Jianzhi Zhu1,2, Tingting Xiao2, Jiulong Zhang3, Hailong Che1, Yuxin Shi3, Xiangyang Shi2, Jan C M van Hest1. 1. Bio-Organic Chemistry, Institute for Complex Molecular Systems, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 2. State Key Laboratory for Modification of Chemical Fibers and Polymer Materials, International Joint Laboratory for Advanced Fiber and Low-dimension Materials, College of Chemistry, Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, Donghua University, Shanghai 201620, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Radiology, Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 201508, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an effective noninvasive therapeutic method that employs photosensitizers (PSs) converting oxygen to highly cytotoxic singlet oxygen (1O2) under light irradiation. The conventional PDT efficacy is, however, compromised by the nonspecific delivery of PSs to tumor tissue, the hypoxic tumor microenvironment, and the reduction of generated 1O2 by the intracellular antioxidant glutathione (GSH). Herein, an intelligent multifunctional synergistic nanoplatform (CMGCC) for T1-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-guided enhanced PDT is presented, which consists of nanoparticles composed of catalase (CAT) and manganese dioxide (MnO2) that are integrated within chlorin-e6-modified glycol chitosan (GC) polymeric micelles. In this system, (1) GC polymers with pH-sensitive surface charge switchability from neutral to positive could improve the PS accumulation within the tumor region, (2) CAT could effectively reoxygenate the hypoxic tumor via catalyzing endogenous hydrogen peroxide to O2, and (3) MnO2 could consume the intracellular GSH while simultaneously producing Mn2+ as a contrast agent for T1-weighted MR imaging. The CMGCC particles possess uniform size distribution, well-defined structure, favorable enzyme activity, and superior 1O2 generation ability. Both in vitro and in vivo experiments demonstrate that the CMGCC exhibit significantly enhanced PDT efficacy toward HeLa cells and subcutaneous HeLa tumors. Our study thereby demonstrates this to be a promising synergistic theranostic nanoplatform with highly efficient PDT performance for cancer therapy.
Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an effective noninvasive therapeutic method that employs photosensitizers (PSs) converting oxygen to highly cytotoxicsinglet oxygen (1O2) under light irradiation. The conventional PDT efficacy is, however, compromised by the nonspecific delivery of PSs to tumor tissue, the hypoxic tumor microenvironment, and the reduction of generated 1O2 by the intracellular antioxidant glutathione (GSH). Herein, an intelligent multifunctional synergistic nanoplatform (CMGCC) for T1-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-guided enhanced PDT is presented, which consists of nanoparticles composed of catalase (CAT) and manganese dioxide (MnO2) that are integrated within chlorin-e6-modified glycol chitosan (GC) polymericmicelles. In this system, (1) GCpolymers with pH-sensitive surface charge switchability from neutral to positive could improve the PS accumulation within the tumor region, (2) CATcould effectively reoxygenate the hypoxic tumor via catalyzing endogenous hydrogen peroxide to O2, and (3) MnO2could consume the intracellular GSH while simultaneously producing Mn2+ as a contrast agent for T1-weighted MR imaging. The CMGCC particles possess uniform size distribution, well-defined structure, favorable enzyme activity, and superior 1O2 generation ability. Both in vitro and in vivo experiments demonstrate that the CMGCC exhibit significantly enhanced PDT efficacy toward HeLacells and subcutaneous HeLa tumors. Our study thereby demonstrates this to be a promising synergistic theranostic nanoplatform with highly efficient PDT performance for cancer therapy.
Photodynamic
therapy (PDT) has
emerged as an alternative tumor destruction method to conventional
systemiccancer therapy owing to its temporal and spatial control
which affords local treatment.[1,2] It requires three intrinsically
nontoxic elements: light, oxygen (O2), and a photosensitizer
(PS). Upon light irradiation, a PS can convert O2 to singlet
oxygen (1O2) immediately and provokes 1O2-induced irreversible oxidation of the adjacent (<0.2
μm) biomacromolecules including DNA, proteins, and membrane
lipids, thus leading to the dysfunctioning of intrinsicphysiological
metabolism.[3] Substantial research has been
performed to demonstrate the promising application of PDT as a stand-alone
treatment or combined therapeutic modality in early stage antitumor
therapy.[4−9] Nevertheless, the therapeutic efficacy of PDT is seriously compromised
by (1) nonspecificPS accumulation, (2) the proliferation-induced
hypoxic tumor microenvironment, and (3) the diminishing effect of
the generated 1O2 by the antioxidant glutathione
(GSH), which is overexpressed in cancercells.[10,11] Therefore, constructing multifunctional nanosystems that can simultaneously
overcome these obstacles is of great importance but also remains a
tremendous challenge.Localized transport of a PS to the targeted
cancer tissues, especially
to the preferential subcellular organelles, is promising as it elevates
tumor-specific1O2-induced oxidation and subsequent
cell death.[12−20] Taking advantage of the slightly acidic tumor microenvironment has
become a popular strategy to achieve tumor-targeted PS delivery. Nanoplatforms
with a surface charge pH responsiveness have attracted much attention
as a neutral or slightly negative surface potential could contribute
to prolonged in vivo circulation time and reduced
nonspecificclearance, whereas a positive charge transition at the
tumor region could enhance the tumor retention time and cellular internalization.[21] Although this charge switchability concept is
potentially useful, it is often compromised by the lack of biocompatibility
and biodegradability of the applied platform components, which limits
biomedical applications.[22] Recently, glycolchitosan (GC) polymers have been reported as a favorable biocompatible
and biodegradable candidate to fabricate pH-responsive nanoplatforms.[23−27] At a physiological pH 7.4, GC displays a neutral surface charge,
affording the platforms low protein absorption and reduced cellular
interaction to prolong the in vivo blood circulation
time. When exposed to the acidic tumor microenvironment pH 6.5, GC
exhibits a positive surface charge owing to the protonation of the
amine groups, which could thereafter significantly improve the cellular
uptake. Therefore, GC-based nanoplatforms are highly promising for
enhanced transportation of PS to the tumor region.The hypoxictumor microenvironment, which is caused by the increased
O2consumption of dysregulated tumorcells, considerably
restricts PDT efficacy, as PDT is an O2-dependent modality.
Relieving the hypoxic tumor microenvironment is an important key to
boost the yield of cytotoxic1O2.[11,28−36] Considering the high concentrations of endogenous H2O2 within the solid tumor, using catalase (CAT) to trigger the
catalytic decomposition of H2O2 into H2O and O2 is a promising strategy to afford reoxygenation,
thus enhancing the PDT efficacy.[29,30] It is also known that cancercells produce a high level of GSH as
an antioxidant to protect themselves from the external oxidative stress,
including 1O2.[37,38] Depleting
the intracellular GSH is thus highly desirable to sensitize tumorcells to PDT.[10,39−41] Manganese dioxide
(MnO2) can exert a redox reaction with GSH to yield glutathione
disulfide and Mn2+, thus effectively down-regulating the
GSH level, and interestingly, the consequently generated Mn2+can be further used as T1-weighted magnetic
resonance (MR) imaging contrast agents for tumor imaging and detection.[10,42−47] Therefore, the integration of CAT and MnO2 in the PDT
process holds great potential to promote PDT performance by simultaneously
reoxygenating the hypoxic tumor tissue, depleting the intracellular
GSH, and providing MR imaging guidance.Herein, we have constructed
a multifunctional synergistic nanoplatform
for T1-weighted MR imaging-guided tumor
growth inhibition by boosting PDT efficacy (Scheme ). We rationally encapsulated CAT-stabilized
MnO2 (CM) nanoparticles within chlorin e6 (Ce6)-loaded
GC (GCC) micelles to form hybrid CMGCC nanoclusters. In this system,
(1) the presence of the GCpolymer endows the nanoclusters with prolonged
circulation time and a tumor microenvironment pH-stimulated charge
switch, thereby improving the accumulation within the tumor tissue;
(2) when endocytosed by the cancercells, CATcan catalyze the conversion
of endogenous H2O2 to generate O2 for increasing O2 levels in the PDT process; (3) the
MnO2 acts as an oxidizing agent to decrease the intracellular
GSH to avert the reduction of the generated 1O2, and the consequently produced Mn2+can be employed as
a T1-weighted MRI contrast agent. We demonstrate
that these synergistic multifunctional CMGCC nanoclusters with outstanding
MR imaging contrast capability and prominent in vitro and in vivo PDT performance present a promising
direction for future cancer therapy.
Scheme 1
Schematic Illustration
of Theranostic Functions of the Developed
Multifunctional CMGCC Nanocluster, Composed of Catalase-Stabilized
MnO2 Nanoparticles Incorporated into Ce6-Conjugated Glycol
Chitosan Micelles
The synergistic therapy process
includes the following: (1) GC polymer imparts the system with a neutral
surface charge at physiological conditions for prolonged circulation
time and a positive surface charge switch within the tumor microenvironment
for improved tumor accumulation; (2) CAT can catalyze the conversion
of endogenous H2O2 to generate O2 to alleviate tumor hypoxia for production of highly toxic 1O2; (3) MnO2 can react with intracellular glutathione
(GSH) to decrease the GSH-induced 1O2 reduction
and simultaneously produce Mn2+ ions for T1-weighted MR imaging.
Schematic Illustration
of Theranostic Functions of the Developed
Multifunctional CMGCC Nanocluster, Composed of Catalase-Stabilized
MnO2 Nanoparticles Incorporated into Ce6-Conjugated Glycol
Chitosan Micelles
The synergistic therapy process
includes the following: (1) GCpolymer imparts the system with a neutral
surface charge at physiological conditions for prolonged circulation
time and a positive surface charge switch within the tumor microenvironment
for improved tumor accumulation; (2) CATcan catalyze the conversion
of endogenous H2O2 to generate O2 to alleviate tumor hypoxia for production of highly toxic1O2; (3) MnO2can react with intracellular glutathione
(GSH) to decrease the GSH-induced 1O2 reduction
and simultaneously produce Mn2+ ions for T1-weighted MR imaging.
Results and Discussion
Synthesis
and Characterization of CM, GCC, and CMGCC
The synthetic
process to construct the CMGCC nanoclusters is shown
in Figure A: (1) MnO2 nanoparticles were first fabricated via a
redox reaction between KMnO4 and excess Na2S2O3, followed by stabilization with CAT to obtain
the CM nanoparticles;[48] (2) through an N-(3-(dimethylamino)propyl)-N′-ethylcarbodiimide
hydrochloride (EDC) and N-hydroxysuccinimide (NHS)-mediated
coupling reaction, natural GC (polymerization degree ≥400,
purity ≥60%) polymer was modified with Ce6 to achieve GCCmicelles;[49] (3) the as-prepared CM nanoparticles and GCCmicelles were mixed, sonicated, and stirred at room temperature to
give the final CMGCC nanoclusters.
Figure 1
(A) Synthetic route for the formation
of CMGCC nanoclusters. Abbreviations
of the different components used are listed in the right frame. (B)
Hydrodynamic size distribution and correlation coefficient (inset)
of CM nanoparticles in water. (C) TEM image and size distribution
histogram (inset) of CM nanoparticles. (D) UV–vis spectra of
CAT, CM, Ce6, GCC, and CMGCC. (E) Hydrodynamic size distribution and
correlation coefficient (inset) of CMGCC nanoclusters in water. (F)
TEM image and size distribution histogram (inset) of CMGCC nanoclusters.
(G) UV absorbance change of H2O2 solution (λ
= 240 nm) incubated with CAT, BM, BMGCC, CM, and CMGCC over a period
of 4 min and relative enzyme activity of CM and CMGCC. (H) Normalized
fluorescence of SOSG in Ce6, GCC, BMGCC, and CMGCC solutions in the
absence or presence of H2O2 ([Ce6] = 5 μg/mL,
[SOSG] = 5 μM, [H2O2] = 100 μM).
(I) Normalized fluorescence of SOSG in Ce6, GCC, BMGCC, and CMGCC
solutions in the absence or presence of GSH ([Ce6] = 5 μg/mL,
[SOSG] = 5 μM, [GSH] = 5 mM). (J) Pseudocolored T1-weighted MR images of CMGCC with different Mn concentrations
in the presence or absence of GSH (10 mM). The color bar from blue
to red indicates the gradual increase of MR signal intensity.
(A) Synthetic route for the formation
of CMGCC nanoclusters. Abbreviations
of the different components used are listed in the right frame. (B)
Hydrodynamic size distribution and correlation coefficient (inset)
of CM nanoparticles in water. (C) TEM image and size distribution
histogram (inset) of CM nanoparticles. (D) UV–vis spectra of
CAT, CM, Ce6, GCC, and CMGCC. (E) Hydrodynamic size distribution and
correlation coefficient (inset) of CMGCC nanoclusters in water. (F)
TEM image and size distribution histogram (inset) of CMGCC nanoclusters.
(G) UV absorbance change of H2O2 solution (λ
= 240 nm) incubated with CAT, BM, BMGCC, CM, and CMGCC over a period
of 4 min and relative enzyme activity of CM and CMGCC. (H) Normalized
fluorescence of SOSG in Ce6, GCC, BMGCC, and CMGCC solutions in the
absence or presence of H2O2 ([Ce6] = 5 μg/mL,
[SOSG] = 5 μM, [H2O2] = 100 μM).
(I) Normalized fluorescence of SOSG in Ce6, GCC, BMGCC, and CMGCC
solutions in the absence or presence of GSH ([Ce6] = 5 μg/mL,
[SOSG] = 5 μM, [GSH] = 5 mM). (J) Pseudocolored T1-weighted MR images of CMGCC with different Mn concentrations
in the presence or absence of GSH (10 mM). The color bar from blue
to red indicates the gradual increase of MR signal intensity.The formation of CM nanoparticles was characterized
with a range
of techniques. Dynamic light scattering (DLS) showed that the CM nanoparticles
exhibited a hydrodynamic size peak of 34.4 ± 2.98 nm in water
(Figure B) and a negative
surface potential of −22.6 ± 0.50 mV (Figure S1). Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and scanning
electron microscopy (SEM) images revealed that the as-prepared CM
nanoparticles displayed uniform spherical morphology and good monodispersity,
with an average size of 35.8 ± 6.23 nm (measured by TEM, Figures C and S2), which was consistent with the DLS result.
The synthesis of MnO2 was evidenced by the ΔE of Mn2p and Mn3s spin–orbit
of 11.8 and 4.7 eV, respectively, in the X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy
spectra (Figure S3). The characteristic
UV–vis absorption peaks appearing at 278 and 350–600
nm could be attributed to CAT and MnO2, respectively (Figure D). The strong absorption
band at 1644 and 493 cm–1 in the Fourier transform
infrared (FTIR) spectra could be allotted to the C=N bond of
CAT and the Mn–O bond of MnO2, respectively, further
validating the construction of CM nanoparticles (Figure S4). The loading percentage of MnO2 within
the CM nanoparticles was calculated to be 24.6% by inductively coupled
plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES). These results therefore
demonstrate the successful formation of CM nanoparticles. To investigate
the role of CAT in the nanosystem, bovine serum albumin (BSA)-stabilized
MnO2 (BM) nanoparticles were synthesized for comparison,
following the same protocol (Figure S5).The synthesis of Ce6-conjugatedglycol chitosan (GCC) was performed
according to an earlier reported procedure.[49] The synthesis of GCC was confirmed using 1HNMR spectroscopy
(Figure S6), and the Ce6 substitution degree
was determined to be 8.9 wt % with UV–vis spectroscopy. In
aqueous conditions, the amphiphilicGCC self-assembled into micelles,
as revealed by SEM (Figure S7). The GCCmicelles exhibited a positive surface potential of 19.7 ± 0.21
mV (Figure S1) and a hydrodynamic size
of 514 ± 15 nm (Figure S8).In the next step, the CM nanoparticles were combined with the GCCmicelles to form multifunctional nanoclusters (CMGCC) via electrostatic interactions[24] and Mn–Ncoordination.[50] Different mass feed ratios
of CM/GCC (1:0.5, 1:1, and 1:2) were utilized to optimize the formation
of CMGCC nanoclusters. It is worth noting that, with the increase
of the amount of CM, the hydrodynamic size of the CMGCCcompared to
that of GCCmicelles first decreased, possibly because of the compression
of the structural softness by the solid CM nanoparticles, whereafter
it slightly increased upon further CM addition (Table S1). Therefore, the feed ratio of CM/GCC was set at
1:1 to render the CMGCCNCs with the smallest hydrodynamic size of
202 ± 2 nm (Figure E). Correspondingly, the loading content of MnO2 and Ce6
in the CMGCC was determined to be 12.3 and 4.5 wt %, respectively.
TEM and SEM images revealed that the CM nanoparticles were homogeneously
distributed within the GCCmicelles to form a cluster morphology with
a mean particle size of 190 nm (Figures F and S9). The
formation of CMGCC was validated by the characteristic UV–vis
absorptions (Figure D) at 278 nm (CAT), 300–600 nm (MnO2), and 660
nm (Ce6) and FTIR peaks (Figure S4) at
1644 cm–1 (C=O), 1062 cm–1 (C–O–C), and 493 cm–1 (Mn–O).
The CMGCC nanoclusters exhibited a fluorescence emission peak at of
660 nm, in line with the free Ce6 (Figure S10).[51] The hydrodynamic size change of the
CMGCC nanoclusters in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and cell culture
medium was evaluated by DLS measurement (Figures S11) over a period of 2 weeks, which demonstrated that the
clusters were not affected by these different environments as the
size remained constant, which is favorable for biomedical applications.
For comparison, BM nanoparticles encapsulated within the GCCmicelles
(BMGCC) were also fabricated using the same protocol, which displayed
a hydrodynamic size similar to that of the CMGCC (Figure S12). Interestingly, zeta-potentials of the CMGCC nanoclusters
increased from 2.5 to 10.0 mV in PBS and from −0.1 to 7.4 mV
in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle medium (DMEM) containing 10% of
fetal bovine serum, as the pH decreased from 7.4 to 6.5, indicating
that this may contribute to enhanced accumulation of CMGCC nanoclusters
in acidic tumor microenvironments.
Evaluation of CAT Activity
Following the synthesis
process of the CMGCC nanoclusters, the CAT activity with respect to
the decomposition of H2O2 into O2 was evaluated by measuring the UV absorbance change of H2O2 following our previous method.[52] As shown in Figures G and S13A, the CAT activity of CM nanoparticles
was determined to be similar to that of free CAT, indicating that
the preparation of CM nanoparticles has no obvious impact on the CAT
activity. The CAT activity of CMGCC nanoclusters decreased to 62%
of its initial catalytic activity, which can be attributed to the
fact that the introduction of the GCCpolymer shell leads to steric
hindrance and mass transport resistance, which hinders the access
of H2O2 to the enzyme. Furthermore, we also
observed that BM nanoparticles and BMGCC nanoclusters did not induce
any obvious absorbance change under the given experimental conditions,
indicating no catalytic activity toward the decomposition of H2O2 within the measurement period of 4 min. The
CATcatalytic activity was further validated by recording the O2concentration change after coincubation of CAT, CM or CMGCC
with an H2O2 solution, which indicated that
the activity of both CM and CMGCC was sufficient to mediate the decomposition
of H2O2 (Figure S13). The enzyme activity of CMGCC after longer-term storage was also
studied. We found that the CMGCC nanoclusters still retained 52% of
their initial activity after storage for 14 days at 4 °C. Previous
studies have proven that the immobilization of CAT within a polymer
shell can significantly improve the stability of CAT against proteolysis.[53,54] To verify this, free CAT and CMGCC nanoclusters were co-incubated
with trypsin (44 μM) for 90 min, and the corresponding catalytic
activity was recorded. The CMGCC nanoclusters retained 91% of their
initial activity, indicating the favorable resistance against proteolysis.
Overall, the developed CMGCC nanoclusters exhibit high enough catalyticcapacity toward the production of O2 from H2O2 for biomedical applications.
Singlet Oxygen Generation
The 1O2 generation behavior of CMGCC nanoclusters
was next assessed using
singlet oxygen sensor green (SOSG). SOSGcould be rapidly oxidized
by 1O2 to yield SOSGendoperoxides, emitting
a strong green fluorescence. We first explored the impact of hypoxia
on the 1O2 generation. To mimic the hypoxictumor microenvironment, Ce6, GCC, BMGCC, and CMGCC solutions containing
SOSG were first bubbled with argon for at least 45 min to remove the
dissolved O2 and then irradiated with a 660 nm laser in
the presence or absence of H2O2 (100 μM).
As can be seen from Figure H, the fluorescence intensity of all systems tested was similar
before and after irradiation in the absence of H2O2, suggesting that hypoxia has a strong inhibition effect on
the 1O2 generation. It is worth noting that
only the experiment of CMGCC in the presence of H2O2 showed significantly increased fluorescence intensity (4-fold
higher than that of the BMGCCcontrol group), which can be attributed
to the reoxygenation via the CAT-mediated H2O2 decomposition. Next, we studied the role of GSH depletion
on the 1O2 generation. To achieve this, the
effect of CM nanoparticles and CMGCC nanoclusters on GSH depletion
was monitored via the UV–vis absorbance of
MnO2. It is clear from Figure S14 that the absorbance of MnO2 in CM and CMGCC remains stable
in the absence of GSH. Upon addition of 10 mM of GSH, the absorbance
disappeared within 4 min, indicating that MnO2 immediately
consumed GSH. The diminishing effect of GSH on 1O2 generation was also validated using SOSG (Figure I), which showed that the presence of MnO2 in both BMGCC and CMGCC nanoclusters led to an increase in 1O2 generation by consuming GSH. The above SOSG
assays thus demonstrated that the CMGCC nanoclusters can improve the 1O2 generation efficacy via CAT-mediated
reoxygenation, while diminishing 1O2consumption via MnO2-mediated GSH decomposition.
MR Relaxometry
Mn2+ has been approved by
the FDA as a clinical T1-weighted MR imaging
contrast agent (e.g., Teslascan). The MR imaging
performance of the developed CMGCC nanoclusters was next investigated.
It is clear from Figure J that a significant concentration-dependent MR contrast enhancement
was observed when the CMGCC nanoclusters were treated with 10 mM of
GSH, whereas a MR enhancement trend was found to be low in the absence
of GSH. The longitudinal relaxivity (r1) value of CM and CMGCC in the absence of GSH was measured to be
0.05 and 0.03 mM–1 s–1, respectively
(Figure S15). Notably, the r1 value of the CM and CMGCC in the presence of GSH was
determined to be 9.58 and 9.19 mM–1 s–1, respectively, which is much higher than that of clinical Gd-based
contrast agent (Magnevist, r1 = 4.56 mM–1 s–1).[55] This indicates that the GSH-responsive CMGCC nanoclusters may function
as an effective contrast agent for T1-weighted
MR imaging of tumors that have a high local concentration of GSH.
In Vitro Cytotoxicity and Cellular Uptake Behavior
Assays
After establishing the favorable physical features
of CMGCC nanoclusters for enhanced 1O2 generation
and MR imaging, cell experiments were conducted to investigate in vitro PDT performance. The cytocompatibility of CMGCC
nanoclusters toward both healthy humanembryonic kidneycells 293
(HEK 293) and cancerous HeLacells was evaluated with a standard 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium
bromide (MTT) assay. Indeed, we observed low dark toxicity of the
CMGCC nanoclusters up to a Ce6concentration of 5 μg/mL (Figures A,B and S16), suggesting their encouraging cytocompatibility.
Next, PDT-induced cytotoxicity via 660 nm laser irradiation
(100 mW/cm2 for 5 min) in both physiological pH 7.4 and
tumor acidicpH 6.5 was conducted. Figure C,D revealed that the incubation with CMGCC
nanoclusters provided the most effective PDT inhibition effect over
all other groups, likely owing to the sufficient O2 supplement[56] and GSH depletion.[10] Importantly, HeLacell viability cultured at pH 6.5 in all cases
where GCC was present was much lower than that at 7.4, which can be
attributed to the surface charge switchability of the GC shell from
neutral to positive, thus improving the uptake amount. It is worth
noting that owing to the synergisticcombination of MnO2, CAT and the charge-switchable GCpolymer, the CMGCC nanoclusters
efficiently killed the cancercells (cell viability <10%) even
at a noticeably low Ce6concentration of 0.5 μg/mL at a tumor
acidicpH 6.5, which is much more effective than PDT systems reported
in previous literature.[10,28,49] The half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) of CMGCC
toward HeLacells was determined to be 0.12 μg/mL at pH 6.5,
which is significantly smaller than that at pH 7.4 (0.74 μg/mL, Figure S17). This PDT-induced apoptosis was further
visualized using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) with fluorescein
isothiocyanate (FITC)-Annexin V/propidium iodide (PI) staining. It
is clear in Figure S18 that the HeLacells
treated with CMGCC nanoclusters at pH 6.5 showed the highest cell
death, in line with the MTT results. 2′,7′-Dichlorofluorescein
diacetate (DCF-DA) was next utilized as a fluorescent indicator to
investigate the in vitro1O2 generation. DCF-DAcould be hydrolyzed by the intracellular esterases
and emit green fluorescence in the presence of 1O2. As shown in Figure S19, the employment
of GCpolymer significantly improved the 1O2 generation within the HeLacells cultured at an acidicpH 6.5, possibly
because of the enhanced uptake due to surface charge switchability.
Treatment with CMGCC at acidicpH provided the most noticeable fluorescence
intensity when compared to that in all other groups, which can be
attributed to the aforementioned synergistic elements. In
vitro cytotoxicity assays therefore demonstrate that the
developed CMGCC nanoclusters displayed no obvious toxicity toward
both healthy and cancerouscells without laser irradiation, but meanwhile
could improve the in vitro PDT toxicity after irradiation
by taking advantage of reoxygenation, GSH depletion, and charge switchability.
Figure 2
(A) Cell
viabilities of HeLa cells treated with Ce6, GCC, BMGCC,
and CMGCC at different Ce6 concentrations under physiological pH 7.4
in the absence of laser irradiation. (B) Cell viabilities of HeLa
cells treated with Ce6, GCC, BMGCC, and CMGCC at different Ce6 concentrations
under pH 6.5 in the absence of laser irradiation. (C) Cell viabilities
of HeLa cells treated with Ce6, GCC, BMGCC, and CMGCC at different
Ce6 concentrations under pH 7.4 in the presence of laser irradiation
(100 mW/cm2, 5 min). (D) Cell viabilities of HeLa cells
treated with Ce6, GCC, BMGCC, and CMGCC at different Ce6 concentrations
under pH 6.5 in the presence of laser irradiation (100 mW/cm2, 5 min). (E) CLSM images of HeLa cells incubated with Ce6, GCC,
BMGCC, and CMGCC ([Ce6] = 0.5 μg/mL) at pH 7.4 and 6.5. Scale
bar = 50 μm. (F) Quantified FACS analysis of Ce6 fluorescence
of HeLa cells treated with Ce6, GCC, BMGCC, and CMGCC ([Ce6] = 0.5
μg/mL) at pH 7.4 and 6.5. (G) CLSM images of intracellular localization
of CMGCC within HeLa cells ([Ce6] = 2 μg/mL). The cell nuclei,
mitochondria, and lysosomes were stained with Hoechst, Mitotracker,
and Lysotracker, respectively. Scale bar = 50 μm.
(A) Cell
viabilities of HeLacells treated with Ce6, GCC, BMGCC,
and CMGCC at different Ce6concentrations under physiological pH 7.4
in the absence of laser irradiation. (B) Cell viabilities of HeLacells treated with Ce6, GCC, BMGCC, and CMGCC at different Ce6concentrations
under pH 6.5 in the absence of laser irradiation. (C) Cell viabilities
of HeLacells treated with Ce6, GCC, BMGCC, and CMGCC at different
Ce6concentrations under pH 7.4 in the presence of laser irradiation
(100 mW/cm2, 5 min). (D) Cell viabilities of HeLacells
treated with Ce6, GCC, BMGCC, and CMGCC at different Ce6concentrations
under pH 6.5 in the presence of laser irradiation (100 mW/cm2, 5 min). (E) CLSM images of HeLacells incubated with Ce6, GCC,
BMGCC, and CMGCC ([Ce6] = 0.5 μg/mL) at pH 7.4 and 6.5. Scale
bar = 50 μm. (F) Quantified FACS analysis of Ce6 fluorescence
of HeLacells treated with Ce6, GCC, BMGCC, and CMGCC ([Ce6] = 0.5
μg/mL) at pH 7.4 and 6.5. (G) CLSM images of intracellular localization
of CMGCC within HeLacells ([Ce6] = 2 μg/mL). The cell nuclei,
mitochondria, and lysosomes were stained with Hoechst, Mitotracker,
and Lysotracker, respectively. Scale bar = 50 μm.The pH-induced enhanced cellular uptake was next investigated.
CLSM data demonstrate that the HeLacells treated with free Ce6 showed
similar fluorescence at both pH 7.4 and 6.5, whereas the fluorescence
of HeLacells treated with GCC, BMGCC, and CMGCC nanoclusters at pH
6.5 was much higher than that at pH 7.4 (Figures E and S20). This
uptake enhancement was further quantified using FACS (Figure F). CLSM and FACS studies thus
indicate that HeLacells could internalize more GCC-containing nanoparticles
at the tumor-acidicpH 6.5, which could contribute to improved cancercell killing ability. As 1O2 kills cancerouscells by oxidizing the surrounding biomacromolecules such as proteins
and lipids to rupture the subcellular structures (within an effective
range of <0.2 μm), selective delivery of a PS to subcellular
organelles can contribute to an enhanced PDT effect.[20,57] We therefore next investigated the subcellular distribution of the
CMGCC nanoclusters within HeLacells using Mitotracker and Lysotracker
to label the mitochondria and lysosomes, respectively. As observed
from Figure G, the
fluorescence of Ce6 was mostly merged with that of the lysosomes,
revealing that the developed CMGCC nanoclusters were able to localize
into lysosomes, thus enhancing the PDT efficacy.
PDT toward
3D Tumor Multicellular Spheroid Models
3D
tumor multicellular spheroids (MCSs) have been widely utilized as
cancer therapeutics screening platforms because they can better mimic
the solid tumor morphology and tumor microenvironment over the monolayer-based
cell cultures.[58−60] Therefore, MCSs comprising fibroblasts (NIH/3T3)
and cancerous HeLacells (NIH/3T3/HeLa = 5:1) were employed to investigate
tumoral uptake behavior. Briefly, 3D MCSs were incubated with Ce6,
GCC, BMGCC, and CMGCC ([Ce6] = 0.5 μg/mL) at pH 7.4 or 6.5 for
4 h and then irradiated with a 660 nm laser (100 mW/cm2, 5 min). After a follow-up culture overnight, the MCSs were stained
with FITC-Annexin V/PI and observed under CLSM. It is apparent in Figure (enlarged in Figures S21 and S22) and Figure S23 that the employment of GCC significantly improved
the PDT outcome under acidicpH 6.5; again, the presence of CAT and
MnO2contributed to enhanced cell apoptosis/death, in line
with the previous cytotoxicity assays. The superior PDT performance
of CMGCC nanoclusters toward 3D MCSs was further evidenced by the
detachment of dead cells from the MCS surface monitored with an optical
microscope (Figure S24). These results
thus verify that CMGCC nanoclusters are capable of enhancing PDT efficacy via their ability to function as a multifunctional carrier.
Figure 3
CLSM images
of 3D MCSs after treatment with Ce6, GCC, BMGCC, and
CMGCC ([Ce6] = 0.5 μg/mL) with 660 nm laser irradiation (100
mW/cm2, 5 min) at pH 7.4 and 6.5. The cell nuclei, early
apoptotic, and dead cells were stained with Hoechst, FITC-Annexin
V, and PI, respectively. Scale bar = 250 μm.
CLSM images
of 3D MCSs after treatment with Ce6, GCC, BMGCC, and
CMGCC ([Ce6] = 0.5 μg/mL) with 660 nm laser irradiation (100
mW/cm2, 5 min) at pH 7.4 and 6.5. The cell nuclei, early
apoptotic, and dead cells were stained with Hoechst, FITC-Annexin
V, and PI, respectively. Scale bar = 250 μm.
In Vitro and In Vivo MR Imaging
After illustrating the in vitro PDT performance,
we investigated the potential of the developed CMGCC nanoclusters
to be utilized as a contrast agent for T1-weighted MR imaging. HeLacells were incubated with the CMGCC nanoclusters
at different Mn concentrations under culture at pH 7.4 and 6.5 for
4 h, and in vitro MR imaging was performed. We can
see from Figure S25 that the CMGCC nanoclusters
increased the MR signal intensity of HeLacells with Mn concentration.
Importantly, at an acidicculture pH of 6.5, a higher signal intensity
was detected, probably due to improved endocytosis, in line with the
uptake assays. To further explore the in vivo imaging
performance, pseudocolored T1-weighted
MR images and the corresponding signal intensity ratio (SIR) were
recorded at different time intervals after i.v. injection in mice
of CM and CMGCC ([MnO2] = 4.2 mg/kg) through the tail vein.
It is apparent from Figure A that the tumor site showed a low MR signal before the injection
but started to be lightened up postinjection of both the CM nanoparticles
and CMGCC nanoclusters. The MR signal of the tumor region rose to
the highest value at 0.5 h postinjection of the CM nanoparticles and
then started to decrease. Notably, this inflection point for the CMGCC
nanocluster treatment was 1 h, longer than that of CM treatment. This
can be attributed to (1) the relatively smaller size of CM nanoparticles,
which contributes to faster clearance;[21] and (2) the employment of GCC, which possesses abundant hydroxyl
groups, which could prolong the in vivo circulation
time.[23] The injection of CMGCC nanoclusters
yielded a higher contrast enhancement compared to the treatment of
CM nanoparticles (Figure B), which can be attributed to improved internalization as
a result of the charge switchability under mild acidicconditions
experienced in the tumor microenvironment. Therefore, MR imaging results
reveal that the developed CMGCC nanoclusters on the one hand display
efficient tumor homing ability via the enhanced permeability
and retention effect and charge switchability and on the other hand
could produce Mn2+ ions upon reduction by the endogenous
GSH for effective tumor MR imaging.
Figure 4
(A) In vivo pseudocolored T1-weighted MR images of nude mice bearing xenografted
HeLa
tumors before and at different time points postinjection of CM and
CMGCC ([MnO2] = 4.2 mg/kg). (B) MR signal intensity ratio
(SIR) analysis of the tumor region at different time points postinjection
of the CM and CMGCC ([MnO2] = 4.2 mg/kg). (C) Immunofluorescence
staining images of tumor slices after different treatments. The cell
nuclei and hypoxic areas were stained by DAPI (blue) and antipimonidazole
antibody (green), respectively. Scale bar = 200 μm.
(A) In vivo pseudocolored T1-weighted MR images of nude mice bearing xenografted
HeLatumors before and at different time points postinjection of CM and
CMGCC ([MnO2] = 4.2 mg/kg). (B) MR signal intensity ratio
(SIR) analysis of the tumor region at different time points postinjection
of the CM and CMGCC ([MnO2] = 4.2 mg/kg). (C) Immunofluorescence
staining images of tumor slices after different treatments. The cell
nuclei and hypoxic areas were stained by DAPI (blue) and antipimonidazole
antibody (green), respectively. Scale bar = 200 μm.
In Vivo PDT
Encouraged by the effective in vitro PDT performance and effective tumor MR imaging
ability, we evaluated in vivo PDT efficacy using
nude mice bearing HeLa tumors. First, a hypoxia immunofluorescence
assay was employed to examine the ability of the CMGCC nanoclusters
to ameliorate the tumor hypoxic status. As can be seen from Figures C and S26, large hypoxic areas were observed in the
groups of control and GCC treatment, whereas the hypoxic areas in
the group of CMGCC treatment were significantly reduced, indicating
that the CAT-mediated decomposition of H2O2 into
O2 was able to relieve the tumor hypoxia. For the in vivo PDT, the nude mice were randomly divided into 10
groups: PBS (control), Ce6, GCC nanoparticles, BMGCC nanoclusters,
and CMGCC nanoclusters, each in the presence and absence of laser
irradiation, 6 mice per group, with a corresponding Ce6 dose of 1.5
mg/kg. For the laser irradiation group, the mice were subjected to
laser irradiation (660 nm, 100 mW/cm2, 10 min) 3 h after
i.v. injection, which is based on the in vivo MR
imaging results that the high MR signal of the tumor site occurred
within the first 3 h, indicated the high accumulation of CMGCC nanoclusters.
The therapeutic performance was assessed by recording the tumor volume
changes. Figure A
reveals that the control group and all groups in the absence of laser
irradiation exhibited a similar unperturbed tumor growth. The Ce6
group in the presence of laser irradiation showed no obvious tumor
growth inhibition effect due to the fast clearance of the small drug.
Interestingly, the GCC nanoparticle treatment in the presence of irradiation
provided a noticeable tumor suppression effect over the Ce6 treatment,
which can be attributed to the charge switchability of the GCpolymer
within the tumor acidic microenvironment, which improved the internalization
of the PS, thus leading to more 1O2 generation
to kill the cancercells. The BMGCC nanocluster treatment in the presence
of irradiation further inhibited the tumor growth, compared to the
GCC treatment, which can be attributed to the MnO2-mediated
GSH depletion, which sensitizes the cancercells to the 1O2. Most importantly, the CMGCC nanocluster treatment
offered the most noticeable tumor suppression over all other groups,
which can be attributed to the synergistic elements of (1) the GCpolymer for enhanced accumulation, (2) MnO2 for GSH depletion,
and (3) CAT for reoxygenation. At the end of the in vivo PDT therapy (day 21), one representative tumor from each group was
harvested, photographed, and sent for hematoxylin/eosin (H&E)
and TdT-mediated dUTP nick-end labeling (TUNEL) staining to validate
the therapeutic effect. The other five mice from each group were further
fed to determine the survival rate. It is clear from Figure B that the tumor in the group
of CMGCC nanocluster treatment in the presence of laser irradiation
was the smallest among all of the groups. Importantly, the CMGCC nanocluster
treatment with laser irradiation significantly improved the survival
rate even after 10 weeks (Figure C). The H&E and TUNEL staining also revealed that
the group of CMGCC nanocluster treatment displayed the highest necrosis
and apoptosis ratio among all groups, consistent with tumor growth
results (Figures E,F
and S27). The in vivo PDT
results thus reveal that the CMGCC nanoclusters developed exhibit
a dramatically improved PDT efficacy toward subcutaneous HeLa tumors.
Figure 5
(A) Tumor
growth curves after the different treatments (n =
6). Tumor volumes (V) were normalized
to the initial values (V0). (B) Photograph
of tumors on day 21 after the in vivo PDT therapy.
(C) Survival rate of the HeLa-tumor-bearing nude mice after different
treatments (n = 5). (D) HeLa-tumor-bearing nude mice
body weight changes of the different groups over 21 days. (E) H&E
staining of tumor slices taken on day 21 after different treatments.
Scale bar = 100 μm. (F) TUNEL staining of tumor slices taken
on day 21 after different treatments (blue, live cells; brown, necrotic
and apoptotic cells). Scale bar = 100 μm.
(A) Tumor
growth curves after the different treatments (n =
6). Tumor volumes (V) were normalized
to the initial values (V0). (B) Photograph
of tumors on day 21 after the in vivo PDT therapy.
(C) Survival rate of the HeLa-tumor-bearing nude mice after different
treatments (n = 5). (D) HeLa-tumor-bearing nude mice
body weight changes of the different groups over 21 days. (E) H&E
staining of tumor slices taken on day 21 after different treatments.
Scale bar = 100 μm. (F) TUNEL staining of tumor slices taken
on day 21 after different treatments (blue, live cells; brown, necrotic
and apoptoticcells). Scale bar = 100 μm.
In Vivo Pharmacokinetics and Biodistribution
The in vivo pharmacokinetics and biodistribution
of the developed CMGCCNCs were further investigated. The blood circulation
profile was studied by tracking the Mn content in blood at different
time intervals after i.v. injection of the CMGCC nanoclusters into
healthy mice. We can see from Figure S28 that the Mn blood levels decreased over time following a two-compartment
model, with a first (t1/2 (α)) and
second (t1/2 (β)) phase of circulation
half-lives of 1.23 and 6.87 h, respectively, determined by a secondary
exponential fitting. This moderately long circulation time of CMGCC
nanoclusters in blood could contribute to effective tumor accumulation,
which was further confirmed by a relatively high ID%/g of 8.36 within
the tumor tissue at 24 h postinjection by measuring the Mn content
using ICP-OES (Figure S29). The in vivo biodistribution of the CMGCC nanoclusters in the
major organs including heart, liver, spleen, lung, and kidney was
next quantified to explore their metabolism behavior using healthy
mice. Notably, a significantly high level of Mn in the liver and kidney
was observed (Figure S30), which implies
two possible metabolic pathways of CMGCC nanoclusters: (1) macrophage
clearance by the reticuloendothelial system and (2) renal clearance
of the Mn2+ ions generated from MnO2 decomposition.
Notably, after 7 days, the retention of Mn in the major organs decreased
to a low level, suggesting an efficient clearance of CMGCC nanoclusters
from the mouse body, which is of great importance for in vivo applications.
In Vivo Biocompatibility
Evaluation
Hemolysis assays and blood routine tests were
performed to study
the hemocompatibility of the developed CMGCC nanoclusters. We can
see from hemolysis results (Figure S31)
that the hemolysis percentage is less than 3% at the studied CMGCCconcentrations, indicating their favorable hemocompatibility. The
blood routine analysis results revealed that injection of CMGCC nanoclusters
did not affect nine routine parameters, indicating negligible blood
toxicity (Table S2). To estimate the in vivo toxicity of CMGCC nanoclusters, the body weight
change of HeLa-tumor-bearing nude mice in all groups following the in vivo PDT process was recorded. It is clear from Figure D that no obvious
body weight change was observed in all groups following the process
of in vivo therapy. H&E staining of the major
organs of HeLa-tumor-bearing nude mice on day 21 postinjection of
CMGCC nanoclusters further exhibited that no significant pathological
abnormalities such as inflammatory infiltrate, morphological changes,
and necrosis were observed (Figure S32),
implying the satisfactory biocompatibility to the mice organs. In
particular, one safety concern for Mn-based nanoplatforms is that
excessive exposure to a high dose of Mn is associated with adverse
neurotoxicity, which may induce poor cognitive performance similar
to the Parkinsonian syndromes. Therefore, the brain Mn content and
pathological condition were investigated after the intravenous injection
of the developed CMGCC. As can be seen in Figure S30, negligible Mn2+ was retained within the brain
site. In addition, no obvious histological damage was observed in
the H&E staining (Figure S32). These
results indicate that the CMGCCcould not permeate the blood–brain
barrier, thus guaranteeing the functioning of the brain. Therefore,
it is reasonable to conclude that the CMGCC nanoclusters exert the
therapeutic effect in vivo against HeLa tumors without
any significant systemictoxicity.
Conclusion
In
summary, we have successfully developed multifunctional synergisticCMGCC nanoclusters with three features to improve PDT. The Ce6–glycolchitosan polymerconjugate afforded not only long blood circulation
at physiological but also pH enhanced accumulation in the tumor site
as a result of more effective cell uptake due to an increase in positive
charge; the enzyme CATcontributed to reoxygenating the hypoxic tumor
tissue by decomposition of endogenous H2O2 in
O2; and MnO2contributed to lowering the intracellular
GSH and simultaneously enabled T1-weighted
MR imaging. Systemic administration of the CMGCC nanoclusters exhibited
significantly enhanced tumor growth inhibition toward a subcutaneous
HeLa tumor but with no appreciable toxic side effect. Therefore, we
think that the present CMGCC nanoclusters are a promising theranostic
agent for PDT, while contributing to the development of synergistic
strategies for cancer treatment.
Experimental
Methods
Synthesis of CAT-Stabilized MnO2 (CM) Nanoparticles
Twenty milliliters of Na2S2O3·5H2O solution (1.875 mM) was dropwise added into 10 mL of KMnO4 solution (5 mM) with a constant pump rate of 1 mL/min. The
mixture was allowed to stir at room temperature (RT) for 30 min. 7.5
mL of CAT solution (1.67 mg/mL) was then dropwise added into the above
solution to protect the MnO2 nanoparticles from aggregation.
After stirring at RT for another 30 min, the brown solution was dialyzed
against MQ water (MWCO = 1000 kDa) for 3 days at 4 °C to remove
residual electrolytes and free CAT. The mixture was filtered with
Ultrafree-CL centrifugal filter (0.1 μm pore size) to remove
large aggregates and subsequently concentrated using an Amicon tube
(MWCO = 50 kDa) to give the final CM nanoparticles. A fraction of
the CM solution was subjected to freeze-drying to calculate the mass
concentration and the remainder was stored at 4 °C. BSAstabilized
MnO2 (BM) nanoparticles were synthesized as a control using
the same method.
Synthesis of Ce6-Conjugated Glycol Chitosan
(GCC)
Glycolchitosan (221 mg) was dissolved into 80 mL of MQ water and stirred
overnight to obtain a clear solution. Next, 22.1 mg of Ce6 (10 wt
% of GC) was dissolved into 5 mL of DMSO, and 14.2 mg of EDC and 8.5
mg of NHS were added to activate the carboxyl group of Ce6. After
being stirred at RT under light protection for 2 h, the activated
Ce6 was then dropwise added into the GC solution and the reaction
was allowed to stir for 4 h under light protection. The mixture was
dialyzed against methanol/MQ (1:1) for 1 day and MQ for another 2
days. The product was then filtered through an Acrodisc syringe filter
(0.8 μm) to remove large particles and concentrated with an
Amicon tube (MWCO = 50 kDa). A fraction of the GCC sample was lyophilized
to determine the mass concentration and for 1HNMR analysis.
The Ce6 substitution degree in GCC was determined by measuring its
UV absorbance at 660 nm, which was calibrated using a standard curve
of free Ce6.
Preparation of CMGCC Nanoclusters
One milliliter of
the as-prepared CM solution (3 mg/mL, MQ) was added into GCC solutions
(4 mg/mL, MQ) with different feed mass ratios of 1:0.5, 1:1, and 1:2
to optimize the formation of the nanoclusters. The mixture was immediately
subjected to sonication for 10 min (in an ice bath to protect the
enzyme from high temperatures) and stirred at RT for another 30 min
to obtain stable CMGCC nanoclusters. A small portion of CMGCC was
lyophilized for characterization. For biomedical applications, dialysis
using Amicon tubes (MWCO = 50 kDa) was employed for the buffer exchange.
Enzyme Activity Evaluation
The enzyme activities of
catalyzing H2O2 to generate O2 were
determined by recording the decomposition of H2O2 using the UV absorbance of 240 nm.[52] Briefly,
the H2O2 solution was diluted with PBS to give
an A240 between 0.52 and 0.55. Native
CAT, CM, BM, BMGCC, CM, and CMGCC samples were diluted with PBS to
reach a CATconcentration of 50 μg/mL for each sample. Next,
2.9 mL of the prepared H2O2 solution and 0.1
mL of CAT-containing solution were mixed into a quartz cuvette by
inversion. The UV absorbance at 240 nm was instantly monitored for
4 min. The relative enzyme activity of CM and CMGCCcompared to that
of native CAT was determined by recording the time required for the A240 to decrease from 0.45 to 0.40. Each sample
was performed in triplicate. To explore the catalytic activity in
the presence of protease, CAT and CMGCC were treated with trypsin
(44 μM) at 37 °C for 1.5 h, and the CAT activity was then
quantified as mentioned above. The O2concentration change
in the H2O2 solution (500 μM) incubated
with native CAT, CM, or CMGCC was monitored with a portable oxygen
meter.
Singlet Oxygen Detection
SOSG was employed to evaluate
the singlet oxygen generation. In brief, SOSG was mixed with free
Ce6, GCC, BMGCC, or CMGCC samples ([Ce6] = 5 μg/mL, [SOSG] =
5 μM), and the mixture was irradiated with a 660 nm laser (100
mW/cm2, 5 min). The generated 1O2 was determined by recording the SOSG fluorescence intensity with
an excitation/emission of 504/525 nm. The fluorescence intensity of
SOSG incubated with Ce6 was normalized to be 100%. To create hypoxicconditions, all solutions were first bubbled with argon for at least
45 min to remove oxygen, and the irradiation process was conducted
under an argon atmosphere. H2O2 (final concentration
of 100 μM) and GSH (final concentration of 5 mM) were employed
to imitate the tumor microenvironment.The CMGCC solution was diluted to different
Mn concentrations (0.125, 0.25, 0.5, and 1 mM) and incubated for 1
h in the presence or absence of 10 mM of GSH. T1 MR relaxometry was conducted on a 0.5 T NMI20 analyzing and
imaging instrument. The parameters were set as follows: TR = 400 ms,
TE = 20 ms, resolution = 156 mm × 156 mm, and section thickness
= 0.5 mm. The r1 relaxivity value was
calculated via linear fitting of the inverse T1 relaxation time as a function of Mn concentration.
The pseudocolored T1-weighted MR images
of the above solutions were recorded on a 3.0 T MR imaging system
(Ingenia 3.0T, Phillips, Netherlands) with the following parameters:
TR = 600 ms, TE = 20 ms, NSA = 4.00, matrix = 152 × 247, slice
gap = 0.5 mm, voxel = 0.2 × 0.2 × 1 mm, and FOV = 30 ×
50 × 18 mm.
3D MCS Tumor Model
3D MCS tumor
models were developed
by co-incubating NIH/3T3 and HeLa (5:1) cells, referring to previous
literature with slight modifications.[60] Briefly, 150 mg of agarose was dispersed in 10 mL of DMEM (1.5 wt
%/vol) in a conical flask. The flask was sealed with foil and subjected
to autoclaving (120 °C, 20 min). The sterile agarose solution
was then pipetted into a 96-well plate under asepticconditions to
give a concave surface via the solidification of
the agarose. Then, 200 μL of NIH/3T3 and 4T1 cells mixture was
seeded into the as-prepared 96-well plate at a density of 6 ×
104 cells/mL, and the cells were incubated for 4 days to
achieve the MCSs. To investigate the in vitro PDT
performance toward the 3D MCSs, the above developed MCSs were indicated
with free Ce6, GCC, BMGCC, or CMGCC ([Ce6] = 0.5 μg/mL) under
both physiological pH 7.4 and tumor microenvironment pH 6.5 for 4
h. Laser irradiation was then carried out (100 mW/cm2,
5 min), and the MCSs were further cultured for another 20 h. The processed
MCSs were either stained with Hoechst, FITC-Annexin V, and PI for
CLSM observation or monitored by optical microscopy over 2 days.
In Vivo MR Imaging
HeLa-tumor-bearing
nude mice were employed to investigate the MR imaging of tumor after
tail-vein i.v. injection (200 μL, [MnO2] = 4.2 mg/kg). T1-weighted MR images were obtained at different
time points (0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 10 h) postinjection on a 3.0
T MR imaging system (Ingenia 3.0T, Phillips, Netherlands) with the
following parameters: TR = 600 ms, TE = 20 ms, NSA = 4.00, matrix
= 152 × 247, slice gap = 0.5 mm, voxel = 0.2 × 0.2 ×
1 mm, and FOV = 30 × 50 × 18 mm. Pentobarbital sodium (40
mg/kg) was intraperitoneally injected to the nude mice, and anesthetized
mice were fixed within the custom-built rodent receiver coil during
the MR imaging process. The MR signal intensity was determined using
Philips DICOM viewer software, and three slices at each time point
were measured. The MR intensity of tumor and hindlimb muscles was
detected to calculate the SIR.HeLa-tumor-bearing nude
mice were randomly divided into 10 groups (6 for each group), which
were treated with (1) PBS laser (−), (2) PBS laser (+), (3)
Ce6 laser (−), (4) Ce6 laser (+), (5) GCC laser (−),
(6) GCC laser (+), (7) BMGCC laser (−), (8) BMGCC laser (+),
(9) CMGCC laser (−), and (10) PBS laser (+) with the corresponding
MnO2 and Ce6 dose of 4.2 and 1.5 mg/kg, respectively. Briefly,
different samples (200 μL) were i.v. injected into nude mice via the tail vein. After 3 h, groups of 2, 4, 6, 8, and
10 received laser irradiation (660 nm, 100 mW/cm2, 10 min).
The tumor volume (V = 1/2a × b2, where a represents the tumor
length and b the tumor width) and body weight were
monitored every 3 days. On day 21, one representative mouse from each
group was sacrificed to investigate the tumor pathological changes
with H&E and TUNEL staining. The major organs including heart,
liver, spleen, lung, kidney, and brain were obtained for H&E staining
to evaluate the biocompatibility. The other five mice from each group
were further fed to determine the survival rate.
Statistical
Analysis
A Student’s t test was employed
for statistical analysis. The data were marked
with * for p < 0.05, ** for p < 0.01, and *** for p < 0.001. All experimental
data are displayed as the mean ± standard deviation (n ≥ 3).
Authors: Lesan Yan; Samuel H Crayton; Jayesh P Thawani; Ahmad Amirshaghaghi; Andrew Tsourkas; Zhiliang Cheng Journal: Small Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 13.281
Authors: Sabyasachi Chakrabortty; Bikram Keshari Agrawalla; Anne Stumper; Naidu M Vegi; Stephan Fischer; Christian Reichardt; Michael Kögler; Benjamin Dietzek; Michaela Feuring-Buske; Christian Buske; Sven Rau; Tanja Weil Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Fang Xu; Jianzhi Zhu; Lizhou Lin; Changchang Zhang; Wenjie Sun; Yu Fan; Fangfang Yin; Jan C M van Hest; Han Wang; Lianfang Du; Xiangyang Shi Journal: Theranostics Date: 2020-03-15 Impact factor: 11.556