to a concentration
of 2 × 107 cells/mL in sterile RPMI-1640 media supplemented
with 1% FBS (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA). Two hundred μL
cell suspension (1 × 106 cells) were administered
via the tail vein to establish the metastatic tumor model.
Biodistribution
of lPEI-g-PEG/DNA Nanoparticles
Nanoparticle
biodistribution studies were done in PC3-ML-bearing
NOG mice. Tumors were established as described above. Tritium-labeling
of DNA was carried out using the previously described protocol. Nanoparticle
formulations consisting of 40 μg DNA dose in 250 μL final
volume, 5% (v/v) glucose, were administered via tail vein injection
into mice. Nanoparticles were formulated at a 1:4 ratio of tritium-labeled
DNA to unlabeled DNA. At 2 h after nanoparticle injection, mice were
anesthetized and sacrificed, and major organs were harvested, weighed,
and solubilized in solvable tissue solubilizing solution (PerkinElmer,
Waltham, MA). An aliquot of 200 μL mixture from each organ was
added was added to a scintillation vial and mixed with 4 mL of scintillation
fluid. The radioactivity of each sample solution was measured on a
liquid scintillation counter (TRI-CARB 1900 TR, Packard, Downers Grove,
IL). Biodistribution was reported as a percentage of the total injected
dose by dividing the calculated radioactivity (in DPM) of each organ
with the total radioactivity of the injected nanoparticle formulation.
Toxicity of lPEI-g-PEG/DNA Nanoparticles
Liver toxicity was analyzed by measuring serum levels of aspartate
aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT). Blood samples
were collected from mouse facial vein into serum separator tubes (BD
Biosciences, San Jose, CA). Samples were centrifuged at 5000 rpm for
10 min to separate serum. ALT and AST levels were analyzed at the
Department of Molecular and Comparative Pathology at Johns Hopkins
University. For histopathological evaluation, mice were anesthetized
and sacrificed, and major organs (heart, lung, liver, kidney, and
spleen) were harvested, fixed in 10% formalin, and tissues were embedded
in paraffin blocks. Tissue sections were prepared and stained with
hematoxylin and eosin.
Statistical Analysis
All bar graphs
represent mean
± standard deviation (SD). Comparison of nanoparticles with PEG
graft lengths and comparison of nanoparticles with and without peptide
conjugation was conducted using a Student’s t-test. Differences were considered statistically significant for p < 0.05.
Results and Discussion
Short PEG Grafts Were Sufficient
to Confer Shape Control and
Maintain Stability
We closely examined linear PEI (lPEI)-g-PEG copolymers with different PEG grafts, particularly
short grafts with MW < 1 kDa, on their abilities to confer assembly,
shape control, colloidal stability, and transfection activity of nanoparticles.
Previously, few studies have used PEG chains with MW less than 2 kDa
for nanoparticle surface stabilization; PEG 2 kDa has been regarded
as the minimum length for nanoparticle stabilization.[46] In a rare report by Petersen et al. on plasmid DNA delivery,
a branched polyethylenimine (bPEI)-g-PEG copolymer
with 35 PEG (550 Da) grafts per PEI chain was used to prepare DNA
micellar nanoparticles.[34] Compared to higher
molecular weight PEG grafts, 550 Da PEG-grafted bPEI showed the best
transfection properties in vitro, albeit lower colloidal stability
in serum-containing medium. However, there was no further optimization
of the nanoparticles prepared with these short PEG grafts. Because
lPEI with an average molecular weight of 22 000 has been widely
used for both in vivo and in vitro transfection,[30,46,48,54,55] we prepared a series of lPEI22K-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticles with two different PEG graft lengths—PEG7H
(700 Da) and PEG2K (2000 Da) and various PEG grafting degrees ranging
from 0.2 to 2.3% (molar percentage of PEG chains compared to total
amount of amines on lPEI). PEGylated nanoparticle formulations were
prepared at an N/P ratio of 8, whereas lPEI control nanoparticle formulations
were prepared at an N/P ratio of 5. These values were optimized to
maximize transfection efficiency while minimizing cytotoxicity (Figure S2). In this study, we kept the grafting
density to be relatively low (<3%) based on two considerations.
First, we observed that the shape variation of the polymer-DNA micelles
occurred in a very narrow range of grafting degrees, 0.2–3%,
which is equivalent to about 1–10 PEG grafts per linear PEI
chain (22 kDa). Second, when assembled using copolymers with higher
grafting degrees (>3%), all nanoparticles assumed warm-like morphology
and exhibited background level of transfection efficiency (data not
shown). This observation was similar to our previous study with PPA-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticles.[37] As
the PEG grafting degree increases for both PEG7H and PEG2K grafts,
lPEI22K-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticles underwent
a significant shape change (Figure ) with particles adopting a more condensed spherical
and short rod shapes at 0.2% grafting degree, and extending to longer
wormlike shape at higher grafting degrees of 1 and 2.3%. Nanoparticle
shape transition from spherical to rodlike morphology occurred at
slightly lower grafting degree (0.5%) for PEG2K grafts and also led
to longer wormlike shapes with higher aspect ratios compared to nanoparticles
prepared with PEG7H grafts (Figure E–H and Figure S3). These results are consistent with previous results observed for
PPA-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticles with varying PEG chain
lengths, where longer PEG chains led to more elongated nanoparticle
shapes at increasing PEG grafting degrees of 2 and 4%.[37] Aspect ratio quantification from the transmission
electron microscopy (TEM) images confirmed these trends with nanoparticles
prepared with both PEG grafts displayed average aspect ratios of ∼1.5
at 0.2% grafting degree, transitioning to aspect ratios of 20 and
36 at 2.3% grafting degree for PEG7H and PEG2K, respectively (Figure S3).
Figure 1
Short PEG grafts allow for lPEI22K-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticle shape control. TEM images
of (A–D) lPEI-g-PEG7H/DNA nanoparticles and
(E–H) lPEI-g-PEG2K/DNA nanoparticles prepared
with (A, E) 0.2% PEG
grafting degree, (B, F) 0.5% PEG grafting degree, (C, G) 1% PEG grafting
degree, and (D, H) 2.3% PEG grafting degree. All scale bars = 200
nm.
Short PEG grafts allow for lPEI22K-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticle shape control. TEM images
of (A–D) lPEI-g-PEG7H/DNA nanoparticles and
(E–H) lPEI-g-PEG2K/DNA nanoparticles prepared
with (A, E) 0.2% PEG
grafting degree, (B, F) 0.5% PEG grafting degree, (C, G) 1% PEG grafting
degree, and (D, H) 2.3% PEG grafting degree. All scale bars = 200
nm.Next, we measured the surface
charge of lPEI-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticles in both water
and 150 mM salt. Nanoparticles
prepared with PEG7H grafts maintained a positive surface charge greater
than +30 mV in water; after incubation in salt, however, surface charges
dropped significantly to +13 mV for 0.2% grafting degree. We observed
similar drops for all PEG7H-grafted polymers, whereas lPEI control
particles maintained a positive charge of +22 mV in salt (Figure A). These results
indicate that short PEG grafts can still significantly mask the positive
surface charges in media at physiological ionic strength, even at
low grafting degrees. It is important to note that the surface charge
of lPEI control particles is lower in water compared to PEG7H-grafted
nanoparticles, likely due to the fact that N/P 5 was used for lPEI
control particles, whereas N/P 8 was used for PEG-grafted nanoparticles.
We observed similar results for DNA nanoparticles complexed by lPEI
with PEG2K grafts, albeit the drops in surface charge for these particles
were greater after incubation in salt (Figure B). This observation can be attributed to
stronger charge screening effect from the “thicker”
electrostatically neutral corona generated by the longer PEG grafts.
Figure 2
Short
PEG grafts maintain stability of polymer/DNA nanoparticles
in physiological media. Zeta potential of (A) lPEI-g-PEG7H/DNA and (B) lPEI-g-PEG2K/DNA nanoparticles
at N/P ratio of 8 in DI water and 150 mM NaCl solution in comparison
with lPEI/DNA nanoparticles prepared at N/P ratio of 5. Each bar represents
mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Size of (C)
lPEI-g-PEG7H/DNAand (D) lPEI-g-PEG2K/DNA
nanoparticles after 15 min incubation in DI water, 150 mM NaCl, and
5% serum, respectively. Each bar represents mean ± standard deviation
(n = 3).
Short
PEG grafts maintain stability of polymer/DNA nanoparticles
in physiological media. Zeta potential of (A) lPEI-g-PEG7H/DNA and (B) lPEI-g-PEG2K/DNA nanoparticles
at N/P ratio of 8 in DI water and 150 mM NaCl solution in comparison
with lPEI/DNA nanoparticles prepared at N/P ratio of 5. Each bar represents
mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Size of (C)
lPEI-g-PEG7H/DNAand (D) lPEI-g-PEG2K/DNA
nanoparticles after 15 min incubation in DI water, 150 mM NaCl, and
5% serum, respectively. Each bar represents mean ± standard deviation
(n = 3).To confirm that the short, PEG7H grafts could improve DNA
nanoparticle
stability over those prepared with lPEI, we incubated each series
of DNA nanoparticles in 5% serum and 150 mM NaCl solution for 15 min.
Nanoparticles prepared with both PEG lengths showed significant improvements
in the colloidal stability compared to lPEI control particles, which
rapidly aggregated from 100 nm in water to 1.6 μm in 0.15 M
NaCl solution and 2 μm in 5% serum within the 15 min incubation
period (Figure C,
D). PEG7H-grafted particles showed some size increase in 5% serum,
although nanoparticle diameter generally remained below 400 nm, much
lower than non-PEGylated lPEI controls. Only 2.3% PEG7H grafts showed
significant size increase in serum, although it is possible that this
is due to limitations with dynamic light scattering for characterizing
nonspherical particles since particles with lower PEG density showed
no aggregation. All particles prepared with PEG2K grafts showed no
detectable aggregation in salt or serum-containing media.
PEG Graft Length
Significantly Influences in Vitro Transfection
Efficiency
We evaluated the series of nanoparticles prepared
with either PEG7H or PEG2K grafts for their transfection efficiency
in vitro using a luciferase-expressing reporter plasmid DNA in three
separate cell lines: PC3 prostate cancer cells, MDA-MB-231 breast
cancer cells, and HeLa cells. In all cell lines, PEG7H-grafted nanoparticles
displayed higher transfection efficiency compared to PEG2K-grafted
particles at similar grafting degrees (Figure A and Figure S4). For example, in PC3 cells, nanoparticles prepared with 0.2% PEG7H
grafts showed nearly 100-fold higher transfection efficiency compared
to PEG2K-grafted particles. As the shapes of these two particles are
the same, it is likely that PEG chain length is a major determining
factor for the difference in gene expression. At grafting degrees
of 0.5% or higher, PEG2K-grafted particles mediated near-background
levels of gene expression, whereas efficiency of PEG7H-grafted particles
was significantly higher. Although PEG2K-grafted nanoparticles had
higher aspect ratios, the overall shape of micelles prepared with
both PEG grafts was similar, highlighting the contribution of PEG
graft length in maintaining high transfection efficiency, besides
the grafting density of PEG in copolymer and the aspect ratio of the
micelles. Similar trends were observed in both MDA-MB-231 cells and
HeLa cells (Figure S4), although the absolute
level of gene expression varied between cell lines. Importantly, even
the worm-shaped nanoparticles prepared with 2.3% PEG7H grafts exhibited
reasonably high level of transfection efficiency in HeLa cells.
Figure 3
PEG graft length
significantly impacts in vitro transfection efficiency.
Transfection efficiency (A) and cellular uptake efficiency (B) of
lPEI-g-PEG7H/DNA and lPEI-g-PEG2K/DNA
nanoparticles in PC3 cells. Each bar represents mean ± standard
deviation (n = 3). * p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
PEG graft length
significantly impacts in vitro transfection efficiency.
Transfection efficiency (A) and cellular uptake efficiency (B) of
lPEI-g-PEG7H/DNA and lPEI-g-PEG2K/DNA
nanoparticles in PC3 cells. Each bar represents mean ± standard
deviation (n = 3). * p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.To understand the differences
in transfection observed with nanoparticles
prepared from copolymers with various PEG graft lengths, we evaluated
the cellular uptake efficiency of each series of nanoparticles in
PC3-ML cells using tritium-labeled DNA (Figure B). At 0.2% grafting degree, both PEG7H and
PEG2K-grafted nanoparticles exhibited high cellular uptake efficiency.
At all other grafting degrees, PEG7H maintained high cellular uptake
efficiency, whereas PEG2K decreased cellular uptake to near-background
levels. Uptake levels do not always directly correlate with the observed
PC3 transfection results, suggesting that other barriers in the delivery
process such as endosomal escape, nuclear translocation, and intracellular
release of plasmid DNA may play important roles as well. For example,
0.2% PEG2K-grafted nanoparticles showed higher cell uptake but lower
gene expression compared to PEG7H-grafted nanoparticles, possibly
due to incomplete cellular internalization or poor endosomal escape,
two limitations previously associated with longer PEG grafts.[56,57] On the other hand, nanoparticles with PEG7H grafts exhibited similarly
high cellular uptake but reduced transfection efficiency at grafting
degrees higher than 0.5%. In these cases, the worm-shaped nanoparticles
may also suffer from incomplete cellular internalization or less efficienct
intracellular trafficking due to their high aspect ratio. An additional
contributing factor may be related to the intracellular DNA release.
However, as shown in Figure S5, following
challenge from varying concentrations of heparin sulfate, nanoparticles
at each tested PEG grafting density showed similar DNA release characteristics,
regardless of PEG chain length. At higher PEG grafting densities,
PEG2K-grafted particles released DNA at slightly lower concentrations
of heparin sulfate, indicating higher propensity to release the condensed
DNA. As all densities of PEG2K-grafted particles demonstrated lower
transfection efficiency compared to PEG7H, it is not likely that DNA
release rate represents a major factor affecting transfection ability
for these nanoparticles.
PEG Graft Length Significantly Influences
Transfection Efficiency
of Ligand-Conjugated Nanoparticles
Ligand conjugation to
the terminal end of PEG chains is a popular strategy to overcome the
reduction in nanoparticle delivery efficiency following PEGylation
designed to improve nanoparticle stability, although its effect vary
greatly.[58] Here we evaluated the effect
of PEG graft length on transfection improvement following ligand conjugation.
We prepared a series of lPEI-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticles
comprised of PEG5H or PEG2K grafts, both containing a terminal 2-pyridyldithio
(SPDP) group. PEG5H grafted nanoparticles displayed similar physical
properties and transfection efficiency as the PEG7H grafted nanoparticles
(Figure S6). SPDP chemistry is useful for
ligand conjugation, as sulfhydryl-containing molecules react with
high efficiency to the SPDP groups.[59,60] Furthermore,
ligand conjugation can be performed following nanoparticle formation,
increasing the likelihood that the ligand is effectively presented
on the nanoparticle surface as opposed to being embedded in the corona
or core of the nanoparticles.As a proof-of-principle, we conjugated
a laminin-derived peptide, RYVVLPR (full sequence Ac-CCRRYVVLPRWLC)
to the SPDP terminal groups following nanoparticle formation at a
1:1 molar ratio of thiol in the peptide to SPDP on the nanoparticle
surface. This peptide has been previously used to promote neural stem
cell adhesion through surface conjugation on various substrates.[61] While it has not previously been used to promote
nanoparticle delivery, certain cancer cells, including metastatic
prostate cancer cells, up-regulate expression of integrins that bind
to laminin.[62−64] Therefore, RYVVLPR peptides may be a unique ligand
to enhance lPEI-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticle binding to
these cancer cells.Following transfection of PC3-ML cells in
vitro, PEG5H-grafted
nanoparticles conjugated with RYVVLPR peptides mediated significantly
higher transfection efficiency than those without ligands (Figure A). Larger increases
were observed for 1% and 2.3% PEG grafting degrees, which correlates
to nanoparticles with elongated rodlike and wormlike shapes. These
results are consistent with reports in the literature showing the
importance of elongated shapes for cellular binding when conjugated
with specific antibodies targeting breast cancer cells in vitro and
lung and tumor tissue in vivo.[65,66] In contrast, when RYVVLPR
peptide was conjugated to PEG2K-grafted nanoparticles, no improvement
in transfection efficiency was observed for all PEG grafting degrees
tested (Figure B).
All tested conditions displayed near-background levels of transfection
efficiency in PC3-ML cells. Although the effect of PEG chain length
on cellular uptake differences following ligand conjugation has not
been systemically studied in polymeric nanoparticles, a recent study
using liposomes reported ligand conjugation to short, 350-Da PEG linkers
led to the greatest increase in cell uptake efficiency,[67] corroborating well with our observed results.
Figure 4
In vitro
transfection efficiency following ligand conjugation depends
on PEG graft length. Transfection efficiency in PC3 cells mediated
by (A) lPEI-g-PEG5H/DNA and (B) lPEI-g-PEG2K/DNA nanoparticles with and without surface-conjugated cell
binding peptide RYVVLPR. Each bar represents mean ± standard
deviation (n = 3). ** p < 0.01.
In vitro
transfection efficiency following ligand conjugation depends
on PEG graft length. Transfection efficiency in PC3 cells mediated
by (A) lPEI-g-PEG5H/DNA and (B) lPEI-g-PEG2K/DNA nanoparticles with and without surface-conjugated cell
binding peptide RYVVLPR. Each bar represents mean ± standard
deviation (n = 3). ** p < 0.01.To confirm that this result was
not specific to this particular
ligand or cell type, we conjugated cyclic RGD-thiol peptide (cRGD)
to the SPDP terminals and evaluated the transfection efficiency in
MDA-MB-231 cells overexpressing integrin αvβ3, the specific receptor associated with RGD binding.[68] Results from this study, shown in Figure S7, confirmed the observations in PC3
cells. Ligand-dependent increases in transfection efficiency were
only observed when cRGD was conjugated to PEG5H grafts, particularly
at 2.3% grafting degree. No significant transgene expression was observed
when cRGD peptide was conjugated to nanoparticles with PEG2K grafts.Importantly, PEG graft length also drastically influenced transfection
efficiency following peptide conjugation in vivo. Using Balb/c mice,
lPEI-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticles conjugated with RYVVLPR
peptide were administered via tail vein injection, and the transfection
efficiency was analyzed using a luciferase reporter gene. Ligand conjugation
did not lead to any increase in gene expression mediated by DNA nanoparticles
prepared from lPEI-g-PEG with PEG2K grafts, which
did not show detectable gene expression. In contrast, nanoparticles
with short 1% PEG5H grafts demonstrated significant increase in luciferase
expression following conjugation of RYVVLPR peptide (Figure ). At lower grafting degree
(0.2%) for PEG5H grafts, both nanoparticles with or without peptide
conjugation showed high levels
of transgene expression.
Figure 5
In vivo transfection efficiency following ligand
conjugation depends
on PEG graft length. In vivo bioluminescence imaging of Balb/c mice
48 h following systemic injection of lPEI-g-PEG2K/DNA
nanoparticles and lPEI-g-PEG5H/DNA nanoparticles
prepared without or with RYVVLPR cell adhesion peptide. In vivo jetPEI/DNA
nanoparticles were included as control. Plasmid DNA encoding for CMV-driven
firefly luciferase was used for all mice. Inset graph depicts quantitative
whole-body luciferase expression comparing PEG2K and PEG5H grafted
nanoparticles at 1% PEG grafting density. Each bar represents mean
± standard deviation (n = 4). * p < 0.05.
In vivo transfection efficiency following ligand
conjugation depends
on PEG graft length. In vivo bioluminescence imaging of Balb/c mice
48 h following systemic injection of lPEI-g-PEG2K/DNA
nanoparticles and lPEI-g-PEG5H/DNA nanoparticles
prepared without or with RYVVLPR cell adhesion peptide. In vivo jetPEI/DNA
nanoparticles were included as control. Plasmid DNA encoding for CMV-driven
firefly luciferase was used for all mice. Inset graph depicts quantitative
whole-body luciferase expression comparing PEG2K and PEG5H grafted
nanoparticles at 1% PEG grafting density. Each bar represents mean
± standard deviation (n = 4). * p < 0.05.
Ligand-Conjugated Nanoparticles
with Short PEG Grafts Display
Enhanced Transfection Efficiency in Metastatic Prostate Cancer Model
To fully demonstrate the utility of RYVVLPR-conjugated nanoparticles
for potential therapeutic applications, we administered lPEI-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticles via tail vein injection into PC3-ML
tumor-bearing mice, a metastatic prostate cancer model previously
used in our lab.[54] For this experiment,
the nanoparticles were used to deliver a plasmid DNA encoding firefly
luciferase capable of tumor-specific imaging under transcriptional
control of the progression-elevated gene-3 promoter (peg-Prom).[69,70] The peg-Prom constructs
have demonstrated tumor-specific gene expression in several experimental
cancer models, including breast cancer, melanoma, glioma, and prostate
cancer.[54,55,71] The peg-Prom-driven transgene expression was only detected in
these tumor cells, but not in nontumor tissues, highlighting this
approach as a potential for cancer diagnostics. Development of therapeutic
or molecular imaging tools for prostate cancer is particularly important,
because there are few reliable imaging agents available for clinical
applications.In this model, RYVVLPR-conjugated lPEI-g-PEG5H/DNA nanoparticles at 0.2% grafting degree displayed
the highest levels of gene expression in organs with high tumor burden:
liver, kidney, and lung, in comparison with lPEI-g-PEG5H/DNA and in vivo jetPEI control (Figure ). To quantify the level of gene expression,
major organs were collected and homogenized, and firefly luciferase
activity was quantified using a luciferase assay. Compared to nanoparticles
without ligands, RYVVLPR-conjugation improved gene expression levels
by 3.7-fold, 3.9-fold, and 2.8-fold in the lung, liver, and kidney,
respectively (Figure B–D). Additionally, compared to in vivo jetPEI control nanoparticles,
RYVVLPR-conjugated nanoparticles increased expression levels by 2.3-fold,
2.3-fold, and 2.7-fold in the lung, liver, and kidney, respectively.
It is important to note that due to the presence of the tumor-specific
promoter driving the expression of luciferase marker gene, all detected
gene expressions are localized to the PC3-ML psrostate cancer cells.
H&E stained tissue sections also confirmed the presence of metastatic
lesions in these organs for all treatment groups (Figure S8).
Figure 6
Ligand-conjugated DNA nanoparticles with short PEG5H grafts
effectively
detect metastatic prostate cancer lesions in vivo. (A) In vivo bioluminescence
imaging of PC3-ML tumor-bearing mice at 48 h following systemic injection
of lPEI-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticles with or without RYVVLPR
ligands compared to the positive control, in vivo jetPEI/DNA nanoparticles
(n = 4–5 per group). All bioluminescence images
were adjusted to the same scale for comparison. (B–D) Comparison
of luciferase expression in the (B) lung, (C) liver, and (D) kidney
tissue homogenate of the same PC3-ML tumor-bearing mice at 48 h following
systemic injection of nanoparticle formulations (n = 3–4 per group). Horizontal bar denotes the mean level of
transgene exoression. Plasmid DNA encoding firefly luciferase driven
by the tumor-specific peg-promoter was used for all
experiments. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Ligand-conjugated DNA nanoparticles with short PEG5H grafts
effectively
detect metastatic prostate cancer lesions in vivo. (A) In vivo bioluminescence
imaging of PC3-ML tumor-bearing mice at 48 h following systemic injection
of lPEI-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticles with or without RYVVLPR
ligands compared to the positive control, in vivo jetPEI/DNA nanoparticles
(n = 4–5 per group). All bioluminescence images
were adjusted to the same scale for comparison. (B–D) Comparison
of luciferase expression in the (B) lung, (C) liver, and (D) kidney
tissue homogenate of the same PC3-ML tumor-bearing mice at 48 h following
systemic injection of nanoparticle formulations (n = 3–4 per group). Horizontal bar denotes the mean level of
transgene exoression. Plasmid DNA encoding firefly luciferase driven
by the tumor-specific peg-promoter was used for all
experiments. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.To gain insight into
the observed differences in transfection efficiency,
we studied the biodistribution of these same set of nanoparticles
in PC3-ML tumor bearing mice using tritium-labeled DNA. As before,
mice were injected intravenously with the nanoparticle formulation;
and at 2 h after administration, mice were sacrificed and major organs
were harvested. No significant differences in biodistribution were
observed between RYVVLPR-conjugated, unconjugated, and in vivo jetPEI
control nanoparticles (Figure A). In all groups, greater than 50% of the total injected
DNA dose accumulated in the liver. Accumulation in the lung was secondary,
with 4.2% ± 0.2%, 2.3% ± 0.6%, and 3.4% ± 0.9% of the
total injected dose present for RYVVLPR-conjugated, unconjugated,
and in vivo jetPEI nanoparticles, respectively. Accumulation in the
heart, kidney, and spleen was below 2% for all treatments. Additionally,
it is important to note that after 2 h, the majority of the nanoparticles
had distributed into the various organs, as less than 5% of the total
injected dose remained in the blood. We further analyzed liver biodistribution
to determine if nanoparticles showed any preferential accumulation
in regions with high tumor burden; however, no significant difference
was observed between liver with high tumor burden compared to the
whole liver normalized per gram of tissue (Figure B). Because of the small size of the lesions
in the lung and kidney, similar analysis of tumor and nontumor bearing
regions was not possible in these organs. From the results observed
in the liver, however, the differences in transfection efficiency
among the groups do not appear to be primarily due to differences
in biodistribution. Therefore, it is likely that the improvements
in transfection efficiency arise from the improved cell binding and
uptake mediated by peptide conjugation to the nanoparticle surface.
Figure 7
Ligand
conjugation does not alter nanoparticle biodistribution
in prostate cancer bearing mice. (A) Biodistribution of RYVVLPR-conjugated
and unconjugated lPEI-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticles and
jetPEI control nanoparticles in PC3-ML tumor-bearing mice at 2 h after
systemic injection of nanoparticle formulations. (B) Comparison of
nanoparticle biodistribution in liver regions with high tumor burden
to the general liver as a whole, normalized per gram of liver tissue.
Each bar represents mean ± standard deviation (n = 3–4 per group).
Ligand
conjugation does not alter nanoparticle biodistribution
in prostate cancer bearing mice. (A) Biodistribution of RYVVLPR-conjugated
and unconjugated lPEI-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticles and
jetPEI control nanoparticles in PC3-ML tumor-bearing mice at 2 h after
systemic injection of nanoparticle formulations. (B) Comparison of
nanoparticle biodistribution in liver regions with high tumor burden
to the general liver as a whole, normalized per gram of liver tissue.
Each bar represents mean ± standard deviation (n = 3–4 per group).
lPEI-g-PEG/DNA Nanoparticles Exhibit Reduced
Toxicity in Vivo
In addition to the transfection efficiency
improvements, RYVVLPR-conjugated nanoparticles also reduce the toxicity
response to nanoparticle treatment in Balb/c mice. We first measured
serum levels of aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase
(ALT), two common markers of liver function, because a majority of
the nanoparticle dose accumulates in the liver. Two days after nanoparticle
injection, AST and ALT levels, 900 and 260 U/mL, were significantly
higher than the normal range when treated with jetPEI/DNA nanoparticles.
RYVVLPR-conjugated nanoparticles, on the other hand, averaged 200
and 120 U/mL for AST and ALT, respectively (Figure A, B). We also evaluated tissue morphological
changes by H&E staining. In the liver, a mild degree of monocyte
accumulation was observed near portal and central veins in mice received
in vivo jetPEI/DNA nanoparticles, which correlated well with the elevated
ALT and AST levels. Monocyte accumulation was not observed in either
lPEI-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticle-treated mice or untreated
control (Figure C).
Figure 8
lPEI-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticles with short PEG5H
grafts show reduced toxicity in vivo. (A, B) Liver enzyme activities
analyzed by measuring serum AST (A) and ALT (B) levels in Balb/c mice
at 48 h after systemic injection of lPEI-g-PEG5H/DNA
nanoparticles prepared with or without RYVVLPR cell adhesion peptide
and in vivo jetPEI/DNA nanoparticles. Green lines show the normal
ranges of AST and ALT enzymes in rats. Each bar represents mean ±
standard deviation (n = 4 per group). (C–E)
H&E staining of liver tissue comparing untreated controls to those
treated with jetPEI/DNA control nanoparticles and RYVVLPR-conjugated
lPEI-g-PEG5H/DNA nanoparticles. Scale bar represents
100 μm.
lPEI-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticles with short PEG5H
grafts show reduced toxicity in vivo. (A, B) Liver enzyme activities
analyzed by measuring serum AST (A) and ALT (B) levels in Balb/c mice
at 48 h after systemic injection of lPEI-g-PEG5H/DNA
nanoparticles prepared with or without RYVVLPR cell adhesion peptide
and in vivo jetPEI/DNA nanoparticles. Green lines show the normal
ranges of AST and ALT enzymes in rats. Each bar represents mean ±
standard deviation (n = 4 per group). (C–E)
H&E staining of liver tissue comparing untreated controls to those
treated with jetPEI/DNA control nanoparticles and RYVVLPR-conjugated
lPEI-g-PEG5H/DNA nanoparticles. Scale bar represents
100 μm.
Conclusions
In
this study, we have demonstrated the importance of short PEG
grafts (MW < 1 kDa) for achieving balanced colloidal stability,
shape control, and gene transfection efficiency when engineering DNA
compacting micellar nanoparticles for systemic delivery. The PEG grafts
with MW as low as 500–700 Da (equivalent to an average degree
of polymerization of 11.4–16) was effective in conferring shape
control ability by varying PEG grafting degree and increasing nanoparticle
stability in salt and serum-containing media, displaying reduced surface
charges and significantly reduced aggregation, compared to lPEI/DNA
control particles. Importantly, short PEG grafts yielded high transfection
efficiency for these lPEI-g-PEG/DNA micellar nanoparticles
with lower in vivo toxicity. Finally, the short PEG grafts were also
crucial to realizing the ligand-enhanced transfection activity for
these micellar nanoparticles. Highlighting the utility and potential
therapeutic application of this system, ligand conjugation significantly
enhanced lPEI-g-PEG/DNA nanoparticle efficiency in
a metastatic prostate cancer model only when the short PEG grafts
were used as a spacer for ligand conjugation. Taken together, we have
identified optimal PEG graft length and terminal groups for lPEI-g-PEG/DNA micellar nanoparticles to achieve shape control,
high colloidal stability, and high transfection efficiency for in
vivo gene delivery applications.
Authors: Yan Geng; Paul Dalhaimer; Shenshen Cai; Richard Tsai; Manorama Tewari; Tamara Minko; Dennis E Discher Journal: Nat Nanotechnol Date: 2007-03-25 Impact factor: 39.213
Authors: Stephanie E A Gratton; Patricia A Ropp; Patrick D Pohlhaus; J Christopher Luft; Victoria J Madden; Mary E Napier; Joseph M DeSimone Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-08-12 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Il Minn; Amnon Bar-Shir; Keerthi Yarlagadda; Jeff W M Bulte; Paul B Fisher; Hao Wang; Assaf A Gilad; Martin G Pomper Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-04-27 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Tamara E King; Sangita C Pawar; Lisa Majuta; Isis C Sroka; Danyel Wynn; Manolis C Demetriou; Raymond B Nagle; Frank Porreca; Anne E Cress Journal: PLoS One Date: 2008-10-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Yizong Hu; Zhiyu He; Yue Hao; Like Gong; Marion Pang; Gregory P Howard; Hye-Hyun Ahn; Mary Brummet; Kuntao Chen; Heng-Wen Liu; Xiyu Ke; Jinchang Zhu; Caleb F Anderson; Honggang Cui; Christopher G Ullman; Christine A Carrington; Martin G Pomper; Jung-Hee Seo; Rajat Mittal; Il Minn; Hai-Quan Mao Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Molly K Grun; Alexandra Suberi; Kwangsoo Shin; Teresa Lee; Victoria Gomerdinger; Zoe M Moscato; Alexandra S Piotrowski-Daspit; W Mark Saltzman Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 15.304