Two synthetic approaches that allow one to control PEG content within spherical nucleic acids (SNAs) have been developed. One approach begins with RNA-modified gold nanoparticles followed by a backfill of PEG 2K alkanethiols, and the other involves co-adsorption of the two entities on a gold nanoparticle template. These two methods have been used to explore the role of PEG density on the chemical and biological properties of RNA-SNAs. Such studies show that while increasing the extent of PEGylation within RNA-SNAs extends their blood circulation half-life in mice, it also results in decreased cellular uptake. Modified ELISA assays show that constructs, depending upon RNA and PEG content, have markedly different affinities for class A scavenger receptors, the entities responsible, in part, for cellular internalization of SNAs. In designing SNAs for therapeutic purposes, these competing factors must be considered and appropriately adjusted depending upon the desired use.
Two synthetic approaches that allow one to control PEG content within spherical nucleic acids (SNAs) have been developed. One approach begins with RNA-modified gold nanoparticles followed by a backfill of PEG 2K alkanethiols, and the other involves co-adsorption of the two entities on a gold nanoparticle template. These two methods have been used to explore the role of PEG density on the chemical and biological properties of RNA-SNAs. Such studies show that while increasing the extent of PEGylation within RNA-SNAs extends their blood circulation half-life in mice, it also results in decreased cellular uptake. Modified ELISA assays show that constructs, depending upon RNA and PEG content, have markedly different affinities for class A scavenger receptors, the entities responsible, in part, for cellular internalization of SNAs. In designing SNAs for therapeutic purposes, these competing factors must be considered and appropriately adjusted depending upon the desired use.
Spherical nucleic acids
(SNAs) are a unique class of nanoparticles
that typically consist of a dense layer of highly oriented oligonucleotides
surrounding a nanoparticle (NP) core,[1,2] and they exhibit
several properties that make them attractive for biological and medical
applications. In contrast with their linear counterparts, SNAs are
actively internalized by cells without the need for cytotoxic transfection
reagents.[3−5] This process is often mediated by class A scavenger
receptors[3,5] that have high affinities for SNAs but not
the particle-free sequences. These structure-dependent properties
have made SNAs promising single-entity agents for probing and regulating
cellular processes.[2,6−14] For example, RNA–SNAs are attractive agents for gene regulation
applications, in which the design of the nucleic acid sequence of
a SNA may be tailored to effect the knock-down of a genetic target.[6] Indeed, small interfering RNA (siRNA) SNAs have
been shown to penetrate the skin,[11,13] when topically
applied to mice, and cross the blood–brain barrier, when systemically
administered. In fact, they have become lead compounds for treating
diabetic wounds[11] and glioblastoma multiforme.[8]In addition to the nanoparticle core and
oligonucleotide components
that comprise the shell, RNA–SNAs typically include poly(ethylene
glycol) (PEG) molecules interspersed within the shell (Scheme ), which are intended to passivate
the NP surface and improve particle stability.[6] However, little is known about the effect of forming a mixed monolayer
consisting of both RNA and PEG on the chemical and biological properties
of SNAs. Indeed, PEG has been used as an agent to stabilize the RNA–SNAs
and to increase their circulation times, although in the latter case,
data has not yet been collected to evaluate the merit of such an approach.
To further complicate matters, it is conceivable that the addition
of PEG to the SNA could increase stability and circulation times but
adversely affect cellular uptake because it could block the receptors
that recognize the SNA and facilitate cellular internalization.
Scheme 1
Two Approaches to the Synthesis of RNA–SNAs, Which Consist
of a NP Core, Duplexed siRNA (Thiolated Sense RNA Shown in Blue and
Complementary Anti-Sense (AS) RNA Shown in Green), and a PEG-Thiol
Passivating Molecule
(A) In the backfill method
of synthesis, RNA is first adsorbed on the AuNP surface, and PEG is
added subsequently. (B) Alternatively, RNA and PEG may be co-adsorbed
to the AuNP.
Two Approaches to the Synthesis of RNA–SNAs, Which Consist
of a NP Core, Duplexed siRNA (Thiolated Sense RNA Shown in Blue and
Complementary Anti-Sense (AS) RNA Shown in Green), and a PEG-Thiol
Passivating Molecule
(A) In the backfill method
of synthesis, RNA is first adsorbed on the AuNP surface, and PEG is
added subsequently. (B) Alternatively, RNA and PEG may be co-adsorbed
to the AuNP.Herein, we evaluate methods for
synthesizing RNA–SNAs with
PEGas a stabilizing diluent. In general, two approaches are studied:
(1) RNA–SNAs are initially prepared, followed by backfilling
with PEG-alkanethiols (Scheme A); and (2) RNA duplexes, modified with alkanethiols and PEG-alkanethiols,
are co-adsorbed onto the surface of a gold nanoparticle (Scheme B). The latter method
has proven more efficient for preparing SNAs with more controllable
PEG contents, and it has become the primary synthetic method for systematically
controlling and studying RNA–SNA architecture and properties.
We used this method to systematically study how RNA and PEG-loading
affect uptake in C166 cells and circulation time in mice. This cell
type was chosen because it is one of the most widely studied, and
it has been the basis for the vast majority of SNA-based cellular
uptake mechanistic work. The data show that the two primary components
that define the RNA–SNA work against one another, and, depending
upon intended use, the relative amounts of each will need to be carefully
adjusted.
Results and Discussion
Synthesis of RNA–SNAs by Backfilling
with PEG
PEGylated RNA–SNAs were first synthesized
via the backfill
method (Scheme A)
using 2 kDa PEG thiol (PEG 2K) as a passivating molecule. This PEG
was chosen because it is large enough to protrude past the RNA duplexes
on the NP surface (16 nm for fully extended PEG 2K versus 8.3 nm for
the RNA duplex; see the Methods section in the Supporting Information for a more detailed discussion on the
determination of PEG and RNA length). A 200-fold excess of duplexed
siRNA was first added to an aqueous solution of 13 nm gold nanoparticles
(AuNPs), and after this mixture was incubated for 4 h to allow for
the adsorption of RNA onto the NP surface through the formation of
Au–S bonds, a 2000-fold excess of PEG 2K was added. The mixture
was then incubated for 12 h to passivate the NP surface. Interestingly,
the loading of RNA on the SNAs does not significantly change compared
to that of SNAs that were not backfilled with PEG following functionalization
with RNA (115 ± 5 sense RNA/NP, 43 ± 5 AS RNA/NP; 102 ±
8 sense RNA/NP, and 41 ± 2 AS RNA/NP, respectively), indicating
that despite dense functionalization of the NP surface with negatively
charged oligonucleotides, there is still significant room on the SNAs
to load smaller, neutral molecules without displacing RNA. Thus, following
a 12 h incubation with PEG 2K, PEG is loaded onto the RNA–SNAs
(5 ± 1 PEG molecules per NP), corresponding to an increase in
the hydrodynamic diameter from 34 ± 1 to 41 ± 1 nm due to
the persistence length of PEG 2K, which extends past the RNA duplexes
on the NP surface. In addition, a shift in the zeta potential from
−33 ± 1 to −29 ± 2 mV is observed due to the
shielding of the negatively charged RNA by neutral PEG molecules at
the outermost surface of the SNA (Figure B).
Figure 1
Effect of PEG 2K incubation time on the RNA
and PEG loading of
RNA–SNAs. (A) Antisense and sense RNA loading does not change
significantly with increasing incubation time with PEG 2K; however,
the loading of PEG does increase with longer incubation times. (B)
The increase in PEG loading corresponds to an increase in the hydrodynamic
diameter and the zeta potential of SNAs.
Effect of PEG 2K incubation time on the RNA
and PEG loading of
RNA–SNAs. (A) Antisense and sense RNA loading does not change
significantly with increasing incubation time with PEG 2K; however,
the loading of PEG does increase with longer incubation times. (B)
The increase in PEG loading corresponds to an increase in the hydrodynamic
diameter and the zeta potential of SNAs.To increase the loading of PEG on the RNA–SNAs, the
incubation
time was varied from 12 to 72 h, and the resulting SNAs were purified
and characterized. Correspondingly, an increase from 5 ± 1 to
12 ± 2 PEG molecules per NP was observed. Interestingly, however,
the RNA loading (both sense and antisense strands) remains relatively
constant, regardless of the duration of incubation of RNA–SNAs
with PEG (Figure A).
These changes in surface functionalization correlate with little change
in the hydrodynamic diameter, but there is a shift in zeta potential
from −29 ± 2 to −16 ± 1 mV for RNA–SNAs
backfilled with PEG 2K for 12 and 72 h, respectively (Figure B). Despite the increase in
PEG loading observed for longer PEG incubation times, the backfill
method of synthesis generates a relatively small range of RNA–SNAs
with respect to degrees of PEGylation. We hypothesize that by prefunctionalizing
SNAs with RNA, the limited availability of surface sites prevents
rapid adsorption of PEG onto the AuNP surface. To probe the relationships
between the PEGylation of RNA–SNAs and cellular uptake and
circulation half-life, we sought to synthesize SNAs with a larger
range of PEG loadings. Although this may be achieved via the backfill
method of synthesis by using an even greater excess of PEG or by further
increasing the incubation time with PEG, these approaches are not
desirable because they are inefficient in terms of materials use and
synthesis time. Thus, we sought to synthesize RNA–SNAs through
the coadsorption of RNA and PEG onto AuNPs, which we hypothesized
could be used to make a range of SNAs with varying PEG loadings by
changing the mole fraction of RNA and PEG present in solution.
Co-Adsorption
of RNA and PEG to AuNPs in SNA Synthesis
To synthesize SNAs
with a variety of RNA and PEG loadings, PEG 2K
and duplexed siRNA were incubated with 13 nm gold nanoparticles (AuNPs)
at different ratios (Figure A outlines nomenclature for the SNAs synthesized via this
method). As the mole fraction of [RNA]/[PEG] incubated with AuNPs
is increased, the number of sense RNA strands loaded per AuNP increases
(Figure B). Interestingly,
however, the antisense RNA loading is altered less-profoundly by the
increase in PEG content. Thus, for SNAs more-densely functionalized
with PEG, the percentage of sense RNA strands that are hybridized
to antisense RNA strands is greater than SNAs with little or no PEG.
In particular, on the SNA that we have labeled SNA 2-1 that was synthesized
with a mole ratio of [RNA]/[PEG] = 0.1 and that has 19 ± 2 PEG
2K/SNA, 37 ± 2 sense RNA/SNA, and 32 ± 2 antisense RNA/SNA,
∼80% of sense strands are hybridized to antisense RNA. In contrast,
on the SNA that we have labeled SNA 2-5 and that was synthesized with
a mole ratio of [RNA]/[PEG] = 100 and that has 4 ± 1 PEG 2K/SNA,
125 ± 3 sense RNA/SNA, and 43 ± 3 antisense RNA/SNA, ∼30%
of sense strands are hybridized to antisense RNA. This difference
is likely due to reduced electrostatic repulsion in SNA 2-1 compared
to that of SNAs with denser loading of negatively charged nucleic
acids on the NP surface and correlates well with similar results observed
for DNA-SNAs.[15] This result is important
because the functional moiety used to effect gene knockdown is the
siRNA duplex.[16] Thus, by coadsorbing RNA
and PEG to the NP surface, one may effectively tailor the extent of
PEGylation without significantly altering the loading of functional
siRNA duplexes on the SNA’s surface.
Figure 2
Co-adsorption of RNA
and PEG to AuNPs to synthesize RNA–SNAs
results in tunable RNA and PEG loading by varying the mole fraction
of RNA/PEG used. (A) Nomenclature for RNA–SNAs, (B) RNA and
PEG 2K loading, and (C) hydrodynamic diameter and zeta potential of
RNA–SNAs synthesized using this method.
Co-adsorption of RNA
and PEG to AuNPs to synthesize RNA–SNAs
results in tunable RNA and PEG loading by varying the mole fraction
of RNA/PEG used. (A) Nomenclature for RNA–SNAs, (B) RNA and
PEG 2K loading, and (C) hydrodynamic diameter and zeta potential of
RNA–SNAs synthesized using this method.In addition, by coadsorbing RNA and PEG to AuNPs, a larger
range
of RNA–SNAPEG loadings was obtained than for the backfill
method of synthesis. For example, SNA 2-1, the SNA with the lowest
RNA loading and highest PEG 2K loading studied, has ∼60% more
PEG 2K molecules per SNA than SNAs synthesized by backfilling with
PEG 2K for 72 h. Collectively, these results show that the PEG content
of RNA–SNAs synthesized via the coadsorption method is inversely
related to the sense RNA loading. This may be the result of multiple
factors: (1) the NP surface is more readily available for PEG 2K to
bind because it has not been prefunctionalized with RNA, and (2) PEG
2K, which is lower in molecular weight than the RNA, may adsorb to
the NP surface more rapidly.To further understand the structure
of the RNA–SNAs synthesized
by coadsorption of RNA and PEG to AuNPs, the hydrodynamic diameters
and zeta potentials of the SNAs were measured (Figure C). The sample of particles named NP 2-0,
which is functionalized with PEG 2K only, is significantly smaller
in size than the RNA–SNAs. This indicates that the PEG 2K on
the NP surface is not fully extended when RNA is not present on the
NP surface and that the presence of RNA on the NP surface facilitates
the extension of PEG 2K to adopt a more linear conformation. When
the RNA density is high enough (SNAs 2-4 and 2-5), the PEG 2K protrudes
past the RNA surface, and the hydrodynamic diameter increases beyond
the diameter of SNA 2-6 (40 ± 2 and 43 ± 3 nm for SNA 2-4
and SNA 2-5, respectively, versus 33 ± 1 nm for SNA-2-6), which
is functionalized with RNA only. This correlates with the observation
that the hydrodynamic diameter of SNAs backfilled with PEG 2K increases
with longer incubation times because the dense loading of RNA on the
NP surface remains relatively constant. In addition, the change in
size with increasing RNA loading corresponds with increasingly negative
surface potential. Due to the negative charge of the oligonucleotides,
the zeta potential of the NPs approaches that of SNA 2-6, which consists
of RNA only (−35 ± 2 mV), with increasing RNA loading.
These results provide insight into the complicated structure of PEGylated
RNA–SNAs. In particular, depending upon the extent of PEGylation,
the RNA that is presented on the SNAs is shielded by PEG molecules,
which extend past the RNA duplexes and alter the properties of the
NP surface that is presented to proteins and cells in biological systems.
This indicates that the extent of PEGylation of RNA–SNAs may
impact their interactions with cell surface and serum proteins, an
implication that must be considered in the design of therapeutic RNA–SNAs.
Effects of RNA and PEG Content on the Cellular Uptake of RNA–SNAs
The effects of RNA and PEG loading on the cellular uptake of RNA–SNAs
was then studied within the context of their recognition by class
A scavenger receptors, which are known to facilitate their uptake
by a variety of cell types.[3] Previous work
has shown that PEG-NPs exhibit almost no measurable binding to class
A scavenger receptors[3] because they are
not recognized by the protein. Thus, it was hypothesized that RNA–SNAs
with higher PEG loading and lower RNA loading would suffer from poorer
uptake into certain cell types due to decreased recognition by class
A scavenger receptors. To probe this hypothesis, we conducted a modified
ELISA assay to measure the relative affinity of RNA–SNAs for
class A scavenger receptors (Figure A), where wells were coated with protein and treated
with increasing concentrations of NPs and the amounts of the NPs that
bound the protein in each well were quantified using inductively coupled
plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Correlating with previous studies,
NP 2-0 (which consists only of PEG 2K on its NP core) has a relatively
low affinity for class A scavenger receptors, as evidenced by the
minimal binding of NP 2-0 to the protein in this assay. On the basis
of the results from previous studies that showed that class A scavenger
receptors recognize the nucleobases of oligonucleotides,[17] we hypothesized that the affinity of the protein
for RNA–SNAs would increase with increasing RNA loading. As
expected, more NPs bind class A scavenger receptors as RNA loading
increases and PEG loading decreases (∼150 times more SNA 2-6
than NP 2-0 bound per well treated with 100 nM NP) due to the increased
recognition of the RNA shell by the protein.
Figure 3
Effects of RNA and PEG
content on the recognition of RNA–SNAs
by cell surface receptors. (A) A modified ELISA assay measuring the
relative affinity of class A scavenger receptors for RNA–SNAs
with varying PEG content. (B) ICP-MS determination of RNA–SNA
uptake by C166 cells.
Effects of RNA and PEG
content on the recognition of RNA–SNAs
by cell surface receptors. (A) A modified ELISA assay measuring the
relative affinity of class A scavenger receptors for RNA–SNAs
with varying PEG content. (B) ICP-MS determination of RNA–SNA
uptake by C166 cells.On the basis of these results, we hypothesized that the RNA
and
PEG content of RNA–SNAs would impact their uptake into C166mouse endothelial cells, which have been widely used to study the
mechanism of uptake of SNAs.[3] C166 cells
were treated with RNA–SNAs functionalized with increasing amounts
of PEG 2K, and their uptake was measured using ICP-MS to quantify
the Au content in cells (Figure B). The results show that corresponding to their relative
affinities for class A scavenger receptors, the uptake of RNA–SNAs
into C166 cells is dependent upon both their RNA and PEG content,
where SNAs containing more RNA are taken up into C166 cells to a greater
extent than SNAs that contain less RNA and more PEG. This correlates
well with previous work that has shown a decrease in cellular uptake
of SNAs with lower oligonucleotide density[4] and the relative lack of affinity for PEG-NPs by class A scavenger
receptors.[3] Taken together, these results
indicate that the RNA and PEG components of the SNA inversely affect
recognition by cell surface receptors and may be used to modulate
the cellular uptake of SNAs.
Effects of RNA and PEG Content on the Circulation
Half-Life
of RNA–SNAs in Mice
The uptake of SNAs into cells
via recognition by cell surface receptors is only one of many SNA-protein
interactions that affect SNA function. In addition, the recognition
of SNAs by serum proteins and the subsequent recognition by macrophages[18] are important processes that can result in the
clearance of NPs from the bloodstream upon sequestration by macrophage-rich
tissues, such as the liver and spleen.[19−29] PEG has been used widely to minimize the adsorption of serum proteins
to NP surfaces and extend their circulation half-lives in animal models.[21−23,29−33] To study the effects of RNA and PEG loading on the
adsorption of serum proteins on RNA–SNAs, we incubated SNAs
containing increasing amounts of PEG 2K in 10% fetal bovine serum
for 0–4 h at physiological temperature (37 °C) and measured
the amount of protein adsorbed to the NP surface qualitatively using
dynamic light scattering (DLS) (Figure S1), and quantitatively using a bicinchoninic acid (BCA) assay (Figure A). The DLS and BCA
results show that, indeed, SNAs with increasing PEG content and decreasing
RNA content adsorb less serum protein than SNAs with little or no
PEG.
Figure 4
Effect of RNA and PEG content on the blood circulation time of
RNA–SNAs in mice. (A) Increasing PEG content on RNA–SNAs
minimizes the adsorption of serum proteins. (B) Circulation of PEGylated
RNA–SNAs in mice is extended by increasing PEG loading. Inset
shows data plotted on a log scale to highlight the differences in
SNA content in the blood at earlier time points.
Effect of RNA and PEG content on the blood circulation time of
RNA–SNAs in mice. (A) Increasing PEG content on RNA–SNAs
minimizes the adsorption of serum proteins. (B) Circulation of PEGylated
RNA–SNAs in mice is extended by increasing PEG loading. Inset
shows data plotted on a log scale to highlight the differences in
SNA content in the blood at earlier time points.To study the effect of PEG loading and serum protein adsorption
on the blood circulation half-life of RNA–SNAs, two SNAs (one
with high RNA loading but low PEG loading, SNA 2-5; and one with low
RNA loading but high PEG loading, SNA 2-1) were injected into mice
intravenously via the tail vein. Blood samples were collected at various
time points following the injection, and the samples were analyzed
for Au content by ICP-MS (Figure B). The results indicate that SNA 2-5 is cleared from
the blood more rapidly and has about a 10 times shorter circulation
half-life than SNA 2-1 (∼1 min for SNA 2-5 and ∼10 min
for SNA 2-1). Though the exact mechanism responsible for the decreased
clearance of SNA 2-1 observed is not known, we hypothesize that SNAs
designed for intravenous use may benefit from dense PEGylation because
this would extend their circulation time in the bloodstream and could
lead to enhanced accumulation in the targeted tissue. This may be
of importance when designing SNAs to target cancer, where leaky vasculature
often results in higher accumulation of NPs in tumor tissue through
the enhanced permeability and retention effect,[34,35] and NPs with long circulation half-lives exhibit higher accumulation
in tumor tissue.[36−39]
Conclusions
This work establishes the role of PEG in
the design and synthesis
of efficacious RNA–SNAs. In particular, SNA synthesis parameters,
including incubation time and order of addition of PEG, are presented
as a means to tune the extent of SNAPEG content. The addition of
PEGas a “backfill” molecule to RNA-functionalized AuNPs
was shown to have little effect on the RNA loading, indicating that
despite dense functionalization with negatively charged oligonucleotides,
there is significant room to add neutral molecules to the NP surface.
To further increase the density of PEG on the SNA surface, one may
choose to co-adsorb RNA and PEG onto the AuNP surface, which enables
facile tuning of the loading of RNA and PEG on SNAs by varying the
mole fraction of each component. Doing so at high ratios of PEG to
RNA enables one to load more PEG than is possible by “backfilling”
RNA–SNAs with PEG by reducing the number of sense RNA strands
loaded on the NP while maintaining a roughly constant loading of AS
RNA.In addition, the effect of PEG content on the biological
fate of
RNA–SNAs was established. While increased PEG loading reduces
the formation of the SNA protein corona, thereby enhancing the blood
circulation half-life, SNAs with high densities of PEG also exhibit
reduced cellular uptake in other cell lines, most likely due to decreased
interactions with class A scavenger receptors. While PEG may be used
to modulate the interactions of SNAs with biological entities, including
cell surface receptors and serum proteins, the optimal extent of PEG
content will depend upon each application. For example, a SNA intended
for topical application to the skin may not benefit from dense PEG
loading as much as an SNA that requires intravenous delivery. Contrary
to the conventional thought that one must densely PEGylate a nanoparticle
for optimal function in vivo, in the case of SNAs, doing so could
compromise function by sacrificing the high cellular uptake that is
typically afforded by the SNA’s architecture and dense oligonucleotide
shell. Ultimately, it will be important to identify the ideal amount
of PEG needed for SNAs for each specific application with the understanding
that there is an inverse relationship between circulation time and
cellular uptake that must be considered. A SNA architecture with an
exposed PEG shell that enables longer circulation times but is shed
by an external stimulus upon
reaching target tissue to expose the oligonucleotide layer and facilitate
cellular uptake may be valuable for mitigating these competing effects.
Authors: Tommy Cedervall; Iseult Lynch; Stina Lindman; Tord Berggård; Eva Thulin; Hanna Nilsson; Kenneth A Dawson; Sara Linse Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2007-01-31 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Dwight S Seferos; David A Giljohann; Haley D Hill; Andrew E Prigodich; Chad A Mirkin Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2007-11-23 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Tommy Cedervall; Iseult Lynch; Martina Foy; Tord Berggård; Seamas C Donnelly; Gerard Cagney; Sara Linse; Kenneth A Dawson Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2007 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Pratik S Randeria; Mark A Seeger; Xiao-Qi Wang; Heather Wilson; Desmond Shipp; Chad A Mirkin; Amy S Paller Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-04-20 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Pratik S Randeria; Matthew R Jones; Kevin L Kohlstedt; Resham J Banga; Monica Olvera de la Cruz; George C Schatz; Chad A Mirkin Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Suguna P Narayan; Chung Hang J Choi; Liangliang Hao; Colin M Calabrese; Evelyn Auyeung; Chuan Zhang; Olga J G M Goor; Chad A Mirkin Journal: Small Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 13.281
Authors: Alexander Roloff; David A Nelles; Matthew P Thompson; Gene W Yeo; Nathan C Gianneschi Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2017-12-29 Impact factor: 4.774