The reactivation of the innate immune system by toll-like receptor (TLR) agonists holds promise for anticancer immunotherapy. Severe side effects caused by unspecific and systemic activation of the immune system upon intravenous injection prevent the use of small-molecule TLR agonists for such purposes. However, a covalent attachment of small-molecule imidazoquinoline (IMDQ) TLR7/8 agonists to pH-degradable polymeric nanogels could be shown to drastically reduce the systemic inflammation but retain the activity to tumoral tissues and their draining lymph nodes. Here, we introduce the synthesis of poly(norbornene)-based, acid-degradable nanogels for the covalent ligation of IMDQs. While the intact nanogels trigger sufficient TLR7/8 receptor stimulation, their degraded version of soluble, IMDQ-conjugated poly(norbornene) chains hardly activates TLR7/8. This renders their clinical safety profile, as degradation products are obtained, which would not only circumvent nanoparticle accumulation in the body but also provide nonactive, polymer-bound IMDQ species. Their immunologically silent behavior guarantees both spatial and temporal control over immune activity and, thus, holds promise for improved clinical applications.
The reactivation of the innate immune system by toll-like receptor (TLR) agonists holds promise for anticancer immunotherapy. Severe side effects caused by unspecific and systemic activation of the immune system upon intravenous injection prevent the use of small-molecule TLR agonists for such purposes. However, a covalent attachment of small-molecule imidazoquinoline (IMDQ) TLR7/8 agonists to pH-degradable polymeric nanogels could be shown to drastically reduce the systemic inflammation but retain the activity to tumoral tissues and their draining lymph nodes. Here, we introduce the synthesis of poly(norbornene)-based, acid-degradable nanogels for the covalent ligation of IMDQs. While the intact nanogels trigger sufficient TLR7/8 receptor stimulation, their degraded version of soluble, IMDQ-conjugated poly(norbornene) chains hardly activates TLR7/8. This renders their clinical safety profile, as degradation products are obtained, which would not only circumvent nanoparticle accumulation in the body but also provide nonactive, polymer-bound IMDQ species. Their immunologically silent behavior guarantees both spatial and temporal control over immune activity and, thus, holds promise for improved clinical applications.
The maturation of dendritic
cells (DCs) to antigen-presenting cells,
the subsequent development of a T-cell-dependent immune reaction,
and the secretion of various chemokines are of key interest in cancer
immunotherapy.[1] However, these mechanisms
are often disabled in tumoral tissues.[2] On the contrary, immature DCs suppress the activity of self-reactive,
anticancer T-cells and support the proliferation of immunosuppressive
T-cells.[3,4] Therefore, strong activators of the innate
immune system in the tumor microenvironment could enhance DC maturation,
lead to the depletion of anti-inflammatory signals, induce the proliferation
of antitumoral T-cells, and turn immunologically “cold”
tumors into “hot”.[5]A strategy to increase the DC maturation and antigen presentation
to T-cells includes the activation of toll-like receptors (TLR).[6] These receptors normally recognize pathogen-associated
molecular patterns (PAMPs) like lipopolysaccharides, double- or single-stranded
RNA, etc. Their activation leads to the differentiation of immature
DCs and the stimulation of an active immune response.[7] Among others, potent TLR agonists like the TLR-7/8 agonist
imidazoquinoline (IMDQ) are under investigation as adjuvants in vaccination[8] as well as for their use in anticancer immunotherapy.[9]Unfortunately, the administration of the
immunostimulant IMDQ leads
to a systemic activation of the immune system due to the unfavorable
pharmacokinetic profile of the small-molecule drug.[10−12] This may even
trigger life-threatening inflammatory cascade reactions, e.g., cytokine
storms.[13] Alternatively, the conjugation
of a small-molecule IMDQ to a nanoparticulate carrier was shown by
others and us to improve the pharmacokinetic parameters and constrain
the immune activity to the site of interest.[14−20]The covalent attachment of IMDQ to a poly(methacrylamide)-based
nanogel carrier was shown to result in a more defined pharmacological
profile in terms of spatial control upon peritumoral injection and
accumulation in the draining lymph nodes.[11,12,21,22] For that purpose,
active-ester-containing amphiphilic poly(methacrylate) block copolymers
were self-assembled into polymer micelles, covalently conjugated with
IMDQ, and then cross-linked to yield drug-loaded polymeric nanogels.[12,14]Moreover, to prevent unfavorable nanotoxicities based on carrier
accumulation in the body, nanogels were reversibly cross-linked with
a pH-degradable ketal cross-linker that upon exposure to endosomal
acidic environments afforded unimeric single-chain polymers that could
be secreted renally.[23,24] Interestingly, for the degraded
nanogels or polymer chains, lymph node accumulation was significantly
reduced; however, in in vitro cell studies, the immune stimulatory
activity remained as high as for the intact nanogels.[21] In principle, a possible systemic inflammatory risk for
the degraded polymer chains bearing IMDQ groups could therefore not
be excluded. Thus, alternative strategies to omit the immune stimulation
of the degraded particle or soluble single-chain polymers would be
favorable to avoid unwanted side effects and result in not only spatial
but also temporal control over the IMDQ activity.For that purpose,
we were interested in altering the design of
IMDQ nanogel carrier systems that potentially meet these criteria.
For a convenient block copolymer fabrication of well-defined polymers,
the ring-opening metathesis polymerization (ROMP) reaction was chosen.
In comparison to controlled radical polymerizations, ROMP enables
a fast and effective one-pot block copolymerization within short reaction
times.[25−27] Especially, the use of the fast initiating ruthenium
metathesis catalyst (Grubbs third-generation catalyst) facilitates
the production of low-polydispersity homo and amphiphilic block copolymers.[25]In analogy to the previously investigated
poly(methacrylamide)
nanogels,[22,28,29] synthetic
access to poly(norbornene)-based nanogels can be provided by copolymerizing
mPEG and pentafluorophenyl esters containing norbornenes. The mPEG
side chains in the solvophilic block should provide sufficient hydrophilicity
and stealthlike shielding effect. The solvophobic block composed of
pentafluorophenyl esters triggers phase separation and self-assembly
into micelles in polar aprotic solvents like dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO).[28] The reactivity of pentafluorophenyl esters to
primary amines[30] guarantees a sequential
covalent core modification with amine-modified IMDQs,[31] cross-linking with ketal bisamines, as well as conversion
with hydrophilic amines, altogether affording pH-degradable nanogels,
equipped with TLR7/8 agonists (Figure ).
Figure 1
Synthetic concept for the fabrication of poly(norbornene)-based
nanogels. exo-N-(Methoxypoly(ethylene
glycol)) norbornene-dicarboxyimide and exo-norbornene-carboxylic
acid-pentafluorophenyl ester are block copolymerized under ring-opening
metathesis conditions. The resulting amphiphilic reactive ester block
copolymers self-assemble in DMSO into precursor micelles, whose cores
can be functionalized by mono-amine-bearing entities, cross-linked
with pH-(non)-degradable bisamines, and finally converted into fully
hydrophilic nanogels. Ketal cross-linking promotes pH-responsive particle
disassembly upon exposure to endolysosomal pH affording single, non-cross-linked
soluble polymers.
Synthetic concept for the fabrication of poly(norbornene)-based
nanogels. exo-N-(Methoxypoly(ethylene
glycol)) norbornene-dicarboxyimide and exo-norbornene-carboxylic
acid-pentafluorophenyl ester are block copolymerized under ring-opening
metathesis conditions. The resulting amphiphilic reactive ester block
copolymers self-assemble in DMSO into precursor micelles, whose cores
can be functionalized by mono-amine-bearing entities, cross-linked
with pH-(non)-degradable bisamines, and finally converted into fully
hydrophilic nanogels. Ketal cross-linking promotes pH-responsive particle
disassembly upon exposure to endolysosomal pH affording single, non-cross-linked
soluble polymers.Interestingly, in this
study, we observed that in contrast to ether-
or ketal-cross-linked poly(norbornene)-based nanogels, the non-cross-linked
hydrophilic block polymers covalently equipped with IMDQ did not stimulate
the TLR-7/8. As they are also obtained upon intracellular degradation
of the ketal-cross-linked nanogels, TLR7/8 immune stimulation is switched
off upon particle degradation, thus making these systems highly attractive
for spatial and temporal control over a precise IMDQ immune stimulation.
Materials and Methods
Instrumentation
All 1H nuclear magnetic
resonance (NMR) spectra were recorded at room temperature on a Bruker
300 MHz or a 600 MHz FT NMR spectrometer (Bruker Avance III HD 300,
Bruker Avance II 400, Bruker Avance III 600). Chemical shifts are
provided in parts per million related to TMS. NMR spectra were processed
with MestReNova 11.0.4 by Mestrelab Research. Samples were prepared
in respective deuterated solvents, and their signals were referenced
to the residual nondeuterated solvent signal. Diffusion ordered spectroscopy
DOSY spectra were recorded at room temperature on a Bruker 400 MHz
FT NMR spectrometer (Bruker Avance III HD 400) and processed by Bayesian
DOSY transformation (minimum, 1.00 × 10–8;
maximum, 1.00 × 10–8; resolution factor, 1.00;
repetition factor, 1; points in dimension, 64).Dynamic light
scattering (DLS) experiments were performed on a Zetasizer Nano ZS
(Malvern Instruments Ltd., Malvern, U.K.) equipped with a HeNe laser
(λ = 633 nm) and detected at a scattering angle of 173°
at 25 °C. The obtained data were processed by cumulant fitting
for z-average and polydispersity index (PDI) as well
as by CONTIN fitting for particle size distributions. Unless otherwise
stated, dust was removed from the sample prior to each measurement
by filtration through a GHP syringe filter (0.45 μm pore size,
Acrodisc). Kinetic measurements of nanogel stability (in phosphate-buffered
saline (PBS) pH 7.4) or degradation (in 100 mM acetate buffer, pH
5.0, prepared from a 1:1 mixture of 100 mM sodium acetate and 100
mM acetic acid) were recorded at time intervals of 5 min.Size
exclusion chromatography (SEC) characterization was conducted
in hexafluoroisopropanol (HFIP) (containing 3.0 g/L of potassium trifluoroacetate)
as eluent. The instrument was equipped with a PU 2080+ pump, an autosampler
AS1555, and an RI detector RI2080+ from JASCO. Columns packed with
modified silica were obtained from MZ-Analysentechnik: PFG columns;
particle size, 7 μm; porosity, 100 and 1000 Å. Calibration
was carried out with poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) standards, purchased
from PSS, Mainz.Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization
time-of-flight (MALDI-ToF)
mass spectra were acquired on a rapifleXTM MALDI-ToF/ToF mass spectrometer
from Bruker equipped with a 10 kHz scanning smartbeam three-dimensional
(3D) laser (Nd:YAG at 355 nm) and a 10 bit 5 GHz digitizer. Measurements
were performed in a positive reflector mode using DCTB (trans-2-[3-(4-butylphenyl)-2-methyl-2-propenylidene]malononitrile)
acid as a matrix and the obtained data processed by mMass software.Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images were prepared by
adding 4 μL of the nanogel/polymer solution at 2 mg/mL in water
(supplemented with 0.1% conc. aqueous ammonia) onto a carbon-coated
copper grid. After drying in air for 10 min, the remaining solution
was removed by a filter paper. After further drying in air, the measurement
was conducted on a JEOL JEM-1400 TEM operating at an accelerating
voltage of 120 kV.UV–vis spectra were recorded on a
Jasco V-630 spectrophotometer
equipped with a Peltier thermostatted single-cell holder (JASCO ETC-717)
cooled by a water thermostat (A. Knüss Optronic V50) to guarantee
measurement conditions at 25.0 °C.Fluorescence and cell
assay recorded absorbance intensities were
also monitored on a Tecan Spark 20 M microplate reader.Flow
cytometry analyses were performed on a BD Accuri, and the
obtained data were processed using the FlowJo software package.Fluorescence nonconfocal microscopy images were recorded on a Leica
DMi8 microscope with a 100× oil immersion objective. Fluorescence
confocal laser scanning microscopy images were recorded on a Leica
SP5 confocal microscope system with a 63× oil immersion objective.
All images were processed by ImageJ software.
Materials
Unless
otherwise mentioned, all chemicals
were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich, Tokyo Chemical Industry, or Acros
Organics and used as received. 1-(4-(Aminomethyl) benzyl)-2-butyl-1H-imidazo[4,5-c]quinolin-4- amine (IMDQ)
could be provided according to an earlier report.[31] Dialysis was performed using Spectra/Por 3 membranes obtained
from Spectrum Labs with a molecular weight cutoff of 1000 g/mol.Dulbecco’s phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), cell culture medium,
and supplements were purchased from Thermo Fisher. The RAW-Blue reporter
cell line and QUANTI-BlueTM were obtained from InvivoGen.
Monomer Synthesis
Synthesis
of exo-N-(Methoxypoly(ethylene
glycol)) Norbornene-dicarboxyimide 2
The synthesis
of the solvophilic mPEG-containing monomer was adapted from the literature[32] (Scheme S1). A solution
of exo-[2.2.1]bicyclo-2-ene-5,6-dicarboxylic anhydride
(0.43 g, 2.61 mmol, 1.0 equiv) and mPEG-amine 0.5 kDa (1.34 g, 2.61
mmol, 1 equiv) in toluene (50 mL) was heated at reflux overnight.
The reaction mixture was then cooled to room temperature, and the
solvent was evaporated under reduced pressure. The crude reaction
product was purified via column chromatography (CHCl3/MeOH
10:1). Product 2 was obtained as a yellow oil in 95%
yield (1.64 g, 2.51 mmol).1H NMR (300 MHz, CDCl3) δ [ppm] = 6.26 (t, J = 1.9 Hz, 2H),
3.71–3.49 (m, 44H), 3.36 (s, 3H), 3.25 (p, J = 1.7 Hz, 2H), 2.66 (d, J = 1.3 Hz, 2H), 1.47 (dt, J = 9.8, 1.6 Hz, 1H), 1.34 (dt, J = 9.9,
1.6 Hz, 1H) (Figures S1 and S3).13C NMR (75 MHz, CDCl3) δ [ppm] = 178.12,
137.93, 72.03, 70.68, 69.96, 66.99, 59.14, 47.92, 45.37, 42.82, 37.8
(Figures S2, S4, and S5).
Synthesis
of exo-Norbornene-carboxylic Acid-Pentafluorophenyl
Ester 3
The procedure was adapted from the literature[33] (Scheme S2). Pentafluorophenol
(2.62 g, 18.9 mmol, 1 equiv) and exo-[2.2.1]bicyclo-2-ene-5-carboxylic
acid (3.84 g, 20.8 mmol, 1.1 equiv) (that was first isolated from
a mixture of exo and endo species—compare Supporting Information and Scheme S2) were dissolved
in anhydrous dichloromethane (DCM) (25 mL) and cooled to 0 °C.
Dicyclohexylcarbodiimide (DCC) (4.31 g, 20.9 mmol, 1.1 equiv) was
added to the solution, and dimethylaminopyridine (DMAP) (0.23 g, 1.9
mmol, 0.1 equiv) dissolved in anhydrous DCM (2 mL) was added slowly
via a syringe. After 1 h, the reaction mixture was allowed to warm
to room temperature and stirred overnight. After 20 h, the volatiles
were removed in vacuo and the crude reaction mixture was purified
by column chromatography (CHex/EtOAc 20:1) to yield 5.19
g (17.1 mmol, 90.3%) of 3 as a pale yellow oil.1H NMR (300 MHz, CDCl3): δ 6.23 (dd, J = 5.7, 2.9 Hz, 1H,), 6.18 (dd, J = 5.7,
3.0 Hz, 1H), 3.27 (ddq, J = 3.1, 1.5, 0.8 Hz, 1H),
3.03 (s, 1H), 2.59 (ddd, J = 9.0, 4.5, 1.5 Hz, 1H),
2.16–1.89 (m, 1H), 1.60–1.55 (m, 1H), 1.54 (t, J = 1.7 Hz, 1H), 1.52–1.47 (m, 1H) (Figures S6 and S8).13C NMR (75 MHz, CDCl3): δ 172.56,
138.68, 135.46, 47.16, 46.54, 42.87, 41.95, 30.88 (Figures S7, S9, and S10).19F NMR (376 MHz,
CDCl3) δ −154.26
(d, J = 17.7 Hz), −159.52 (t, J = 21.7 Hz), −163.64 (dd, J = 22.0, 17.6
Hz) (Figure S11).
Polymerization
Procedure
The procedure was adapted
from the literature and modified.[26] In
an exemplified procedure, the block copolymer synthesis of poly(mPEG-Nb) is described:
0.13 mL of a 0.14 M stock solution of exo-N-(methoxypoly(ethylene glycol)) norbornene-dicarboxyimide 2 (0.068 mmol, 44.0 mg, 65 equiv) in DCM was rapidly transferred
to a flame-dried Schlenk tube charged with 0.11 mL of a 0.13 M stock
solution of ruthenium initiator Grubbs third-generation catalyst 1 (0.001 mmol, 1.2 mg, 1.3 equiv) in DCM. After thin-layer
chromatography (TLC) showed a full conversion of exo-N-(methoxypoly(ethylene glycol)) norbornene-dicarboxyimide 2, an aliquot of the reaction mixture was removed (0.13 mL,
corresponding to 0.3 equiv of ruthenium initiator), terminated with
ethyl vinyl ether (EVE), and characterized by NMR spectroscopy and
size exclusion chromatography (SEC) (Figures S12 and S13). Then, 0.38 mL of a 0.14 M stock solution of exo-norbornene-carboxylic acid-pentafluorophenyl ester 3 (0.053 mmol, 16.0 mg, 50 equiv) in DCM was added to the
reaction vial to proceed block copolymerization. After full second
monomer consumption, as indicated by TLC, the reaction was terminated
by the addition of an excess of EVE. The resulting block copolymer poly(mPEG-Nb) was precipitated three times into cold hexane. Hexane was
decanted, and the obtained material was dried in vacuo. The polymers
were analyzed by SEC, 1H NMR, and 19F NMR (Figures , S14, and S15).
Figure 2
(A) Synthetic scheme for different polymerization sequences
of poly(mPEG-Nb)- block
copolymers. exo-N-(Methoxypoly(ethylene glycol)) norbornene-dicarboxyimide 2 and exo-norbornene-carboxylic acid-pentafluorophenyl
ester 3 are block copolymerized under ring-opening metathesis
conditions catalyzed by the fast initiating ruthenium metathesis catalyst 1 (Grubbs third-generation catalyst). (B) 1H NMR
and 19F NMR (black box) of the isolated poly(mPEG-Nb)- block copolymers. (C) SEC traces of
the respective block- and homopolymers with hexafluoroisopropanol
(HFIP) as eluent.
(A) Synthetic scheme for different polymerization sequences
of poly(mPEG-Nb)- block
copolymers. exo-N-(Methoxypoly(ethylene glycol)) norbornene-dicarboxyimide 2 and exo-norbornene-carboxylic acid-pentafluorophenyl
ester 3 are block copolymerized under ring-opening metathesis
conditions catalyzed by the fast initiating ruthenium metathesis catalyst 1 (Grubbs third-generation catalyst). (B) 1H NMR
and 19F NMR (black box) of the isolated poly(mPEG-Nb)- block copolymers. (C) SEC traces of
the respective block- and homopolymers with hexafluoroisopropanol
(HFIP) as eluent.1H NMR (300
MHz, CDCl3): δ 5.85–5.65
(br, 1H,), 5.60–5.45 (br, 1H), 5.45–5.20 (br, 2H), 3.71–3.49
(m, 44H), 3.36 (s, 3H), 3.33–2.60 (m, 7H), 2.35–1.75
(m, 5H), 1.55–1.47 (br, 1H) (Figure B).19F NMR (375 MHz, CDCl3): δ −154.35
(br, 2H), −159.48 (br, 1H), −163.84 (br, 2H) (Figure S2B).
Nanogel Formation
Block Copolymer
Self-Assembly
The desired block copolymer
(10 mg, 13.6 μmol reactive ester for poly(mPEG-Nb)--poly(Pfp-Nb)) was dispersed
in anhydrous DMSO, yielding a 10 mg/mL solution. Subsequent sonication
(1–8 h) resulted in the formation of self-assembled polymeric
micelles, as verified by DLS measurements, and micellar dispersions
were used for further nanogel synthesis.
Core Functionalization
of Polymeric Micelles
The synthesis
of three different types of nanogels (ketal-cross-linked, ether-cross-linked,
and non-cross-linked) was performed by dispersing the desired amount
of pentafluorophenyl ester-containing polymeric micelle (1 mL, 13.6
μmol reactive ester) in anhydrous DMSO in a flame-dried Schlenk
tube. The desired cross-linkers were added together with triethylamine
(0.61 mL of a 1.38 mg/mL stock solution, 8.3 μmol, 0.61 equiv)
under a nitrogen atmosphere. The equivalents are depicted in reference
to amine functionality. 2,2-Bis(aminoethoxy)propane (0.6 mL of a 1.10
mg/mL stock solution, 4.1 μmol, 0.6 amine equiv) was used for
ketal cross-linking, while 1,2-bis(aminoethoxy)ethane (0.6 mL of a
1.01 mg/mL stock solution, 4.1 μmol, 0.6 amine equiv) served
as an ether cross-linker. In the case of non-cross-linking, monomethoxy-poly(ethylene
glycol)-amine 0.75 kDa (0.6 mL of a 10.21 mg/mL stock solution, 8.2
μmol, 0.6 amine equiv) was added. The reaction mixture was stirred
for 1 day at 40 °C. For the complete removal of residual pentafluorophenyl
reactive esters, the reaction was quenched by the addition of monomethoxy-poly(ethylene
glycol)-amine 0.75 kDa (1.0 mL of a 10.21 mg/mL stock solution, 13.6
μmol, 1.0 amine equiv) and triethylamine (1.1 mL of a 1.38 mg/mL
stock solution, 15.0 μmol, 1.1 equiv) and stirred at room temperature
for 1 day. Nanogels were then transferred into dialysis membranes
(MWCO: 3.5 kDa) and dialyzed against 1 L of water with 0.1% ammonia
for 3 days, changing the water two times per day. Lyophilization afforded
nanogels as colorless to brownish gooey materials. The cross-linked
particles were significantly more solid than the non-cross-linked
polymers, which were obtained as highly viscous oils.
Fluorescently
Labeled Nanogels
To 1 mL of the precursor
polymer (10 mg, 13.6 μmol reactive ester for poly(mPEG-Nb)--poly(Pfp-Nb)) in anhydrous
DMSO was added Oregon Green cadaverine (14 μL of a 2.5 mg/mL
stock solution in DMSO, 68 nmol; 0.005 equiv) and dry triethylamine
(TEA) (10 μL of a 1.38 mg/mL stock solution in DMSO, 136 nmol,
0.01 equiv) and stirred overnight under a nitrogen atmosphere. After
dye conjugation, the polymer cross-linking was performed in analogy
to the procedure described above. Note that beyond dialysis, an additional
spin filtration was conducted to remove all residual free dye (MWCO
10 kDa, 0.1% NH3-aqueous solution/MeOH 1:1), as confirmed
by the quantitative reversed-phase thin-layer chromatography (RP-TLC)
(Figures S26–S28).
IMDQ Conjugation
to Nanogels
To 1 mL of the precursor
polymer (10 mg, 13.6 μmol reactive ester for poly(mPEG-Nb)--poly(Pfp-Nb)) in anhydrous
DMSO were added IMDQ (0.1 mL of a 10 mg/mL stock solution in DMSO,
2.3 μmol; 0.17 equiv) and dry TEA (0.2 mL of a 1.38 mg/mL stock
solution in DMSO, 2.7 μmol, 0.2 equiv) and stirred overnight
under a nitrogen atmosphere. After drug conjugation, the polymer cross-linking
was performed in analogy to the procedure described above. Here, beyond
dialysis, additional spin filtration was not necessary to remove all
residual free drug, as confirmed by quantitative reverse phase thin-layer
chromatography (RP-TLC) (Figures S34–S36).
Cellular Uptake, TLR Stimulation, and Viability
RAW-Blue
macrophages were cultured in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s
medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, 2 mM l-glutamine, 1 mM sodium pyruvate, 1% penicillin/streptomycin, 0.01%
normocin, and 0.02% zeocin as selection medium. The cells were kept
at 37 °C with 5% CO2 saturation.
RAW-Blue
Macrophage TLR Reporter Assay
IMDQ TLR receptor
stimulation followed by NF-kB/AP-1 activation was monitored by secretion
of embryonic alkaline phosphatase from RAW-Blue cells, as recommended
by the manufacturer (InvivoGen). The RAW-Blue cells were seeded into
96-well plates at a density of 90 000 cells/well in 180 μL
of culture medium. Each well was treated with 20 μL of a nanogel
sample at the given final IMDQ concentrations (and corresponding empty
nanogel or other control concentrations). After incubation for 18
h, 50 μL of the supernatant from each well was collected and
tested for secreted embryonic alkaline phosphatase (SEAP) using the
QUANTI-Blue assay (InvivoGen). QUANTI-Blue (150 μL) was added
to each sample and incubated at 37 °C. SEAP levels were determined
by measuring the optical density at 615 nm using a microplate reader.
The activity was determined by an increase in the optical density
relative to the negative control treated with PBS. All experiments
were conducted at n = 4.
3-(4,5-Dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium
bromide (MTT) (50 μL, 0.5 mg/mL in PBS) was added to the RAW-Blue
cells that were treated with nanogel samples at the given final IMDQ
concentrations (and corresponding empty nanogel concentrations), as
described before. After an incubation period of 2–3 h, the
formed formazan crystals were dissolved by the addition of 100 μL
10% m/v SDS/0.01 M HCl and incubated overnight at 37 °C. Quantification
was done by measuring the absorbance at 570 nm using a microplate
reader.
Flow Cytometry
RAW-Blue macrophages were seeded into
24-well titer plates (250 000 cells/well, suspended in 0.90
mL of culture medium) and incubated overnight to allow cell sedimentation
and subsequent adhesion to the bottom of the wells. Next, the cells
were incubated with 100 μL of Oregon Green labeled nanogel or
polymer solution in PBS (yielding a total polymer/nanogel concentration
of either 30 or 100 μg/mL). All samples were run in triplicate,
and the experiment was conducted for 18 h at 37 °C. The cell
culture medium was then aspirated, and the cells were washed with
1 mL of PBS and incubated with 400 μL of a cell dissociation
buffer (15 min, 37 °C). The cell suspensions were then diluted
with 400 μL of cell culture medium, transferred into Eppendorf
tubes, and centrifuged immediately (350g, 10 min,
5 °C). Finally, the supernatant was aspirated and the cell pellets
were suspended in 250 μL of PBS. They were kept on ice to maintain
cell integrity prior to flow cytometric analysis performed on a BD
Accuri C6 (BD Biosciences). The data were processed by FlowJo software.
Fluorescence Microscopy
RAW-Blue macrophages were seeded
in an Ibidi μ-slide eight-well confocal microscopy chamber (50 000
cells/well, suspended in 0.18 mL of the culture medium) and left to
adhere overnight. Next, the cells were incubated with 20 μL
of Oregon Green labeled nanogel or polymer solution in PBS (yielding
a total polymer/nanogel concentration of 100 μg/mL) for 24 h.
Then, the culture medium was aspirated and the cells were washed three
times with PBS. Next, 200 μL of 4% paraformaldehyde was added
and allowed to fixate for 15 min at 37 °C. Afterward, the cells
were washed again three times with PBS and their nuclei were stained
with 200 μL of 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) (80
μg/mL in PBS) for 10 min at 37 °C. Finally, the cells were
washed once more three times with PBS and then stored under an aqueous
mounting medium. First, nonconfocal fluorescence microscopy images
were recorded on a Leica DMi8 microscope with a 100× oil immersion
to confirm particle or polymer uptake. Then, to prove internalization
of the material into the cells, fluorescence confocal laser scanning
microscopy images were recorded on a Leica SP5 confocal microscope
system with a 63× oil immersion objective. All images were finally
processed by the ImageJ software package.
Results and Discussion
We previously reported on immune stimulatory nanogels, based on
reactive amphiphilic poly(methacrylamide) block copolymers derived
from mPEG- and pentafluorophenyl ester-bearing acrylates, that can
be prepared by RAFT polymerization and subsequent versatile postpolymerization
modification.[22] Prior to this study, we
investigated other polymerization techniques and monomer systems and
thereby observed that, in analogy to our previously reported studies,
the ring-opening metathesis polymerization (ROMP) of norbornenes with
mPEG or pentafluorophenyl ester side chains can provide rapid access
to highly modifiable, pH-degradable nanogels. In this study, we introduce
this carrier system for the first time and observed that covalent
modification with the TLR7/8 agonist IMDQ[31] provides immune stimulatory properties only for the intact particles,
while converted into single polymer chains, a loss in activity and
conversion into immunologically silent species make the whole delivery
system highly attractive for clinical purposes.
Synthesis of Poly(norbornene)
Precursor Block Copolymers
Due to their high activity during
metathesis reactions, substituted exo-norbornenes
were chosen as monomers and derivatized
to provide characteristics for amphiphilic reactive ester block copolymers.
The attachment of an mPEG-amine to norbornene dicarboxylic anhydride
provides access to the solvophilic monomer 2. Furthermore,
PEG is known for its biocompatibility and stealth effect in vivo,
which is a vital feature in achieving long blood circulation times.[34−36] Alternatively, norbornene carboxylic acid-pentafluorophenyl ester 3 serves as an amine reactive precursor, and due to its highly
fluorinated character, it additionally provides phase separation properties
in polar aprotic media.[11]A scheme
for the syntheses of the monomers can be found in the Supporting Information
(Schemes S1 and S2). N-(Poly(ethylene glycol))-cis-5-norbornene-exo-2,3-dicarboximide 2 was directly accessed
starting from commercially available exo-norbornene
carboxylic anhydride. Upon condensation reaction with an amino-capped
methoxy-poly(ethylene glycol) in toluene, exo-imide 2 was obtained in nearly quantitative yield and confirmed
by 1H and 13C NMR, as well as COSY, HSQC, and
HMBC measurements (Figures S1–S5).In general, exo-isomers are usually the ones with higher
reactivity
during ROMP;[37−40] however, toward the synthesis of exo-norbornene-5-carboxylic
acid-pentafluorophenyl ester 3, the starting material
norbornene-5-carboxylic acid is only commercially available as a mixture
of 80% endo-isomer and 20% exo-isomer, as determined by 1H NMR. However, when treated with iodine and KI, the formation of
an iodolactone is possible, yet, exclusively for the endo-acid. Consequently,
in a simple purification step, the exo-acid could be extracted from
the endo-derived iodolactone, as described in the Supporting Information, and subsequently esterificated with
pentafluorophenol under Steglich conditions with DCC and DMAP.[41,42] The resulting exo-norbornene-5-carboxylic acid-pentafluorophenyl
ester 3 was obtained in 90% yield and characterized by 1H, 13C, and 19F NMR, as well as COSY,
HSQC, and HMBC measurements (Figures S6–S11).For the controlled synthesis of homo and block copolymers,
the
fast initiating bromopyridine ruthenium catalyst 1 was
chosen (Figure A).
The high functional group tolerance and especially the fast initiation
kinetics of the ruthenium complex during ROMP[43] enables living polymerization conditions and narrow molecular weight
distributions.[25] Due to the living nature,
block copolymers could, therefore, be obtained directly in a one-pot
manner after full first block monomer consumption. Here, the monomer
conversion was monitored by TLC and NMR analyses to be nearly quantitative,
which shows the high activity of the catalyst and the norbornene monomers.Consequently, molecular weights could be easily tuned by adjusting
the initiator-to-monomer ratio (e.g., compare SEC traces of the homopolymers
of 2 in Figure S13), and the
resulting polymers provide a high end-group fidelity, as confirmed
by their MALDI spectra (Figure S12A–C).As homopolymers from monomer 2 were prepared
readily,
block copolymerization was subsequently performed by adding Pfp monomer 3 to the reaction vessel after a complete monomer conversion.
Also, the reverse polymerization sequence was conducted successfully
and afforded block copolymers of similar properties (Figure A). Different molecular weights
of homo and block copolymers could be obtained and successfully characterized
by 1H NMR, 19F NMR, and SEC analyses (Figures B,C and S14). Broad signals at δ = 5.8–5.2
indicate the appearance of polymeric olefinic protons. The signal
at δ = 5.8 was assigned to the solvophilic block and used to
calculate the block ratio. The signal of the olefinic protons at δ
= 3.4 verifies the incorporation of the mPEG side chain, and the appearance
of broad signals in the 19F NMR spectra shows the polymerization
of the solvophobic Pfp monomer 3 (Figure B). The shift in the elution volume for the
subsequent polymerization of solvophilic monomer 2 onto
a block of monomer 3 is significantly larger than for
the reverse polymerization sequence due to the difference in molecular
weight of the incorporated monomers themselves (Figure C). Further confirmation of complete chain
extension could be derived from diffusion ordered NMR spectroscopy
(DOSY) measurements (Figure S15). A complete
shift of diffusion units for all proton signals in the NMR spectra
from the homo to block copolymer confirmed the successful block copolymer
formation.The molecular weight of the block copolymer could
be varied from
22 to 190 kDa by adjusting the monomer-to-initiator ratio. Also, polymers
with different block ratios (as determined by 1H NMR) could
be prepared successfully. The results are all summarized by Table .
Table 1
SEC Characterization of Block Copolymers
polymer
Mn (theo.)
Mn (SEC)a
PDI (SEC)a
poly(mPEG-Nb)10-b-poly(Pfp-Nb)50
21 775
56 000
1.15
poly(mPEG-Nb)20-b-poly(Pfp-Nb)50
28 235
70 000
1.21
poly(mPEG-Nb)50-b-poly(Pfp-Nb)50
47 615
117 000
1.28
poly(Pfp-Nb)50-b-poly(mPEG-Nb)50
47 615
99 000
1.27
poly(mPEG-Nb)100-b-poly(Pfp-Nb)100
95 125
145 000
1.34
poly(mPEG-Nb)200-b-poly(Pfp-Nb)200
190 146
198 000
1.59
Determined by HFIP-SEC (PMMA standard).
Determined by HFIP-SEC (PMMA standard).Interestingly, all block copolymers could be readily
prepared with
reaction times ranging from 10 to 30 min per block. This is one of
the most significant advantages compared to the more difficult and
longer (usually days) reaction procedures necessary for controlled
radical block copolymerization processes. Moreover, the block copolymerization
could be conducted in a one-pot manner and, thus, only a single purification
step was required to isolate the precursor block copolymers for the
subsequent nanogel fabrication.
Self-Assembly of Poly(norbornene)
Precursor Block Copolymers
In analogy to the previously published
poly(methacrylamide) nanogels,
the poly(norbornene)-based block copolymers were tested for their
phase separation and self-assembling behavior in polar aprotic solvents.
The solvophobic pentafluorophenyl ester moiety is again immiscible
with most polar aprotic solvents including DMSO and, thus, enables
microphase separation and self-assembly of the block copolymers into
active-ester-containing polymeric micelles.With increasing
molecular weights of the respective block copolymers, the size of
the obtained precursor micelles increases. The adjustment of particle
size is, therefore, conveniently achieved by variation of the monomer-to-initiator
ratio during the synthesis of the block copolymers. The differently
composed micelles in DMSO were characterized by dynamic light scattering
(DLS), and the results are shown in Figure .
Figure 3
DLS measurements of self-assembling poly(mPEG-Nb)- block copolymers in DMSO. (A) Polymeric
micelles, obtained from block copolymers with increasing molecular
weight and 1:1 block ratios. (B) Polymeric micelles obtained from
block copolymers with decreasing molecular weight of the solvophilic
block but the same solvophobic block.
DLS measurements of self-assembling poly(mPEG-Nb)- block copolymers in DMSO. (A) Polymeric
micelles, obtained from block copolymers with increasing molecular
weight and 1:1 block ratios. (B) Polymeric micelles obtained from
block copolymers with decreasing molecular weight of the solvophilic
block but the same solvophobic block.The self-assembly of the obtained polymers provided differently
sized micelles in the range of 40–190 nm depending on the molecular
weight and block ratios of the respective polymer. With increasing
molecular weight but the same 1:1 block ratio, the size of the polymeric
micelles increases (as shown in Figure A). By reducing the molecular weight of the solvophilic
mPEG-containing block, the size of the obtained particles decreases
and the PEG corona becomes smaller (as shown in Figure B).
Synthesis Poly(norbornene)-Based Nanogels
The active-ester-containing
polymeric micelles were then treated with various bisamines as cross-linking
agents to stabilize their morphology while changing the core polarity
from hydrophobic to hydrophilic. A ketal-bond-containing bisamine
should introduce a pH-sensitive trigger for the disassembly of the
nanogels, whereas an ether-bond-containing bisamine should be insensitive
toward acidic media. Furthermore, residual Pfp ester moieties, after
cross-linking, were first substituted with ethanolamine. The small
hydroxy group-bearing amine was chosen as a solubilizing group in
analogy to the known poly(methacrylamide) systems. However, due to
the high hydrophobicity of the hydrocarbon backbone, the non-cross-linked
polymers still showed micellar self-assembly in PBS after ethanolamine
treatment (Figure S16). Only when dispersed
in DMSO, single polymer chains could be monitored (Figure S17). For the nanogels, ketal cross-linking could be
degraded under acidic conditions in DMSO (Figure S18).Therefore, in subsequent experiments, treatment
with ethanolamine was replaced by a short oligomer mPEG-amine (0.75
kDa) to assure increasing nanogel core polarity and single-chain solubility
for the non-cross-linked version. Altogether, Pfp ester substitution
of cross-linked and non-cross-linked particles with the hydrophilic
mPEG-amine (Figure A) lead to fully water-soluble polymers and degradation of ketal-cross-linked
particles under mild endosomal acidic media, as monitored by DLS measurements
(Figure B).
Figure 4
(A) Substitution
of Pfp esters with bisamine cross-linkers and/or
short oligo mPEG amines affording hydrophilic nanogels/water-soluble
polymer chains. (B) DLS characterization of the resulting cross-linked
nanogels and non-cross-linked polymers in PBS derived from poly(Pfp-Nb)- precursor micelles, as well as their response
upon lowering the pH to endosomal levels of pH 5. Note that only the
ketal-cross-linked nanogels disassemble into single polymer chains
exclusively. (C) TEM images of soluble polymer chains and nondegradable
ether-cross-linked nanogels (1) and their derived counted size distributions
(2). (D) DLS monitoring of ketal-cross-linked particle stability at
extracellular pH and degradation at endolysosomal pH. Particle scattering
intensity (1), particle size (2), and size distribution (3) decrease
over time under mild acidic conditions (100 mM acetate buffer, pH
5.0), while the ketal-cross-linked particle’s integrity is
guaranteed under neutral conditions (PBS, pH 7.4) for 24 h (compare
also Figures S22–S24).
(A) Substitution
of Pfp esters with bisamine cross-linkers and/or
short oligo mPEG amines affording hydrophilic nanogels/water-soluble
polymer chains. (B) DLS characterization of the resulting cross-linked
nanogels and non-cross-linked polymers in PBS derived from poly(Pfp-Nb)- precursor micelles, as well as their response
upon lowering the pH to endosomal levels of pH 5. Note that only the
ketal-cross-linked nanogels disassemble into single polymer chains
exclusively. (C) TEM images of soluble polymer chains and nondegradable
ether-cross-linked nanogels (1) and their derived counted size distributions
(2). (D) DLS monitoring of ketal-cross-linked particle stability at
extracellular pH and degradation at endolysosomal pH. Particle scattering
intensity (1), particle size (2), and size distribution (3) decrease
over time under mild acidic conditions (100 mM acetate buffer, pH
5.0), while the ketal-cross-linked particle’s integrity is
guaranteed under neutral conditions (PBS, pH 7.4) for 24 h (compare
also Figures S22–S24).Moreover, covalent core cross-linking of the self-assembled
block
copolymer micelles was further confirmed by transmission electron
microscopy (TEM) of samples drop-cast onto the grids (Figure C and Supporting Information Figures S19–S21). Only for the core-cross-linked
nanogels, particular structures with a high electron density could
be visualized. For the poly(Pfp-Nb)--derived ether-cross-linked nanogels, sizes of around 20–60
nm were found, while the non-cross-linked species provided only structures
below 15 nm representing single polymer chains (Figure C2). Interestingly, for the ether-cross-linked
nanogels, also a core–shell-like morphology was fairly visible
(Figure C1).To further study the nanoparticle behavior upon exposure to extracellular
and endolysosomal pH over time, samples were prepared at 1 mg/mL in
PBS at pH 7.4 or in 100 mM acetate buffer at pH 5.0 and continuously
monitored by DLS measurements. Only for the ketal-cross-linked nanogels
at pH 5.0, a decrease in count rate and a shift in particle size and
distribution toward smaller non-cross-linked soluble polymers were
found, while the particles remained stable in PBS for 24 h (Figure D). Ether-cross-linked
nanogels retained their scattering intensity and size distribution
in both media as well as the non-cross-linked soluble polymers (Figures S22–S24). In analogy to our previous
studies,[23] these results confirm that nanogel
unfolding for ketal-cross-linked polymer micelles into single polymer
chains can only occur intracellularly at endolysosomal pH, but they
remain intact at neutral physiological pH.
Immune Stimulatory Properties
of IMDQ-Loaded Poly(norbornene)-Based
Nanogels
Due to the pentafluorophenyl ester approach, pharmacologically
active molecules or fluorogenic tracer molecules with a single primary
amine can easily be attached via amide formation into the micelle
core for both therapeutic and diagnostic purposes. Especially for
immunodrug delivery, nanocarriers with sizes smaller than 100 nm and
sufficient PEG shielding provide ideal properties to, e.g., efficiently
reach and accumulate in draining lymph nodes.[21] For that purpose, the poly(mPEG-Nb) block copolymer system was chosen
and converted into degradable or nondegradable nanogels and soluble
polymers (Figures A and 4B) for the following immunodrug delivery
studies (Figures and 6).
Figure 5
(A) Synthetic scheme for the substitution of Pfp esters
in the
polymeric precursor micelle cores with Oregon Green cadaverine and
different cross-linkers and/or mPEG-amine as hydrophilizing agent.
(B) DLS characterization of poly(Pfp-Nb)--derived cross-linked nanogels and non-cross-linked polymers
with and without fluorescent dye. (C) UV absorbance of dye-conjugated
nanogels and polymers compared to nonlabeled species. (D) Cell viability
assay (MTT) of RAW-Blue macrophages incubated with cross-linked nanogels
and non-cross-linked polymers at increasing concentrations for 18
h (n = 4). (E) Flow cytometry histograms (1) and
mean fluorescence intensities (MFI) (2) of RAW-Blue macrophages incubated
with Oregon Green labeled cross-linked nanogels and non-cross-linked
polymers at 30 mg/L and 100 μg/mL for 18 h (n = 3). (F) Confocal laser scanning fluorescence microscopy images
of RAW-Blue macrophages incubated with Oregon Green labeled cross-linked
nanogels and non-cross-linked polymers at 100 μg/mL for 24 h
(green: Oregon Green labeled polymer or nanogel species; blue: nuclei
stained with DAPI; gray: dark field image for cell morphology; scale
bar: 10 μm).
Figure 6
(A) UV–vis spectra
for the determination of covalent IMDQ
loading to ketal- and ether-cross-linked nanogels as well as non-cross-linked
soluble polymers derived from poly(Pfp-Nb)- precursor micelles. (B) DLS measurements of
the IMDQ-loaded nanogels and polymers in PBS, compared to the nonloaded
species. (C) Results of the TLR stimulation of RAW-Blue macrophages
treated with the poly(norbornene)-derived imidazoquinoline nanocarriers
(n = 4). (D) Results of the TLR stimulation assay
of poly(methacrylamide) carriers (n = 4).
(A) Synthetic scheme for the substitution of Pfp esters
in the
polymeric precursor micelle cores with Oregon Green cadaverine and
different cross-linkers and/or mPEG-amine as hydrophilizing agent.
(B) DLS characterization of poly(Pfp-Nb)--derived cross-linked nanogels and non-cross-linked polymers
with and without fluorescent dye. (C) UV absorbance of dye-conjugated
nanogels and polymers compared to nonlabeled species. (D) Cell viability
assay (MTT) of RAW-Blue macrophages incubated with cross-linked nanogels
and non-cross-linked polymers at increasing concentrations for 18
h (n = 4). (E) Flow cytometry histograms (1) and
mean fluorescence intensities (MFI) (2) of RAW-Blue macrophages incubated
with Oregon Green labeled cross-linked nanogels and non-cross-linked
polymers at 30 mg/L and 100 μg/mL for 18 h (n = 3). (F) Confocal laser scanning fluorescence microscopy images
of RAW-Blue macrophages incubated with Oregon Green labeled cross-linked
nanogels and non-cross-linked polymers at 100 μg/mL for 24 h
(green: Oregon Green labeled polymer or nanogel species; blue: nuclei
stained with DAPI; gray: dark field image for cell morphology; scale
bar: 10 μm).(A) UV–vis spectra
for the determination of covalent IMDQ
loading to ketal- and ether-cross-linked nanogels as well as non-cross-linked
soluble polymers derived from poly(Pfp-Nb)- precursor micelles. (B) DLS measurements of
the IMDQ-loaded nanogels and polymers in PBS, compared to the nonloaded
species. (C) Results of the TLR stimulation of RAW-Blue macrophages
treated with the poly(norbornene)-derived imidazoquinoline nanocarriers
(n = 4). (D) Results of the TLR stimulation assay
of poly(methacrylamide) carriers (n = 4).To first investigate cellular toxicity and uptake, precursor
micelles
were treated with the amine-bearing fluorescent dye Oregon Green cadaverine
(Figure A) prior to
cross-linking with ketal- or ether-containing bisamines, as well as
hydrophilization with mPEG-amine (Figure S25). Purification was conducted by dialysis and spin filtration to
remove all residual free dye (MWCO 10 kDa, 0.1% NH3 aqueous
solution/MeOH 1:1) and confirmed by quantitative reversed-phase thin-layer
chromatography (RP-TLC) (Figures S26–S28). The resulting core-cross-linked nanogels or soluble polymer were
all equipped with Oregon Green as fluorescent tracer (Figure A–C).The particles
and polymers did not significantly differ in size
from species prepared without dye (Figure B), as determined by DLS characterization
in PBS, yet successful conjugation was verified by UV–vis spectroscopy
showing similar absorbance maxima around 500 nm (Figure C).All particles and
polymers did not exhibit any major influence
on cell viability, as verified by MTT assay with RAW-Blue macrophages
at a particle concentration of up to 100 mg/L (Figure D). The RAW-Blue cell line was used in this
study as a model cell line for antigen-presenting cells, which even
allow a rapid screening of immune cell maturation by the secretion
of an embryonic alkaline phosphatase. This was chromosomally integrated
into this model cell line, and upon TLR7/8 stimulation followed by
NF-kB and AP-1 signaling, it is secreted into the cell supernatant
and can be quantified spectrophotometrically as an indicator for immune
stimulation.This cell line was further used to study the uptake
of the Oregon
Green labeled species using flow cytometry and fluorescence (confocal)
microscopy. RAW-Blue macrophages were treated with similar amounts
of material, as referred to the absorbance/fluorescence intensities
of Oregon Green (Figure S29). Ketal- or
ether-cross-linked nanogels (30 and 100 μg/mL, respectively)
as well as non-cross-linked soluble polymers were applied to the cells
and incubated for 24 h prior to flow cytometric analysis (its gating
strategy can be found in Figure S30). The
resulting histograms in Figure E1 and mean fluorescence intensities in Figure E2 show moderate but similar cell uptake
for all different nanogel and polymer species. This uptake was also
dose-dependent and could be increased for the incubation concentration
from 30 to 100 μg/mL.These findings could also be confirmed
by fluorescence microscopy,
where an association of Oregon Green labeled material was observed
for the RAW-Blue macrophages treated with all three different species
for 24 h at 100 μg/mL (Figure S31). Through confocal laser scanning microscopy, an intracellular localization
of the nanogels or soluble polymers by the presence of Oregon Green
labeled species insides cells was found (Figures F and S32), indicating
identical internalization of all species into the cells probably via
endocytotic pathways.In analogy to the preparation of these
nontoxic dye-functionalized
nanogels and soluble polymers, similar fabrication conditions were
applied for the conjugation of the small-molecule imidazoquinoline
TLR agonist IMDQ[31] to improve its pharmacokinetic
behavior. Prior to cross-linking and hydrophilization with mPEG-amine,
the substitution of Pfp units with the amine-containing IMDQ was performed
(Figure S33). After purification by excessive
dialysis, IMDQ-conjugated soluble polymers, as well as pH-sensitive
nanogels and nondegradable nanogels were obtained (Figure ). No free, unbound IMDQ could
be found in the cross-linked nanogel or non-cross-linked polymers,
as determined by the quantitative reversed-phase thin-layer chromatography
(RP-TLC) (Figures S34–S36), yet
the amount of covalently attached IMDQ was verified by UV–vis
spectroscopy and a comparison of the imidazoquinoline absorbance maximum
around 327 nm allowed the determination of the covalent drug load
(Figure A; detailed
information can be found in Supporting Information Figure S37 and Table S1). About 3–4 wt % drug load
could be quantified for all species. Interestingly, covalent drug
load did not have any significant impact on particle size and distribution
of the ketal- or ether-cross-linked nanogels (Figure B and S38). Only
the non-cross-linked soluble polymer chains tend again to self-assemble
in water after IMDQ conjugation, which is probably due to the slight
decrease in hydrophilicity caused by the ligated imidazoquinoline
(Figures B and S38). Nonetheless, for the ketal-cross-linked
nanogels, degradation was still confirmed upon exposure to acidic
media, as similar size distributions were obtained for the non-cross-linked
IMDQ-conjugated polymers (Figure S39).To test the ability for TLR activation, RAW-Blue macrophages were
finally incubated with the prepared IMDQ-loaded particles for 18 h
and then characterized. As previously stated, all RAW-Blue macrophages
exhibit chromosomal integration of the secreted embryonic alkaline
phosphatase reporter construct, which is induced by NF-kB and AP-1.
The activation of TLR-7/8 by IMDQ leads to the activation of the downstream
signaling cascade and eventually to the release of NF-kB. The secretion
of the alkaline phosphatase in turn is utilized for the spectrometric
quantification of TLR activation. During these experiments, a decrease
in cellular viability could be found for neither the empty nanogels
and polymers nor the IMDQ drug species, as characterized by the MTT
assay simultaneously (Figure S40).A readout of the cell culture supernatant media revealed a similar
dose-dependent activation of TLR for nondegradable nanogels and acid-labile,
ketal-cross-linked nanogels. While the half-maximal effective concentration
(EC50) of the free, nonconjugated IMDQ is around 0.02 μM,
the activity of the particle-bound IMDQ is about 1 order of magnitude
weaker (0.2 μM) for both acid-labile and nondegradable nanogels
(Figure C). The decrease
of activity in nanoparticulate formulation of the drug is comparable
to the decrease observed for the poly(methacrylamide)-based nanogels
(Figure D). Also,
the soluble IMDQ-loaded poly(methacrylamide) polymers show a reasonable
activity around 0.2 μM. However, in contrast to these systems,
the non-cross-linked, soluble IMDQ-loaded, metathesis-derived poly(norbornene)s
do not show any significantly high activity in the cell experiments
(Figure C, green curve).
We speculate on different intracellular trafficking mechanisms for
these polymers causing this clinically beneficial effect. Further
investigation on the intracellular fate of this polymeric material
should provide more insight into this behavior.To conclude,
as the poly(norbornene)-based IMDQ nanogels can be
degraded under acidic endosomal pH conditions into non-cross-linked
soluble polymers, they are first immunologically active but then fall
apart into immunologically silent, soluble polymers. This behavior
allows a unique access to both temporal and spatial control over the
IMDQ activity. The carriers seem to support IMDQ’s TLR7/8 stimulation
only in their nanoparticular form. Unwanted systemic activation of
the immune system seems to be turned off upon nanogel degradation
into soluble polymers. Elimination of soluble polymers from the tumoral
tissue and its draining lymph nodes into the blood circulation followed
by excretion via the kidneys can further prevent long-term overstimulation
of the immune system as well as unfavorable carrier accumulation in
the body.[44] Altogether, this may regulate
IMDQ’s high immune stimulatory potency and facilitate its translatability
for cancer immunotherapy.
Conclusions
In
summary, for the first time, the synthetic approach of poly(norbornene)-based,
pH-degradable core-cross-linked nanogels is introduced in this study.
For this purpose, block copolymers of mPEG- and pentafluorophenyl
ester-containing poly(norbornene)s could be synthesized with a fast
initiating Grubbs catalyst (third generation). The phase separation
behavior of the fluorinated reactive ester block in DMSO resulted
in reactive micellar particles of adjustable sizes according to the
molecular weight and block ratio of the underlying precursor block
copolymers.The reactive ester core-containing micelles were
utilized for cross-linking
with hydrophilic, pH-sensitive ketal-containing bisamines or a nondegradable
ether bisamines instead. Alternatively, non-cross-linked, fully water-soluble
species were obtained by treatment with short oligo mPEG amines. However,
the degradation of the cross-linked nanogels into soluble polymeric
chains was only observed under endosomal pH conditions for the ketal-cross-linked
species.Moreover, the active esters inside the micelle core
could further
be used for conjugation of fluorescent tracer molecules (for studying
cell uptake by flow cytometry and confocal laser scanning fluorescence
microscopy) or the highly immune stimulatory small-molecule imidazoquinoline
TLR agonist. All carriers exhibited only very low toxicity during
cell viability assays. Yet, the immune-modulating activity of drug-conjugated
carriers was tested in vitro with RAW-Blue macrophages. Interestingly,
the activity of IMDQ-conjugated non-cross-linked polymers was decreased
drastically, in contrast to nanoparticulate IMDQ. As also acid-degradable
ketal particles were designed that fall apart into single polymers,
these systems would enable beyond spatial also a temporal control
over the immune-modulating activity of IMDQ and, thus, provide access
to novel safe and controllable polymeric delivery strategies for such
highly potent and promising drugs in cancer immunotherapy.
Authors: Lutz Nuhn; Nane Vanparijs; Ans De Beuckelaer; Lien Lybaert; Glenn Verstraete; Kim Deswarte; Stefan Lienenklaus; Nikunj M Shukla; Alex C D Salyer; Bart N Lambrecht; Johan Grooten; Sunil A David; Stefaan De Koker; Bruno G De Geest Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Alexander Roloff; David A Nelles; Matthew P Thompson; Gene W Yeo; Nathan C Gianneschi Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2017-12-29 Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: Alexis D Griffith; Asifa K Zaidi; Ashley Pietro; Matthew Hadiono; Jessica S Yang; Rachel Davis; Daniel L Popkin Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-09-27 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Geoffrey M Lynn; Richard Laga; Patricia A Darrah; Andrew S Ishizuka; Alexandra J Balaci; Andrés E Dulcey; Michal Pechar; Robert Pola; Michael Y Gerner; Ayako Yamamoto; Connor R Buechler; Kylie M Quinn; Margery G Smelkinson; Ondrej Vanek; Ryan Cawood; Thomas Hills; Olga Vasalatiy; Kathrin Kastenmüller; Joseph R Francica; Lalisa Stutts; Janine K Tom; Keun Ah Ryu; Aaron P Esser-Kahn; Tomas Etrych; Kerry D Fisher; Leonard W Seymour; Robert A Seder Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2015-10-26 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Hamilton Kakwere; Hua Zhang; Elizabeth S Ingham; Marina Nura-Raie; Spencer K Tumbale; Riley Allen; Sarah M Tam; Bo Wu; Cheng Liu; Azadeh Kheirolomoom; Brett Z Fite; Asaf Ilovitsh; Jamal S Lewis; Katherine W Ferrara Journal: Adv Healthc Mater Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 9.933
Authors: Evangelia Bolli; Maximilian Scherger; Sana M Arnouk; Ana Rita Pombo Antunes; David Straßburger; Moritz Urschbach; Judith Stickdorn; Karen De Vlaminck; Kiavash Movahedi; Hans Joachim Räder; Sophie Hernot; Pol Besenius; Jo A Van Ginderachter; Lutz Nuhn Journal: Adv Sci (Weinh) Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 16.806
Authors: Leonid N Bochkarev; Yulia P Parshina; Yana V Gracheva; Tatyana A Kovylina; Svetlana A Lermontova; Larisa G Klapshina; Aleksey N Konev; Mikhail A Lopatin; Maria M Lukina; Anastasia D Komarova; Vladislav I Shcheslavskiy; Marina V Shirmanova Journal: Molecules Date: 2021-10-20 Impact factor: 4.411
Authors: Leonard Kaps; Anne Huppertsberg; Niklas Choteschovsky; Adrian Klefenz; Feyza Durak; Babara Schrörs; Mustafa Diken; Emma Eichler; Sebastian Rosigkeit; Sascha Schmitt; Christian Leps; Alicia Schulze; Friedrich Foerster; Ernesto Bockamp; Bruno G De Geest; Kaloian Koynov; Hans-Joachim Räder; Stefan Tenzer; Federico Marini; Detlef Schuppan; Lutz Nuhn Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 12.779
Authors: Maximilian Scherger; Evangelia Bolli; Ana Rita Pombo Antunes; Sana Arnouk; Judith Stickdorn; Alexandra Van Driessche; Hansjörg Schild; Stephan Grabbe; Bruno G De Geest; Jo A Van Ginderachter; Lutz Nuhn Journal: Cells Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 6.600
Authors: Anne Huppertsberg; Leonard Kaps; Zifu Zhong; Sascha Schmitt; Judith Stickdorn; Kim Deswarte; Francis Combes; Christian Czysch; Jana De Vrieze; Sabah Kasmi; Niklas Choteschovsky; Adrian Klefenz; Carolina Medina-Montano; Pia Winterwerber; Chaojian Chen; Matthias Bros; Stefan Lienenklaus; Niek N Sanders; Kaloian Koynov; Detlef Schuppan; Bart N Lambrecht; Sunil A David; Bruno G De Geest; Lutz Nuhn Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 15.419