| Literature DB >> 30896267 |
Ionut Cristian Radu1, Ariana Hudita2, Catalin Zaharia1, Bianca Galateanu2, Horia Iovu1, Eugenia Vasile Tanasa3, Sabina Georgiana Nitu4, Octav Ginghina5,6, Carolina Negrei7, Aristidis Tsatsakis8, Kelly Velonia9, Mikhail Shtilman10, Marieta Costache2.
Abstract
Aiming to address the issue of poor bioavailability of most anti-tumor medicines against colorectal cancer, we developed a targeted anticancer nanocarrier using biocarriers able to both bind and easily release their load in a controlled manner. Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) carriers were obtained via the emulsification-diffusion method, loaded with 5-fluorouracil and then characterized in terms of particle morphology and size (SEM, DLS), drug uptake and release. The cytotoxic potential of the 5-fluorouracil-loaded polymer nanocarriers on human adenocarcinoma cells (HT-29 cell line) was investigated. The in vitro studies clearly demonstrated that while the nanocarriers themselves slightly alter HT-29 cell viability, when loaded with 5-fluorouracil they significantly decrease cell viability, suggesting that the polymer itself exhibits low cytotoxicity and the drug-loaded carrier acts in an efficient manner to kill HT-29 human adenocarcinoma cells.Entities:
Keywords: 5-FU; HT-29; Nanocarrier; anticancer efficacy; colorectal cancer; polyhydroxyalkanoate
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30896267 PMCID: PMC6442118 DOI: 10.1080/10717544.2019.1582729
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Drug Deliv ISSN: 1071-7544 Impact factor: 6.419
Figure 1.Set-up used for the preparation of particles via the emulsion-diffusion method.
Figure 2.SEM micrographs of the PHBHV particles prepared under different experimental conditions.
Figure 3.(A) Size distribution by DLS for the 2% unloaded PHBHV nanoparticles; (B) Zeta potential for the 2% unloaded PHBHV particles.
Figure 4.In vitro release profile of 5-fluorouracil from drug loaded 2% PHBHV nanocarriers.
Figure 5.Graphical representation of MTT viability data (*p < .05 5-FU loaded PHBHV nanoparticles vs. untreated sample after 2 h; @p < .05 unloaded PHBHV particles vs. untreated sample after 6 h; @@@p < .001 5-FU vs. untreated sample after 6 h; @@@@p < .0001 5-FU loaded PHBHV nanoparticles vs. untreated sample after 6 h; ###p < 0.001 5-FU vs. untreated sample after 24 h; ####p < .0001 5-FU loaded PHBHV nanoparticles vs. untreated sample after 24 h.
Figure 6.Graphical representation of LDH cytotoxicity data (@@p < .001 5-FU vs. untreated sample after 6 h; @@@@p < .0001 5-FU loaded PHBHV nanoparticles vs. untreated sample after 6 h; ####p < .0001 5- FU vs. untreated sample after 24 h; ####p < .0001 5-FU loaded PHBHV nanoparticles vs. untreated sample after 24 h.