| Literature DB >> 32294917 |
Huai-An Chen1, Yunn-Hwa Ma2, Tzu-Yuan Hsu2, Jyh-Ping Chen1,3,4,5.
Abstract
Recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rEntities:
Keywords: clot lysis; magnetic nanoparticles; nanomedicine; poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid); targeted drug delivery; tissue plasminogen activator
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32294917 PMCID: PMC7215398 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21082690
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1The schematic diagram showing the preparation of peptide conjugated poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) magnetic nanoparticles (pPMNP), recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) conjugated PLGA magnetic nanoparticles (PMNP-rtPA), and peptide/rtPA conjugated PLGA magnetic nanoparticles (pPMNP-rtPA).
Figure 2The effect of avidin and rtPA used during for immobilization on the loading of avidin protein (a) and rtPA activity (b).
Figure 3The clot lysis ability of free and immobilized rtPA form the fibrinolytic activity assay using the agar plate. Fibrinolysis activity was observed from a clear zone around the sample hole after incubation at 37 °C for 24 h using free rtPA at 10, 20, and 30 μU and PMNP-rtPA and pPMNP-rtPA at 20 μU (a). The thickness of the clear zone (blue lines) in (a) was measured and compared between free rtPA at different dosage (b), and between free rtPA, PMNP-rtPA, and pPMNP-rtPA (c). (d) Comparison of the fibrinolytic activity of phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (control), rtPA, PMNP-rtPA and pPMNP-rtPA from the lysis index using thromboelastometry at 1.7 μU/mL rtPA dosage. (e) The inhibition of free rtPA, PMNP-rtPA, and pPMNP-rtPA by plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) in vitro by measuring the residual amidolytic activity of rtPA after incubating with PAI-I at 37 °C for different times.
Figure 4The transmission electron microscope (TEM) images of Fe3O4 magnetic nanoparticles (MNP) (a,b), oleic acid coated magnetic nanoparticles (OMNP) (c,d), PLGA magnetic nanoparticles (PMNP) (e,f), avidin-modified PLGA magnetic nanoparticles (PMNP-avidin) (g,h), rtPA-conjugated PLGA magnetic nanoparticles (PMNP-rtPA) (i,j), and peptide/rtPA-conjugated PLGA magnetic nanoparticles (pPMNP-rtPA) (k,l). Bar = 2 μm (e,g,i,k), 1 μm (a,c) and 100 nm (b,d,f,h,j,l).
Figure 5Characterization of Fe3O4 magnetic nanoparticles (MNP), oleic acid coated magnetic nanoparticles (OMNP), PLGA magnetic nanoparticles (PMNP), avidin-conjugated PLGA magnetic nanoparticles (PMNP-avidin), rtPA-conjugated PLGA magnetic nanoparticles (PMNP-rtPA), and peptide/rtPA-conjugated PLGA magnetic nanoparticles (pPMNP-rtPA) by dynamic light scattering (DLS) (a) and X-ray diffraction (XRD) (b).
The average particle size, polydispersity index (PDI), zeta potential, and crystal size of different nanoparticles.
| Sample 1 | Average Diameter 2 (nm) | PDI | Zeta Potential (mV) | Crystal Size 3 (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MNP | 230.7 ± 17.1 | 0.19 ± 0.05 | 12.1 ± 2.9 | 10.2 |
| OMNP | 229.3 ± 18.5 | 0.20 ± 0.01 | −17.6 ± 0.9 | 10.5 |
| PMNP | 252.7 ± 13.4 | 0.19 ± 0.04 | −30.0 ± 1.3 | 10.3 |
| PMNP-avidin | 278.8 ± 19.1 | 0.21 ± 0.02 | −25.8 ± 0.4 | 11.7 |
| PMNP-rtPA | 291.2 ± 27.3 | 0.21 ± 0.04 | −24.4 ± 1.1 | 10.7 |
| pPMNP-rtPA | 321.1 ± 26.9 | 0.22 ± 0.05 | −22.1 ± 2.0 | 10.9 |
1 MNP: iron oxide magnetic nanoparticles, OMNP: oleic acid coated magnetic nanoparticles, PMNP: PLGA magnetic nanoparticles, PMNP-avidin: avidin-conjugated PLGA magnetic nanoparticles, PMNP-rtPA: rtPA-conjugated PLGA magnetic nanoparticles, pPMNP-rtPA: peptide/rtPA-conjugated PLGA magnetic nanoparticles. 2 Determined from dynamic light scattering (DLS). 3 Determined from x-ray diffraction (XRD).
Figure 6Characterization of Fe3O4 magnetic nanoparticles (MNP), oleic acid coated magnetic nanoparticles (OMNP), PLGA coated magnetic nanoparticles (PMNP), avidin-conjugated PLGA coated magnetic nanoparticles (PMNP-Avidin), rtPA-conjugated PLGA coated magnetic nanoparticles (PMNP-rtPA) and peptide/rtPA-conjugated PLGA magnetic nanoparticles (pPMNP-rtPA) by Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy (a) and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) (b).
The residual weight at 700 °C from thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and the Fe3O4 content determined from inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) and superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID).
| Sample 1 | Residual Weight from TGA (%) | Fe3O4 from ICP-OES | Fe3O4 from SQUID (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| MNP | 97.9 | 97.8 ± 1.6 | 100.0 ± 0.05 |
| OMNP | 87.7 | 87.1 ± 2.1 | 90.9 ± 0.11 |
| PMNP | 14.0 | 13.5 ± 0.3 | 15.5 ± 0.06 |
| PMNP-avidin | 13.4 | 12.3 ± 0.8 | 14.4± 0.11 |
| PMNP-rtPA | 17.1 | 10.5 ± 0.3 | 13.3 ± 0.07 |
| pPMNP-rtPA | 16.9 | 10.1 ± 0.4 | 13.5 ± 0.07 |
1 MNP: iron oxide magnetic nanoparticles, OMNP: oleic acid coated magnetic nanoparticles, PMNP: PLGA magnetic nanoparticles, PMNP-avidin: avidin-conjugated PLGA magnetic nanoparticles, PMNP-rtPA: rtPA-conjugated PLGA magnetic nanoparticles, pPMNP-rtPA: peptide/rtPA-conjugated PLGA magnetic nanoparticles.
Figure 7Characterization of Fe3O4 magnetic nanoparticles (MNP), oleic acid coated magnetic nanoparticles (OMNP), PLGA coated magnetic nanoparticles (PMNP), avidin-conjugated PLGA coated magnetic nanoparticles (PMNP-avidin), rtPA-conjugated PLGA coated magnetic nanoparticles (PMNP-rtPA), and peptide/rtPA-conjugated PLGA magnetic nanoparticles (pPMNP-rtPA) by superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) hysteretic magnetization curves (a). The remnant (residue) magnetization of all samples is close to zero, as shown in (b).
Figure 8Cytocompatibility of PMNP at different concentrations (n.s.: not significant compared to 0 μg/mL at 24 or 48 h, all samples) (a) and of different nanoparticles at 200 μg/mL (n.s.: not significant compared to PBS at 24 or 48 h, all samples) (b) by MTT assay after contacting with NIH 3T3 cells. Hemocompatibility of different nanoparticles was determined from the hemolysis assay by incubation with diluted red blood cells in PBS at 37 °C for 2 h to obtain the full-wavelength absorption spectra of the supernatant (c) and the hemolysis ratio from OD540 (d). Water and PBS were used as the positive and the negative controls, respectively.
Figure 9(a) Magnetic field guiding efficiency of different magnetic nanoparticles by attaching a magnet (1700 gauss) to the side of a tube containing 1 mg/mL nanoparticle in PBS for 5 min. (b) Fibrin-binding efficiency of PLGA magnetic nanoparticles (PMNP) and peptide-conjugated PLGA magnetic nanoparticles (pPMNP) was determined by contacting Cy 5.5-labelled magnetic nanoparticles (0.1 mg/mL) with a fibrin plate for 10 min. The fluorescence signal from the remnant nanoparticles bound to fibrin was observed under an inverted fluorescence microscope after washing (bar = 50 um).
Figure 10The in vitro static clot lysis with or without magnetic guidance in vertical position was carried out as illustrated in (a). The solution appearance after blood clot lysis (b) and the solution absorbance measured at 415 nm (OD415) (c) after incubating the blood clot with PBS, PMNP, rtPA or PMNP-rtPA solution (25 μU rtPA). * p < 0.05 compared with pPMNP-rtPA without magnet.
Figure 11The in vitro dynamic clot lysis was carried out as illustrated in (a). The solution appearance after blood clot lysis (b) and the solution absorbance measured at 415 nm (OD415) (c) after incubating the blood clot with PBS, PMNP, rtPA, PMNP-rtPA, or pPMNP-rtPA solution (50 μU rtPA activity). * p < 0.05 compared with PMNP-rtPA at 37 °C, # p < 0.05 compared with PMNP-rtPA at 43 °C.
Figure 12The schematic diagram of a flow model to evaluate pressure-driven thrombolysis at 0.5 mL/min (a). At time zero, different sample (PBS, pPMNP, rtPA, or pPMNP-rtPA) was introduced into the flow system and the blood clot lysis time was recorded when reperfusion occurs to determine the lysis efficiency (b). * p < 0.05 compared with rtPA.
Figure 13The in vivo thrombolytic effects of pPMNP-rtPA by evaluating targeted thrombolysis in a rat embolic model. (a) A blood clot was lodged into the left iliac artery and after 5 min pPMNP (n = 5), rtPA (1.5 U/kg; n = 5) or pPMNP-rtPA (0.3 U/kg; n = 5) was delivered from the right iliac artery and subject to magnetic guidance for 25 min. (b) Representative images of blood perfusion rate in the hind limb area at different time points after clot introduction using a laser speckle contrast imager. The abdominal aortic blood flow (ABF) (c) and iliac blood flow (IBF) (d) before and after blood clot introduction (0 min) was determined from ultrasonic flow probes. * p < 0.05 rtPA or pPMNP-rtPA vs. PMNP, # p < 0.05 rtPA vs. pPMNP-rtPA.