| Literature DB >> 34220293 |
Poornima Kalyanram1, Anu Puri2, Anju Gupta1.
Abstract
In this work, we demonstrate the enhanced thermal and steric stability of lipid-based formulations in the presence of encapsulated HPPH that have demonstrated potential cancer applications in previously presented in vivo studies. Differential scanning calorimeter (DSC) was used to study the phase transitions, and domain formations, and to qualify the thermodynamic properties associated with change in lipid bilayer behavior due to the presence of PEGylated at varying concentrations and sizes, and the encapsulated HPPH molecules. Thermal instability was quantified by dramatic changes in calculated enthalpy, and the shape of the melting peak or calculated half width of melting peak. This systematic study focused on understanding the effects of varying molecular mass and concentrations of PEG polymers in the photopolymerizable lipid DC8, 9PC lipid bilayer matrix for four weeks at room temperature of 25 °C. The major findings include increased thermal stability of the lipid bilayer due to the presence of PEG-2 K and the HPPH that resulted from the van der Waals forces between various molecular species, and the change in bilayer curvature confirmed via mathematical correlations. It is demonstrated that the encapsulation of therapeutics in lipid formulations can alter their overall thermal behavior, and therefore, it is imperative to consider calorimetric effects while designing lipid-based vaccines. The presented research methodologies and findings presented can predict the stability of lipid-based vaccines that are under development such as COVID-19 during their storage, transport, and distribution. © Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2021.Entities:
Keywords: Cancer; Lipids; Thermal analysis; Thermodynamics; Vaccine
Year: 2021 PMID: 34220293 PMCID: PMC8235917 DOI: 10.1007/s10973-021-10929-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Therm Anal Calorim ISSN: 0368-4466 Impact factor: 4.755
Composition of the lipid nanoparticle formulations used in this research (mass ratio)
| DC8,9PC: PEGylated lipid mole ratio | Liposomal (LNP) formulation* | PEGylated lipid type | HPPH encapsulation (20:1 lipid:HPPH) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 100:00 | DC8,9PC only | None | No |
| 90:10 | DC8,9PC/1 K (10) | DSPE-PEG1000 | No |
| 99:1 | DC8,9PC/2 K (1) | DSPE-PEG2000 | No |
| 95:5 | DC8,9PC/2 K (5) | “ | No |
| 90:10 | DC8,9PC/2 K (10) | “ | No |
| 80:20 | DC8,9PC/2 K (20) | “ | No |
| 50:50 | DC8,9PC/2 K (50) | “ | No |
| 99:1 | DC8,9PC/5 K (1) | DSPE-PEG5000 | No |
| 90:10 | DC8,9PC/5 K (10) | “ | No |
| 80:20 | DC8,9PC/5 K (20) | “ | No |
| 90:10 | DC8,9PC/1 K (10) | DSPE-PEG1000 | Yes |
| 90:10 | DC8,9PC/2 K (10)/HPPH | DSPE-PEG2000 | Yes |
| 80:20 | DC8,9PC/2 K (20)/HPPH | DSPE-PEG2000 | Yes |
| 90:10 | DC8,9PC/5 K (10)/HPPH | DSPE-PEG5000 | Yes |
*The numbers in parentheses indicate the mol% of PEGylated lipid in the liposomal formulations added
Fig. 1Size and PDI of a LNP formulations prepared without HPPH. b LNP formulations prepared in the presence of HPPH (20:1, lipid: HPPH)
Fig. 2DSC curves of DC8, 9PC/DSPE-PEG 2000 LNPs with varying PEG concentrations recorded in a) week 1 and b) week 4
Calculated thermodynamic parameters based on melting peaks presented in Fig. 2
| LNP formulation | Week 1 | Week 4 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transition temperature °C/ | Enthalpy of transition/J.g−1 | Half Width of Transition /∆T1/2 | Transition temperature °C/ | Enthalpy of transition/J.g−1 | Half Width of Transition /∆T1/2 | |
| DC8,9PC | 45.09 ± 0.23 | 3.60 ± 0.35 | 1.67 | 41.67 ± 0.18 | 2.05 ± 0.75 | 2.4 |
| 1 K (10) | 42.42 ± 0.75 | 1.18 ± 0.75 | 2.8 | 42.66 ± 0.26 | 0.81 ± 0.36 | 2.1 |
| 2 K (1) | 45.19 ± 0.45 | 4.55 ± 0.28 | 4.02 | 41.9 ± 0.45 | 0.626 ± 0.20 | 2.89 |
| 2 K (5) | 43.97 ± 0.92 | 8.54 ± 0.32 | 1.37 | 42.96 ± 0.69 | 2.9 ± 0.28 | 2.28 |
| 2 K (10) | 42.87 ± 0.56 | 8.66 ± 0.77 | 2.03 | 43.02 ± 0.48 | 3.4 ± 0.25 | 2.02 |
| 2 K (20) | 42.04 ± 0.78 | 2.50 ± 0.87 | 2.5 | 41.17 ± 0.27 | 0.74 ± 0.56 | 2.94 |
| 2 K (50) | 41.66 ± 0.98 | 0.80 ± 0.39 | 1.65 | No peak observed | ||
| 5 K (1) | 42.06 ± 0.34 | 3.33 ± 0.55 | 1.92 | 44.11 ± 0.78 | 1.69 ± 0.49 | 1.3 |
| 5 K (10) | 42.06 ± 0.20 | 6.08 ± 0.20 | 1.99 | 42.92 ± 0.65 | 1.24 ± 0.86 | 1.93 |
| 5 K (20) | 43.17 ± 0.18 | 0.49 ± 0.12 | 4.76 | 42.79 ± 0.42 | 0.627 ± 0.50 | 2.18 |
Fig. 3DSC curves of binary mixtures of DC8, 9PC/DSPE-PEG 5000 LNP’s varying in PEG concentrations
Fig. 4DSC curves of DC8,9PC/DSPE-PEG formulation in the absence and presence of encapsulated HPPH
Comparison of melting temperature and enthalpies of LNP with and without encapsulated HPPH from week 1 to week 4
| Lipid formulation | Week 1 | Week 4 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transition temperature °C/ | Enthalpy of transition/J.g−1 | Transition temperature °C/ | Enthalpy of transition/J.g−1 | |
| 1 K (10) | 42.42 ± 0.45 | 0.81 ± 0.65 | 42.66 ± 0.15 | 1.18 ± 0.65 |
| 1 K (10)/HPPH | 42.32 ± 0.32 | 6.79 ± 0.70 | 42.97 ± 0.55 | 0.468 ± 0.49 |
| 2 K (10) | 42.87 ± 0.85 | 8.66 ± 0.38 | 43.04 ± 0.08 | 3.4 ± 0.13 |
| 2 K (10)/HPPH | 42.06 ± 0.10 | 8.08 ± 0.95 | 41.67 ± 0.48 | 2.05 ± 0.76 |
| 2 K (20) | 42.04 ± 0.16 | 2.5 ± 0.55 | 41.17 ± 0.09 | 0.74 ± 0.11 |
| 2 K (10)/HPPH | 41.06 ± 0.35 | 0.38 ± 0.73 | 41.37 ± 0.20 | 0.21 ± 0.54 |
| 5 K (10) | 42.02 ± 0.89 | 6.08 ± 0.20 | 44.11 ± 0.04 | 1.69 ± 0.14 |
| 5 K (10)/HPPH | 42.45 ± 0.40 | 0.89 ± 0.35 | 42.92 ± 0.92 | 1.24 ± 0.29 |
Fig. 5Schematic representation of bond formations between HPPH with various moieties on lipid headgroup and tails