| Literature DB >> 32120819 |
Amlan Chakraborty1,2, Simon G Royce2, Cordelia Selomulya1,3, Magdalena Plebanski4.
Abstract
Despite developments in pulmonary radiotherapy, radiation-induced lung toxicity remains a problem. More senEntities:
Keywords: Magnetic Resonance Imaging; cellular uptake; nanoparticles; pulmonary delivery; theranostic
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32120819 PMCID: PMC7084491 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21051613
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Synthesis and characterization of Glycine coated Super-Paramagnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles (GSPIONs). (A) GSPIONs are synthesized using alkaline co-precipitation followed by glycine addition in a single reaction vessel under inert atmosphere of N2 where glycine is chemisorbed into nanoparticle surface. (B) Dynamic light scattering (DLS) to determine hydrodynamic diameter of nanoparticles (intensity vs. size distribution plot) showing a mean diameter of 84.19 nm with a poly-dispersity index of 0.259. Three out of eight representative experimental data is shown. (C) HR-TEM images of GSPIONs (i) showing high dispersion and less clusters (scale bar 10 nm); (ii) showing cubic nanoparticles of average size 11.2 nm (scale bar 2 nm) and (inset) SAED pattern showing electron diffraction due to different lattice planes, demonstrating crystallinity of the GSPIONs. (D) XRD spectra of GSPIONs showing eight characteristic peaks and two signature peaks at (620), (533) corresponding to maghemite (γ-Fe2O3); (E) FTIR spectra of glycine alone (showing Vs and Vas COO− bands) shown with red circles and GSPIONs with corresponding functional groups shown in red circles between wave number 450–4000 cm−1; (F) Field dependent magnetization plots of pure iron oxide nanoparticles and GSPIONs at 300 K showing superparamagnetic behavior.
C, H, N analysis to determine glycine coating on nanoparticle surface.
| Name | %N | %C | %H |
|---|---|---|---|
| Glycine coated SPION | 19.10 | 33.15 | 6.94 |
| Pure Glycine | 18.38 | 32.04 | 6.81 |
Figure 2Non-invasive three-dimensional (3D) Ultra-short Echo Time (UTE) MR imaging of the lung for biodistribution. All MR images are at slice 71 for group GSPIONs (represented in blue) and control (saline, represented in red). (A). GSPION vs. Control (0.9% saline) sensitized mice imaged at different TEs between 0.01 to 1.2 msec. (B). Relative signal intensity ratio (SILung/SIHeart) for the whole lung and heart was calculated using ROI, shown in supplementary Figure 2, to show the difference in between the GSPIONs vs. control (saline) administered groups. The relative signal intensity ratio for GSPIONs group was lower in comparison to saline. (C). Signal to noise ratio of the upper lung region for GSPION vs. control (saline) groups. (D). Signal to noise ratio of the middle lung region for GSPION vs. control (saline) groups. (E). Signal to noise ratio of the lower lung region for GSPION vs. control (saline) groups. (F). Signal Intensity decay curves of GSPION treated group in comparison to control (saline). Mono-exponential fitting equation and R2 values are indicated for five mice in GSPION group and three mice in control group. The SIs were measured for all TEs ranging from 0.01 to 1.2 msec, which demonstrates an exponential decay of the order S = S0e-TE/T2*. Based on the equation, T2* was calculated for GSPION and control (saline) group(G). 3D UTE volumetric rendering of GSPION sensitized and control mice at ultra-short TE 0.4 msec and conventional TE 1.2 msec. The lung in GSPION groups are visible from the signal contrast by the GSPIONs, while the saline (control) group lacks contrast from cardiac muscle and other tissues. The lungs are prominent in the GSPION treated group, while in the Saline treated group, we found them barely visible due to attenuation of signal by the accumulation of the GSPIONs, therefore showing their distribution in the lung. (H). The T2 (msec) of phantoms is represented as a function of the GSPION dilutions with control (in red) resembling 0.9% saline in agarose. (inset) T2 (msec) of different GSPION dilutions (resembling concentrations) showing relaxivity and darkening due to GSPIONs presence. For this experiment, N = 5 mice/group for GSPIONs and N = 3 mice/group for control (saline) was used, and Signal to noise ratio was represented as Mean ± SD. To assess the difference between the relative signal intensity ratio of the two groups across different TE’s, an unpaired T test with Welch’s correction (not assuming equal SD) was used to determine the significance. **p < 0.005, *p < 0.05, ns; non-significant.
Figure 3The therapeutic ability of GSPIONS to alleviate lung resistance was not directly tested, although their localization into immune cells suggests this potential. (A). Perls’ Prussian blue counter stained with neutral red to determine uptake by immune cells in the lung for GSPIONs and saline group and spleen showing positive stain due to hemosiderin. (inset) GSPIONs taken up by alveolar macrophages and neutrophils confirmed by nucleus visible after Perls’ Prussian blue counter stained with neutral red. (B). Hematoxylin and Eosin stain showing lung parenchyma in both GSPION and saline (control) group. (C). Lung resistance measured by invasive plethysmography in GSPIONs suspended in glycine and PBS in comparison to control. No significant difference was observed in between control and GSPION groups.
Figure 4GSPIONs do not increase expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines in lung parenchyma. In comparison to control (saline), expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines, (A). IL-1β, (B). IL-6 and (C). TNF; was unchanged along with negligible damage in the lung parenchyma. Scale bars represent 50 µm. N = 6 mice/group, Mean ± SEM. A one-way ANOVA was used to determine the significance in between different groups. Each group was quantified for strong positive expression by analyzing 10 sections/lung/group. ns, non-significant.
Figure 5Study designs of experiments. (A). Study design for MR imaging experiment. Two groups are represented-GSPIONS (in blue) and control (saline-in red). Mice were pre-scanned for TEs ranging from 0.01 to 1.2 msec. The following day mice were sensitized with either GSPIONs (200 µg/mL) suspended in PBS or with control (saline). After 24 h of sensitization, mice were subjected to 3D UTE MR imaging for TEs ranging from 0.01 to 1.2 msec and culled post scanning. N = 5 in GSPION group, N = 3 in control (saline) group. (B). To perform acute hyperresponsiveness (AHR) and nanoparticle uptake by immune cells three groups with N = 4 mice/group were used. Mice in different groups were sensitized with GSPIONs (200 µg/mL) suspended in PBS or 100 mM glycine and 0.9% (w/v) saline was used as control. After 24 h of sensitization, mice were subjected to lung function test (for measurement of AHR), culled (shown by red cross) and the lungs were processed routinely with 10% neutral buffered formalin for sectioning followed by histochemical staining. Perls’ Prussian blue counter stained with neutral red to stain for GSPIONs and Hematoxylin and Eosin staining for lung architecture was performed on lung sections from mice of all the different groups.