| Literature DB >> 35159847 |
Durairaj Siva1,2, Subramanian Abinaya1,3, Durairaj Rajesh4,5, Govindaraju Archunan5,6, Parasuraman Padmanabhan7,8, Balázs Gulyás9, Shanmugam Achiraman1.
Abstract
Doxorubicin is an extensively prescribed antineoplastic agent. It is also known for adverse effects, among which cardiotoxicity tops the list. The possible mechanism underlying doxorubicin (DOX)-mediated cardiotoxicity has been investigated in this study. Further, to reduce the DOX-mediated cardiotoxicity, DOX was conjugated with Chitosan Nanoparticles (DCNPs) and supplemented with propionic acid. Initially, the drug loading efficacy and conjugation of DOX with chitosan was confirmed by UV-Visible Spectroscopy (UV) and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR). The average sizes of the synthesized Chitosan Nanoparticles (CNPs) and DCNPs were measured by Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS) analysis as 187.9 ± 1.05 nm and 277.3 ± 8.15 nm, respectively, and the zeta potential values were recorded as 55.2 ± 0.7 mV and 51.9 ± 1.0 mV, respectively. The size and shape of CNPs and DCNPs were recorded using a High-Resolution Electron Microscopy (HRTEM). The particles measured <30 nm and 33-84 nm, respectively. The toxic effects of DCNPs and propionic acid were evaluated in rat model. The data from the electrocardiogram (ECG), cardiac biomarkers, Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) and histological observations indicated evidence of DOX-mediated cardiotoxicity, whereas the administration of DCNPs, as well as Propionic Acid (PA), brought about a restoration to normalcy and offered protection in the context of DOX-induced cardiotoxicity.Entities:
Keywords: PPARγ; cardiotoxicity; chitosan nanoparticles; doxorubicin; propionic acid
Year: 2022 PMID: 35159847 PMCID: PMC8838624 DOI: 10.3390/nano12030502
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1FTIR spectrum of CNPs DOX and DCNPs.
Figure 2Dynamic Light Scattering and Zeta Potential Analysis; (a). Size Distribution of CNPs by Intensity, (b). Zeta Potential Distribution of CNPs, (c). Size Distribution of DCNPs by Intensity and (d). Zeta Potential Distribution of DCNPs.
Figure 3High-Resolution Transmission Electron Microscopical view of CNPs at (a). 100 nm, (b). 50 nm, (c). 20 nm and ACNPs at (d). 100 nm, (e). 50 nm, (f). 20 nm.
The effect of CNPs, PA and DCNPs on Body Weight, Heart Weight, Heart Beat and the level of antioxidants in Heart tissues of experimental animals. Values were expressed as mean ± SD (n = 5). Values with different alphabets are significantly different from each other, and values with same alphabets have insignificant changes (p < 0.05).
| Intact | DOX | CNPs | DCNPs | PA | DOX + PA | DCNPs + PA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Body Weight changes | |||||||
| Initial (g) | 161 ± 11 c | 162 ± 13 b,c | 178 ± 17 b | 173 ± 15 b,c | 160 ± 12 c | 160 ± 12 c | 176 ± 10 b,c |
| Final (g) | 254 ± 21 b,c | 227 ± 21 c,d | 250 ± 34 b,c,d | 290 ± 16 a | 265 ± 13 a,b | 224 ± 27 d | 245 ± 15 b,c,d |
| Antioxidants | |||||||
| Superoxide Dismutase (U/mg Protein) | 14.7 ± 0.8 a | 5.5 ± 0.6 d | 10.9 ± 1.8 b | 8.0 ± 0.8 c | 11.9 ± 0.7 b | 7.9 ± 0.0 c | 6.1 ± 0.07 d |
| Glutathione S Transferase (U/mg Protein) | 0.043 ± 0.0 a | 0.011 ± 0.0 d | 0.032 ± 0.0 b | 0.035 ± 0.0 b | 0.031 ± 0.0 b | 0.024 ± 0.0 c | 0.033 ± 0.0 b |
| Malondialdehyde ( | 0.86 ± 0.13 e | 3.02 ± 0.68 a | 0.62 ± 0.09 e | 1.56 ± 0.20 d | 0.56 ± 0.09 e | 2.03 ± 0.14 c | 0.54 ± 0.23 b |
Figure 4ECG Analysis of Experimental animals.
Figure 5The effect of CNPs and PA on the level of Cardiac Biomarkers (C-Reactive Protein, Creatine Kinase–MB, Lactate Dehydrogenase and LDL Cholesterol) in the serum of experimental animals. Values were expressed as mean ± SD (n = 5). Bars with different alphabets are significantly different from each other, and bars with same alphabets have insignificant changes (p < 0.05).
Figure 6The expression level of PPARγ in Heart tissues of experimental animals. (a). Amplification curve (b). Melting curve and (c). Expression ratio. Values were expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3). Bars with different alphabets are significantly different from each other, and bars with same alphabets have insignificant changes (p < 0.05).
Figure 7Mechanism—DOX-mediated Cardiotoxicity.