| Literature DB >> 35208066 |
Nicoleta Simona Vedeanu1, Cristian Lujerdean2, Marius Zăhan2, Daniel Severus Dezmirean2, Lucian Barbu-Tudoran3,4, Grigore Damian5, Răzvan Ștefan2.
Abstract
Copper is one of the most used therapeutic metallic elements in biomedicine, ranging from antibacterial approaches to developing new complexes in cancer therapy. In the present investigation, we developed a novel xCuO∙(100 - x) [CaF2∙3P2O5∙CaO] glass system with 0 ≤ x ≤ 16 mol% in order to determine the influence of doping on the composition structure of glasses. The samples were characterized by dissolution tests, pH measurements, Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR), electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR), Scanning Electron Microscopy with energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDX) and afterward, their antitumor character was assessed. The glasses were mostly soluble in the aqueous medium, their dissolution rate being directly proportional to the increase in pH and the level of doping up to x = 8 mol%. FT-IR spectra of glass samples show the presence of all structural units characteristic to P2O5 in different rates and directly depending on the depolymerization process. SEM-EDX results revealed the presence of an amorphous glass structure composed of P, O, Ca, and Cu elements. The 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) reduction assay showed strong cytotoxicity for tumoral cells A375 even in low concentrations for Cu-treatment. In contrast, the copper-free matrix (without Cu) determined a proliferative effect of over 70% viability for all concentrations used.Entities:
Keywords: Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectra; MTT assay; antitumor activity; copper ions; dissolution tests; phosphate glass
Year: 2022 PMID: 35208066 PMCID: PMC8874574 DOI: 10.3390/ma15041526
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Chemical compositions (wt%) of CaO-P2O5-CaF:CuO glasses.
| Sample Glass | P2O5 | CaF2 | CaO | CuO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | 76 | 13.9 | 10 | 0 |
| C1 | 75.9 | 13.9 | 10 | 0.2 |
| C2 | 75.8 | 13.9 | 10 | 0.4 |
| C3 | 75.6 | 13.9 | 10 | 0.5 |
| C4 | 75.5 | 13.8 | 9.9 | 0.7 |
| C5 | 75 | 13.7 | 9.9 | 1.4 |
| C6 | 73.9 | 13.5 | 9.7 | 2.9 |
| C7 | 71.6 | 13.1 | 9.4 | 5.8 |
| C8 | 67 | 12.3 | 8.8 | 11.9 |
The reagents used in the preparation of the buffer solution (PBS, pH 7.4).
| Reagent Chemicals | Amount | Concentration |
|---|---|---|
| NaCl (mw: 58.4 g/mol) | 8000 | 0.137 |
| KCl (mw: 74.551 g/mol) | 200 | 0.0027 |
| Na2HPO4 (mw: 141.96 g/mol) | 1440 | 0.01 |
| KH2PO4 (mw: 136.086 g/mol) | 245 | 0.0018 |
Figure 1The solubility of powder glass before and after 14 days immersion in 10 mL deionized water.
Figure 2A graph illustrating the weight loss of each piece of glasses over a period of 696 h, respectively 29 days in 10 mL of deionized water.
Figure 3pH variation of PBS without-soaking time for CaF–P2O5–CaO system containing various CuO.
Figure 4SEM images and EDX spectra for x = 0 and 1 mol% CuO glasses before the dissolution experiments.
The average overall chemical composition of xCuO∙(100 − x) [CaF2∙3P2O5∙CaO] glass system by EDX analysis.
| Element Wt (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample Glass | O | P | Ca | Cu |
| M | 52.40 | 29.90 | 17.60 | — |
| C1 | 59.35 ± 2.0 | 26.20 ± 0.7 | 14.12 ± 1.3 | 0.30 ± 0.1 |
| C2 | 56.90 ± 1.5 | 27.40 ± 0.9 | 15.15 ± 0.7 | 0.60 ± 0.1 |
| C3 | 57.40 ± 0.5 | 26.00 ± 0.2 | 15.90 ± 0.6 | 0.80 ± 0.2 |
| C4 | 62.25 ± 2.8 | 23.95 ± 1.4 | 12.75 ± 1.2 | 1.05 ± 0.3 |
| C5 | 61.00 ± 2.8 | 24.80 ± 1.4 | 13.10 ± 1.2 | 1.10 ± 0.3 |
| C6 | 55.20 ± 1.9 | 26.55 ± 0.6 | 14.90 ± 0.8 | 3.35 ± 0.6 |
| C7 | 50.65 ± 1.9 | 28.95 ± 0.4 | 15.6 ± 1.2 | 5.00 ± 0.5 |
| C8 | 45.20 | 24.50 | 15.70 | 14.60 |
Figure 5IR spectra of xCuO∙(100 − x) [CaF2∙3P2O5∙CaO].
Figure 6EPR spectra of xCuO∙(100 − x) [CaF2∙3P2O5∙CaO] glass system with x = 0.5, 2 and 16 mol%.
EPR parameters for xCuO∙(100 − x) [CaF2∙3P2O5∙CaO].
| x mol% | g‖ | g⊥ | A‖ (10−4 cm−1) | α2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.25 | 2.42 | 2.03 | 136 | 0.81 |
| 0.5 | 2.41 | 2.04 | 159 | 0.80 |
| 0.75 | 2.44 | 2.04 | 119 | 0.84 |
| 1 | 2.44 | 2.03 | 109 | 0.84 |
| 2 | 2.42 | 2.03 | 108 | 0.81 |
| 4 | 2.43 | 2.03 | 106 | 0.81 |
Figure 7EPR concentration dependence of asymmetry parameter.
Figure 8MTT cytotoxicity assay results using 10-day incubation liquid extracts from C6 glass in different concentrations; n = 5.