Graphene oxide (GO) has been studied by many researchers for its potential drug-delivery value. In order to reduce the side effects of anticancer drugs by decreasing the dosage and maintain the therapeutic effects, a dual drug-delivery system that used GO as a carrier and simultaneously loaded with antitumor drugs and antimir-21 was rationally designed for the cooperative treatment of tumors. Results obtained from our studies have found that MDA-MB-231 cells were inhibited in low Dox dose. The outcomes of confocal microscopy indicated that Dox and antimiR-21 could be released rapidly in cancer cells, which is good for killing cancer cells. In addition, qRT-PCR further demonstrated that miR-21 was silenced by antimiR-21. Consequently, GO has a great potential to codeliver chemotherapeutic drugs and gene drugs in cancer combination therapy for reducing toxicity.
Graphene oxide (GO) has been studied by many researchers for its potential drug-delivery value. In order to reduce the side effects of anticancer drugs by decreasing the dosage and maintain the therapeutic effects, a dual drug-delivery system that used GO as a carrier and simultaneously loaded with antitumor drugs and antimir-21 was rationally designed for the cooperative treatment of tumors. Results obtained from our studies have found that MDA-MB-231 cells were inhibited in low Dox dose. The outcomes of confocal microscopy indicated that Dox and antimiR-21 could be released rapidly in cancer cells, which is good for killing cancer cells. In addition, qRT-PCR further demonstrated that miR-21 was silenced by antimiR-21. Consequently, GO has a great potential to codeliver chemotherapeutic drugs and gene drugs in cancer combination therapy for reducing toxicity.
The incidence of cancer
in the world is increasing annually, which
is a serious threat to people’s health.[1,2] In
addition, from the data provided by research, we can predict that
there will be 20 million cancerpatients in 2030 across the world.[3] The existing small molecular anticancer drugs
not only cause damage to normal cells or tissues but also restrict
their application because of poor water solubility. Therefore, changing
the administration method of anticancer drugs and synergistic treatment
of multiple drugs are both effective ways for tumor treatment. As
a drug-delivery system, nanocarriers have attracted much attention
of many researchers.[4−6] The emergence of nanotechnology is conducive to the
development of cancer treatment and new dimension of therapeutics,
where the combination of diagnosis and treatment can improve the health-care
management of clinics.[7,8] Nanoparticles with a specific
lateral size (50–200 nm) have an enhanced permeability and
retention effect on tumor tissues, which can infiltrate into and gather
inside the tumor tissue for a better treatment effect.[9−11]Graphene oxide (GO), a novel 2D nanomaterial prepared from
natural
graphite, has recently attracted significant attention because of
its intriguing electronic, mechanical, thermal, and optical properties.[12−14] Because of the small size and large surface area-to-volume ratio,
high stability, good biocompatibility, and easy surface modification
properties, GO has been widely explored for biological and biomedical
applications including bioimaging,[15−18] biosensors,[19−23] and drug or oligodeoxynucleotides delivery.[24−26] Several aromatic anticancer drugs, such as camptothecin and doxorubicin
(Dox), were loaded onto GO through π–π stacking
for delivering into the cancer cells in the previous study.[27]On the other hand, microRNAs (miRNAs)
are recognized as potential
biomarkers of cancer, which regulate their posttranscriptional repression
by binding to mRNAs of protein-coding genes, causing the regulation
of target mRNA degradation and protein expressions.[28−31] In particular, miR-21 has recently
received much attention by many research groups because of its over-expression
in a variety of cancer types including brain, liver, colon, and breast
cancers.[32,33] Several targets of miR-21 have been experimentally
validated, including PDCD4, PTEN, BCL-2, and RECK.[34] Most importantly, silencing of miR-21 could impede its
ability to inhibit tumor suppressor genes, which further inhibits
the invasion, proliferation, and migration of breast cancer cells.
In addition, it has been shown that inhibiting the function of miR-21
is helpful to overcome the multidrug resistance of cancer cells. Although
there have been studies using GO to deliver small interfering RNAs
to inhibit the function of miR-21 (silence miR-21),[35] it is well known that siRNA is expensive, unstable, and
easy to be degraded. Therefore, it is necessary to seek a low-priced
and steady delivery system. Here, a complementary strand of miR-21
(cDNA21or antimiR-21), which is cost-efficient and less susceptible
to degradation is applied to the study for silencing miR-21.In cancer treatment, chemotherapy drugs are not perfect. The main
problem with chemotherapy drugs is not invalid, but the side effects
are too strong. Chemotherapy drugs generally have a powerful killing
effect on cancer cells; however, they still cause serious damage to
normal cells which is induced by their lack of targeting. GO has been
widely reported to display great potential for drug delivery. Anticancer
drugs or nucleic acids can be easily delivered into cells using GO
to carry them through the cell membrane. Hence, in order to reduce
the side effects of anticancer drugs by decreasing the dosage and
maintain the therapeutic effects, cDNA21 combined with the anticancer
drug was used to treat cancer. A dual delivery system based on GO
which was simultaneously loaded with cDNA21 and Dox was rationally
designed for cancer synergetic therapy in our investigation. It is
our expectation that the outcomes provided in this study could offer
valuable information to stimulate the development of cancer synergistic
therapy.The fundamental principle of our strategy to design
the dual-functional
drug delivery system, Dox–GO–cDNA21, is displayed in Scheme . As shown in Scheme , FAM-cDNA21 (fluorescent
group FAM labeled cDNA21) and Dox were loaded onto the GO surface
by π–π stacking and hydrogen bonding interaction.
The GO-loaded FAM-cDNA21 and Dox was efficiently sent into the cytoplasm
under the action of endocytosis of the cancer cell. In the cytoplasm,
acidic conditions were induced by the lysosome, Dox was released from
the surface of GO and entered the cell nucleus to produce anticancer
effects. On the other hand, because of the presence of miR-21 in the
cancer cytoplasm, FAM-cDNA21 was pulled out of the GO surface, and
it tended to form FAM-cDNA21/miR-21 heteroduplexes, which results
in the silence of miR-21. Because miR-21 was silenced, the proliferation
and migration of cancer cells were suppressed. Additionally, single-stranded
DNA could be adsorbed on the surface of GO via π–π
stacking interactions, and then, the fluorescent groups carried by
the DNA was quenched by fluorescence resonance energy transfer. However,
DNA/RNA heteroduplexes cannot be adsorbed by GO. Fluorescence of FAM-modified
oligonucleotide will be gradually recovered because it was hybridized
with miR-21 to form heteroduplexes and was removed from the GO surface.
As a consequence, cDNA21 could propel resultful collaboration with
Dox to trigger the dual anticancer function even in the condition
of low dosage of Dox. It was speculated by us that the constructed
method is suitable for using in cancer synergistic therapy for the
purpose of reducing the dosage of anticancer drugs.
Scheme 1
Schematic Diagram
of the Synergistic Treatment Based on Simultaneous
Delivery of cDNA21 and Dox by GO
Results
and Discussion
Preparation and Characterization of GO
In order to
control the size of GO suitable for endocytosis, which requires the
average diameter of particles less than 200 nm,[36−38] GO was prepared
from graphite powder according to the improved Hummers method and
sonicated in water to produce well-exfoliated GO. Transmission electron
microscopy (TEM) and dynamic light scattering were applied to determine
the morphology and size distribution of GO. As shown in Figure S1, different-sized GO were obtained using
the sonication cutting approach, and the particle size of GO actually
decreases with the increase of ultrasound time. From Figure a–d, it is known that
the average diameter of GO reaches 172 ± 12 nm after 1 h of sonication.
In addition, the results of TEM also showed a significant decrease
in the diameter of GO (Figure c,d). Consequently, the GO, after 1 h of ultrasonic treatment,
was chosen for subsequent experiments.
Figure 1
Lateral dimension statistics
of nanosized GO (a) before ultrasound
and (b) after ultrasound 1 h. TEM images of GO (c) before ultrasound
and (d) after ultrasound 1 h.
Lateral dimension statistics
of nanosized GO (a) before ultrasound
and (b) after ultrasound 1 h. TEM images of GO (c) before ultrasound
and (d) after ultrasound 1 h.With the aim
of estimating the optimal dosage of GO for the Dox–GO–cDNA21
system (nucleic acid sequences in Table S1), the fluorescence quenching capability of the prepared GO was evaluated
by mixing FAM-cDNA21 (250 nM) with different concentrations of GO.
The fluorescence of FAM gradually declined with the growing concentration
of GO, as shown in Figure a, until almost complete quenching at the concentration of
50 μg/mL and no further remarkable fluorescence decrease were
observed. Therefore, the abovementioned concentration of GO was chosen
and used in this study. To demonstrate that Dox was loaded onto GO–cDNA21,
the fluorescence spectra and UV–vis spectra were applied. Compared
to the blank GO, the results of Figure b,c show that Dox–GO–cDNA21 has totally
different UV–vis absorbance and fluorescence signals. The UV–visible
spectrum indicates a significant increase in absorbance at 230 and
480 nm, while the fluorescence spectrum demonstrates a significant
decrease in Dox fluorescence at 590 nm. Furthermore, it can be seen
from Figure d that
the concentration of Dox is linear with the fluorescence intensity
when the concentration is in the range of 19.53–625 ng/mL.
In light of the standard curve of Figure d and formula , the drug-loading efficiency can be calculated to
be 39.55 wt %.
Figure 2
(a) Quantitation of GO. F is the fluorescence
intensity of FAM-cDNA21 with different concentrations of GO, and F0 corresponds to the fluorescence intensity
of FAM-cDNA21 in the absence of GO. The adsorption abilities of GO
for FAM-cDNA21. (b) Fluorescence spectra of GO, FAM-cDNA21, Dox, GO–Dox,
and Dox–GO–FAM-cDNA21 at 480 nm excitation. (c) UV–vis
Spectrum of GO, Dox, GO–Dox, and Dox–GO–cDNA21.
(d) Dox fluorescence standard curve.
(a) Quantitation of GO. F is the fluorescence
intensity of FAM-cDNA21 with different concentrations of GO, and F0 corresponds to the fluorescence intensity
of FAM-cDNA21 in the absence of GO. The adsorption abilities of GO
for FAM-cDNA21. (b) Fluorescence spectra of GO, FAM-cDNA21, Dox, GO–Dox,
and Dox–GO–FAM-cDNA21 at 480 nm excitation. (c) UV–vis
Spectrum of GO, Dox, GO–Dox, and Dox–GO–cDNA21.
(d) Dox fluorescence standard curve.
In Vitro Drug Release Experiments
In the Dox release
study of Dox–GO–cDNA21 in vitro, the release behavior
of drug-loaded samples in different pH buffers was tested separately.
As shown in Figure a, the cumulative release rates of Dox are not very high in different
pH conditions. This could be ascribed to the strong hydrogen bond
and π–π stacking interactions between Dox and GO.
Moreover, compared with the neutral environment, the acidic environment
is more conducive to the release of Dox. The cause of this phenomenon
may be due to the fact that π–π bonds can be interrupted
in the acidic environment, and hydrogen bonds between drug molecules
and GO are weakened at low pH, which result in preferable release
of the loaded Dox. This result revealed that the Dox would be better
released when Dox–GO–cDNA21 is in the acidic condition
which is induced by the lysosome in the cancer cell. In order to confirm
the combination of cDNA21 and miR-21, the hybridization experiment
of FAM-cDNA21 with miR-21 were performed. The fluorescent signal of
FAM was enhanced with the increment of miR-21 concentrations from
0 to 100 nM (Figure b), which demonstrates that the fluorescent signal is associated
with the concentration of miR-21. It was verified by the result that
cDNA21 could hybridize and silence miR-21 in cancer cells. In addition,
to investigate the stability of Dox–GO–cDNA21 against
damage by intracellular enzymes, different enzymes including DNase
I, T4 DNA ligase, EXO I, EXO III, T4 DNA ligase, DNA polymerase, and
RNase H were individually added to Dox–GO–cDNA21. It
is observed from Figure S2 that almost
no fluorescent signal was detected under different enzyme environments.
This result indicates that GO has a good protective effect on nucleic
acids, which means that the drug-loading system has excellent stability
against different enzymes in cells.
Figure 3
(a) Accumulative drug release (%) of Dox
in different pH buffer.
(b) Fluorescence intensity profiles for the system in the presence
of various concentrations of miR-21 in vitro.
(a) Accumulative drug release (%) of Dox
in different pH buffer.
(b) Fluorescence intensity profiles for the system in the presence
of various concentrations of miR-21 in vitro.
Confocal Fluorescence Imaging
With the purpose to affirm
whether Dox–GO–cDNA21 could readily enter cancer cells,
Dox and FAM-cDNA21 were employed as the fluorescent probe for intracellular
imaging, as shown in Figure a–f. In the images of confocal fluorescence, the fluorescence
of FAM-cDNA21 (Figure c) and Dox (Figure d) was captured after the MDA-MB-231 cell was treated with Dox–GO–cDNA21,
which means the drug was indeed taken up into the MDA-MB-231 cell.
More importantly, Figure c,d indicated that FAM-cDNA21 and Dox could be released from
the surface of GO, which fully confirmed the feasibility of our strategy.
Figure 4
Confocal
fluorescence images of MDA-MB-231 cells after incubation
with Dox–GO–cDNA21. (a) Light, (b) DAPI, (c) FAM-cDNA21,
(d) Dox, (e) merge without light, and (f) merge.
Confocal
fluorescence images of MDA-MB-231 cells after incubation
with Dox–GO–cDNA21. (a) Light, (b) DAPI, (c) FAM-cDNA21,
(d) Dox, (e) merge without light, and (f) merge.
In Vitro Cell Cytotoxicity Assays
Prior to cytotoxicity
assessment of Dox–GO–cDNA21, it is necessary to investigate
the cytotoxicity of GO to confirm the nontoxic behavior of GO, as
reported in the literature. Herein, the MDA-MB-231 cell was selected
because of the high expression of miR-21. The cell was treated with
GO in the concentration range of 0–250 μg/mL for 48 h
before conducting cell viability measurements by MTT assay. It can
be seen in Figure S3 that GO exhibited
negligible cytotoxicity at concentrations below 80 μg/mL as
cell viability remained relatively high. Subsequently, the MDA-MB-231
cellular cytotoxicity effect toward Dox–GO–cDNA21, which
including different concentrations of Dox and cDNA21, was also investigated
through MTT assay (Figure a). The results indicated that cDNA21 and Dox produce synergistic
inhibition on the MDA-MB-231 cell. Meanwhile, at a certain concentration
of Dox (0.4, 0.8, and 1.2 μg/mL), the cell viability decreased
gradually as the concentration of cDNA21 increased; that means increasing
the concentration of cDNA21 while reducing the concentration of Dox
can also inhibit the growth of the MDA-MB-231 cell. According to the
result of the MTT assay shown in Figure b, when the concentration of cDNA21 reached
250 nM, the inhibitory effect of the drug-loading system on the MDA-MB-231
cell was not significantly decreased with reduction in the dosage
of Dox. Cell viability without dramatic changes in the concentration
of Dox between 0.4 and 1.2 μg/mL is clearly observed.
Figure 5
(a) Cell viability
of MDA-MB-231 cells after treatment with different
concentrations of Dox and cDNA21. (b) Cell viability of MDA-MB-231
cells treated with different concentrations of Dox. Here, N means the concentration of Dox, N = 0.4
μg/mL. Results were obtained from a mean of three repeats with
their calculated ± standard deviations.
(a) Cell viability
of MDA-MB-231 cells after treatment with different
concentrations of Dox and cDNA21. (b) Cell viability of MDA-MB-231
cells treated with different concentrations of Dox. Here, N means the concentration of Dox, N = 0.4
μg/mL. Results were obtained from a mean of three repeats with
their calculated ± standard deviations.
qRT-PCR Analysis of miR-21
In order to further confirm
that miR-21 in the MDA-MB-231 cell was silenced, qRT-PCR has been
applied in our investigation. Treated with GO–cDNA21 and Dox–GO–cDNA21,
qRT-PCR was performed from the total RNA extracted from the MDA-MB-231
cell to evaluate miR-21 inhibition. The result of qRT-PCR consists
with the abovementioned other results. As shown in Figure , the both type-treated cells
displayed 99% decrease of the miR-21 level compared with the control,
which indicates that the expression of miR-21 is inhibited.
Figure 6
Relative expression
of miR-21 by and adding GO–cDNA21 and
Dox–GO–cDNA21.
Relative expression
of miR-21 by and adding GO–cDNA21 and
Dox–GO–cDNA21.
Conclusions
In conclusion, a cancer combined therapeutic
system Dox–GO–cDNA21
was designed and prepared in our study for the codelivery of anticancer
drugs and nucleic acids into cancer cells to reduce the side effect
of the high concentration of Dox. Through synergistic delivery of
250 nM of cDNA21, the dosage of Dox can be reduced by approximately
two times without weakening the efficacy of the drug. The results
of our investigation indicated that the delivery system still shows
potent anticancer effects even under the condition of low-dose anticancer
drugs. In addition, fluorescence observations of confocal microscopy
demonstrated that Dox–GO–cDNA21 can quickly enter MDA-MB-231
cells to release drugs. Moreover, the result of qRT-PCR further confirmed
that miR-21 was silenced by the antimiR-21 which is delivered into
the cancer cell using the designed system. We anticipate that the
accomplishment of this research will be to provide beneficial information
to the design of the drug-delivery system for cancer therapy and also
inspire applications in the treatment of other diseases.
Materials and
Methods
Chemicals
GO was prepared from graphite powder according
to the improved Hummers method.[39] Meilun
Biotechnology Tech Co., Ltd (Dalian) provided doxorubicin hydrochloride
(Dox). magnesium chloride hexahydrate (MgCl2·6H2O), potassium chloride (KCl), and sodium chloride (NaCl) were
acquired from China National Pharmaceutical Group Corp. Thiazolyl
blue tetrazolium bromide (MTT) was purchased from Beijing Solarbio
Science & Technology Co., Ltd. All enzymes used in the experiment
(including DNase I, EXO I, EXO III, etc.) were procured from New England
Biolabs (Beijing) Ltd. The reagents used in the experiment were of
analytical grade, which were used as received. Dulbecco’s modified
Eagle’s medium (DMEM), fetal bovine serum, and phosphate-buffered
saline (PBS) were purchased from Sigma. DNA and RNA used in the experiment
were both supplied by Shanghai Sangon Biotechnology. The sequence
of the nucleic acid can be seen in Table S1.
Characterization
High-resolution TEM image was obtained
using a JEM-2100 electron microscope. The Malvern Zetasizer Nano-ZS
was used to study the particle size distribution. The microplate reader
(TECAN Infinite M200 Pro) was used to detect the UV absorbance of
formazan in the MTT assay. Confocal imaging studies were performed
using a Zeiss LSM880 laser scanning confocal microscope.
Quantitation
of GO
To facilitate the research of the
drug-delivery system, cDNA21 was labeled as FAM. The FAM-cDNA21 was
controlled to 250 nM, and GO was gradually added to quench the fluorescence
of FAM-cDNA21, which aims at determining the amount of GO. The amount
of GO required is determined when the fluorescence of FAM-cDNA21 is
just completely quenched.
Preparation of Dox–GO–cDNA21
Complexes
Dox (10 mg) was first dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide
(DMSO) (1 mL)
and diluted to 100 μg/mL. cDNA21 (final concentration of 250
nM) and GO (final concentration of 50 μg/mL) were then mixed
in the Tris-HCl buffer to load the cDNA21 onto GO. Next, the diluted
Dox (final concentration: 20 μg/mL) was added to the above prepared
mixture and stirred overnight in the dark at room temperature so that
the Dox is fully loaded on the GO. To obtain the purified product,
the mixture was centrifuged at 8000 rpm for 20 min. After centrifugation,
the supernatant was collected, and the fluorescence intensity of Dox
was measured. In addition, the precipitate was redispersed with ultrapure
water to obtain the final product. In this experiment, we use the
following formula to calculate the drug-loading efficiency.where C0 is the
concentration of Dox initially added, V0 is the volume of Dox initially added, C1 is the concentration of the drug in the supernatant obtained by
centrifugation after drug loading, and V1 is the volume of the supernatant obtained by centrifugation after
drug loading.
Release of cDNA21
Dox–GO–cDNA21
was redispersed
in ddH20, and after incubation for 30 min at 37 °C
with different concentrations of miR-21, the fluorescence at 520 nm
was measured at an excitation wavelength of 480 nm.
Release of
Dox at Different pH values
Dox–GO–cDNA21
was redispersed in ddH2O, and transferred to dialysis bags
(Mw cutoff 3500 Da). Next, the dialysis bags containing Dox–GO–cDNA21
dispersion were separately immersed in 40 mL of PBS buffer at pH 7.4
and sodium acetate buffer pH 5.8. Then, the solution was placed in
an incubator (37 °C, 100 rpm) to release the drug. Each time,
1 mL of dialysate was taken out, and an equal volume of the corresponding
fresh buffer was added. The fluorescence intensity of Dox in the medium
at 580 nm was measured using the Microplate reader at the set time
intervals. In this experiment, we use the following formula to calculate
the cumulative drug release.where W2 represents
cumulative release dose (%), C represents concentration of the drug in the buffer solution
taken at time t, V represents volume
of the buffer, V represents
volume of the buffer solution taken at time t, C0 represents the concentration of Dox initially
added, V0 represents the volume of the
initially added Dox, C1 represents the
concentration of the drug in the supernatant obtained after centrifugation, V1 represents the volume of the supernatant obtained
by centrifugation after drug loading.
Stability of Dox–GO–cDNA21
To investigate
the stability of Dox–GO–cDNA21 against damage by intracellular
enzymes, different enzymes including DNase I, T4 DNA ligase, EXO I,
EXO III, T4 DNA ligase, DNA polymerase, and RNase H were individually
added to Dox–GO–cDNA21.
In Vitro Cytotoxicity Determination
The MTT assay was
used to study the in vitro cytotoxicity of GO materials to the MDA-MB-231
cells. MDA-MB-231 cells were inoculated into 96 well plates at a density
of 4 × 103 cells/well and cultured in an incubator
(37 °C, 5% CO2) for 24 h. After that, different concentrations
of the GO material were added to each well and further cultured in
the medium for 48 h. After incubation, 100 μL of fresh medium
was added to replace the original medium, and then, 20 μL of
MTT solution (5 mg/mL) was added and cultured for 4 h. After the termination
of cultivation, the medium in the wells was carefully sucked, and
100 μL of DMSO was added to each hole to dissolve the formazan.
Subsequently, the absorbance of each pore at 492 nm was measured using
a microplate reader. Here, we use the following formula to calculate
the cumulative drug release.ODtreated and ODcontrol in the formula, respectively,
represent the absorbance values of
samples and the positive control. The relative cell viability was
calculated by OD values measured on the basis of four independent
parallel samples.
Laser Confocal Imaging
MDA-MB-231
cells were seeded
in confocal dishes and incubated for 24 h. Dox (1.2 μg/mL)–GO
(50 μg/mL)–cDNA21 (250 nM) were incubated with the MDA-MB-231
cells in DMEM. After 6 h incubation, MDA-MB-231 cells were washed
with 1 mL of PBS five times, each time for 3 min. Then, the cell nucleus
was stained with 1 mL of 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI)
solution for 10 min. After staining, the MDA-MB-231 cells were washed
with 1 mL of PBS five times, each time for 3 min. The cells after
staining were stored in a 4 °C refrigerator for subsequent laser
scanning confocal microscopy observation. The phagocytic effect of
the MDA-MB-231 cells on the Dox–GO–cDNA21 complex was
observed by laser scanning confocal microscopy.
qRT-PCR Analysis
of miR-21
We designed a qPCR experiment
to detect the expression of miR-21. First, MDA-MB-231 cells were lysed
with the TRIzol reagent, and the total RNA was extracted and collected.
Then, the first strand of miRNA cDNA was synthesized by polyadenylation
of the total RNA. The expression of miR-21 was detected by qPCR with
miR-21 forward primers and universal reverse primers provided by the
kit.
Authors: Xiaoming Sun; Zhuang Liu; Kevin Welsher; Joshua Tucker Robinson; Andrew Goodwin; Sasa Zaric; Hongjie Dai Journal: Nano Res Date: 2008 Impact factor: 8.897
Authors: I A Asangani; S A K Rasheed; D A Nikolova; J H Leupold; N H Colburn; S Post; H Allgayer Journal: Oncogene Date: 2007-10-29 Impact factor: 9.867