| Literature DB >> 36188590 |
Jingliang Wu1, Cuiping Qi1,2, Hao Wang3, Qing Wang4, Jingui Sun1, Jinping Dong1, Guohua Yu3, Zhiqin Gao4, Bo Zhang5, Guixiang Tian4.
Abstract
Cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) are a major component of the tumor microenvironment (TME). In hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), quiescent hepatic stellate cells (HSCs) could be activated to become CAFs, which play a critical role in tumor progression and drug resistance. Therefore, recent efforts have been focused on combining anti-HSC and pro-apoptotic activities to improve anti-tumor efficacy of drugs. In this study, glycyrrhetinic acid and hyaluronic acid-modified liposomes (GA-HA-Lip) were prepared for co-delivery of curcumin (CUR) and berberine (BBR) for the treatment of HCC. Furthermore, we established the LX-2+BEL-7402 co-cultured cell model and implanted the m-HSCs+H22 cells into a mouse to evaluate the anti-tumor effect of CUR&BBR/GA-HA-Lip both in vitro and in vivo. The results showed that CUR&BBR/GA-HA-Lip could accumulate in tumor tissues and be taken up by HSCs and BEL-7402 cells simultaneously. Compared with free CUR, the combination therapy based on GA-HA-Lip exhibits stronger pro-apoptotic and anti-proliferation effect both in vitro and in vivo. The anti-tumor mechanistic study revealed that CUR&BBR/GA-HA-Lip could inhibit the activation of HSCs and restrain drug resistance of tumor cells. In summary, CUR&BBR/GA-HA-Lip could be a promising nano-sized formulation for anti-tumor therapy.Entities:
Keywords: berberine; combination therapy; curcumin; delivery; liposomes
Year: 2022 PMID: 36188590 PMCID: PMC9515508 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.961788
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pharmacol ISSN: 1663-9812 Impact factor: 5.988
Characteristics of different liposomal formulations.
| Formulation | DLS (nm) | PDI | ζ-Potential (mV) | EE% | LC% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blank lip | 146.64 ± 0.72 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | −2.01 ± 0.07 | — | — |
| CUR&BBR/Lip | 150.17 ± 2.36 | 0.16 ± 0.03 | −1.02 ± 0.05 | 96.69 ± 2.33 (CUR) 94.91 ± 0.48 (BBR) | 2.32 ± 0.08 (CUR 2.24 ± 0.04 (BBR) |
| CUR&BBR/GA-Lip | 151.06 ± 8.21 | 0.17 ± 0.02 | −0.35 ± 0.21 | 96.82 ± 1.75 (CUR) 95.91 ± 1.04 (BBR) | 2.27 ± 0.04 (CUR) 2.24 ± 0.03 (BBR) |
| CUR&BBR/GA-HA-Lip | 159.39 ± 3.16 | 0.17 ± 0.01 | −0.24 ± 0.35 | 93.66 ± 3.08 (CUR) 92.59 ± 5.45 (BBR) | 2.15 ± 0.07 (CUR) 2.13 ± 0.13 (BBR) |
All results are the mean values of the measurements from three replicates. The values are expressed as mean ± SD.
FIGURE 2Physicochemical characterization of CUR&BBR/GA-HA-Lip. Particle size and TEM images of blank liposome (A) and CUR&BBR/GA-HA-Lip (B). Scale bar, 200 nm. (C) Stability of CUR&BBR/GA-HA-Lip within 7 days by monitoring the particle size and PDI. (D) Drug release profiles of CUR&BBR/GA-HA-Lip.
FIGURE 3In vitro cellular uptake and drug detention studies in a co-cultured system. (A) Cell uptake model of BEL-7402 and LX-2 cells. (B) Drug retention assay model. CLSM images of BEL-7402 cells (C) and LX-2 cells (D) treated with C6/Lip, C6/GA-Lip, and C6/GA-HA-Lip at 2 h, where the nuclei were labeled with DAPI (blue) and Lip were labeled with C6 (green); scale bars represent 50 μm. (E) Confocal microscopy and (F) quantitative analysis of drug retention were used to detect drug retention at 4, 12, and 24 h; scale bar represents 50 µm.
FIGURE 4In vitro cytotoxicity analysis. In vitro research model of BEL-7402 cells (A) and BEL-7402+LX-2 co-cultured system (B). Cytotoxicity of different drug formulations against BEL-7402 cells (C) and BEL-7402+LX-2 co-cultured system (D). (E) Live/dead staining assay against co-cultured system. Green fluorescence: live LX-2 cells; red fluorescence: dead BEL-7402 cells; yellow fluorescence: dead LX-2 cells.
FIGURE 5The in vivo biodistribution of GA-HA-Lip. (A) Establishment of a novel advanced HCC mice model. (B) Fluorescence imaging at different time points. (C) Ex vivo IVIS images at 48 h. (D) The fluorescent intensity of different tissues.
FIGURE 6The anti-tumor evaluation of the H22+m-HSC tumor-bearing mice model. (A) Scheme of the strategy for the H22+m-HSC tumor-bearing mice model. (B) Body weight. (C) Images of tumor tissue in different treatment groups. (D) The curve of tumor volume during treatment. (E) Analysis of the tumor inhibition rate of different preparations.
FIGURE 7The histological analysis of the H22+m-HSC tumor-bearing mice model. (A) Histological analysis of tumors with H&E staining; scale bars represent 200 µm. (B) Masson stain of tumor tissue; scale bars represent 200 µm. (C) IF staining of α-SMA; scale bars represent 50 µm. (D) IHC staining of CD31; scale bars represent 200 µm. (E) Quantitative analysis of α-SMA and (F) CD31.