| Literature DB >> 32641930 |
Fereydoon Abedi Gaballu1,2,3, Soheil Abbaspour-Ravasjani4, Behzad Mansoori1, Reza Yekta3, Hamed Hamishehkar4, Ali Mohammadi1, Gholamreza Dehghan3, Behrooz Shokouhi5, Shaho Ghahremani Dehbokri1, Behzad Baradaran1.
Abstract
Erlotinib (ELT) as a small molecule with poor solubility, poor bioavailability, and instability in gastrointestinal environment, has been considered as a therapeutic agent for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) therapy through oral administration. In the present study, ELT-liposome and ELT-NLCs were successfully prepared and characterized by assessment of the particle size, zeta potential (ZP), polydispersity index (PDI), encapsulation efficiency (EE), and drug loading (DL). DAPI staining and Flow cytometry techniques were employed to probe anticancer activities of the optimal formulations. The obtained results indicated that the average size of optimized ELT-NLCs was 109 ± 2 nm, while the optimal formulation of ELT-liposome was 130 ± 4 nm. In addition, the values of EE, DL, and cellular uptake were higher in ELT-NLCs than ELT-liposome. Moreover, the stability of ELT-NLCs and ELT-liposome were not significantly changed (P > 0.05) within storage time. The results of anti-cancer assessment indicated that ELT-NLCs caused more cell viability reduction than ELT-liposome and free ELT. According to the Flow cytometry and DAPI staining results, the exposed A549 cells with ELT-NLCs had more rates of apoptosis than ELT-liposome. The obtained data from this study clearly showed that ELT-NLCs had better anti-cancer activity than ELT-liposome, which may be related to the effective nano particle size, PDI, EE, and DL of ELT-NLCs.Entities:
Keywords: A549 cells; Erlotinib; Liposome; NLCs
Year: 2019 PMID: 32641930 PMCID: PMC6934956 DOI: 10.22037/ijpr.2019.1100775
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Pharm Res ISSN: 1726-6882 Impact factor: 1.696
Composition, particle size, zeta potential, polydispersity index (PDI), encapsulation efficiency (EE), drug loading (DL) and formulation method of ELT-loaded NLCs. The results were calculated as the mean ± standard deviation (n = 3) *Precirol: Miglyol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | HH | 90:10 | 1% | 5 | 928±17 | -16±8 | 1.21±0.41 | 49±4.73 | 2.45±0.21 |
| F2 | HH | 80:20 | 1% | 5 | 761±11 | -10±4 | 0.81±0.21 | 52±5.25 | 2.60±0.26 |
| F3 | HH | 90:10 | 3% | 5 | 144±5 | -11±2 | 0.35±0.21 | 79±2.15 | 3.95±0.10 |
| F4 | HH | 80:20 | 3% | 5 | 109±2 | -16±5 | 0.22±0.11 | 87±3.11 | 4.35±0.15 |
| F5 | HH | 90:10 | 5% | 5 | 238±9 | -13±3 | 0.41±0.09 | 59±2.21 | 3.45±0.11 |
| F6 | HH | 80:20 | 5% | 5 | 221±16 | -19±7 | 0.99±0.34 | 61±1.81 | 2.05±0.09 |
Composition, particle size, zeta potential, polydispersity index (PDI), encapsulation efficiency (EE), drug loading (DL) and formulation method of ELT-loaded liposomes. The results were calculated as the mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). *Phosphatidylcholine: Cholesterol: Twin 80Ò
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | HH | 90:10:10 | 5 | 130±4 | 18±1 | 0.54±0.09 | 68±1.14 | 3.4±0.05 |
| F2 | HH | 80:20:10 | 5 | 148±8 | 12±3 | 0.29±0.13 | 38±2.64 | 1.9±0.13 |
| F3 | HH | 70:30:10 | 5 | 192±6 | 19±4 | 0.41±0.23 | 41±3.14 | 2.05±0.15 |
| F4 | HH | 60:40:10 | 5 | 291±10 | 9±2 | 0.51±0.12 | 31±6.1 | 1.55±0.30 |
| F5 | HH | 50:50:10 | 5 | 581±18 | 4±3 | 0.41±0.10 | 48±2.62 | 2.4±0.13 |
| F6 | HH | 40:60:10 | 5 | 748±21 | 8±6 | 0.47±0.13 | 41±3.51 | 2.05±0.17 |
Figure 1Represents size analysis and SEM imaging of ELT loaded Liposomes (a) and ELT loaded NLCs (b)
Figure 2Showing the storage stability of ELT loaded Liposomes and NLCs in refrigerator at 4-8 oC. The results were calculated as the mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01)
Figure 3Representation Quantitative cellular uptake of ELT-NLCs and ELT-liposome by A549 cell line that is measured by flow cytometry. A) ELT-liposome formulation cellular uptake. B) ELT-NLCs formulation cellular uptake and C) MFI of ELT-NLCs and ELT- liposome formulations. The results were calculated as the mean ± standard deviation (n = 3)
Figure 4Represents in-vitro cellular viability results of free ELT, ELT loaded Liposomes and NLCs in A549 cell line over 24 and 48 h. The results were calculated as the mean ± standard deviation (n = 3).
The IC50 concentration of free ELT, ELT loaded Liposomes and NLCs in 24 and 48 h. The results were calculated as the mean± standard deviation (n = 3). (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01).
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | 49.11 ± 3.21 | 31.87 ± 5.28 * | 13.04 ± 4.16 ** |
| 48 | 51.85 ± 4.23 | 10.07 ± 1.87 ** | 4.224 ± 0.32 ** |
Figure 5Displays fluorescent images of treated and untreated DAPI stained A549 cells, a) untreated, b) treated with docetaxel, c) blank, d) free drug, e) ELT loaded liposomes and f) ELT loaded NLCs (Red arrows shown healthy cell nuclei and white arrows shown fragmented cell nuclei samples
Figure 6Illustrates cell apoptosis induced by free ELT, ELT loaded Liposomes and NLCs over 48 h by using Annexin V-FITC/PI staining. The results were calculated as the mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). (ØP < 0.05, #P < 0.01)