| Literature DB >> 33184416 |
Song Yi Lee1,2, Suyeong Nam1, Ja Seong Koo1, Sungyun Kim1, Mingyu Yang1, Da In Jeong1, ChaeRim Hwang1, JiHye Park1, Hyun-Jong Cho3.
Abstract
Doxorubicin (Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33184416 PMCID: PMC7661514 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-76778-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Schematic illustration of SA-assisted tumor targeting strategy of DOX@PLGA/PHL NPs.
Figure 2Identification of DOX coating onto PLGA NPs and their interactions with SA. (A) XPS data of PLGA NPs, DOX@PLGA NPs, and DOX@PLGA NPs (after incubation at pH 5.5). Binding energy-dependent counts/s values are shown. Atomic contents are presented in the graph. (B) Fluorescence intensity profiles of DOX (0.25‒10 μg/ml), DOX@PLGA NPs, and DOX@PLGA/PHL NPs. Emission spectra (500‒700 nm) of all samples at 480 nm excitation wavelength are shown. (C) Incubation time-dependent zeta potential values of PLGA NPs and DOX@PLGA NPs after mixing with SA. Zeta potential (mV) values at each determined time (0, 10, 20, 30, and 120 min) are shown. Each point indicates the mean ± SD (n = 3). +p < 0.05, compared with PLGA NPs group. (D) XPS data of DOX@PLGA NPs after incubating with SA. Atomic contents are present in the graph.
Particle characterization of NPs.
| Formulation | Mean diameter (nm) | Polydispersity index | Zeta potential (mV) | PHL encapsulation efficiency (%)a |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLGA/PHL NPs | 211 ± 19 | 0.14 ± 0.04 | − 15.9 ± 2.0 | 56.5 ± 0.4 |
| DOX@PLGA/PHL NPs | 221 ± 11 | 0.18 ± 0.02 | − 8.4 ± 0.7* | 42.4 ± 0.3 |
*p < 0.05, compared with PLGA/PHL NPs.
Data are shown as mean ± standard deviation (SD) (n = 3).
NPs were dispersed in DW at 5 mg/ml.
a
Figure 3Particle properties of developed NPs. (A) Size distribution profiles, SEM images, and TEM images of PLGA/PHL NPs and DOX@PLGA/PHL NPs. Diameter-dependent differential intensity (%) profiles are shown as size distribution diagrams. (B) Incubation time-dependent particle size values of DOX@PLGA/PHL NPs in different media (DW, PBS (pH 7.4), and FBS (50%, v/v)). Each point indicates the mean ± SD (n = 3). Particle size distribution profiles, shown as diameter-dependent differential intensity values, of DOX@PLGA/PHL NPs in PBS (pH 7.4) and FBS (50%, v/v) mixture are shown. (C) Release profiles of PHL and DOX from PLGA/PHL NPs and DOX@PLGA/PHL NPs at pH 7.4 and 5.5. Each point indicates the mean ± SD (n = 3).
Figure 4Cellular accumulation and distribution patterns of developed NPs in A549 and NIH3T3 cells. (A) Cellular uptake data of Dil-loaded NPs in A549 and NIH3T3 cells analyzed by flow cytometry. Cell count values according to the fluorescence intensity of control, PLGA/Dil NPs, DOX@PLGA NPs, DOX@PLGA/Dil NPs, and DOX@PLGA/Dil NPs + SA groups are shown. Mean fluorescence intensity values of all experimental groups are plotted. Each point indicates the mean ± SD (n = 3). /p < 0.05, compared with PLGA/Dil NPs group. #p < 0.05, compared with DOX@PLGA NPs group. &p < 0.05, compared with DOX@PLGA/Dil + SA NPs group. (B) Intracellular fluorescence signals of developed NPs in A549 and NIH3T3 cells observed by CLSM imaging. DAPI, red, and merged images of control, PLGA/Dil NPs, DOX@PLGA NPs, DOX@PLGA/Dil NPs, and DOX@PLGA/Dil NPs + SA groups are shown. The length of scale bar in the image is 20 μm.
Figure 5Cytotoxicity tests in A549 cells. Cell viability profiles according to PHL, DOX, and PLGA NPs concentrations are shown. Antiproliferation potentials of PLGA/PHL NPs, DOX@PLGA NPs, and DOX@PLGA/PHL NPs at 1, 2.5, and 5 μg/ml PHL concentrations are exhibited. Each point indicates the mean ± SD (n = 3). *p < 0.05, compared with PLGA/PHL NPs group. #p < 0.05, compared with DOX@PLGA NPs group.
Figure 6Tumor penetration capability and anticancer activity tests of developed NPs in A549 multicell spheroid model. (A) Tumor infiltration efficacy test of Dil-loaded NPs in A549 spheroid model. 2D (merged), 2D (red), and 3D (merged) images of control, PLGA/Dil NP, DOX@PLGA NPs, DOX@PLGA/Dil NPs, and DOX@PLGA/Dil NPs + SA groups are shown. The length of scale bar in the image is 50 μm. (B) Spheroid images after applying live/dead assay and ROS assay reagents observed by CLSM imaging. Merged images of control, PLGA/PHL NPs, DOX@PLGA NPs, and DOX@PLGA/PHL NPs are shown. The length of scale bar in the image is 50 μm.
Figure 7In vivo toxicity data of developed NPs in mouse. (A) Serum albumin, ALT, AST, and BUN levels in mouse after intravenous injection. Each point indicates the mean ± SD (n = 5). (B) H&E staining images of heart, kidney, liver, lung, and spleen in control, PLGA/PHL NPs, DOX@PLGA NPs, and DOX@PLGA/PHL NPs. The length of scale bar in the image is 100 μm.
Figure 8In vivo tumor targeting efficiency of designed NPs. (A) Whole body scanned NIRF image of PLGA/ICG NPs and DOX@PLGA/ICG NPs. Yellow dotted circle indicates the tumor region in A549 tumor-bearing mouse model. NIRF images at 0 h (pre-injection), 3 h (post-injection), and 24 h (post-injection) are shown. (B) Integrated density of NIRF signals in PLGA/ICG NPs and DOX@PLGA/ICG NPs groups. Each point indicates the mean ± SD (n = 3–6). %p < 0.05, compared with PLGA/ICG NPs group.