| Literature DB >> 29038584 |
Jyothi U Menon1,2, Aneetta Kuriakose1,2, Roshni Iyer1,2, Elizabeth Hernandez3, Leah Gandee3, Shanrong Zhang4, Masaya Takahashi4, Zhang Zhang5,6, Debabrata Saha7,8, Kytai T Nguyen9,10.
Abstract
Late-stage diagnosis of lung cancer occurs ~95% of the time due to late manifestation of its symptoms, necessitating rigorous treatment following diagnosis. Existing treatment methods are limited by lack of specificity, systemic toxicity, temporary remission, and radio-resistance in lung cancer cells. In this research, we have developed a folate receptor-targeting multifunctional dual drug-loaded nanoparticle (MDNP) containing a poly(N-isopropylacrylamide)-carboxymethyl chitosan shell and poly lactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA) core for enhancing localized chemo-radiotherapy to effectively treat lung cancers. The formulation provided controlled releases of the encapsulated therapeutic compounds, NU7441 - a potent radiosensitizer, and gemcitabine - an FDA approved chemotherapeutic drug for lung cancer chemo-radiotherapy. The MDNPs showed biphasic NU7441 release and pH-dependent release of gemcitabine. These nanoparticles also demonstrated good stability, excellent hemocompatibility, outstanding in vitro cytocompatibility with alveolar Type I cells, and dose-dependent caveolae-mediated in vitro uptake by lung cancer cells. In addition, they could be encapsulated with superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) nanoparticles and visualized by MRI in vivo. Preliminary in vivo results demonstrated the low toxicity of these particles and their use in chemo-radiotherapy to effectively reduce lung tumors. These results indicate that MDNPs can potentially be used as nano-vehicles to provide simultaneous chemotherapy and radiation sensitization for lung cancer treatment.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29038584 PMCID: PMC5643549 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-13320-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Characterization of MDNPs. (A) TEM image of MDNPs showing smooth spherical morphology (250–280 nm). (B) Schematic representation of the stimuli-sensitive behavior of MDNPs and the structure of the PNIPAAm-CMC semi-IPN shell. (C) Controlled bi-phasic release of NU7441 was observed from the PLGA core at 37 °C. (D) Gemcitabine hydrochloride in the PNIPAAm-CMC shell showed pH-dependent release with the highest release at pH 6 and 37 °C (n = 4).
Figure 2In vitro testing studies of MDNPs. (A) Good MDNP cytocompatibility with HDFs and AT-1 cells up to 1 mg/ml concentration, demonstrated using MTS assays (n = 4, *p < 0.05 w.r.t cell viability at 0 µg/ml MDNP concentration). (B) In vitro MDNP uptake by A549 and H460 lung cancer cells was dependent on MDNP dose (n = 4, *p < 0.05). T = Tesla (C) Mechanism of uptake studies show a significant reduction in MDNP uptake in cells treated with filipin, an inhibitor of caveolae-mediated endocytosis (n = 4, *p < 0.05 w.r.t untreated control group). (D) Colony forming study indicates that empty MDNPs did not have significant effects on H460 and A549 cells. Drug-loaded MDNPs significantly reduced colony formation (n = 4, *p < 0.05 w.r.t controls at respective temperatures).
Figure 3Hemocompatibility of MDNPs. (A) Less than 2% hemolysis occurred at MDNP concentration of 500 µg/ml indicating that the particles are non-hemolytic. (B) Blood clotting on exposure to varying MDNP concentrations occurred at the same rate as the control (blood not exposed to MDNPs) (n = 9, *p < 0.05 w.r.t absorbance readings at 10 minutes).
Figure 4In vivo MRI potential of MDNPs. (A,B,C,D) MRI images of the tumors in the control group and the group treated with folic acid-conjugated MDNPs (FA-MDNPs) before and after injection of the respective solutions. A distinct darkening of the tumor was observed in the group treated with MDNPs post injection. (E) Significant T2 signal intensity drop was observed in the case of FA-MDNPs indicating greater negative contrast due to the presence of iron oxide in the tumor (n = 4). (F,G,H) Prussian blue staining on the tumors (10x magnification). More blue regions (arrows) seen in the FA-MDNPs group indicating presence of greater amount of iron oxide in the tumor.
Figure 5In vivo therapeutic efficacy of MDNPs. (A) Representative images showing the anesthesia set up for the in vivo studies and the set up for radiation treatment. The circled area shows the mouse under anesthesia inside the X-rad320 small animal irradiator. (B) Changes in tumor volume for each group as the percentage of the initial tumor volume mesured in the beginning of the treatment study. Tumor volumes on day 0 were assumed to be 100%. Significantly slower tumor growth rate was observed in the case of the ‘NU7441 + Gem + RT’ group and the ‘drug-loaded MDNPs + RT’ group compared to other treatment groups at days 6, 8, and 10 (n = 4, *p < 0.05 for ‘drug-loaded MDNPs + RT’ group compared to other treatment groups). (C) Ex vivo tumor volumes of the different treatment groups at day 12 showing much smaller tumor size of the ‘drug-loaded MDNPs + RT’ group compared to the other groups. (D) Representative images of tumors from the different treatment groups.
Figure 6Safety of MDNPs in vivo. Histopathological examination of rat tissues treated with non-drug loaded MDNPs 7 days after exposure. The photomicrographs do not reveal any evidence of toxicity from the nanoparticles and were observed to be similar to that of the saline group (n = 3, Scale = 100 µm).