CTL-doxorubicin (DOX)-gold complex nanoparticles (DOX-AuGCs): from synthesis to enhancement of therapeutic effect on liver cancer model.

In this work, we bring back a rapid way to conceive doxorubicin (DOX) hybrid gold nanoparticles, in which DOX and Au(iii) ions were complexed with a hydrochloride-lactose-modified chitosan, named CTL and dicarboxylic acid-terminated polyethylene-glycol (PEG), leading to hybrid polymer-sugar-metal nanoparticles (DOX-AuGSs). All formulations were assessed by spectroscopic techniques (Raman and UV-Vis) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). To estimate the therapeutic effect of DOX-AuGSs in liver cancer, murine HepG2 cells were used to induce a hepatic carcinoma model in nude mice. The survival time of the tumor-bearing mice, body weight and tumor volume were measured and recorded. The cytokines were used to detect the serum inflammatory factors, and the blood cell analyzer was used to determine the blood cell content of different groups of nude mice. The outcomes demonstrate that DOX-AuGCs significantly suppressed the tumor growth derived from human HepG2 injection and reduce the tumor index without affecting the body weight of mice. Moreover, DOX-AuGCs significantly reduced the serum levels of cytokines IL-6, TNF-α and IL-12 P70. Finally, a histological analysis of the heart tissue sections indicated that DOX-AuGCs significantly reduce the chronic myocardial toxicity of DOX during the period of treatment. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.

Introduction

Recently, nanomedicine has led to engineered tunable devices capable to solve unsatisfied issues in the healthcare worldwide. One of the most investigated applications of nanomedicine is the treatment of cancer through the targeted destruction of cancer cells and tumors.[1,2] Among tumors, hepatic cancer is one of the most commonly occurring tumors. There are approximately 800 000 new cases every year worldwide. With respect to common drug therapies, target cancer approaches have recently paved the way for improved patient outcomes. This strategy is based on the principle that specific interactions occur between the tumor and anti-cancer agents.[3,4]

In this context, nanotechnology-based platforms (as nanocarriers) have emerged as adequate candidates for guiding the drug therapeutic massively and selectively to the tumor, thus limiting the common side effects and pharmacokinetic problems related to standard therapies.[5,6] At the tumor site, specific receptors play a key role in determining such host/guest recognition. Exploiting new potential target sites is therefore of primary importance given the heterogeneity of tumors. As an example, galactose-bearing vector systems are extensively studied in hepatic targeted therapy as characteristic targeting ligands for the asialoglycoprotein receptors (ASGP-R) expressed on the surface of liver parenchymal cells.[7,8]

The utilization of biomolecules and biopolymers to tune surface properties and assembly of AuNPs performs greatly attractive overtures that have received remarkable attention.[9,10] Biomolecules and/or biopolymer-conjugated AuNPs are largely used as detection biomarkers, and theranostics in medicine/pharmaceutical fields, as well as components of cosmetic products. The safety profile of AuNPs can be finely realized by modifying the size and/or composition of the gold nanocarrier. Lastly, gold nanomaterials have great potential as multimodal agents. AuNPs are in fact good labels for real-time in vivo imaging and/or probes for photothermal therapy through their thermoplasmonic properties.[11,12] Biopolymers are actively employed for the synthesis of anisotropic AuNPs showing relevant results for the specific treatment of cancer cells by hyperthermia using Near-Infra-Red (NIR) irradiation.

The present contribution proposes a novel drug nano-based platform designed to specifically target and attack hepatic cancer. A novel type of composite nano-system consisting of chitosan derivative/gold–PEGylated bioconjugates capped by the anticancer drug doxorubicin (DOX–AuGCs) is synthetized and characterized. CTL (in other papers termed chitlac) is a branched polysaccharide composed of a chitosan backbone to which lactitol moieties have been chemically inserted via a reductive N-alkylation reaction by lactose.[13] The role played by CTL is investigated here since it was already shown to stabilize gold clusters in CTL–PEGylated gold nanoparticles, and to target the Galectin-1 (Gal-1) protein.[14,15] Gal-1 is in fact considered a novel therapeutic target for cancer due to its widespread presence in the extracellular medium of different tumors.[16]

The therapeutic effects in vivo of DOX–AuGCs were evaluated in the HepG2-induced liver cancer of nude mice in comparison with a negative control group (mice treated with a saline solution), and mice treated with the polymer CTL per se and with DOX in PEG–AuNPs (DOX–Au nanoparticles without CTL).

Experimental section

Materials and methods

Tetrachloroauric acid (HAuCl4), sodium borohydride (NaBH4), dicarboxylic polyethylene glycol (PEG)-600 (PEG), sodium chloride NaCl (0.9%), phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), EDTA, doxorubicin hydrochloride (DOX), 5-fluoro uracile (5-FU), isoflurane, and paraformaldehyde were purchased from Sigma Aldrich at maximum purity grade. Hydrochloride CTL was kindly provided by BiopoLife S.r.l. (Trieste, Italy). The chemical composition of CTL was determined by 1H-NMR spectroscopy, and results showed a fraction of deacetylated units (FD) 0.36, fraction of lactose-modified units (FL) 0.56, and fraction of acetylated units (FA) 0.08. The physical properties were determined by viscometry: the intrinsic viscosity, [ν], of CTL was checked at 25 °C by means of a CT1150 Schott Geräte automatic measuring apparatus and a Schott capillary viscometer. A buffer solution composed of 20 mM AcOH/AcNa, pH 4.5, and 100 mM NaCl was used as the solvent.[17] The resulting mass was 511 mL g−1. The estimated viscosity average molecular weight of CTL was around 870 000.

HEMAVET950FS animal blood analyzer special reagents (Drew Scientific, Inc., USA); Cytokine detection kit (Brand: Biolegend, USA). Cultrex®Basement membrane matrix high concentration, 10× (Manufacturer: Corning, USA). Coupling agent (300 mL), Manufacturer: Shandong Huikang Medical. 68.8–69.8% electronic grade nitric acid; electronic grade hydrochloric acid, Manufacturer: South Korea's DUKSAM company; tuning solution for ICP-MS: 7Li, 59CO, 115In, 238U, Manufacturer: Thermo, 1.0 μg L−1; internal standard solution: 6Li, 45Sc, 72Ge, 89Y, 103Rh, 115In, 159Tb, 175Lu, 209Bi, Manufacturer: National Nonferrous Metals and Electronic Materials Analysis and Testing Center, 1000 μg mL−1; gold single element standard solution, Manufacturer: National Nonferrous Metals and Electronic Materials Analysis and Testing Center, 1000 μg mL−1.

Instruments

Animal Weight Balance (Mettler – Toledo instruments (Shanghai) Co., LTD, Serial number: PL3001-s), HEMAVET 950 Animal Blood Analyzer (Drew Scientific, Inc., USA-Model: HEMAVET 950FS), Automatic biochemical analyzer (Hitachi-Model: 7100), BD Accuri C6 Flow cytometer (BD company), High Resolution Small Animal Ultrasound Imaging System (Visual Sonics-Model: Vevo2100, probe MS400, frequency 30 MHz), Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometer (ICAP-Q) (American Thermo Company). DB-3EFS type hot plate (Tianjin Gongxing Laboratory Instrument Co., Ltd), Milli-Q ultrapure water treatment system (American Millipore Company).

Synthesis of doxorubicin–PEG–AuNPs (DOX in PEG–AuNPs)

DOX in PEG–AuNPs was synthetized and used as a control under the previously described methodology.[18]

Synthesis of doxorubicin in CTL–PEG–AuNPs (DOX–AuGCs)

Colloids of doxorubicin in CTL–PEG–AuNPs (DOX–AuGCs) were synthesized by a chelation process, as previously described.[14]

Determination of DOX–AuGCs concentration

The AuNPs concentration was determined by exploiting the standard mathematical calculations in the colloidal solution, as described previously.[14]

Physical–chemical characterization

All characterizations were carried out in triplicate determinations, as described previously.[19,20]

UV/Vis measurements

Absorption spectra were recorded using a double-beam Varian Cary 500 UV-Vis spectrophotometer (Agilent, France). UV-Vis spectra of the NPs were recorded in water at a concentration of 1 mM in the 200–900 nm spectral range.

Transmission electron microscopy (TEM)

Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images were recorded with a JEOL JEM 1011 microscope operating (JEOL, USA) at an accelerating voltage of 100 kV. TEM specimens were prepared after separating the surfactant from the metal particles by centrifugation under a protocol described elsewhere.[20]

Raman spectroscopy

The Raman experiments have been performed on an Xplora spectrometer (Horiba Scientifics-France). The Raman spectra were recorded using an excitation wavelength of 785 nm (diode laser) at room temperature. For measurements in solution, a macro-objective with a focal length of 40 mm (NA = 0.18) was used in the backscattering configuration. The achieved spectral resolution was 2 cm−1.

Dynamic light scattering (DLS) and zeta potential measurements

The size and zeta potential measurements were performed using a Zetasizer Nano ZS (Malvern Instruments, Malvern, UK) equipped with a He–Ne laser (633 nm, fixed scattering angle of 173°) at room temperature, as described previously.[19]

DOX loading efficiency

The amount of the drug incorporated into DOX–AuGCs was measured by UV-Vis absorption spectroscopy, as previously described.[18]

DOX release from DOX in PEG–AuNPs

DOX release was evaluated by UV-Vis absorption spectroscopy at 485 nm under experimental conditions at physiological temperature (37 °C) and pH 7.0 and 5.0. The experimental conditions are described in a previous work of some of the authors.[18]

Stability of DOX–AuGCs in DMEM

The stability of DOX–AuGCs was detected by UV-Vis. All nanoparticles were dissolved in Dulbecco Modified Eagle's Medium (DMEM) and stored for 144 h (Fig. S1 in ESI†).

Animal tests

In vivo tests were performed using male nude mice (strain: BALB/cA-Grade: SPF; age 5 weeks; Animal production license number SCXK (Yue) 2018-0002, Guangdong Medical Laboratory Animal Center; Animal certificate number no. 44007200064015; no. 44007200070200; Animal Use License number SYXK (Yue) 2018-0001, Laboratory Animal Center, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine).

The animals were fed in an animal room of SPF grade of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine. The nude mice had free access to food and water throughout the experiment, and were housed under 12:12 h light/dark conditions in a temperature controlled environment (23 ± 3 °C). The humidity was controlled at 40–70%. Experimental procedures were conducted in accordance with the NIH, and were approved by the Experimental Animal Ethics Committee of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine.

After entering the SPF-level experimental center, the nude mice were quarantined in strict accordance with the relevant technical requirements of the SPF-level experimental animal center of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine. The quarantine time was 5–7 days. The general appearance and exercise conditions (including state of consciousness, gait, response to stimulation, walking balance and limb coordination) in rats were observed and recorded. Animals were randomly divided into five groups: saline model groups (5 mice), CTL group (2 mice), DOX in PEG–AuNPs (4 mice), DOX–AuGCs (5 mice), and the positive control (5-FU).

Grouping and administration

After the formation of the tumor model of the nude mice (tumor volume reached 150–200 mm3, about 7 days), 80 μL of each group (Table 1) was intravenously administered once every 3 days (injection at 10:00 a.m.) for 3 weeks.

Experimental conditions of drug-nanoparticles administration

Group	Dosage	Number	Method of administration	Frequency
Model, 0.9% NaCl	80 μL	5	i.v.	Once every 3 days
CTL	80 μL	2	i.v.	Once every 3 days
DOX in PEG–AuNPs	80 μL	4	i.v.	Once every 3 days
DOX–AuGCs	80 μL	5	i.v.	Once every 3 days
5-FU	2.5 mg kg−1	5	i.v.	Once every 3 days

Detection indicators

Observation of the general health conditions, body weight and organ indexes of nude mice

The general health conditions of mice were evaluated, observing the mental state, skin color, diet, water intake and urine output. The body weight (BW) was weighed every 3 days to evaluate the effects of the tumors, and the effects of the drug-nanoparticles and drug alone.

At the end of the experiments, the hearts, livers, spleen, lungs, kidneys and tumor tissues were separated and accurately weighted. Then, the mice were sacrificed and the heart, liver, spleen, lung, kidney and tumor index were calculated according to the formula tissue weight (mg)/body weight (g).

Tumor volume detection

During the experiment, the length and width of the tumor were measured using a Vernier caliper at intervals of 3 days.

Tumor size detection using high-resolution small animal ultrasound imaging

Nude mice were anesthetized by isoflurane and placed in the lateral position at 37 °C under physiological conditions. The tumor site was exposed, and a small amount of coupling agent was applied to the limbs and then fixed to the metal. Ultrasound detection of the ventral subcutaneous tumor was performed on the probe.

The tumor was coated with an ultrasonic coupling agent, and then covered with the tumor. The ultrasound probe was placed on the ventral tumor. At the maximum cut surface, a B-Mode ultrasound image was recorded. The Vevo imaging software package was used to analyze the area, long diameter and short diameter of the tumor section.

Whole blood cell count detection

Samples of whole blood were sampled on EDTA tubes and analysed by means of an automated HEMAVET950FS animal blood analyzer to determine the concentrations of white blood cells (WBC), red blood cells (RBC), haemoglobin (HGB), hematocrit (HCT), mean corpuscular volume (MCV), mean corpuscular haemoglobin (MCH), mean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration (MCHC), platelets (PLT), lymphocytes (LY), monocytes (MO), neutrophil granulocytes (NE), platelet volume distribution width (PDW), mean platelet volume (MPV), and platelet larger cell ratio (P-LCR).

Multiplex bead-based assay for pro-inflammatory cytokine

After collection, the blood was allowed to clot by leaving it undisturbed at room temperature for 1 h, and the supernatant was collected by centrifugation at 3500 rpm for 10 min. Serum levels of pro-inflammatory cytokine was measured using the Bio Legend LEGEND plex™ multiplex bead-based assay (#740007) from Bio Legend (San Diego, CA, USA).

Sample preparation and ICP-MS analysis

All tissues were digested using aqua regia in a DB-3EFS type hot plate (Tianjin Gongxing Laboratory Instrument Co., Ltd., china) for 30 min at 200 °C. The digested samples were diluted with a solution containing 2% HCl, 2% HNO3, and 5 g L−1 rhodium (internal standard). Analyses were carried out on an Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometer (ICAP-Q) (Thermo-Fisher). Instrumental control and data analysis were performed using an Agilent Chem Station software. Between each analysis, the instrument was rinsed with 2% HNO3 for 2 min. Furthermore, after every 8 analyses, the blank sample was run to test if there were remaining Au in the system.

Calculations

To calculate the Au content, the ICP-MS results in μg L−1 were transformed to pg Au for each organ, taking into account the sample dilution factor and the volume. In addition, the blank Au value obtained for the control samples was subtracted from the result. The Au content, ωAu, was calculated based on the following equation:where m1 stands for the amount of Au (Ug L−1) after injection of the nano drug, m0 stands for the amount of Au (Ug L−1) before injection of the nano drug, and m denotes the amount of Au (in μg L−1) taken up by the tissue. Recovery was calculated by dividing the sum of the Au mass in all three fractions by the Au mass obtained for the control sample, containing only a solution with the same concentration of control samples.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis of the experimental data was performed by Graph Pad Prism 5.0 software. The data were expressed by mean ± SEM. One-way ANOVA and Tukey test methods were used for comparison between groups. Results were considered statistically significant when p < 0.05.

Results and discussion

Synthesis and spectroscopic analysis of DOX–AuGCs

DOX–AuGCs were synthesized using a novel methodology previously developed to design nano-therapeutic agents and hybrid gold nanomaterials based on a gold–biomolecule complex, and called Method IN.[18] The choice of CTL as the polymeric component of the NPs is mainly due to its binding affinity to Galectin-1,[14,21] a protein that is overexpressed in many tumors, and with the possibility of being recognized by the asialoglycoprotein receptors (ASGPR) exposed by the hepatocytes.[22]

The originality with the previously reported methodologies of the hybrid nanovector is that DOX, CTL and the polymer molecules are involved in the stabilization of AuNPs via electrostatic interactions between their carboxylic and amino groups. The synthesis of DOX–AuGCs foresees three main steps (Scheme 1). The first step included the complexation between gold salt and DOX to form DOX–AuCl2.[18]

Scheme 1

Chemical representation of DOX–AuGCs synthesis (all drawings are not to scale).

Successively, CTL and the COOH-terminated PEG molecules adsorb onto DOX–Au complexes via electrostatic interactions. The final reduction by NaBH4 occurs in the third step to generate the gold hybrid nanovector. The synthesized nanoparticles were widely characterized by UV-Vis absorption spectroscopy, TEM and Raman spectroscopy. As described in the literature, the individual DOX molecules (Fig. 1B, cyan line) exhibit three pronounced absorption peaks at 239 nm, 300 nm and 490 nm with a shoulder at 530 nm. After the nucleation and growth process, the absorption spectrum of DOX–AuGCs appeared by a strong peak at 250 nm with a shoulder at 310 nm and a plasmon band at 550 nm (Fig. 1B, black line). PEG–COOH and CTL react as stabilizing polymers for AuNPs, thanks to the formation of coordination bands between the Au ions and the chetone or the hydroxyl groups of DOX, respectively. This chemical comportment is due to the π–π* electronic transitions from the interactions between the anthracycline ring and AuCl4-ions, giving strong evidence of the complex formation.[18]

Fig. 1

(A) TEM images of DOX–AuGCs and (A1) histogram size nanoparticles (scale bars: 50 nm); (B) UV-Vis of DOX–AuGCs and (C) Raman spectra of-AuGCs (DOX and CTL–PEG diacide are also reported for comparison). The spectra were normalized on the intensity of the band at 990 cm−1. Experimental conditions: λexc = 785 nm; laser power 20 mW; 1200 Tof 180 s.

TEM images of DOX–AuGCs display a spherical shape and a narrow dispersion of the nanoparticle size with an average diameter of 50 ± 3 nm (Fig. 1A and A1). Based on the previously reported findings, we presume that when the DOX and the CTL/dicarboxylic PEG mixture were mixed with the AuCl4-solution, PEG–CTL was bound initially to Au(iii) in a mushroom conformation followed by a conformational change to the brush mode.[19] In order to confirm the success of the reaction, the UV-Vis spectrum of DOX–AuGCs was compared to that of CTL PEG–AuNPs as the control. The spectrum showed a small band at 233 nm and prominent peak at 540 nm assigned to the AuNP plasmon band (Fig. 1A, blue line). The CTL/dicarboxylic PEG mixture only showed an absorption peak at 204 nm relative to the polymers (Fig. 1A, red line). Consequently, the bright pink-violet color of the DOX–AuGCs solution, as well as the UV-Vis spectrum stayed unaltered after storage for 144 h in DMEM at room temperature, suggesting the formation of a stable particle suspension. The zeta potential and DLS measurements show that DOX–AuGCs was a colloidal solution that was stable under physiological conditions (Table S1 in ESI†). This stability was improved with the presence of the CTL/PEG coating.[14] The chemical conformation of DOX during the synthetic process of DOX–AuGCs was confirmed by Raman spectroscopic analysis, and compared to the Raman spectra of CTL–PEG AuNPs (Fig. 1C, blue line). In detail, the Raman spectra of DOX–AuGCs (Fig. 1C, black line) in water exhibit many bands in the region of 500–2000 cm−1. The wide band observed at around 1600 cm−1 on both Raman spectra can be assigned to the bending mode of the water molecule. Previous studies demonstrated remarkable differences between the Raman spectra of DOX before and after complexation with the biomolecules or metal.[23] Considering the spectra of DOX–AuGCs, the Raman bands at 1205, 1445 and 1595 cm−1, corresponding to the (νC–O) and (νC) vibration of ring A, from DOX are relevant to the variation of the steric conformation of DOX. The bands at 1445 and 430 cm−1 become more prominent upon complexation.[18,23] Consequently, we believe that DOX, after chelation with AuCl2−, was electrostatically adsorbed to the CTL–PEG chains. The DOX molecule is located in the CTL–PEG layer with a characteristic steric arrangement within the AuNPs. Indeed, the steric orientation of DOX onto the AuNPs surface was influenced by the electrostatic interactions between the amino group and phenol group in the presence of polymeric molecules (CTL, PEG) under the definite conditions of pH and ionic strength. Besides, this chemical behavior influences the electronic distribution within DOX, Au3+, and the polymeric chains during the synthesis process with the realization of a new drug-gold nanoparticle system.

Stability of DOX–AuGCs and drug release

The stability of DOX–AuGCs in the colloidal solution is essential to estimating their therapeutic application. The DOX–AuGCs stability was assessed by evaluating the position and intensity of the Localized Surface Plasmon (LSP) band at 550 nm of the AuNPs. Analysis was performed in the cell culture medium (Dulbecco's Modified Eagle's Medium-DMEM) over a period of 144 hours. The DOX–AuGCs exhibited no change in the LSP band position after 72 h (Fig. S1 in ESI†), indicating that the AuNPs are highly stable and that their size remains unchanged during the time. While the LSP band intensity slightly decreased overtime, we believe that no major aggregation occurred over 144 h, indicating that the DOX–AuGCs could be applied as clinical drug-delivery systems.[17] The zeta potential measurements confirmed the spectroscopic results, showing that the DOX–AuGCs colloidal solution is stable at physiological pH (z-potential = −31 ± 1 mV with a PdI equal to 0.259 ± 0.002). We assume that the DOX–AuGCs stability is due to the presence of the CTL–PEG polymer chains. The DOX loading efficiency was 88%, as previously described.[18] The DOX release was pH- and time-dependent (Fig. S2 in ESI†). In particular, after 96 h, the DOX release at acidic pH (pH: 5) (∼98%) was higher than at neutral pH (∼10%). We assumed that the release of DOX was checked by a dynamic equilibrium between the free Au(iii)–DOX complexes in the colloidal solution and trapped into AuNPs by the hydrophobic interactions between CTL–PEG and DOX. The mechanism by which the acidic pH triggers drug release is due to the presence of carboxylate groups of PEG molecules.[18] We can see that the low release at physiological pH within the first hours allows DOX in-PEG–AuNPs to achieve the therapeutic target following intravenous administration without causing toxicity in healthy tissues, thus limiting the side effects.[24]

In vivo antitumor efficacy and drug distribution

The therapeutic effect of DOX–AuGCs on liver cancer was evaluated using nude mice, in which human HepG2 cells were hypodermically injected to generate a subcutaneous liver cancer. All figures show the results from the mice groups with five different treatments: control group (saline solution) to estimate tumor progression without any treatment, CTL group to evaluate the effects of the polysaccharide alone, DOX in PEG–AuNPs group to evaluate the efficacy of the nano drug system without CTL, DOX–AuGCs group to evaluate the efficiency of the nano drug system with CTL (DOX–AuGCs), and 5-FU group as the reference for a classic cancer therapy.[25,26]

The safety of DOX–AuGCs was determined by observing the animal body weight changes. The measurements of the body weight were taken every 3 days (Fig. 2A). If the control group (saline solution) is compared to the DOX–AuGCs group, it can be observed that the latter did not have a significant reduction of the body weight in the following 30 days. The tumor growth was evaluated by estimating the tumor volume (length × width) every 3 days (Fig. 2B). After the HepG2 cell line injection, the cancer volume quickly increased in all the animals. However, CTL showed a slight inhibition of tumor growth. Conversely, the injection of DOX–AuGCs dramatically decreased the tumor growth compared to DOX in PEG–AuNPs and 5-FU as the control (p < 0.05) (Fig. 2B and C). Fig. 2D shows the ultrasound images of the tumor for each group. A very important regression of the tumor marked by the blue line in the images can be observed in the groups treated with the DOX–AuGCs, DOX-in PEG–AuNPs and 5-FU groups. Conversely, the control and CTL groups showed non-significant regression of the tumor. At the end of the experiment, the tumor and spleen tissues of the mice were separated and photographed. The experimental result images are shown in Fig. S3 in the ESI.†

Fig. 2

(A) Body weight changes of DOX–AuGCs compared with each control group in the HepG2 cell line injected in nude mice models. (B) Tumor volume at different time points. Values were shown as mean ± S.E.M. *p < 0.05 vs. model. (C) Tumor volume of each group at the study end point calculated by ultrasound images. (D) Ultrasound images of the tumor of each group at the study end point. Data are shown as the mean ± S.E.M. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001 compared to the controls group, as indicated.

Effect of DOX–AuGCs on the heart, liver, spleen, lung, kidney and tumor indices

To evaluate the effect of DOX–AuGCs on the heart, liver, spleen lung, kidney and tumor indices, the organs and the tumors were collected at the end point of the experiments, weighed, and the weight ratio was calculated.

Fig. 3 shows that all treatments had no significant effect on the indices of the heart, liver, lung and kidney compared to the control group. However, CTL, DOX IN PEG–AuNPs, DOX–AuGCs and 5-FU had significant effects on the spleen index (p < 0.05), which can be ascribed to their organ filtration and tissue penetration ability. Otherwise, CTL and DOX IN PEG–AuNPs reduced the tumor index without significance compared with the DOX–AuGCs and 5-FU treatments, which had a significant reduction of the tumor index (p < 0.05). This behavior is probably due to the specific chemical affinity of the DOX conjugate to CTL in the gold core nanoparticle, which induced a better steric arrangement and consequent therapeutic effect.

Fig. 3

Effect of each group treatment on the index (heart, liver, spleen, lung, kidney and tumor) in nude mice with HepG2 cells injection.*p < 0.05 vs. model. Bars represent the mean ± standard deviation. Data were analyzed using the analysis of variance with SPSS13.0. *Represents the significant differences from the control.

Effects of DOX–AuGCs on blood cells

Previously, some authors showed that various parameters related to red blood cell function are negatively influenced by anthracycline drugs and your metabolites,[27,28] stimulating the pentose phosphate pathway (PPP). Indeed, changes in the membrane permeability,[29] variation of sodium transporters,[29] inhibition of inositol lipid metabolism,[30] enhancement of lipid peroxidation,[30] and alterations of the membrane structure have been reported.[28]

As exhibit in Fig. S4 in ESI,† DOX–AuGCs significantly reduced the number of WBC, PLT, LY, MO, NE cells in the blood, which is in line with the features of common chemotherapy drugs and with the data from 5-FU and DOX in PEG–AuNPs. However, the effect of DOX–AuGCs on NE is not as great as that of the traditional chemotherapy drug 5-FU, although there is no statistical difference. The effect of 5-FU on the reduction of MO is significantly different. Interestingly, CTL significantly increased EO and BA compared to the control group, but this effect cannot be observed in animals treated with DOX–AuGCs, where CTL is a component of the nanostructure. On the contrary, 5-FU and DOX–AuGCs similarly reduced EO BA cells at an extent higher than that observed for DOX in PEG–AuNPs.

Effects of DOX–AuGCs on cytokine expression

Recently, it was established that several chemotherapeutics provoke a form of apoptosis known as immunogenic cell death (ICD), alerting the immune system to the presence of dying cancer cells.[31] ICD is characterized by the release of molecules with danger-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs). Multiple studies indicate that the dosage of ICD agents is a key component associated with the release of DAMPs, as well as the activation of the immune system.[32,33] Previously, it was established that DOX treatment causes apoptosis in the cancer cell studied,[34] and the dose at which this drug triggered ICD was mostly higher than the dose needed to achieve cytotoxicity.[35]

It was proved that AuNPs are efficient nanocarriers as they are inert, chemically robust and able to protect molecules like antigens and cytokines from degradation.[31] As discussed above, AuNPs alone have been shown to stimulate the immune system, and thus provide attractive candidates for adjuvant delivery. For example, Bastús et al. showed that 10 nm AuNPs functionalized with two peptides stimulated macrophage activation, as evidenced by the induction of TNF, IL-1β, IL-6, while the macrophages did not recognize the peptides or AuNP alone.[36] Other groups have found that AuNPs can inhibit IL-1β-mediated inflammatory responses and toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) responses, also in a size-dependent manner.[31] These studies looked at particles in the 2 to 50 nm size, range and found that the smallest particles (<5 nm) had the highest impact on the immune response. The absorption of the cytokine to the nanoparticle surface also induced a conformational change that reduced the biological activity of TGF-β1.[37] In our case, the level of IL-6 in the serum was remarkably reduced by DOX–AuGCs and CTL. However, other treatments have no effects on the expression of IL-6 (Fig. 4). The DOX–AuGC particles have the potential of anti-inflammatory agents, as they significantly reduced the serum levels of IL-6, TNF-α and IL-12 P70 probably due to the anti-inflammatory properties of CTL.[38] Besides, DOX–AuGCs dramatically decreased the level of GMF-CSF (Granulocyte Macrophage Colony Stimulating Factor), a white blood growth factor. The decreases of GMF-CSF results in less infection compared with other groups. This is mainly due to CTL, which protects the immune system that can be collapsed by the drug and tumors (Fig. S5 in ESI†).

Fig. 4

Effect of DOX–AuGC nanoparticle on cytokine expression. Values were shown as the mean ± S.E.M. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 vs. saline group.

On the basis of these results, we can intimate that DOX–AuGCs improve the immune inhibitory effects (Scheme 2), due to a probable different activation of calreticulin and consequent decrease of the serum level of IL-6, IL-12, TNF-α and CM-CSF[32] that could be valorized in the treatment of metastatic disease.[39]

Scheme 2

Schematic representation of the effect of DOX–AuGCs on cytokine level after cancer cell induction (all drawings are not in scale).

Biodistribution of DOX–AuGCs

In vivo tissue distribution of the two groups of nanoparticles, namely DOX IN PEG–AuNPs (group 4) and DOX–AuGCs (group 5), were investigated by ICP-MS analysis. DOX–AuGCs and DOX IN PEG–AuNPs concentrations in the normal (including, liver, spleen, lung and kidney) and tumor tissues of treated mice are shown in Fig. 5. Both groups of nanoparticles were mostly distributed in the liver, followed by the spleen, and then the lung, kidney and tumor tissues. The data shown in the biodistribution results are the normalized DOX concentrations calculated from the DOX–AuGCs. It is notable that the cardiotoxicity is the main side effect of DOX,[40] and the concentration and retention of DOX in the heart is closely related with the toxicity of DOX-containing formulations. As shown in Fig. 5, DOX–AuGCs concentrations in the spleen are higher than those of group 4 at all time points after administration. This result intimates that DOX–AuGCs exhibited higher retention in the spleen, stimulating the production of the blood cells due to the synergic effect of CTL. This result can be demonstrated by the rapid drug distribution of free DOX in the whole body, and the subsequent quick elimination from the circulation. This phenomenon was due to the protection effect of PEG and CTL on the outer layer of the particle, which caused sustained circulation and effective passive tumor targeting via enhanced permeability and retention effect in vivo.[41,42] In other normal tissues, including the liver, spleen, lung, and kidney, DOX–AuGCs appeared to show a higher early accumulation. Moreover, the rapid elimination rate of the drug and its formation caused minor injury in normal tissues. Otherwise, the retention of nanoparticles DOX–AuGCs (group 5) in the tumor tissues is higher than that in DOX IN PEG–AuNPs (group 4). This result suggests that CTL allows for the recognition and targeting of the tumor tissue. In a previous study, we demonstrated that CTL in PEG–AuNPs specifically recognizes a cancer biomarker (Galectin-1) involved in the regulation of cancer progression, immune responses and tumor aggressiveness.[16] Furthermore, it cannot be excluded that the molecular recognition between the hepatic asialoglyprotein receptors and galactose-pending groups on CTL may also contribute to the targeting and internalization process into the hepatic tumor.

Fig. 5

Biodistribution profiles of DOX IN PEG–AuNPs (group 4) and Dox–AuGCs (group 5) cs in normal tissues including the liver, spleen, lung, kidney and tumor tissue.

DOX–AuGCs cardiotoxicity: hypothesis

Since the discovery of DOX, oxidative stress is the best frequently suggested mechanism to clarify the pathophysiology of DOX-induced cardiotoxicity (DIC).[43,44] It was exhaustively discussed that the chemical structure of DOX showed quinone groups that can be reduced to a semiquinone, an unstable metabolite that can react with molecular oxygen (an electron acceptor) and promptly revert to the parent compound. This redox cycle takes the formation of superoxide anion radicals within mitochondria, producing cardiotoxicity due to their affinity to complex Fe3+/Fe2+.[45,46]

Indeed, DOX is able to alter iron metabolism due to its great affinity for this metal, thus forming iron–DOX complexes which, in turn, react with oxygen and trigger ROS production.[46] Thus, the scientists supposed that only oxidative stress was liable for the cardiotoxicity induced by iron–DOX complexes. However, under physiological conditions, there would not be enough free iron to interact with DOX to the extent necessary to generate cardiomyopathy. Moreover, another theory suggests that the effect of DOX on iron metabolism is due to the interference of this drug in the activity of proteins that transport and bind intracellular iron. To evaluate the chronic myocardial toxicity of DOX, a group of mice were also treated with free DOX. The observation time was extended to 8 weeks after the last administration. As shown in Fig. 6, the heart tissue sections from free DOX and 5FU-treated mice exhibited serious myocardial pathological changes. The myocardial fibers became thin and loose, and even presented varying degrees of rupture.[47] However, the heart tissue sections from the DOX–AuGCs nanoparticle-treated mice only showed normal muscle fibers without serious myocardial pathological changes. In comparison with free DOX, this indicated that DOX–AuGCs under DOX–gold complex significantly eliminated the chronic myocardial toxicity of DOX during the period of treatment. In our methodology, DOX was complexed to gold salt by chelation of hydroquinone/quinine by deprotonation of C24 before staking to polymer chains. Anyway, the chitlac and chitosane polymers showed a strong antioxidant power, as described previously.[48,49] In this configuration, DOX as a component of the gold complex does not bind Fe3+/Fe2+, and so it does not promote the ROS production that is responsible for cardiotoxicity (Scheme S1 in ESI†). We also hypothesize that the diffusion mechanism of DOX into the membrane cell can bypass the P-glycoprotein 1-mediated mechanism with the consequent elimination of multi-drug resistance (MDR).[50]

Fig. 6

Histological observation of heart tissue sections from the control and test groups 3 days post-injection. The scale bar is 0.050 mm.

Conclusions

This work reports the capability of DOX–AuGCs to target liver cancer and to amplify (in certain respects) the antitumor efficacy of 5-FU. More specifically, a novel synthetic protocol was adopted to acquire a hybrid nanovector. The steric conformation of the drugs onto gold nanoparticles was modulated in the presence of a diacide polymer (PEG) and a polysaccharide (CTL), in which the drug position can resolve the principal issues of drug-conjugated AuNPs. The advanced antitumor efficacy of DOX–AuGCs compared to 5-FU is exhibited not only in the repression of tumor growth, but also in the higher stimulation of immune system. Therefore, the results in this work confirmed that the molecular design plays a key role in modulating the in vivo properties and functionalities of the nanocarriers, and enhances their performance and safety in tumor therapeutics. Overall, these results pave the wave for the development of an innovative theranostic platform, allowing for the detection of protein-associated tumors and for the simultaneous cancer treatment with a multimodal agent that combines chemotherapy (drug delivery associated with an increased payload release or enhanced spreading into the cancer cells) with photothermal therapy.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.