| Literature DB >> 28793448 |
Nahid Mehraban1, Harold S Freeman2.
Abstract
Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a minimally-invasive procedure that has been clinically approved for treating certain types of cancers. This procedure takes advantage of the cytotoxic activity of singlet oxygen (¹O₂) and other reactive oxygen species (ROS) produced by visible and NIR light irradiation of dye sensitizers following their accumulation in malignant cells. The main two concerns associated with certain clinically-used PDT sensitizers that have been influencing research in this arena are low selectivity toward malignant cells and low levels of ¹O₂ production in aqueous media. Solving the selectivity issue would compensate for photosensitizer concerns such as dark toxicity and aggregation in aqueous media. One main approach to enhancing dye selectivity involves taking advantage of key methods used in pharmaceutical drug delivery. This approach lies at the heart of the recent developments in PDT research and is a point of emphasis in the present review. Of particular interest has been the development of polymeric micelles as nanoparticles for delivering hydrophobic (lipophilic) and amphiphilic photosensitizers to the target cells. This review also covers methods employed to increase ¹O₂ production efficiency, including the design of two-photon absorbing sensitizers and triplet forming cyclometalated Ir(III) complexes.Entities:
Keywords: amphiphilic; drug delivery; nanoparticles; photodynamic therapy; photosensitizer; polymeric micelles; singlet oxygen production; triplet photosensitizer; tumor selectivity
Year: 2015 PMID: 28793448 PMCID: PMC5455656 DOI: 10.3390/ma8074421
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Examples of porphyrin (1–4) and non-porphyrin (5–9) PSs.
Figure 2Formation of PDT reactive species through type I and type II photochemistry (modified from [12]).
Figure 3Illustration of the therapeutic window for PDT treatment.
Examples of PSs targeting lysosome and mitochondria.
| Photosensitizer Type | Sub-Cellular Localization | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Lysosome | [ | |
| (Benzoporphyrin derivative) (BPD) | Mitochondria | [ |
| 5-Ethylamino-9-diethylaminobenzo [a]phenothiazinium chloride (EtBNS) | Lysosome | [ |
| Galactose conjugate of 3-(1-hexyloxyethyl)-3- devinyl pyropeophorbide-a (HPPHgal) | Lysosome | [ |
| Porphyrin-rhodamine B cation | Mitochondria | [ |
| Porphyrin-mono-triphenyl phoosphonium cation | Mitochondria | [ |
| Triphenylphosphonium (TPP) cation | Mitochondria | [ |
| (E)- | Mitochondria | [ |
Figure 4Structure of Zn(II) N-alkylpyridylporphyrins designed for mitochondria targeting.
Figure 5Examples of pH responsive Ir(III) complexes.
Figure 6Examples of nanoparticle structures developed for PDT treatments.
Figure 7Schematic representation for spherical polymeric micelle formation via different methods. Co-solvent evaporation [68], dialysis [69], oil/water emulsion.
Figure 8Examples of tri-block copolymers used to form polymeric micelles.
Figure 9Structure of PEG-b-PCL.
Figure 10Structure of a surfactant-like tetra-tail amphiphilic peptide.
Figure 11Conjugation of protoporphyrin IX to PEG-PLA.
Figure 12A pH sensitive MPEG poly(β-amino ester) structure for micelle formation.
Examples of polymeric micelles/micelles tested in vitro and in vivo for PDT.
| Strategy for Targeting & Drug Release | Sensitizer | Polymer/Monomer | Loaded Particle Size (nm) | Ref. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Silicon phthalocyanine | PEG-PCL-GE11 Peptide (YHWYGYTPQNVI) | Human epidermoid carcinoma and head & neck cancer | [ | ||
| THPC | Poly (2-ethyl-2-oxazoline)- | 103.8 | [ | ||
| Porphyrin (conjugated to polymer) | APP-PAEMA_PCL Gal-APP-PAEMA-PCL | 60 | Human laryngeal carcinoma (HEp2); Human hepatocellular liver carcinoma (HepG2) | [ | |
| Doxorubicin (DOX) | Star shaped poly(L-lysine) dendrons porphyrin polymer (PP-PLLD) | 150–192.5 | Human nasopharyngeal carcinoma (CNE2) | [ | |
| Paclitaxel Synthetic chlorin | Star-shaped di-block copolymer (CSBC-58) | 103.2 | Breast cancer (MCF7) | [ | |
| Pheophorbide a (phA) & β-carotene(CAR) | Poly(ethylene glycol)-b-poly(caprolactone) PEG-b-PCL | 100 | Human breast and cervical cancer cell line | [ | |
| Chlorin e6 | Poly(ethylene glycol)- b-poly(l-aspartic acid)-b-poly(l-phenylalanine) (PEG-PAsp-PPhe) | 74.6 | [ | ||
| Chlorinated core star shape block copolymer (CSBC) | 115.7–163.7 | Human colon cancer (HT-29); | [ | ||
| IR825 Chlorin e6 | C18PMH-PEG-Ce6-Gd | 100–200 | [ | ||
| Dendrimer phthalocyanine DPc | DPc + (PEG-PLL) → (DPc/m) | 50 | A549 cells in mice | [ | |
| Hypericin | DSPE-mPEG2000 micelle | 12 | Malignant brain tumor (MBTs) | [ | |
| Enzyme control release (in presence of | THPP | Ethyl cellulose-graft-poly(ε-Caprolactone) and alpha cyclodextrin → EC-g-PCL and α-CD | 205 | 85% THPP release in 6 h; MCF-7 | [ |
| PpIX | MPEG-Poly(β-amino ester) block copolymer (PpIx-pH-PMs) | 122 | [ | ||
| Pheophorbide | PEO750-b-PCL5 polymer | 20 | Human breast cell line (MCF-7) | [ | |
| Porphyrazine | Polybutadiene-block-poly(1-ethyl-2-vinyl pyridinium methyl sulfate)-block-poly(methacrylic acid) (BVqMAA) triblock terpolymers | 256 | [ | ||
| Chlorin e6/Fe3O4 | Multimeric grain-marked micelles with Fe3O4 inner core and outer multi grain micelle PLLA-b-PEG-Ma | 98 | KB tumor-bearing nude mice | [ | |
| PpIX | PEG-PLA | 30 | H2009 lung cancer cells | [ | |
| Polymer degrades at site of action due to presence of lipase | mPEG750-b-oligo(ɛ-caprolactone)5 (mPEG750-b-OCL5) with a hydroxyl, benzoyl or naphthoyl end group | [ | |||
| Study the effect of the length of hydrophobic units, PPO, on phototoxicity and solubility | ZnPc | Poloxamine polymers: T304 (15-PEO unit, 17.1-PPOunit) T904 (60.9-PEO unit, 69.3-PPO unit) T1107 (238.6-PEO unit, 77.6-PPO unit) T1307 (286.4-PEO unit, 93.1-PPO unit) | 2.7 4.9 13.9 47.6 | KB cells; Increase in phototoxicity and ZnPc solubility by increasing PPO unit | [ |
| Xanthene dye erythrosine B (ERY) | CTAB (cationic) micelle SDS (anionic) micelle | logP of 0.46 (hydrophilic dye) | [ | ||
| Tri-block copolymer | Gn-DPcZn | Polyion micelle; Amphiphilic triblock copolymer; PLL-b-PEG-b-PLL | High stability | [ | |
| Pheophorbide | PEO(2000)-b-PCL(2800) PEO(5000)-b-PCL(4000) PEO(2400)-b-PDLLA(2000) PEO(3100)-b-PS(2300) | 20–30 | HCT-116 human colorectal carcinoma | [ |
Figure 13Examples of structural units reported in Table 2.
Figure 14A dendrimer-based phthalocyanine structure for sensitizer delivery.
Figure 15Eosin and dibromorhodamine structures containing heavy atoms.
Figure 16Halogenated Zn-Pc structures for enhanced 1O2 formation efficiency.
Figure 17Properties of N-confused porphyrin (H2N2CP) with, and without, metal atoms.
Figure 18Pd- and Pt-complexed 5,10,15,20-tetrakis (pentafluorophenyl) porphyrin structures.
Figure 19A Mg tetrabenzoporphyrin having high 1O2 quantum efficiency.
Figure 20Modification of the squaraine system to increase 1O2 quantum efficiency.
Figure 211O2 quantum efficiency values for various tetraphenylporphyrins.
Figure 22Brominated porphycene macrocycles and their 1O2 quantum efficiency.
Figure 23Iodinated squaraine giving enhanced 1O2 quantum efficiency.
Figure 24Poly(amidoamine) Ir(III) complex as a new 1O2 sensitizer.
Figure 25Ir(III) PEG complexes as new 1O2 sensitizer.
Figure 26A light harvesting dendrimer having fluorescence resonance energy transfer.
Figure 27Structure of [Ru(LP1)3][PF6]2.
Figure 28Structure of cyclometalated Ir(III) complex.
Figure 29Example of resonance energy transfer (RET) and ISC for a BODIPY/aza-BODIPY based PS.
Figure 30Energy level diagram showing Ru(II) complex having a light-harvesting coumarin ligand.
Figure 31Example Ru(II) based phen complexes having close 3MLCT and 3IL states.
Figure 32Energy diagram for a Ru(II) complex having BODIPY as a visible light harvesting ligand, showing energy transfer is unlikely.