| Literature DB >> 33187385 |
Milad Ashrafizadeh1,2, Ali Zarrabi2, Farid Hashemi3, Amirhossein Zabolian4, Hossein Saleki4, Morteza Bagherian4, Negar Azami4, Atefe Kazemzade Bejandi4, Kiavash Hushmandi5, Hui Li Ang6, Pooyan Makvandi7, Haroon Khan8, Alan Prem Kumar6.
Abstract
Doxorubicin (DOX) is a well-known chemotherapeutic agent extensively applied in the field of cancer therapy. However, similar to other chemotherapeutic agents such as cisplatin, paclitaxel, docetaxel, etoposide and oxaliplatin, cancer cells are able to obtain chemoresistance that limits DOX efficacy. In respect to dose-dependent side effect of DOX, enhancing its dosage is not recommended for effective cancer chemotherapy. Therefore, different strategies have been considered for reversing DOX resistance and diminishing its side effects. Phytochemical are potential candidates in this case due to their great pharmacological activities. Curcumin is a potential antitumor phytochemical isolated from Curcuma longa with capacity of suppressing cancer metastasis and proliferation and affecting molecular pathways. Experiments have demonstrated the potential of curcumin for inhibiting chemoresistance by downregulating oncogene pathways such as MMP-2, TGF-β, EMT, PI3K/Akt, NF-κB and AP-1. Furthermore, coadministration of curcumin and DOX potentiates apoptosis induction in cancer cells. In light of this, nanoplatforms have been employed for codelivery of curcumin and DOX. This results in promoting the bioavailability and internalization of the aforementioned active compounds in cancer cells and, consequently, enhancing their antitumor activity. Noteworthy, curcumin has been applied for reducing adverse effects of DOX on normal cells and tissues via reducing inflammation, oxidative stress and apoptosis. The current review highlights the anticancer mechanism, side effects and codelivery of curcumin and DOX via nanovehicles.Entities:
Keywords: apoptosis; chemoresistance; curcumin; doxorubicin; nanodelivery; side effect
Year: 2020 PMID: 33187385 PMCID: PMC7697177 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12111084
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Figure 1The chemical structure of curcumin (a) and doxorubicin (b).
Figure 2Schematic diagram of the proposed mechanism for promoting cellular uptake and overcoming MDR by Cur-pCB (poly(carboxybetaine)) -Dox in MCF-7/Adr cells. The nanosized feature of the zwitterionic antifouling micelles and endocytic pathway to bypass P-gp-mediated drug efflux led to high cellular uptake of the conjugated drugs that were released in the tumor cells of high GSH concentration. However, pCB-Dox and pCB-Cur can be delivered separately into different cells so that the drugs fail to play a synergistic role in inhibiting the MDR effect (a). By contrast, Cur-pCB-Dox codelivers Dox and Cur into the same tumor cells and results in synergistic effects of the two drugs (b). Merging images of cell uptake of pCB-Dox (left), pCB-Dox + pCB-Cur (middle) and Cur-pCB-Dox (right) in MFC-7/Adr cells (c). Cur: curcumin; Dox: doxorubicin; MDR: multidrug resistance; pCB: poly(carboxybetaine). Addapted with permission from [139].
Figure 3Curcumin in promoting antitumor activity of DOX and reversing chemoresistance. ZnCM-SD, curcumin-Zn solid dispersion; EMT, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition; TGF-β, transforming growth factor-beta; PI3K, phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase; Akt, protein kinase B; DOX, doxorubicin; TIMP-1, tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase-1; MMP-2, matrix metalloproteinase-2; EGCG, epigallocatechin gallate; AP-1, activator protein-1; NF-κB, nuclear factor-kappaB; P-gp, P-glycoprotein.
Curcumin as an enhancer of antitumor activity upon doxorubicin chemotherapy.
| Cancer Type | In vitro/In vivo | Cell Line/Animal Model | Effect on Doxorubicin Efficacy | Dose | Experiment Duration | Remarks | Refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glioblastoma | In vitro | T98G (world health organization (WHO) grade IV), U87MG (WHO grade III), and T67 (WHO grade III) human glioma and C6 rat glioma cell lines | Enhancement | 20, 40 and 60 μmol/L | 48 h | Promoting inhibitory effect of DOX on cancer cells | [ |
| Breast cancer | In vitro | MCF-7 cells | Enhancement | 6-110 μM | 24 h | Downregulation of HER2 and NF-κB | [ |
| Breast cancer | In vitro | MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 cells | Enhancement | 0-100 μM | 72 h | Downregulation of ABCB4 | [ |
| Chronic myeloid leukemia | In vitro | Human CML cell lines K562 and K562/DOX | Enhancement | 0.5, 1 and 2 μM | 48 h | Promoting sensitivity into DOX chemotherapy via P-gp and S100A8 downregulation | [ |
| Hepatic cancer | In vitro | HA22T/VGH cells | Enhancement | 10, 15, 20 and 25 μM | 72 h | Downregulation of c-Myc and COX-2 | [ |
| Colon cancer Breast cancer | In vitro | Human colon HCT116 and breast cancer MCF7 cell lines | Enhancement | 15 μM | - | Apoptosis induction | [ |
| Neuroblastoma | In vitro | SH-SY5Y cells | Enhancement | 5-50 μM | 24 h | Disrupting cancer invasion | [ |
| Gastric adenocarcinoma | In vitro | AGS cells | Enhancement | 0-30 μg/mL | 24, 48, 72 and 96 h | Apoptosis stimulation via Bcl-2 downregulation and Bax and caspase-9 upregulation | [ |
Figure 4Curcumin in alleviation of adverse effects of DOX during chemotherapy. DOX, doxorubicin; cyt c, cytochrome C; NF-κB, nuclear factor-kappa B; IL-1β, interleukin-1β; TNF-α, tumor necrosis factor-a; COX-2, cyclooxygenase-2; iNOS, inducible nitric oxide synthase; SOD, superoxide dismutase; GSH, glutathione; CAT, catalase; ROS, reactive oxygen species; PiC, mitochondrial phosphate carrier.
Alleviation of adverse effects of doxorubicin by curcumin.
| In vitro/In vivo | Cell Line/Animal Model | Dose | Experiment Duration | Administration Route | Remarks | Refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In vivo | Wistar rats | 100 and 200 mg/kg | 7 days | Oral gavage | Reducing oxidative stress and MDH levels | [ |
| In vivo | Rat | 100 and 200 mg/kg | 7 days | Oral administration | Preventing apoptosis via caspase-3 downregulation | [ |
| In vivo | DOX-mediated cardiotoxicity in rat | 100 mg/kg of curcumin | 22 days | Intraperitoneal administration | Reducing volume of myocardium and vessels | [ |
| In vivo | Rat | 100 and 200 mg/kg | 7 days | Oral administration | Alleviation of oxidative stress, inflammation, apoptosis and DNA damage | [ |
| In vivo | Rat | 100 and 200 mg/kg of curcumin | 30 days | Intraperitoneal administration | Enhancing survival rate | [ |
Figure 5(A) Side-by-side comparison of the tumors studied by μCT. Top row: Summation of intensity along the stack of CT slices (n slices ≈400) showing density variations and overall dimensions of the tumors. Bottom row: 3D photorealistic rendering of the tumors. (B) Tumor weight (* p < 0.05 vs. control and blank treatment groups). (C) Representative images of tumors excised at the end point of the study on day 15. Reprinted with permission from [194], ACS Publications, 2019.
Figure 6Curcumin- and DOX-loaded nanovehicles in effective cancer chemotherapy. DOX, doxorubicin; GLUT1, glucose transporter 1; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor; P-gp, P-glycoprotein; miRNA, microRNA; MDR, multidrug resistance; TGF-β, transforming growth factor-β.
Codelivery of curcumin and doxorubicin in providing effective cancer chemotherapy.
| Nanocarrier | In vitro/In vivo | Cell Line/Animal Model | Encapsulation Efficiency (%) | Particle Size (nm) | Zeta Potential (mV) | Remarks | Refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liposome | In vitro | B16F10 cells | 100 (DOX) 86 (curcumin) | 190–230 | 2–4 | Surface modification of liposomes with RGDK promotes their cellular uptake | [ |
| Polymeric nanoparticles | In vitro | HepG 2 and HeLa cells | 18.35 (DOX) 91 (curcumin) | 183.5 | −0.68 | Possessing pH sensitivity capability | [ |
| Polymeric nanoparticles | In vitro | HUVEC cells and MCF-7/ADR cells | 92 | 115–135 | 0.41 | High drug loading | [ |
| Polymeric nanoparticles | In vitro In vivo | NIH-3T3 (mouse embryonic fibroblast cells), HeLa (human cervical cancer cells), NCI-H460 (Human lung carcinoma cells), and HFL1 (Human normal lung cells) | 23–53 | 180–220 | 10–15 | Apoptosis stimulation in resistant cancer cells | [ |
| Micelle | In vitro | H9C2 cells | 90.6–99.8 | 90.6–120 | −0.13 to −2.34 | High encapsulation efficiency and drug loading | [ |
| Micelle | In vitro | U87MG cells | - | 14.4 to 14.8 | −4.2 to −4.4 | Apoptosis induction via caspase-3 and caspase-7 upregulation | [ |
| Polymeric micelle | In vitro | HepG2 and HUVEC cells | 90.9 (DOX) | 80–110 | −0.5 to +10 | Redox-responsive drug release | [ |
| Polymeric micelles | In vitro | MCF-7 cells | - | 164.2–190 | - | Enhanced cellular uptake due to EPR effect | [ |
| Micelle | In vitro | MDA-MB-231 cells | 94.69 (DOX) | 60 | −16.4 | Exerting synergistic effect | [ |
| Selenium nanoparticles | In vitro | HCT116 cells Tumor-bearing mice | - | 202–240 | −31 to −37 | Increasing ROS levels | [ |
| Solid lipid nanoparticles | In vivo | Hodgkin’s lymphoma in mice | - | 125.2 | −19.4 | Promoting curcumin bioavailability | [ |
| Solid lipid nanoparticles | In vitro | Human MCF-7 cells, human TNBC MDA-MB-231 and murine mammary cancer JC cells | - | - | - | Enhancing cytotoxicity against cancer cells by 5-10 folds | [ |
| Mesoporous silica nanoparticles | In vitro | MCF-7 cells | - | - | - | Localization in cytoplasmic vesicles | [ |