| Literature DB >> 35992879 |
Abstract
The chitosan (CS) material as the skeleton nano-drug delivery system has the advantages of sustained release, biodegradability, and modifiability, and has broad application prospects. In the previous experiments, biotin (Bio) was grafted onto CS to synthesize biotin-modified chitosan (Bio-CS), and it was confirmed that it has liver cancer targeting properties. Single-targeted nanomaterials are susceptible to pathological and physiological factors, resulting in a state of ineffective binding between ligands and receptors, so there is still room for improvement in the targeting of liver cancer. Based on the high expression of folate (FA) receptors on the surface of liver cancers, FA was grafted onto Bio-CS by chemical synthesis to optimize the synthesis of folic acid-modified biotinylated chitosan (FA-CS-Bio), verified by infrared spectroscopy and hydrogen-1 nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. The release of FA-CS-Bio/fluorouracil (5-FU) had three obvious stages: fast release stage, steady release stage, and slow release stage, with an obvious sustained release effect. Compared with Bio-CS, FA-CS-Bio could promote the inhibition of the proliferation and migration of liver cancer by 5-FU, and the concentration of 5-FU in hepatoma cells was significantly increased dose-dependently. Laser confocal experiments confirmed that FA-CS-Bio caused a significant increase in the fluorescence intensity in liver cancer cells. In terms of animal experiments, FA-CS-Bio increased the concentration of 5-FU in liver cancer tissue by 1.6 times on the basis of Bio-CS and the number of monophotons in liver cancer tissue by in vivo dynamic imaging experiments was significantly stronger than that of Bio-CS, indicating that the targeting ability of FA-CS-Bio was further improved. Compared with Bio-CS, FA-CS-Bio can significantly prolong the survival time of 5-FU in the orthotopic liver cancer transplantation model in mice, and has a relieving effect on liver function damage and bone marrow suppression caused by 5-FU. In conclusion, FA-CS-Bio nanomaterials have been optimized for synthesis. In vivo and in vitro experiments confirmed that FA-CS-Bio can significantly improve the targeting of liver cancer compared with Bio-CS. FA-CS-Bio/5-FU nanoparticles can improve the targeted inhibition of the proliferation and migration of liver cancer cells, prolong the survival period of tumor-bearing mice, and alleviate the toxic and side effects.Entities:
Keywords: biotin; chitosan; drug delivery system; folic acid; liver cancer; nanotechnology
Year: 2022 PMID: 35992879 PMCID: PMC9389539 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.971475
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Analysis of influencing factors on FA-CS-Bio material synthesis.
| FA : Bio-CS (mol:mol) | PY (%) | FA: EDC.HCl (mol:mol) | PY (%) | Reaction time (h) | PY (%) | Temperature (°C) | PY (%) | Solvent | PY (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24:1 | 11.43 | 1:5 | 19.83 | 6 | 8.42 | Room temperature | 24.42 | DMAc | 24.75 |
| 25:1 | 19.92 | 1:6 | 20.42 | 12 | 21.82 | 45~55 | 14.25 | DMF | 24.42 |
| 26:1 | 23.75 | 1:7 | 23.53 | 24 | 24.10 | 55~65 | 17.32 | DMSO | 24.93 |
| 27:1 | 23.08 | 1:8 | 24.18 | 48 | 23.54 | 65~75 | 16.82 | – | |
| 28:1 | 21.75 | 1:9 | 23.31 | 72 | 23.07 | 75~85 | 14.52 | – |
Synthetic Bio-GC orthogonal experiment design.
| Levels | FA : Bio-CS (Mol : Mol) | FA: EDC.HCl (Mol : Mol) | Reaction time (h) | Temperature (°C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25:1 | 1:7 | 12 | Room temperature |
| 2 | 26:1 | 1:8 | 24 | 45~55 |
| 3 | 27:1 | 1:9 | 48 | 55~65 |
The experimental results of orthogonal test arrangement.
| NO. | FA : Bio-CS(A) | FA: EDC.HCl(B) | Reaction time(C) | Temperature(D) | YP(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 20.83 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 19.42 |
| 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 12.54 |
| 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 21.62 |
| 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 24.42 |
| 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 16.02 |
| 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 19.72 |
| 8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 21.42 |
| 9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 20.31 |
| K1 | 17.60 | 20.72 | 19.42 | 21.85 | |
| K2 | 20.69 | 21.75 | 20.45 | 18.38 | |
| K3 | 20.48 | 16.29 | 18.89 | 18.53 | |
| R | 3.09 | 5.46 | 1.56 | 3.47 |
The average yield of FA-CS-Bio synthesis at different levels for each factor of K1, K2 and K3; R is the difference between the maximum average yield and the minimum yield of each factor at the three levels.
Figure 1Synthesis and sustained release of FA-CS-Bio nanomaterials (A) Fourier transform infrared spectra of different nanomaterials; (B) 1H NMR of different nanomaterials; (C) Transmission electron microscope image of FA-CS-Bio/5-FU nanoparticles; (D) Preparation of 5-FU standard curve; (E) In vitro release of FA-CS-Bio/5-FU nanoparticles.
Figure 2Effects of different 5-FU nanoformulations on the proliferation and intracellular 5-FU concentration of liver cancer cells (A) After 24 hours of culture, the effects of various 5-FU nanoformulations on tumor cell proliferation Note: compared with 5-FU, a p <0.01; compared with CS/5-FU, b p <0.01; compared with FA-CS/5-FU or Bio-CS/5-FU, cp<0.01. (B) The effects of various 5-FU nanoformulations on tumor cell proliferation after 48 hours of culture. Note: compared with 5-FU, ap<0.01; compared with CS/5-FU, bp<0.01; compared with FA-CS/5-FU or Bio-CS/5-FU, cp<0.01. (C) The effect of different 5-FU nano-formulations on tumor cell proliferation after 72 hours of culture. Note: compared with 5-FU, ap<0.01; compared with CS/5-FU, bp<0.01; compared with FA-CS/5-FU or Bio-CS/5-FU dosage form, cp<0.01. (D) The effect of different 5-FU nano-formulations on the proliferation of tumor cells cultured for 1–7 days at a 5-FU concentration of 0.3 g/mL. Note: compared with cultured 1 d, ap<0.01; compared with cultured 2 d, bp<0.01; compared with cultured 3 d, c p <0.01; compared with cultured 4 d, d p <0.01; compared with cultured 5 d, e p<0.01; compared with cultured 6 d, e p <0.01; compared with cultured 7 d, f p<0.01. (E) The effect of nanoformulations with different 5-FU concentrations on the intracellular drug concentration of liver cancer cells. Note: compared with 1 μg/mL, a p<0.01; compared with 2μ g/mL, b p <0.01; compared with 3μg/mL, c p<0.01; compared with 6μg/mL, d p<0.01; compared with CS/5-FU, e p <0.01; compared with 5-FU, f p <0.01; compared with FA-CS/5-FU or Bio-CS/5-FU, g p <0.01. (F) Effects of different 5-FU nanoformulations on the intracellular drug concentration of hepatoma cells after culturing for 1-8 h Note: compared with 1 h, a p <0.01; compared with 2 h, b p <0.01; compared with CS/5-FU, c p <0.01; compared with 5-FU, d p <0.01; compared with FA-CS/5-FU or Bio-CS/5-FU comparison, e p <0.01. (G) The effects of various 5-FU nanoformulations on drug concentration in hepatoma cells and hepatocytes cultured for 1–8 h Note: compared with 1 h, a p <0.01; compared with 2 h, b p <0.01. (H) The impact of different 5-FU nanoformulations on the S/Q ratio after culturing for 1-8 h. Note: compared with FA-CS or Bio-CS, a p <0.01.
Figure 3Targeting of different 5-FU nanoformulations on hepatoma cells. (A) Effects of different 5-FU nanoformulations on the migration of liver cancer cells. Note: compared with control, a p <0.01; compared with 5-FU, b p<0.01; compared with CS/5-FU, c p <0.01; compared with FA-CS/5-FU or Bio-CS/5-FU, d p <0.01. (B) Effects of different 5-FU nano-formulations on the concentration of 5-FU in different tissues of mouse orthotopic liver cancer transplantation model. Note: compared with 5-FU, a p <0.01; compared with CS/5-FU, b p<0.01; compared with FA-CS/5-FU or Bio-CS/5-FU, c p <0.01. (C) Confocal detection of endocytosis of liver cancer cells by different nanomaterials. (D) In vivo imaging of different nanomaterials in a mouse orthotopic liver cancer model. (E) Fluorescence photon numbers of different nanomaterials in liver cancer and liver tissue. Note: compared with CS, a p <0.01; compared with FA-CS or Bio-C, c p <0.01. (F) Comparison of C/L ratios of different nanomaterials. Note: compared with CS, ap<0.01; compared with FA-CS or Bio-C, c p <0.01.
Figure 4Survival analysis of different 5-FU nanoformulations in mouse orthotopic liver cancer model.
Toxic and side effects of FA-CS-Bio/5-FU nanoparticles on tumor-bearing mice.
| Groups | AST(U/L) | ALT(U/L) | Creatinine (μmol/L) | Hgb(g/L) | PLT(×109/L) | WBC(×109/L) | RBC(×1012/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 83.11 ± 12.49 | 34.52 ± 2.07 | 0.30 ± 0.04 | 128.44 ± 9.92 | 239.23 ± 11.27 | 7.43 ± 0.06 | 9.57 ± 0.27 |
| FA-CS-Bio | 85.00 ± 2.12 | 34.09 ± 1.90 | 0.28 ± 0.05 | 133.00 ± 12.53 | 243.30 ± 9.22 | 7.51 ± 0.26 | 9.55 ± 0.13 |
| 5-FU | 96.42 ± 10.66a | 47.33 ± 2.80a | 0.28 ± 0.03 | 124.44 ± 11.03 | 205.75 ± 19.11a | 5.22 ± 0.35a | 7.82 ± 1.14a |
| FA-CS-Bio/5-FU | 91.24 ± 6.01 | 33.35 ± 4.06 | 0.29 ± 0.03 | 128.43 ± 7.47 | 229.01 ± 13.16 | 7.38 ± 0.13 | 9.52 ± 0.21 |
Compared with control, ap<0.01.