| Literature DB >> 35407220 |
Saman Sargazi1, Ushna Laraib2, Simge Er3, Abbas Rahdar4, Mohadeseh Hassanisaadi5, Muhammad Nadeem Zafar6, Ana M Díez-Pascual7, Muhammad Bilal8.
Abstract
Nanoparticles are currently used for cancer theranostics in the clinical field. Among nanoparticles, gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) attract much attention due to their usability and high performance in imaging techniques. The wide availability of biological precursors used in plant-based synthesized AuNPs allows for the development of large-scale production in a greener manner. Conventional cancer therapies, such as surgery and chemotherapy, have significant limitations and frequently fail to produce satisfying results. AuNPs have a prolonged circulation time, allow easy modification with ligands detected via cancer cell surface receptors, and increase uptake through receptor-mediated endocytosis. To exploit these unique features, studies have been carried out on the use of AuNPs as contrast agents for X-ray-based imaging techniques (i.e., computed tomography). As nanocarriers, AuNPs synthesized by nontoxic and biocompatible plants to deliver therapeutic biomolecules could be a significant stride forward in the effective treatment of various cancers. Fluorescent-plant-based markers, including AuNPs, fabricated using Medicago sativa, Olax Scandens, H. ambavilla, and H. lanceolatum, have been used in detecting cancers. Moreover, green synthesized AuNPs using various extracts have been applied for the treatment of different types of solid tumors. However, the cytotoxicity of AuNPs primarily depends on their size, surface reactivity, and surface area. In this review, the benefits of plant-based materials in cancer therapy are firstly explained. Then, considering the valuable position of AuNPs in medicine, the application of AuNPs in cancer therapy and detection is highlighted with an emphasis on limitations faced by the application of such NPs in drug delivery platforms.Entities:
Keywords: biosynthesis; gold nanoparticles; green synthesis; leaf extract; surface plasmon resonance; toxicity
Year: 2022 PMID: 35407220 PMCID: PMC9000429 DOI: 10.3390/nano12071102
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1Schematic illustration of targeted drug delivery system. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [18]. Copyright 2017 Taylor & Francis.
Figure 2Schematic process of identification, characterization, and future application of herbal plants in cancer therapy.
Figure 3Schematic illustration of biosynthesis of metallic NPs from a plant.
Figure 4Schematic representation of the green synthesis of AuNPs using a plant. The characterized plant-based AuNPs have a variety of applications in agriculture and medicine (as nanosensors and drug delivery vehicles). Reprinted with permission from Ref. [82]. Copyright 2021 MDPI.
Figure 5Schematic design for targeted drug delivery system procedure based on AuNPs. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [93]. Copyright 2021 Dove Press.
Figure 6Application of AuNPs for cancer detection and imaging.
Figure 7Suggested anticancer mechanisms of AuNPs. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [141]. Copyright 2021 Elsevier.
Anticancer activity of AuNPs using green material against various cancers.
| Type of Extract | Plant Material | Particle Size of AuNPs | Cell line/Exposure Time (h) | Outcome (IC50) | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aqueous extract |
| 22–34 nm | MCF-7/24 | 31.34 μg/mL | [ |
|
| 30 nm | HepG2/24 | Maximum inhibition at 200 μg/mL | [ | |
|
| 8.4 nm | HT-29/48 | 49.61 µM | [ | |
| Caco-2/48 | 79.03 µM | ||||
|
| 200 nm | B16/24 | CC50 = 10 μg/mL | [ | |
| Aqueous leaf extract |
| 20.2 nm | MCF-7/24 | 66.11 μg/mL | [ |
|
| 20–30 nm | HCT-116/24 | 48 μg/mL | [ | |
|
| 20–40 nm | HCT-15/24 and 48 | 20.53 μg/mL | [ | |
| 12.03 μg/mL | |||||
|
| 25 nm | HT-29/72 | 419.7 µg/mL | [ | |
|
| 10–20 nm | A549/24 | 98.46 μg/mL | [ | |
| SNO/24 | 92.01 μg/mL | ||||
|
| 18 nm | A549/72 | 129 μg/mL | [ | |
|
| <50 nm | THP-1/24 | 25 μg/mL | [ | |
|
| 18.6 nm | MOLT-3 TALL-104/24 | 329 μg/mL | [ | |
| 381 μg/mL | |||||
| 502 μg/mL | |||||
| 567 μg/mL | |||||
|
| 8–25 nm | PA-1/48 | 153 μg/mL | [ | |
|
| SW-626/48 | 166 μg/mL | |||
| SK-OV-3/48 | 204 μg/mL | ||||
| Leaf extract |
| 36.4 nm | MCF-7/48 | 264 μg/mL | [ |
| Hs 578Bst/48 | 269 μg/mL | ||||
| Hs 319.T/48 | 224 μg/mL | ||||
| UACC-3133/48 | 201 μg/mL | ||||
|
| 35–51 nm | MCF-7/24 | 67.92 μg/mL | [ | |
|
| 12.5 nm | MCF-7/48 | 6 μg/mL | [ | |
| MDA-MB-231/48 | 4 μg/mL | ||||
|
| 25–35 nm | HeLa/24 | 5 μg/mL | [ | |
|
| 20–40 nm | HeLa/24 | Concentration-dependent cell death (10–15 μg/mL) | [ | |
|
| 10–42 nm | HeLa/48 | 100 μg/mL | [ | |
|
| 1–20 nm | HT-29/24 and 48 | 210 μg/mL | [ | |
| 180 μg/mL | |||||
|
| 10–30 nm | AGS/24 | 120 μg/mL | [ | |
| Stems |
| 2–10 nm | MCF-7/48 | 47.03 μg/mL | [ |
|
| ~40 nm | 22 μg/mL | |||
| Pulp extract | Dragon fruit | 10–20 nm | MCF-7/24 | 80% inhibition at highest dose (500 μg/mL after 48 h exposure) | [ |
| MDA-MB-231/48 | No significant effect | ||||
|
| 20–30 nm | Hep2, 24 | 10.94 μg/mL | [ | |
| Ethanolic, aqueous |
| <20 nm | MCF-7/48 and 72 | Maximum cell mortality in Hela cells, followed by MCF-7 and Caov-4. | [ |
| Caov-4/48 and 72 | |||||
| HeLa/48 and 72 | |||||
| Isolated from seaweed |
| 31 nm | HepG2/24 | Maximum inhibition at 100 μg/mL | [ |
| Biomass |
| 15–20 nm | HepG2/24 | 10 and 12.5 μg/mL | [ |
|
| |||||
| Essential oil |
| 37.05 nm | CT26/24 | 0.0024 mg/mL | [ |
| Leaf powder |
| 57 nm | Col320/24 | Maximum inhibition at 75 μg/mL | [ |
|
| |||||
| Fruit body |
| 1–100 nm | HT-29/24 | 84.58 μg/mL | [ |
| Aqueous peel extract |
| 50 nm | A549/24 | 58 μg/mL | [ |
| Aqueous flower extract |
| 10–15 nm | THP-1/72 | 468 μg/mL | [ |
| Plant extract |
| 0.4–1 μm | PANC-1/24, 48, and 72 | Maximum inhibition at 100 μg/mL | [ |
|
| 50 nm | A549/72 | 15 μg/mL | [ | |
| Seed extract |
| 30.34 nm | PC-3 | 64.23 μg/mL | [ |
|
| 16.63 nm | HepG2, 48 | 92.453 µg/mL | [ | |
| Aqueous rhizome extract |
| 200 nm | A498/24 | CC50 = 25 μg/mL | [ |
| SW-156/24 | CC50 = 40 μg/mL | ||||
| Ethanolic extract |
| 30 nm | AGS/24, 48 and 72 | 15 and 20 μg/mL | [ |
| Extract and fractions |
| 8–15 nm | T24/24 | AuNPs prepared from extract showed the highest cytotoxicity | [ |
| PC-3/24 | |||||
| Aqueous root extract |
| 15 nm | PC-3/24 and 48 | AuNPs prepared from curcumin showed effective cytotoxicity at | [ |
| - |
| 100–150 nm | HCA-7/24 | 15 μg/mL | [ |
| Curcumin | 5–25 nm | MCF-7/36 | Combinations of AuNPs showed higher anticancer activity as compared to individual AuNPs | [ | |
| Turmeric | 3–20 nm | ||||
| Quercetin | 15–60 nm | ||||
| Crocin | 4–10 nm | MCF-7/24 | 1.8 mg/mL | [ | |
| MCF-7/43 | 1.2 mg/mL |