| Literature DB >> 27485348 |
Lifeng Wang1, Haijin Chen1, Jinlong Yu2, Xiaohua Lin1, Jia Qi1, Chunhui Cui1, Lang Xie1, Shuxin Huang3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cell-penetrating peptides (CPPs) are a research hotspot due to their noninvasive delivery ability. Among the identified CPPs, the TAT and R8 peptides have been preferentially applied to transduction into different cells. However, this process is nonselective among various cells. Recent research suggested that CPP2 could selectively penetrate human colorectal cancer (CRC) cells.Entities:
Keywords: CPP2; Cell-penetrating peptides; Colon cancer; Molecular therapy; Targeting delivery
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27485348 PMCID: PMC4969710 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-016-2498-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1a Fluorescence images of three representative cell-penetrating peptides (CPPs) in the different cell lines. Scale bar, 10 μm (amplification factor, ×200). b Comparisons of the positive rates of the cell lines showed that CPP2, a colon cancer line–homing peptide, had a higher mean positive rate than that of R8 or TAT (p < 0.05). aSignificantly different from CPP2 (p ≤ 0.05); bsignificantly different from R8 (p ≤ 0.05). c Statistical analysis showed that CPP2 had higher mean fluorescence intensity than both R8 (p < 0.05) and TAT (p < 0.05) in LoVo, SW480, and HCT116 cells. Comparisons of CPP2 vs R8 and CPP2 vs TAT showed no statistical significance in HL-7702 cells (p > 0.05). aSignificantly different from CPP2 (p ≤ 0.05); bsignificantly different from R8 (p ≤ 0.05)
Fig. 2In vitro anti-tumor activity test of cell-penetrating peptide 2 (CPP2)-fusion peptide. a The percentage of dead cells in each cell line was calculated after treatment with four different agents 24 h after administration. aSignificantly different from CPP2 (p ≤ 0.05); bsignificantly different from R8 (p ≤ 0.05); and csignificantly different from p16MIS (p ≤ 0.05). b The percentage of dead cells in each cell line was calculated after treatment with four different agents 48 h after administration. aSignificantly different from CPP2 (p ≤ 0.05); bsignificantly different from R8 (p ≤ 0.05); and csignificantly different from p16MIS (p ≤ 0.05)
Fig. 3a In vivo fluorescence imaging of three representative cell-penetrating peptides (CPPs) and phosphate-buffered saline are displayed by tumor cell line 3 h after the injection of 300 μg of CPPs into nude mice. The tumor mass (red arrow) demonstrated that CPP2 had high selectivity for colorectal cancer cells. R8 and TAT were employed here as representative non-selectively permeable CPP. Green on black and rainbow were the two different capture modes. In the rainbow mode, signal intensity here also meant fluorescence intensity, which was reflected by diverse colors: red > orange > yellow > green > blue (pictured at right). b The tumor mass and organs were excised 3 h after the intraperitoneal injection of the CPPs. The heart, liver, and spleen are arranged in the first row, the lungs, kidneys, and tumor mass are shown in the second row, and a part of the small intestine is shown in the last row. Fluorescence imaging of a variety of organs further verified the in vivo imaging results
Fig. 4a Tumor growth curve in each group. Tumor volumes were calculated using the equation V (mm3) = A × B2/2, where A is the largest diameter, and B is the shortest axis. b Survival analysis results. CPP2-p16MIS had a significantly longer survival time than PBS-treated mice or those treated with control peptides (both CPP2 and p16MIS)