Jiaqi Yan1,2, Chang Liu2, Qiwei Wu3, Junnian Zhou4, Xiaoyu Xu2, Lirong Zhang3, Dongqing Wang3, Fan Yang1, Hongbo Zhang2. 1. The Center for Drug Research and Development, Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510006, China. 2. Pharmaceutical Sciences Laboratory and Turku Bioscience Center, Åbo Akademi University, FI-20520 Turku, Finland. 3. Department of Radiology, Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University, Jiangsu University, 212001 Zhenjiang, P.R. China. 4. Experimental Hematology and Biochemistry Lab, Beijing Institute of Radiation Medicine, Beijing 100850, China.
Abstract
The zeolitic imidazolate framework (ZIF-8), composed of zinc ion and dimethylimidazole, is widely used in drug delivery because of the easy fabrication process and the good biosafety. However, ZIF-8 suffers from low affinity to nonelectric-rich drugs and does not have surface functional groups. Here, to deliver doxorubicin (DOX) with ZIF-8 to specific target sites, DOX was first modified with a pH-sensitive linker containing two carboxyl groups to form the inactive prodrug CAD and subsequently seeded inside ZIF-8 by a 5 min mineralization process. CAD has high affinity to ZIF-8 because of the carboxyl groups and can anchor to the ZIF-8 surface to enable the surface modification with folic acid for tumor targeting. Moreover, the DOX release is precisely controlled by three steps of acidic pH response, with the dissociation of the FA layer, the breakdown of the ZIF-8 structure, and the cleavage of the pH-sensitive linker in prodrug. This novel "prodrug-ZIF-8" strategy has opened a new horizon in drug delivery.
The zeolitic imidazolate framework (ZIF-8), composed of zinc ion and dimethylimidazole, is widely used in drug delivery because of the easy fabrication process and the good biosafety. However, ZIF-8 suffers from low affinity to nonelectric-rich drugs and does not have surface functional groups. Here, to deliver doxorubicin (DOX) with ZIF-8 to specific target sites, DOX was first modified with a pH-sensitive linker containing two carboxyl groups to form the inactive prodrug CAD and subsequently seeded inside ZIF-8 by a 5 min mineralization process. CAD has high affinity to ZIF-8 because of the carboxyl groups and can anchor to the ZIF-8 surface to enable the surface modification with folic acid for tumor targeting. Moreover, the DOX release is precisely controlled by three steps of acidic pH response, with the dissociation of the FA layer, the breakdown of the ZIF-8 structure, and the cleavage of the pH-sensitive linker in prodrug. This novel "prodrug-ZIF-8" strategy has opened a new horizon in drug delivery.
Nanomedicine enables specifical
drug delivery at the target sites with controlled release, which shows
great potential in cancer diagnosis and treatment.[1−3] Metal–organic
frameworks (MOFs) composed of metal clusters and organic ligands,
which have various advantages compared with many other available drug-delivery
systems (DDSs) because of the defined crystal structure and the flexibility
in the ascendant combination of both organic and inorganic.[4−7] Among different types of MOFs, the ZIF-8 system which is composed
of Zn and dimethylimidazole is widely studied in the drug-delivery
field because of the following: (1) The ZIF-8 system shows excellent
biocompatibility at low concentration, since Zn is an essential element
for the development of the human immune system and nervous system,[8] and imidazolyl is part of the amino acid histidine;[9] (2) ZIF-8 can be easily synthesized at room temperature
in 5 min with tunable size, which can also be easily scaled up for
future applications in the clinic;[10−13] (3) The ZIF-8 system has acidic-responsive
degradation, which benefits its drug delivery to a tumor microenvironment
and an intracellular environment.[14] Nevertheless,
despite the many advantages of the ZIF-8 system, there are still some
crucial issues that make it unable to fully meet the clinical needs
for targeted drug delivery. For instance, (1) ZIF-8 NPs shows lower
affinity with drugs that lack electric-rich groups like carboxyl groups,
carbonyl, and so on. This character limits their loading capacity
and causes undesired premature release of certain drugs;[15−17] (2) Since no active chemical groups exist on the ZIF-8 structure,
the system bears poor surface functionalization ability for further
active targeting design;[18,19] (3) It has been found
that at high concentration, ZIF-8 NPs also show a toxic effect. Therefore,
the doses must be limited.[14,20,21] Moreover, many other MOF candidates have suffered from similar drawbacks
in biomedical applications.To overcome these problems, different
strategies have been investigated
to improve the ZIF-8 system, such as surface coating by ZrO2 or polydopamine to decrease the ZIF-8toxicity[20] and carbonating ZIF-8 at 800 °C and then reacting
it with (NH4)2S2O8 and
concentrated H2SO4 to achieve surface carboxylation
for postmodification.[22] However, these
methods are complicated and need harsh reaction conditions; hence,
they are difficult to scale up. Furthermore, the drug loading capacity
cannot be improved with those methods.Doxorubicin (DOX), a
first-line anticancer drug, can inhibit cell
proliferation by disturbing the synthesis of RNA and DNA. However,
DOX lacks targeting ability and has strong cardiotoxicity; thus, more
effective DOX delivery is still highly demanded. Prodrug strategies
have been investigated in the design of DDSs. Modifying drugs into
inactive prodrugs and releasing the parent drug after being triggered
by specific environments has been applied to reduce the drug toxicity
and improve the target drug delivery.[23,24] It has been
reported that after modifying paclitaxel (PTX) with 3,3′-dithiodipropionic
acid, the toxicity of PTX apparently decreased and redox-mediate releasing
ability was achieved.[25] Moreover, the modification
can also introduce active reaction groups for further functionalization.Herein, we have developed a proof of concept methodology for target-specific
and pH-responsive delivery of DOX by ZIF-8 (Scheme ). DOX was first modified by a pH-sensitive
linker cis-aconitic anhydride (CAA), which contains two carboxyl groups
and forms the prodrug CAD, and then the CAD was loaded into ZIF-8
NPs through a 5 min mineralization process. Since CAD has two carboxyl
groups, the affinity to ZIF-8 can be significantly improved, thus
achieve high loading degree and negligible burst release. Moreover,
the carboxyl groups anchored to the ZIF-8 surface can be further conjugated
with a tumor-targeting ligand to achieve targeted drug delivery. The
pH-responsive nature of ZIF-8 and the CAD can further improve the
tumor selectivity. Therefore, this simple and effective CAD@ZIF-8
platform has opened up a new horizon in drug delivery, which extends
the MOF-based DDSs and the targeted delivery of DOX.
Scheme 1
Fabrication
of CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs as a Versatile Nanovehicle for i.v.
Injection Cancer Treatment
Experimental
Section
Materials
Doxorubicin (DOX·HCl) and folic acid
(FA) were purchased from Arisun ChemPharm Co., Ltd. (China). cis-Aconitic anhydride (CAA), ethylenediamine, 4-dimethylaminopyridine
(DMAP), N-hydroxy succinimide (NHS), and N-(3-(dimethylamino)propyl)-N-ethylcarbodiimide
hydrochloride (EDC·HCl) were purchased from Alfa Aesar (Finland).
2-Methylimidazole (MIM), Zn (NO3)2·6H2O, N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF), triethylamine
(TEA), dichloromethane (DCM), and menthol (MeOH) were purchased from
Sigma-Aldrich (Finland).
Synthesis of CAD and FA-NH2
Doxorubicin
hydrochloride (200 mg) was dissolved in distilled water (20 mL) and
cooled on ice. cis-Aconitic anhydride (300 mg) was
dissolved in 1,4-dioxane (1 mL) and slowly added to the doxorubicin
solution with continuous stirring. The pH of the reaction mixture
was immediately adjusted to 9.0 and controlled in the range of 8.5–9.0
by carefully adding NaOH (0.5 M). The reaction mixture was placed
in an ice bath for 20 min. Then the pH was adjusted to 7.0 with cold
HCl (1 M), and the mixture was stirred for another 20 min. HCl (1
M) was added slowly to the mixture until a heavy precipitate (cis-aconitic anhydride-doxorubicin, CAD) was formed. Then
the product was extracted with ethyl acetate (25 mL × 4) and
evaporated. Folic acid was animated with ethylene diamine through
the formation of an amide bridge. For the conjugation, folic acid
(220 mg) has to be treated with ethylenediamine (3.2 mL), stirred
overnight using EDC/NHS as catalyst, and then extracted in ether.
Synthesis of CAD@ZIF-8 and CAD@ZIF-8-FA
The prescription
for different CAD loading ratios of CAD@ZIF-8 was tried and tested.
Briefly, 135 mg of zinc nitrate and different amounts of CAD (0, 4,
8, 16, 32 mg) were dissolved in 2 mL of water, respectively, and sonicated
for use. Next, 3.7 g of dimethylimidazole was dissolved in 8 mL of
water, sonicated at 40 °C, and then poured into a 20 mL beaker
with a 1 cm stir bar at 100 rpm. After that, the zinc nitrate and
the CAD mixture were poured into the beaker instantly, stirred for
5 min, centrifuged at 16 000 rpm, and washed 3 times using
milli-Q water; as a result, CAD@ZIF-8 was obtained. Subsequently,
20 mg of the different loading ratios of CAD @ZIF-8 NPs was redispersed
in 10 mL of water, separately, and 1.5 mg of EDC and 1.3 mg of NHS
were added in each group. After activating the carboxyl groups of
CAD which are on the surface of the nanoparticles for 1 h, 5 mg of
FA-NH2 was added for each loading ratio group. After being
stirred overnight, centrifuged at 16 000 rpm, and washed 3
times, different loading ratios of CAD@ZIF-8-FA can be achieved.
Characterization of the CAD, FA-NH2, and Nanoparticles
The 1H NMR spectra of CAD, FA-NH2 were recorded
on Bruker 500 NMR spectrometers (Bruker, Billerica, MA, U.S.A.). Mass
spectra were recorded for CAD on a Bruker Daltonics microTOF-Q mass
spectrometer (Bruker, Billerica, MA, U.S.A.). In addition, the FTIR
spectra of CAD, CAD@ZIF-8, and CAD@ZIF-8-FA were recorded on a Thermo
Scientific Nicolet iS50 Fourier transform infrared spectrometer in
the wavenumber of 400–4000 cm–1. Particle
sizing was performed using dynamic light scattering with Zetasizer
Nano ZS (Malvern Instruments Ltd., U.K.). For each measurement, the
sample (1.0 mL) was put in a disposable polystyrene cuvette (SARSTEDT
AG & Co., Germany). The nanocarrier surface ζ-potential
was measured with Zetasizer Nano ZS by using disposable folded capillary
cells (DTS1070, Malvern, U.K.). Both the size and ζ-potential
were recorded as the average of three measurements. The structure
of the blank ZIF-8, CAD@ZIF-8, and CAD@ZIF-8-FA were evaluated by
transmission electron microscope (TEM; JEOL 1400 Plus, JEOL, U.S.A.)
at an acceleration voltage of 80 kV. The TEM samples were prepared
by using a tweezer to hold the carbon-coated copper grids (200 mesh;
Ted Pella, Inc., U.S.A.) and soaking them within the particle solution;
they were then removed and dried in the air prior to imaging.
Characterization
of Drug Loading Degree and Efficiency
The CAD loading degree
(LC) and FA loading efficiency (LE) were calculated
according to the following formulas (1) and (2):The DOX
loading contents were quantified by
gradient analytical HPLC assay. An HPLC assay was performed on an
Agilent 1100 instrument, and 20 μL of solution was loaded onto
a Waters reverse phase column (250 × 4.6 mm). Acetonitrile (TFA
0.1%):water (TFA 0.1%) (Acetonitrile increase from 5 to 95% with 20
min) was eluted at a flow rate of 1 mL/min at 490 nm by a UV detector
(UV-975, Jasco). FA was detected by UV–vis absorption at 282
nm.
In Vitro Release of DOX
CAD@ZIF-8-FA was dispersed
in 1.0 mL of PBS buffer solution (pH = 6; pH = 7.4) and then gently
shaken at 37 °C in the darkroom. At selected time intervals,
the solution was centrifuged at 16 000 rpm, and then 0.9 mL
of supernatant was withdrawn and analyzed by HPLC. Subsequently, 0.9
mL of fresh medium was returned to the original solution and sonicated
until the nanoparticles were dispersed well; the medium was then put
back into the shaker. The standard curve detected by HPLC for DOX
is Y = 4.6348X – 0.0283 (R
= 0.9998). Here Y is UV absorption integral of DOX
at 490 nm wavelengths; X is the concentration of
DOX (μg).
In Vitro Assays
The drug efficacy
in cancerous and
healthy cells was determined by a WST-1 cell viability assay. MDA-MB-231cancer cells and MCF-10A cells were incubated overnight in a 96-well-plate
(3000 cells per well) in cell growth media at 37 °C with 5% CO2. The following day, the cell growth media were replaced with
fresh media containing a different concentration of CAD, DOX, CAD@ZIF-8,
and CAD@ZIF-8-FA and incubated for 24 h. Free drug stock solutions
(DOX, CAD) were prepared in DMSO, and nanoparticles were suspended
in water. All the dilutions for the cell viability assay were prepared
in cell growth media. After being incubated with free drug or nanoparticles,
10 μL of WST-1 reagent was added to each well, and the cells
were incubated for 2 h at 37 °C with 5% CO2. After
incubation, the absorbance was measured by a Varioskan Flash Multimode
Reader (Thermo Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, U.S.A.) at 440 nm. The
blank ZIF-8 concentration corresponds to the content of the ZIF-8
in each NPs at different loading ratio. For cell culture and maintenance,
CLSM imaging, and flow cytometry assay, all the details are provided
in the Supporting Information.
In Vivo Assays
All animal studies were performed in
accordance with the Ethics Committee of Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu
University. huPBMC-NCG mice were established by implanting human peripheral
blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) into NCG mice. Human peripheral blood
mononuclear cells (hPBMCs) were injected the caudal vein (1 ×
107 cells) of NCG mice for huPBMC reconstitution. Subcutaneous
inoculation of MDA-MB-231cancer cells into the male NCG mice which
were purchased from GemPharmatech. When the average body weight reached
19 g, the mice were randomly divided into four groups (six mice per
group): the group treated with saline (200 μL) served as the
control, while the other three groups were, respectively, injected
with DOX, blank ZIF-8, and CAD@ZIF-8-FA (equal to 3 mg of DOX per
gram mice, 200 μL), respectively, every 3 days for 19 days.
Meanwhile, the mice were weighed, and the tumor volumes were measured
every 3 days. The tumor volumes were calculated using the following
equations: V = (length × width2)/2.
The mice were euthanized at the end of the treatments for histological
analysis. The tumors and major organs (including heart, liver, spleen,
kidney, and lung) were harvested for routine staining with hematoxylin–eosin
(H&E). The final images were obtained and analyzed under a microscope
(IVIS Lumina XRMS Series III, Perkin Elmer).
Results and Discussion
Synthesis
and Characterization of CAD
DOX were fabricated
into a prodrug CAD through a one-step ring-opening reaction.[26] The active carboxyl group within CAD not only
can achieve high carrier affinity but also can realize carboxylation
of ZIF-8 for further folate conjugation. The synthetic scheme was
shown in Figure A.
The 1H NMR spectra shows that after modifying DOX by cis-aconitic anhydride (CAA), new peaks at 6.1 and 6.8 ppm
were found, which were attributed to the protons (CH–COO−)
of the CAA within the structure of CAD (Figure B). Moreover, the MS spectra of CAD (Figure C) gave a peak at
a mass of 698.1865, corresponding to the calculated mass of 698.1727.
Furthermore, the successful preparation of CAD prodrug was also confirmed
by HPLC. We can see that the DOX and CAD had different peaks with
retention times of 4.957 and 12.428 min, respectively (Figure S1). Therefore, MS, NMR, and HPLC results
together confirmed that the CAD was successfully synthesized.
Figure 1
Nuclear magnetic
spectrum and mass spectrometry results of prodrug
CAD. (A) Synthesis route of CAD. (B) 1H NMR spectra of
CAD and DOX in DMSO-d6. (C) MS spectra
of CAD.
Nuclear magnetic
spectrum and mass spectrometry results of prodrug
CAD. (A) Synthesis route of CAD. (B) 1H NMR spectra of
CAD and DOX in DMSO-d6. (C) MS spectra
of CAD.
Synthesis and Characterization
of CAD@ZIF-8 and CAD@ZIF-8-FA
NPs
CAD@ZIF-8 particles were synthesized in pure aqueous
solutions for 5 min at room temperature.[27] The transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images (Figure A and Figure S2) revealed that when increasing the loading degree from 12.1%
to 43.97%, the size of NPs changed from 80 to 450 nm. Meanwhile, the
hydrodynamic size measured by dynamic light scattering (DLS) (Figure B) were 159 to 590
nm, which consisted well with the TEM image. More importantly, the
CAD attached layer and ZIF-8 corners were found and marked with arrows
at 43.97% CAD loading degree (Figure S2), indicating that with the increased CAD loading degree, CAD formed
an attachment layer on the ZIF-8 surface.
Figure 2
Characterization of blank
ZIF-8, CAD@ZIF-8, and CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs.
(A) TEM images. (B) Size results from DLS. (C) Zeta potential of CAD@ZIF-8
with different concentrations of CAD. (D) Folic acid binding efficiency
and (E) FTIR spectra (n = 3).
Characterization of blank
ZIF-8, CAD@ZIF-8, and CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs.
(A) TEM images. (B) Size results from DLS. (C) Zeta potential of CAD@ZIF-8
with different concentrations of CAD. (D) Folic acid binding efficiency
and (E) FTIR spectra (n = 3).As shown in Figure C, we found that when loading degree was enhanced from 0 to 34.75%,
the zeta potential only decreased 16.3 mV, whereas when the loading
degree was increased from 34.75% to 43.97%, a 23.9 mV decrease was
found. These results suggested that CAD was mineralized by ZIF-8 and
the zeta potential was significantly affected at higher CAD loading
degree.On the basis of the characterization results of CAD@ZIF-8,
we chose
CAD@ZIF-8 NPs with 34.75% of CAD loading for later FA conjugating.
To enable the conjugation, we modified the FA with ethylenediamine
for a later amidation reaction. The NMR results of FA-NH2 are shown in Figure S3. After incubation,
a significant FA layer was observed in the CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs (Figure A) even after extensive
washing and sonication, and the zeta potential decreased to −10
± 1.03 mV (Figure S4). Meantime, Figure D indicated that
the blank ZIF-8 had low FA binding efficiency of 25%. However, when
CAD loading degree was increased from 12.1% to 43.97%, the FA loading
efficiency increased from 44% to 67.4%. As mentioned above, when CAD
loading degree increases, more CAD will be coordinated on the ZIF-8
surface and facilitate the FA conjugation, therefore enhancing the
FA binding efficiency. Moreover, the FTIR results (Figure E) showed two new peaks at
1577 and 1243, which were attributed to the newly formed amide bond.[28] Those results proved that the FA is covalently
binding instead of physical absorbing to the CAD@ZIF-8.
In Vitro Release
of DOX
Taking advantage of the FA
surface modification, pH-sensitivity of ZIF-8, and prodrug, the release
of DOX within an acid tumor environment requires three steps, which
greatly enhances the releasing selectivity (Figure S5). The first step is the cleavage of the pH-sensitive linker
between “CAD-FA” on the surface of ZIF-8, which in turn
exposes the ZIF-8 NPs. The second step is the pH-sensitive degradation
of ZIF-8NPs and then release of the prodrug CAD. The third step is
the pH-sensitive breakage of the linker in the prodrug and then release
of the parent drug DOX.
Cytotoxicity Assays
To further evaluate
the cytotoxicity
of CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs, a standard in vitro WST-1 assay was performed.
From the results of Figure A, CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs exhibited a strong tumor-killing ability
for MDA-MB-231 cells. Meanwhile, we also found that pure DOX exhibits
more toxicity when DOX concentration was lower than 1 μg mL–1, while CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs showed more toxicity at high
concentration (≥2.5 μg mL–1). This
may have occurred because the prodrug had less toxicity than parent
drug under the same cultivated time, while at high concentration,
the ZIF-8 carriers have enhanced the toxicity of DOX.
Figure 3
Cytotoxicity and cell
uptake. (A) Cytotoxicity of
DOX, CAD, CAD@ZIF-8, and CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs for
MDA-MB-231. (B) DOX, CAD, CAD@ZIF-8, CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs, and blank ZIF-8
for MCF-10A. (C) Confocal microscopy images of CAD, CAD@ZIF-8, and
CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs uptake in cancer cells MDA-MB-231 at 2 and 16 h.
The scale bars denote 20 μm. (D) Flow cytometry of cellular
uptake of the control group, CAD, CAD@ZIF-8, and CAD@ZIF-8-FA at 2
and 16 h, respectively, for MDA-MB-231.
Cytotoxicity and cell
uptake. (A) Cytotoxicity of
DOX, CAD, CAD@ZIF-8, and CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs for
MDA-MB-231. (B) DOX, CAD, CAD@ZIF-8, CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs, and blank ZIF-8
for MCF-10A. (C) Confocal microscopy images of CAD, CAD@ZIF-8, and
CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs uptake in cancer cells MDA-MB-231 at 2 and 16 h.
The scale bars denote 20 μm. (D) Flow cytometry of cellular
uptake of the control group, CAD, CAD@ZIF-8, and CAD@ZIF-8-FA at 2
and 16 h, respectively, for MDA-MB-231.Meanwhile, the results of the healthy cell MCF-10A showed that
the CAD and CAD@ZIF-8-FA groups had no toxicity for healthy cells
even at a high concentration of 10 μg mL–1 (Figure B). However,
at a DOX concentration of 10 μg mL–1, the
cell variability was approximately 70%, and similar results were found
with the pure ZIF-8. In the CAD@ZIF-8 group, the cell variability
was around 40%. These results indicated that at high concentration,
ZIF-8 and CAD@ZIF-8 NPs can induce cell toxicity for both healthy
cells and tumor cells, while the FA layer can protect against toxicity
in healthy cells and induce tumor-selective killing.To investigate
whether zinc will enhanced the toxicity of DOX,
we performed the WST-1 assay with Zn2+ ion, ZIF-8, DOX,
DOX + Zn2+, and DOX + ZIF-8 groups (Figure S6). The results showed that zinc ions (corresponding
with the DOX concentration in NPs) did not increase the toxicity of
DOX, but a positive charge of CAD@ZIF-8 NPs may cause the enhanced
cell uptake and then enhance the toxicity.
CLSM Imaging and Flow Cytometry
Assay
Subsequently,
to more intuitively observe the drug phagocytosis inside the cell,
we conducted confocal experiments. The fluorescence excitative wavelength
of CAD is similar to DOX as reported previously.[29] However, its fluorescent behavior in the presence of cells
is unknown. Hence, as shown in Figure S7, we detected and found that the PE channel for DOX detection is
also good for detecting CAD.From CAD groups in Figure C, a small amount of red signal
was found in cells within 2 h. This may occurred because the prodrug
CAD was converted into the parent drug DOX in the acidic tumor microenvironment,
then enter the nuclei to achieve the therapeutic effect (Figure S7). For the NPs groups, the CLSM and
flow cytometry indicated that the CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs showed significantly
higher uptake than CAD@ZIF-8 (Figure C,D) in the MDA-MB-231cancer cells, which was induced
by folic-mediated endocytosis. Whereas, CAD@ZIF-8 and CAD@ZIF-8-FA
particles were presented only in the cytoplasm after 2 h and accumulated
around the cell nuclei (Figure C). These phenomenon illustrated that NPs had controlled the
DOX release in the beginning.Then we also investigated the
localization of the drug in MCF-10A
healthy cells using CLSM. As shown in Figure S8, for the CAD group of MCF-10A cells, since there is a lack of acidic
environment, negatively charged CAD cannot break to form DOX, and
only weak red fluorescence was found inside the nuclei within 16 h.
Meanwhile, the CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs showed almost no red signal in MCF-10A,
whereas CAD@ZIF-8 NPs showed clear red signal in the cells (Figure S8). This was in good agreement with the
WST-1 results in Figure B; these results indicate that FA modification has converted the
positively charged particles to negatively charged particles, thus
preventing the unspecific uptake to healthy cells and reducing the
toxicity of the ZIF-8 carrier at high concentration.We next investigated the tumor suppression
of the NPs by intravenous tail injection of PBS, blank ZIF-8, pure
DOX, and CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs into different groups of tumor-bearing mice.
The tumor growth curves in Figure A showed that the tumor volume was significantly reduced
in the CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs-treated mice, and the therapeutic effect was
stronger than pure DOX. After the mice were sacrificed, from the photos
of excised organs (Figure B) and the tumor weight (Figure C) of each group, we can visually observe
that the CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs group had the best treatment effect. Also,
we observed that the weight of the mice was markedly reduced in the
DOX-treated group but slightly increased in the CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs-treated
group, indicating that NPs can effectively reduce the side effects
of DOX (Figure D).
Figure 4
In vivo
antitumor therapy. (A) Change of tumor volume during treatment.
(B) Photo of tumors from different groups. (C) Tumor weight change
during therapy. (D) Bodyweight changes during the treatment. (E) In
vivo fluorescence imaging of MDA-MB-231 bearing mice at 1, 12, 24,
48, and 72 h after the injection of free DOX and CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs.
(F) Ex vivo bioluminescence imaging of different organs. (G) H&E
staining of different organs.
In vivo
antitumor therapy. (A) Change of tumor volume during treatment.
(B) Photo of tumors from different groups. (C) Tumor weight change
during therapy. (D) Bodyweight changes during the treatment. (E) In
vivo fluorescence imaging of MDA-MB-231 bearing mice at 1, 12, 24,
48, and 72 h after the injection of free DOX and CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs.
(F) Ex vivo bioluminescence imaging of different organs. (G) H&E
staining of different organs.To observe the distribution of CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs in mice, we performed
in vivo fluorescence imaging at 1, 12, and 24 h. We found that the
NPs obviously accumulated at the tumor sites at 12 and 24 h, while
DOX spread to the whole body of the mice (Figure E). The near infrared fluorescence imaging
results of each organ in the DOX group and NPs group (Figure F) showed that the NPs group
had the strongest red fluorescence in tumors. These results indicated
that CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs can promote the accumulation of drugs in tumors
and increase the drug-delivery efficiency.Afterward, we also
performed a histological evaluation for saline,
free DOX, blank ZIF-8, and CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs groups. Because of the
cytotoxic effect of CAD@ZIF-8-FA NPs on tumor cells, less nuclear
staining was found in tumors because the cell nucleus will shrink
and even lysis (Figure G and Figure S9). Furthermore, for the
DOX-treated mice, the heart cells exhibit abnormal morphology because
of the strong cardiotoxicity of DOX (Figure G and Figure S9), while no cardiotoxicity was found in the NPs group. Thus, these
results indicated that the CAD@ZIF-8-FA nanoplatform was a promising
DDS for targeted cancer therapy with low system toxicity.
Conclusions
In conclusion, we combined the merits of the ZIF-8 system and the
prodrug strategy, and we fabricated a novel “prodrug-ZIF-8”
nanoplatform for targeted DOX delivery. With this design, we solved
several drawbacks of both prodrug and ZIF-8 systems. ZIF-8 carried
the prodrug CAD to accumulate at the tumor site with an EPR effect.
The prodrug introduced new carboxyl groups, which greatly improved
the drug loading efficiency and prevented the premature release. In
addition, the surface-anchored CAD also enabled the FA conjugation
to form a FA layer to reduce the healthy cell uptake and enable the
folic acid receptor mediated uptake in tumor cells. Moreover, the
system has three steps of pH responsiveness, and the DOX release was
precisely controlled. The in vitro and in vivo results showed that
the FA-modified NPs could achieve tumor-selective therapeutics, accumulate
at tumor site, and significantly inhibited the tumor growth and greatly
reduced the cardiotoxicity of DOX. Overall, this i.v. injectable folate-surface-functionalized
ZIF-8-based nanoplatform is a promising delivery system for cancer
therapy. More importantly, this prodrug strategy method opens a new
horizon for the surface modification of other MOFs systems.
Authors: Ruth Röder; Tobias Preiß; Patrick Hirschle; Benjamin Steinborn; Andreas Zimpel; Miriam Höhn; Joachim O Rädler; Thomas Bein; Ernst Wagner; Stefan Wuttke; Ulrich Lächelt Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Sergey K Filippov; Ramil R Khusnutdinov; Wali Inham; Chang Liu; Dmitry O Nikitin; Irina I Semina; Christopher J Garvey; Shamil F Nasibullin; Vitaliy V Khutoryanskiy; Hongbo Zhang; Rouslan I Moustafine Journal: Polymers (Basel) Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 4.329