| Literature DB >> 29528244 |
Rui Huang1,2, Jiawei Li1,2, Dereje Kebebe1,2,3, Yumei Wu1,2, Bing Zhang1,2, Zhidong Liu1,2.
Abstract
Tumor-targeted delivery is considered a crucial component of current anticancer drug development and is the best approach to increase the efficacy and reduce the toxicity. Nanomedicine, particularly ligand-based nanoparticles have shown a great potential for active targeting of tumor. Cell penetrating peptide is one of the promising ligands in a targeted cancer therapy. In this study, the gambogic acid-loaded nanostructured lipid carrier (GA-NLC) was modified with two kinds of cell penetrating peptides (cRGD and RGERPPR). The GA-NLC was prepared by emulsification and solvent evaporation method and coupled with cRGD, RGERPPR, and combination cRGD and RGERPPR to form GA-NLC-cRGD, GA-NLC-RGE, and GA-NLC-cRGD/RGE, respectively. The formulations were characterized by their particle size and morphology, zeta potential, encapsulation efficiency, and differential scanning calorimetry. In vitro cytotoxicity and cellular uptake study of the formulations were performed against breast cancer cell (MDA-MB-231). Furthermore, in vivo biodistribution and antitumor activity of the formulations were determined by in vivo imaging and in tumor-bearing nude mice, respectively. The result of in vitro cytotoxicity study showed that GA-NLC-RGE exhibited a significantly higher cytotoxicity on MDA-MB-231 as compared with GA-NLC and GA-Sol. Similarly, RGE-Cou-6-NLC showed remarkably higher uptake by the cells than other NLCs over the incubation period. The in vivo imaging study has demonstrated that among the formulations, the RGE-decorated DiR-NLC were more accumulated in the tumor site. The in vivo antitumor activity revealed that RGE-GA-NLC inhibits the tumor growth more efficiently than other formulations. In conclusion, RGERPPR has a potential as an effective carrier in targeting drug delivery of anticancer agents.Entities:
Keywords: Cancer; cell penetrating peptide; gambogic acid; nanostructured lipid carrier; tumor targeting
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29528244 PMCID: PMC6058566 DOI: 10.1080/10717544.2018.1446474
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Drug Deliv ISSN: 1071-7544 Impact factor: 6.419
Particle size, polydispersity index, zeta potential and entrapment efficiency of GA-NLC and CPP-modified GA-NLC.
| Groups | Particle size (nm) | PDI | Zeta potential (mV) | Entrapment efficiency (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GA-NLC | 20.96 ± 1.13 | 0.23 ± 0.08 | −5.86 ± 0.64 | 99.46 ± 0.43 |
| GA-NLC-RGE | 22.13 ± 0.79 | 0.19 ± 0.04 | −3.50 ± 2.01 | |
| GA-NLC-cRGD | 21.01 ± 0.54 | 0.20 ± 0.09 | −4.01 ± 0.67 | |
| GA-NLC-RGE/cRGD | 25.81 ± 0.66 | 0.24 ± 0.06 | −1.98 ± 1.01 |
GA: gambogic acid; NLC: nanostructured lipid carrier; CPP: cell penetrating peptide.
Figure 1.Cytotoxicity of GA-sol, GA-NLC, and peptide-modified GA-NLC in MDA-MB-231 cell.
Figure 2.(A) Fluorescence intensity of different Cou6-loaded formulation in MDA-MB-231 cells. (B) Cellular uptake of Cou-6 formulations at different time intervals. a: Cou-6-NLC-RGE, b: Cou-6-NLC-cRGD, c: Cou-6-NLC-RGE/cRGD, d: Cou-6-NLC and e: Cou-6-Sol.
Figure 3.The in vivo imaging of the nude mouse after administration of DiR-loaded formulations. A: DiR-NLC-RGE, B: DiR-NLC-cRGD, C: DiR-NLC-RGE/cRGD, D: DiR-NLC.
Figure 4.(A) Change in the volume of tumor over the course of treatment. (B) The volume of excised tumor tissue. A: Saline, B: cisplatin, C: GA-Sol, D: GA-NLC, E: GA-NLC-RGE, F: GA-NLC-cRGD and G: GA-NLC-RGE/cRGD.
Figure 5.HE staining of major organs and tumor tissue. (A) Saline, (B) cisplatin, (C) GA-Sol, (D) GA-NLC, (E) GA-NLC-RGE, (F) GA-NLC-cRGD and (G) GA-NLC-RGE/cRGD.