| Literature DB >> 32724464 |
Liu Xu1, Yutong Wang1, Chenqi Zhu1,2, Shujing Ren1, Yurou Shao1, Li Wu1, Weidong Li1, Xiaobin Jia3, Rongfeng Hu4, Rui Chen1, Zhipeng Chen1.
Abstract
Rationale: Both spatial accuracy and temporal persistence are crucial in drug delivery, especially for anti-tumor intravenous nanomedicines, which have limited persistence due to their small particle sizes and easy removal from tumors. The present study takes advantage of morphological transformation strategy to regulate intravenous nanomedicines to display different sizes in different areas, achieving high efficient enrichment and long retention in lesions.Entities:
Keywords: acid-responsive; intravenous nanomedicine; long retention, peptide-drug conjugates; morphology transformation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32724464 PMCID: PMC7381745 DOI: 10.7150/thno.45088
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Theranostics ISSN: 1838-7640 Impact factor: 11.556
Scheme 1The self-assembly behavior of DPCs and the morphologic transformation of the acid-responsive FDPC-NPs in vitro and in vivo. The schematic shows the morphology transformation from NPs to NFs triggered by a change in pH after reaching the tumor site through the EPR: (1) The outer FPG converts to a positive charge, and separation of the core-shell structure occurs; and (2) The DPC-NPs further assemble into DPC-NFs driven by π-π stacking, leading to long-term drug retention in the tumor.
Figure 1Self-assemble mechanism of DPC-NPs (100 µM). (A) UV-vis spectral characteristics of the DPC-NPs self-assembly process. (B) Effect of different concentrations of hydrogen bond blocker (urea) on DPCs' size. (C) TEM images of DPCs under different concentrations of hydrogen bond blocker (urea). (D) Size and Zeta potentials of DPCs at different pH values. (E) TEM images of DPCs at different pH values.
Figure 2Stability assessment and cumulative release of FDPC-NPs in vitro. (A) Size change of FDPC-NPs under 50-fold dilution. (B) TEM images of FDPC-NPs under 50-fold dilution. (C) Release profile of free DOX and FDPC-NPs in PBS and rat plasma. (D) Cumulative release of FDPC-NPs in phosphate buffer solution at different pH values.
Figure 3Self-assembly behavior study of FDPC-NPs in vitro. (A) Acid-responsive sizes of FDPC-NPs, DPCs and FPG at different pH values. (B) Zeta potential analysis of FDPC-NPs. (C) TEM images of DPCs and FDPC-NPs at pH 6.5 and 7.4 at different time points.
Figure 4Morphological transformation mechanism demonstrated by FRET in vitro. (A) Fluorescence spectral overlay of the FRET fluorescence donor (FITC) and receptor (TRITC). (B) Zeta potential analysis of TRITC-FPG. (C) Fluorescence emission spectra of the FRET fluorescent donor (FITC)-FPG and receptor (TRITC)-labeled peptides. (D) Fluorescence emission spectra of FRET-NPs with increased molar ratios of FITC-peptide to TRITC-FPG. (E) Fluorescence emission spectra of FRET-NPs at pH 7.4 and pH 6.5. (F-H) Size and TEM characterization of FITC-labeled NPs at pH 7.4 (F), FITC-labeled peptide at pH 7.4 (G) and FITC-labeled NPs at pH 6.5 (H).
Figure 5Distribution behavior study of FDPC-NPs in vivo. (A) Representative NIRF images obtained at selected postinjection times in three optical channels: Cy5.5 (λex=640 nm and λem=720 nm); Cy7 (λex=745 nm and λem=800 nm); and FRET (λex=640 nm and λem=800 nm) with (B) Cy5.5 (λex=640 nm and λem=720 nm)-labeled liposomes as a control. The right flank tumors are marked with green arrows. (C) The fluorescence intensities of the FDPC inner core and liposome (control) in the tumor area. (D) The fluorescence intensities of the FDPC outer shell and FDPC in the tumor area. (E-F) Biodistribution of DOX accumulation in different organs for the FDPC-NPs group. (E) and DOX solution group (F) (n =6).
Figure 6Pharmacological activity evaluation in vitro. (A) Relative viability of SMMC-7721 treated with different concentrations of FDPC-NPs and DOX for 24 h. (B-C) Apoptosis rates of SMMC-7721 cells incubated with FDPC-NPs and DOX. *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01 compared with saline control. (D) SEM images of SMMC7721 cells treated with 200 µl of DMEM, DOX (50 µM) or FDPC-NPs (50 µM) for 12h.
Figure 7In vivo antitumor effects of saline, DOX solutions, DOX liposomes and FDPC-NPs on H22 tumor-bearing mice. (A) Tumor volume variation profiles. ***P < 0.001 compared with saline and ### P< 0.001 compared with FDPC-NPs. (n=6) (B) Photograph of tumor tissues excised from H22 tumor-bearing mice on day 13. (C) Cumulative survival rate of H22 tumor-bearing mice (n=15). (D) Body weight changes of H22 tumor-bearing mice. **P < 0.01, ns P > 0.05 compared with saline. (E) Representative microphotographs of H&E-stained organic tissues excised from H22 tumor-bearing mice on day 13 (scale bar =100 µm).