| Literature DB >> 34208088 |
Danieli Rosane Dallemole1, Thatiana Terroso1, Aline de Cristo Soares Alves1, Juliete Nathali Scholl2, Giovana Ravizzoni Onzi1, Rodrigo Cé1, Karina Paese1,3, Ana Maria Oliveira Battastini2, Silvia Stanisçuaski Guterres1,3, Fabrício Figueiró4, Adriana Raffin Pohlmann1.
Abstract
Glioblastoma (GB) is a histological and genetically heterogeneous brain tumor that is highly proliferative and vascularized. The prognosis is poor with currently available treatment. In this study, we evaluated the cytotoxicity and antiangiogenic activity of doxorubicin-loaded-chitosan-coated-arginylglycylaspartic acid-functionalized-poly(ε-caprolactone)-alpha bisabolol-LNC (AB-DOX-LNC-L-C-RGD). The nanoformulation was prepared by self-assembling followed by interfacial reactions, physicochemically characterized and evaluated in vitro against GB cell lines (U87MG and U138MG) and in vivo using the chicken chorioallantoic membrane assay (CAM). Spherical shape nanocapsules had a hydrodynamic mean diameter of 138 nm, zeta potential of +13.4 mV, doxorubicin encapsulation of 65%, and RGD conjugation of 92%. After 24 h of treatment (U87MG and U138MG), the median inhibition concentrations (IC50) were 520 and 490 nmol L-1 doxorubicin-equivalent concentrations, respectively. The treatment induced antiproliferative activity with S-phase cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis in the GB cells. Furthermore, after 48 h of exposure, evaluation of antiangiogenic activity (CAM) showed that the relative vessel growth following treatment with the nanocapsules was 5.4 times lower than that with the control treatment. The results support the therapeutic potential of the nanoformulation against GB and, thereby, pave the way for future preclinical studies.Entities:
Keywords: CAM assay; glioblastoma; lipid-core nanocapsules; multi-drug delivery systems; surface functionalization
Year: 2021 PMID: 34208088 PMCID: PMC8230781 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13060862
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Physicochemical properties of the formulations.
| Parameters | AB-LNC-L | AB-LNC-L-C | AB-LNC-L-C-RGD | AB-DOX-LNC-L | AB-DOX-LNC-L-C | AB-DOX-LNC-L-C-RGD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| d | 139 ± 10 | 146 ± 6 | 141 ± 10 | 140 ± 1 | 147 ± 4 | 138 ± 2 |
| PDI | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 0.17 ± 0.00 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.15 ± 0.03 | 0.18 ± 0.00 | 0.19 ± 0.01 |
| D | 136 ± 16 | 154 ± 2 | 148 ± 10 | 126 ± 5 | 141 ± 8 | 170 ± 19 |
| PND (part. mL−1) | (2.09 ± 0.95) × 1013 | (1.59 ± 0.31) × 1013 | (4.89 ± 1.5) × 1012 | (2.44 ± 0.4) × 1013 | (1.31 ± 0.14) × 1013 | (4.90 ± 0.8) × 1012 |
| ZP (mV) | −11.4 ± 0.6 | +18.4 ± 0.4 | +14.9 ± 1.2 | −11.6 ± 1.5 | +11.8 ± 2.0 | +13.4 ± 1.0 |
| pH | 5.79 ± 0.38 1) | 4.04 ± 0.01 1) | 4 2) | 7.30 ± 0.3 1) | 4.18 ± 0.04 1) | 4 2) |
z-average hydrodynamic mean diameter (dh z-ave) and polydispersity index (PDI) determined by dynamic light scattering, hydrodynamic mean diameter by number of particles (Dh), and particle number density (PND) determined by nanoparticle tracking analysis, zeta potential (ZP) determined by electrophoretic light scattering, pH determined by potentiometry 1) or by pH indicator strips 2). Data were expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3).
Figure 1Photomicrographs obtained by transmission electron microscopy of AB-DOX-LNC-L-C-RGD: (a) bar = 1 μm and (b) bar = 100 nm.
Doxorubicin content determined by liquid chromatography and encapsulation efficiency of doxorubicin (EE%) determined by ultrafiltration-centrifugation following quantification.
| Parameters | AB-DOX-LNC-L | AB-DOX-LNC-L-C | AB-DOX-LNC-L-C-RGD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Doxorubicin content (µg mL | 94.88 ± 2.61 | 85.39 ± 0.82 | 30.79 ± 0.53 |
| EE% | 98.07 ± 0.7 | 64.32 ± 7.15 | 65.89 ± 3.63 |
Data were expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3).
Figure 2Cell viability evaluation using the MTT assay after 24 h of treatment on (a) U87MG cell line, IC50 = 0.52 ± 0.07 μmol L−1 (doxorubicin-equivalent) and (b) U138 cell line, IC50 0.49 ± 0.03 μmol L−1 (doxorubicin-equivalent). Ultrapure water (control 2), DMSO (control 3). Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM. (n = 3) ** represents statistical difference with respect to the control (ultrapure water) (p < 0.01). *** represent the statistical difference with respect to the control (ultrapure water) (p < 0.001) (ANOVA, Dunnett).
Figure 3Cell cycle analysis using flow cytometry after 24 h of treatment for (a) U87MG cell line, (b) U138MG cell line, and (c) cell cycle representative histograms for U138MG cell line. Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM (n = 3). Negative control (untreated cells-control 1), ultrapure water (control 2), DMSO (control 3).
Figure 4Apoptosis after 24 h of treatment for (a) U87MG cell line, (b) U138MG cell line, and (c) representative dot plots for U87MG cell line. Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM (n = 3). Negative control (untreated cells-control 1), ultrapure water (control 2), DMSO (control 3).
Figure 5Relative vessel growth in chicken embryo CAM after (a) 24 h of treatment and (b) 48 h of treatment. Inset: Relative vessel growth following treatment at the highest concentrations of AB-LNC-L-C, AB-LNC-L-C-RGD, and AB-DOX-LNC-L-C-RGD. Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM. (n = 3) * represents the statistical difference with respect to the negative control (p < 0.05) (ANOVA, Dunnett).