| Literature DB >> 35300705 |
Sara Hernando1,2,3,4,5, Polyxeni Nikolakopoulou1,2, Dimitrios Voulgaris1,2,6,7, Rosa Maria Hernandez3,4,5, Manoli Igartua8,9,10, Anna Herland11,12,13.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neurodegenerative diseases (NDs) are an accelerating global health problem. Nevertheless, the stronghold of the brain- the blood-brain barrier (BBB) prevents drug penetrance and dwindles effective treatments. Therefore, it is crucial to identify Trojan horse-like drug carriers that can effectively cross the blood-brain barrier and reach the brain tissue. We have previously developed polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA)-based nanostructured lipid carriers (NLC), namely DHAH-NLC. These carriers are modulated with BBB-permeating compounds such as chitosan (CS) and trans-activating transcriptional activator (TAT) from HIV-1 that can entrap neurotrophic factors (NTF) serving as nanocarriers for NDs treatment. Moreover, microglia are suggested as a key causative factor of the undergoing neuroinflammation of NDs. In this work, we used in vitro models to investigate whether DHAH-NLCs can enter the brain via the BBB and investigate the therapeutic effect of NTF-containing DHAH-NLC and DHAH-NLC itself on lipopolysaccharide-challenged microglia.Entities:
Keywords: BMECs; Blood–brain barrier; DHA; Drug delivery; HMC3 microglia cell line; Nanoparticles; Neurodegenerative disease; Neuroinflammation; iPS cells
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35300705 PMCID: PMC8928663 DOI: 10.1186/s12987-022-00315-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Fluids Barriers CNS ISSN: 2045-8118
Fig. 1NLC preparation and characterization images. A Schematic representation of the different steps followed to NLC preparation (This figure was created using Servier Medical Art templates, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License; https://smart.servier.com) B TEM images of the NLCs. (i) Miglyol-NLC (ii) DHAH-NLC (iii) DHAH-NLC-GDNF (iv) DHAH-NLC-VEGF. Scale bar 200 nm
Composition of the different NLCs used in the study
| Formulation name | Liquid lipid | Surface modification | Entrapped molecule (%) w/w | Cell model to perform functional assays |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CS-NLC-DiD | DHAH | CS | DiD (0.5) | hiPSCs derived BMECs |
| TAT-CS-NLC-DiD | DHAH | CS and TAT | DiD (0.5) | hiPSCs derived BMECs |
| Miglyol-NLC | Miglyol | CS and TAT | - | Microglial cell line—HMC3 |
| DHAH-NLC | DHAH | CS and TAT | – | Microglial cell line—HMC3 |
| DHAH-NLC-GDNF | DHAH | CS and TAT | GDNF (0.125) | Microglial cell line—HMC3 |
| DHAH-NLC-VEGF | DHAH | CS and TAT | VEFG (0.125) | Microglial cell line—HMC3 |
Physicochemical characterization of NLC used in all the experimental studies (one batch)
| Formulation | Mean size after Lyophi. (nm) | PDI | Zeta potential (mV) | EE (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CS-NLC-DiD* | ≈100 | |||
| TAT-CS-NLC-DiD(*) | ≈100 | |||
| Miglyol-NLC | 119.1 ± 18.0 | 0.323 ± 0.039 | 17.4 ± 0.8 | – |
| DHAH-NLC | 105.4 ± 25.6 | 0.400 ± 0.032 | 20.9 ± 0.5 | – |
| DHAH-NLC-GDNF | 257.1 ± 3.5 | 0.338 ± 0.022 | 18.0 ± 0.4 | 82.01 ± 1.67 |
| DHAH-NLC-VEGF | 264.1 ± 16.0 | 0.471 ± 0.076 | 20.5 ± 0.8 | 88.74 ± 0.37 |
*The presence of a fluorescent dye (DiD) makes it impossible to measure accurately the size, PDI and zeta potential of these two formulations
Fig. 2hiPSC-derived BBB differentiation A Scheme of the differentiation. (This figure was created using Servier Medical Art templates, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License; https://smart.servier.com). B Bright-field images of BMECs differentiation at different time points. (D0: after seeding, D3: complete coverage of the well-plate and D6: before subculturing onto TWs). Scale bar 200 µM. C TEER values after subculture onto Transwells at two different time points, 24 h and 48 h (Data are means ± SEM of three independent experiments. ****p < 0.0001 TEER values at 24 h vs. TEER values at 48 h, Two-way ANOVA, Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test). D Immunofluorescence images of hiPSC-derived BMECs. The image shows the maximum intensity projection of a Z stack. Blue: DAPI (nuclei), Green: ZO-1 (tight junctions). Scale bar 50 µm
Fig. 3NLC modified transport across BMCEs A TAT-CS-NLC-DiD successfully penetrate the BMEC monolayer as opposed to the CS-NLC-DiD. (Data are means ± SEM of three independent experiments, p < 0.01 **, One-sample t-test analysis) B Representative images of the BMEC monolayer after treatment with our NPs. Blue shows the nuclei stained with DAPI, green shows the tight junctions stained with ZO-1, whereas the NLCs are shown in magenta (incorporated DiD). TAT-CS-NLC-DiD could be detected in our cell monolayer, while CS-NLC-DiD were not detectable. The images show the maximum intensity projection of a Z stack. Scale bar 50 µm
Fig. 4HMC3 cell viability study after incubation with the various NLCs (AlamarBlue reduction assay). A Cell viability after 24 h incubation with the various types and concentrations of NLCs (Additional file 1: File 3). B Cell viability after 48 h incubation with the various types and concentrations of NLCs (Additional file 1: File 3). In A and B, Control − denotes no treatment, media change and Control + denotes DMSO 10% for 24 h. Cell viability for each condition (treated cells) is expressed as the percentage of living cells compared to the nontreated cells (media change; Control –), which was set as 100%. (Data are means ± SEM of three individual experiments; the dashed line represents 70% viability.)
Fig. 5Gene expression analysis (RT-qPCR). A IL6 B TNF-α C IL-1β and D HO-1 for preconditioning assay. E IL6 F TNF-α G IL-1β and H HO-1 for anti-inflammatory assay (see also Additional file 1: File 9). Relative mRNA expression was normalized against GAPDH, and the gene expression of the group where only media change was performed (Control−) was used as a reference (fold change 1). (Data are means ± SEM of three individual experiments; ΔCT values were used for statistical analysis, *p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001. One-Way ANOVA, Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test; each group mean vs. the mean of Control −. In both conditions, Control − denotes no treatment, media change and Control + denotes LPS incubation (100 ng/ml)
Fig. 6Cytokine secretion analysis (U-PLEX Assay) assay values. A IL-1β B IL-6 and C IL-8 for preconditioning assay. D IL-1β E IL-6 and F IL-8 for anti-inflammatory assay (see also Additional file 1: File 10). (Data are means ± SEM of three individual experiments. *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, One-Way ANOVA, Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test; each group mean vs the mean of Control −). In both conditions, Control − denotes no treatment, media change and Control + denotes LPS incubation (100 ng/ml)