| Literature DB >> 33748616 |
Atsushi Narumi1, Rioko Rachi1, Hiromi Yamazaki1, Seigou Kawaguchi1, Moriya Kikuchi2, Hiroyuki Konno3, Tomohiro Osaki4, Yoshiharu Okamoto4, Xiande Shen5, Toyoji Kakuchi5, Hiromi Kataoka6, Akihiro Nomoto7, Tomokazu Yoshimura8, Shigenobu Yano8.
Abstract
GlycoconjugatedEntities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33748616 PMCID: PMC7970547 DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.0c06316
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ACS Omega ISSN: 2470-1343
Chart 1Synthetic Conception in Which Maltotriose (Mal3) Is Covalently Bonded with Chlorin e6 Dimethyl Ester (Ce6–DME) Assisted by Using Two Molecular Tools, Such as PA and the TEG Derivative, to Produce the Mal3–Ce6 Conjugate Linked with the TEG-Spacer (Mal3–TEG–Ce6).
Scheme 1Synthesis of the Mal3–Ce6 Conjugate Linked via the TEG Spacer (Mal3–TEG–Ce6)
Figure 11H NMR spectra of (a) 3 in D2O and (b) Mal3–TEG–Ce6 in DMSO-d6 (the symbol * in the spectra corresponds to the protons due to the hydroxyl groups).
Summary for Photoabsorption Properties of 4 in DMSO (Control) and Mal3–TEG–Ce6 in DMSO and PBS
| λ/nm (ε/M–1 cm–1) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| sample | solvent | Soret | ||||
| DMSO | 404 (84,200) | 502 (7450) | 531 (2680) | 609 (2630) | 664 (25,700) | |
| Mal3–TEG–Ce6 | DMSO | 404 (125,000) | 502 (11,900) | 530 (5580) | 609 (5690) | 665 (37,000) |
| Mal3–TEG–Ce6 | PBS | 404 (52,300) | 502 (6850) | 531 (3800) | 609 (3050) | 664 (20,000) |
Figure 2UV–vis spectra of (a) Mal3–TEG–Ce6 (solid line) and 4 (dashed line) in DMSO and (b) Mal3–TEG–Ce6 in PBS.
Figure 3Photodynamic cytotoxicity of (a) Mal3–TEG–Ce6 and (b) G–Ce6 in SNP cells. The cell viabilities are plotted as a function of the concentrations of the PSs for the photoirradiated system (671 nm) (green circles) and photounirradiated system (black circles). Each value represents the mean ± SD. (n = 6).
Figure 4Photodynamic cytotoxicity of Mal3–TEG–Ce6 in EMT6 cells (0.032, 0.16, 0.8, 4.0, and 20 μM). Each value represents the mean ± SD. (n = 6).
Figure 5Subcellular localization of Mal3–TEG–Ce6 in the EMT6 cells. The images (a–c) show the red fluorescences of Mal3–TEG–Ce6. The images (d–f) show the green fluorescences of the probe-stained lysosome, mitochondria, and ER, respectively, which are in the same views as (a–c). The images (g–i) are the merged images of the left and middle ones. Scale bar, 50 μm.
Figure 6Representative images of EMT6 cells stained with EthD-III (red) and annexin V (green) for the PDT groups using the conditions of the Mal3–TEG–Ce6 concentration and the light dose of (a) 0 μM and 0 J/cm2, (b) 0 μM and 15 J/cm2, (c) 0.8 μM and 0 J/cm2, (d) 0.8 μM and 1 J/cm2, (e) 0.8 μM and 5 J/cm2, and (f) 0.8 μM and 15 J/cm2, respectively. Scale bar, 500 μm.
Figure 7Percentages of (a) annexin V (+) cells and (b) ROS (+) cells. Data were analyzed using Dunn’s multiple comparison test [(a) *p < 0.05; control vs 5 J/cm2, laser vs 5 J/cm2 and (b) *p < 0.05; laser vs 5 J/cm2]. The results are presented as the mean ± standard deviation.