| Literature DB >> 33924180 |
Ajmal Zarinwall1,2,3, Mazdak Asadian-Birjand3, Didem Ag Seleci1,2, Viktor Maurer1,2, Alexandra Trautner3, Georg Garnweitner1,2, Hendrik Fuchs3.
Abstract
Targeted tumor therapy can provide the basis for the inhibition of tumor growth. However, a number of toxin-based therapeutics lack efficacy because of insufficient endosomal escape after being internalized by endocytosis. To address this problem, the potential of glycosylated triterpenoids, such as SO1861, as endosomal escape enhancers (EEE) for superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticle (SPION)-based toxin therapy was investigated. Herein, two different SPION-based particle systems were synthesized, each selectively functionalized with either the targeted toxin, dianthin-epidermal growth factor (DiaEGF), or the EEE, SO1861. After applying both particle systems in vitro, an almost 2000-fold enhancement in tumor cell cytotoxicity compared to the monotherapy with SPION-DiaEGF and a 6.7-fold gain in specificity was observed. Thus, the required dose of the formulation was appreciably reduced, and the therapeutic window widened.Entities:
Keywords: EGF; SO1861; drug delivery; endosomal escape; functionalization; saponin; surface modification; targeted toxin
Year: 2021 PMID: 33924180 PMCID: PMC8074366 DOI: 10.3390/nano11041057
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1Schematic depiction of the synthesized particle systems including the individual experimental steps and the composition of the applied combinatorial approaches.
Figure 2(A) Total amount of conjugated NHS-PEG12-N3 linker on Dianthin (Dia) and DianthinEGF (DiaEGF) and (B) the corresponding enzymatic activity in dependence of the initially used molar ratio of linker to the respective ribosome-inactivating protein (RIP; Dia or DiaEGF). Activity results are shown relative to the activity of unconjugated Dia, which was set to 100%.
Figure 3(A) Representative TEM image of SPION@APTES and (B) dynamic light scattering (DLS) results including the respective median sizes.
Figure 4(A) Zeta potential measurements and (B) obtained thermograms after each functionalization step.
Figure 5(A) FTIR-spectra and (B) zeta potential measurements before and after functionalization with SO1861. In the control experiment SPION@APTES and SO1861 were mixed together without the addition of HATU.
Figure 6(A) Cytotoxicity studies of each particle system on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-overexpressing (EGFR/+) HCT-116 cells and (B) on MDA-MB-453 cell line which served as EGFR negative control (EGFR/−). Cell viability was assessed after 48 h by MTT-assay and plotted as a function of the molar iron concentration. Each point represents the mean ± SD of at least 3 independent experiments, performed in quadruplicate. Corresponding half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) and enhancement factor (EF) values are shown in Table 1.
Corresponding half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) values and enhancement factor (EF) derived from Figure 6 and Figure 7 of the respective particle based anti-tumor systems. Since the IC50 was not reached for SPION@APTES and SPION@BCN, specification of the EF was not possible for these particle systems. The targeting effect is defined as the ratio of the IC50 values of the non-targeted compound (SPION-Dia) to the targeted compound (SPION-DiaEGF). The gain in specificity is the ratio of the targeted EF to the non-targeted EF.
| +SO1861/M |
| +SPION-SO1861/M |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| >2 × 10−3 | 4.5 × 10−5 | – | 2.2 × 10−5 | – |
|
| >2 × 10−3 | – | – | – | – |
|
| 5.5 × 10−4 | 2.6 × 10−8 | 21,000 | 2.0 × 10−6 | 270 |
|
| 1.3 × 10−5 | 4.0 × 10−10 | 33,000 | 7.5 × 10−9 | 1800 |
|
| 42 | 65 | – | 267 | – |
|
| – | – | 1.6 | – | 6.7 |
Figure 7Cytotoxicity studies of SPIONs after each functionalization step on EGFR-overexpressing HCT-116 cells (A) applied in a combinatorial approach with 0.5 μg/mL free SO1861 and (B) with SPION-SO1861, respectively. Cell viability was assessed after 48 h by MTT-assay and plotted as a function of the molar iron concentration. Each point represents the mean ± SD of at least 3 independent experiments, performed in quadruplicate. Corresponding IC50 and EF values are shown in Table 1.
Figure 8(A) T1 and (B) T2 relaxivity measurements of SPION@APTES and the SPION-DiaEGF+ SPION-SO1861 mixture. Values of relaxivites (r1 and r2) were determined via correlation between the relaxation rates and the corresponding iron concentrations from the slope of the resulting linear regression curve.