| Literature DB >> 33182562 |
Farzana Nazir1, Mudassir Iqbal1.
Abstract
Cellulose based materials are emerging in the commercial fielEntities:
Keywords: MCC; aminated cellulose; breast cancer cell lines; cellulose; cytotoxicity; melanoma; tosylated cellulose
Year: 2020 PMID: 33182562 PMCID: PMC7696900 DOI: 10.3390/polym12112634
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Characterization of cellulose and cellulose amine derivatives: (a) FTIR; (b) XRD; (c) 1HNMR: (i) MCC, (ii) Tosylated Cellulose (CTOS), (iii) Cell Hyd, (iv) Cell DEA, (v) Cell DETA; (d) Zeta potential measurement.
Figure 2Scheme of Synthesis of Microcrystalline Cellulose (MCC) Derivatives: (a) Tosylated cellulose (CTos) synthesis, (b) synthesis of 6-deoxy-6-hydrazide Cellulose (Cell Hyd), (c) synthesis of 6-deoxy-6-diethylamide Cellulose (Cell DEA), (d) synthesis of 6-deoxy-6-diethyltriamine Cellulose (Cell DETA).
Characterization of cellulose amine derivatives elemental analysis) (C, H, N, S).
| Cell Lines | Carbon | Carbon | Hydrogen | Hydrogen | Nitrogen | Nitrogen | Sulphur | Sulphur |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCC | 44.31 | 40.85 | 6.51 | 6.34 | 0.15 | |||
| CTOS | 47.59 | 46.05 | 5.68 | 6.05 | 6.69 | 4.8 | ||
| Cell Hyd | 42.48 | 41.34 | 6.83 | 6.64 | 8.26 | 7.95 | 0.55 | |
| Cell DEA | 50.52 | 46.29 | 7.95 | 6.71 | 3.68 | 3.25 | 1.01 | |
| Cell DETA | 46.82 | 44.73 | 7.86 | 7.24 | 10.24 | 9.55 | 0.77 |
Characterization of cellulose amine derivatives zeta potential measurements.
| Compounds | Zeta Potential ζ |
|---|---|
| MCC | −4.24 |
| Cell Hyd | +32.8 |
| Cell DEA | +13.9 |
| Cell DETA | +27 |
Figure 3Characterization of Cellulose Derivatives SEM and EDX (Analysis) in solid state of derivatives confirming the synthesis of the derivatives. (a) SEM images were taken at 20 µm, 5 µm, 2 µm and 500 µm. (b) EXD Analysis (i) MCC, (ii) CTOS, (iii) Cell Hyd, (iv) Cell DEA, (v) Cell DETA.
Figure 4Cell Culture Evaluating the IC50 values for the Cellulose and its derivative MCC, Cell Hyd, Cell DEA and Cell DETA ± average standard deviation (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001) against Normal. (a) NIH3T3 and Cancer cell lines. (b) B16F10. (c) MDA-MB-231. (d) MCF-7. (e) IC50 values graph. (f) Swelling ratios of cell derivatives.
IC50 values for different cell lines.
| Cell Lines | NIH3T3 | B16F10 | MDA-MB-231 | MCF-7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCC | 263 ± 13.5 | 207 ± 12.0 | 201.6 ± 11.8 | 238.9 ± 10.9 |
| Cell Hyd | 231.9 ±11.5 | 130.5 ± 11.2 | 176.5 ± 11.5 | 195.5 ± 10.8 |
| Cell DEA | 222.3 ± 11.3 | 103.64 ± 9.9 | 154.6 ± 7.4 | 148.8 ± 11.2 |
| Cell DETA | 202.6 ± 10.35 | 101.5 ± 6.8 | 158.5 ± 5.5 | 74.92 ± 9.9 |
Figure 5Cell culture live dead assay after treatment with cellulose and its derivatives MCC, Cell Hyd, Cell DEA and Cell DETA, at 3 concentrations after 24 h; against Normal (a) NIH3T3 and Cancer cell lines (b) B16F10, (c) MDA-MB-231, (d) MCF-7. Live cells show green fluorescence when stained with calcein-AM, while dead cells show red fluorescence stained with ethidium homodifier. Live cell percentage is shown on the images as total percentage of live cells from four random fields with mean ± standard deviation of 3 replicates of samples. Scale bar is 100 µm.