| Literature DB >> 32410869 |
Claudia Robles-Planells1,2,3, Giselle Sánchez-Guerrero1,2, Carlos Barrera-Avalos1, Silvia Matiacevich4, Leonel E Rojo1,2, Jorge Pavez5, Edison Salas-Huenuleo6,7, Marcelo J Kogan6,7, Alejandro Escobar8, Luis A Milla9, Ricardo Fernandez10, Mónica Imarai1,2, Eugenio Spencer1,2, Juan Pablo Huidobro-Toro1,3, Claudio Acuña-Castillo1,2.
Abstract
Oncolytic virus therapy has been tested againstEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32410869 PMCID: PMC7206890 DOI: 10.1155/2020/8680692
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mediators Inflamm ISSN: 0962-9351 Impact factor: 4.711
Figure 1NP characterization and evaluation. (a) Complex ensemble was evaluated at various ratios between chitosan and pGFP by electrophoretic migration of pDNA in the presence of chitosan on an agarose gel. DNA ladder (L) is shown in lane 1, naked vector (NV) was used as a negative control in lane 2, and the different N/P complexes are shown in lanes 3-6. (b) Complex formation efficiency was evaluated as described in Materials and Methods, and it corresponds to insoluble pDNA with respect to total pDNA and represented as average+/−standard error. Representative histograms from physical parameters such as (c) size and (d) zeta potential for N/P 4, 20, 28, and 40 are shown in red, green, blue, and black, respectively. (e) NP morphology was determined by atomic force microscopy for N/P 20 and 28. (f) The effect of the naked vector (NV) and NP (N/P from 4 to 40) on cell viability was evaluated by MTT assays at 24, 48, and 120 h after challenge and was normalized against untreated cells (control). (g) Transfection efficiency was evaluated using GFP as a reporter with NPs or Lipofectamine and evaluated by flow cytometry. A minimum of three independent experiments was performed. Bars correspond to average+/−standard error, and statistical analyses were performed using the Mann–Whitney test (∗p < 0.05).
Figure 2NP-ISAV characterization and effects. (a) Complex ensemble was evaluated between chitosan and pIRES-ISAV vector by electrophoretic migration on an agarose gel. DNA ladder (L) is shown in lane 1, naked vector in lane 2, and complexes in lane 3. Representative histograms from physical parameters such as (b) size and (c) zeta potential are shown. (d) The expression of ISAV fusion protein (upper panel) and housekeeping GAPDH (lower panel) was determined by RT-PCR 48 hours posttransfection. A representative gel shows DNA ladder (L, lane 1), PCR blank control (Blank, lane 2), parental cells nontransfected (n/transf, lane 3), Lipofectamine-ISAV cells transfected (Lipo-ISAV, lane 4), and NP-ISAV cells transfected (NP-ISAV, lane 4). (e) The fusogenic activity of the ISAV-F protein was determined by evaluating the presence of syncytia 48 h posttransfection comparing B16 parental cells (upper panel), Lipo-ISAV transfected B16 cells (middle panel), and NP-ISAV transfected B16 cells (lower panel). Cells were stained with DAPI (left column) and CellMask (middle column). The merge of both colors is shown in the right column, where a white arrow indicates a syncytium. (f) Numbers of syncytia should be quantified in B16, B16 Lipo-ISAV, and B16 NP-ISAV and correspond to the average of 5 fields, of 3 independent experiments. (g) The effect of transfection on cell viability was evaluated at 24, 48, and 120 h posttransfection and was normalized against nontransfected cells; data from Lipofectamine (Lipo-ISAV) and nanoparticle (NP-ISAV) transfected cells were graphed as average+/−standard error. Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann–Whitney test (∗p < 0.05).
Figure 3Effect of treatment with NP-ISAV on tumor growth. (a) Treatment diagram. Mice were injected subcutaneously (s.c.) with 2 × 105 living cells in the mouse lumbar region. When the tumor reached 2.0 mm3, mice received, or not (control group), chitosan or NP-ISAV intratumor treatment and were daily monitored until the endpoint criteria. (b) Tumor growth was compared between the nontreated group (control, open circles), the chitosan-treated group (CH, gray circles), and the NP-ISAV-treated group (NP-ISAV, black circles). Representative histograms from tumor-infiltrating T (c) CD8+ (lower panel) and CD4+ (upper panel) cells are shown for untreated mice (control), chitosan treated (CH), or chitosan ISAV nanoparticles (NP-ISAV). (d) A summary of at least 5 independent experiments is shown. Bars correspond to average+/−standard error. Individual experiments are graphed; statistical analyses were performed using the Mann–Whitney test (∗p < 0.05).
Figure 4Effect of treatment with NP-ISAV on splenic T cells. Representative histograms of splenic T (a) CD8+ and T (b) CD4+ cells are shown for untreated mice (control), chitosan treated (CH), and chitosan ISAV nanoparticles (NP-ISAV). (c) A summary of at least 5 independent experiments is shown. Bars correspond to average+/−standard error; individual experiments are graphed; statistical analyses were performed using the Mann–Whitney test (∗p < 0.05).
Figure 5Effect of treatment with NP-ISAV on splenic T CD4+ subpopulations. Splenic (a) CD4+ Tbet+, (b) CD4+ RORγt+, and (c) CD4+ FoxP3+ subpopulations were determined as described in Materials and Methods for untreated mice (control), chitosan treated (CH), and chitosan ISAV nanoparticles (NP-ISAV). Left corresponds to representative histograms and right corresponds to a summary of at least 5 independent experiments. Bars correspond to average+/−standard error; individual experiments are graphed; statistical analyses were performed using the Mann–Whitney test (∗p < 0.05).