Journal of Molecular Modeling

, 20:2504 | Cite as

Three model shapes of Doxorubicin for liposome encapsulation

Original Paper

Abstract

Targeted drug delivery provides a possible method for the transfer of drug molecules into cancer cells. Liposomes together with a drug, such as Doxorubicin (DOX) inside the liposomes, can be formed as a nano-capsule. In this study, we are interested in finding a favorable size of liposome and an appropriate shape of DOX cluster: sphere, cylinder or ellipsoid. Using mathematical modeling, the interaction energy of the system is obtained from the Lennard-Jones potential and the continuum assumption which assumes that discrete atomic structure can be replaced by an average atomic density spread over a surface. The numerical results show that the spherical shape gives the lowest energy at the equilibrium configuration amongst the three shapes. In the case of equivalent surface areas, the spherical shape gives the energy lower than −4,000 kJ/mol at the equilibrium while the energies for the other cases do not come close to this level. Further in the case of a liposome of 50 nm in radius, the sphere of radius 49.726 nm, equivalent to 31,072 nm2 surface area, gives the minimum energy at −6,642 kJ/mol. However, an equivalent cylindrical shape is not possible due to geometric constraints. The lowest minimum energy for the ellipsoid occurs for equal major and minor axes, namely for the spherical case. The results presented here are a first step in the design and implementation of a drug molecule for a targeted drug delivery system.

Keywords

Liposome Doxorubicin Lennard-Jones potential Drug delivery 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Prof. James M. Hill for helpful discussions. Financial support from the Thailand Research Fund through the Royal Golden Jubilee Ph.D. Program (Grant No. PHD/0062/2555) is acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Jema A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 61:69–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chabner BA, Roberts TG Jr (2005) Chemotherapy and the war on cancer. Nat Rev 5:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gottlieb JA, Rivkin SE, Spigel SC, Hoogstraten B, O’Bryan RM, Delaney FC, Singhakowinta A (1974) Superiority of adriamycin over oral nitrosoureas in patients with advanced breast carcinoma. Cancer 33:519–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meng L, Zhang X, Lu Q, Fei Z, Dyson PJ (2012) Single walled carbon nanotubes as drug delivery vehicles: Targeting doxorubicin to tumor. Biomaterials 33:1689–1698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heister E, Neves V, Tlmaciu C, Lipert KL, Beltran VS, Coley HM, Ravi S, Silva P, McFadden J (2009) Triple functionalisation of single-walled carbon nanotubes with doxorubicin, a monoclonal antibody, and a fluorescent marker for targeted cancer therapy. Carbon 47:2152–2160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lu YJ, Wei KC, Ma CCM, Yang SY, Chen JP (2012) Dual targeted delivery of doxorubicin to cancer cells using folate-conjugated magnetic multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces 89:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang S, Wu Y, Guo RI, Huang Y, Wen S, Shen M, Wang J, Shi X (2013) Laponite nanodisks as an efficient platform for doxorubicin delivery to cancer cells. Langmuir 29:5030–5036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prabaharan M, Grailer JJ, Pilla S, Steeber DA, Gong S (2009) Gold nanoparticles with a monolayer of doxorubicin-conjugated amphiphilic block copolymer for tumor-targeted drug delivery. Biomaterials 30:6065–6075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sledge GW, Neuberg D, Bernardo P, Ingle JN, Martino S, Rowinsky EK, Wood WC (2003) Phase III trial of doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel as front-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: an intergroup trial (e1193). J Clin Oncol 21:588–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gehl J, Boesgaard M, Paaske T, Jensen BV, Dombernowsky P (1996) Combined doxorubicin and paclitaxel in advanced breast cancer: effective and cardiotoxic. Ann Oncol 7:687–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meng H, Liong M, Xia T, Li Z, Ji Z, Zink JI, Nel AE (2010) Engineered design of mesoporous silica nanoparticles to deliver doxorubicin and p-glycoprotein sirna to overcome drug resistance in a cancer cell line. Am Chem Soc Publ 4:4539–4550Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lankelma J, Luque RF, Dekker H, van den Berg J, Kooi B (2013) A new mathematical pharmacodynamic model of clonogenic cancer cell death by doxorubicin. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 40:513–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Puyal C, Milhaud P, Benvenue A, Philippot JR (1995) A new cationic liposome encapsulating genetic material a potential delivery system for polynucleotides. Eur J Biochem 228:697– 703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Foldvari M, Gesztes A, Mezei M (1990) A new cationic liposome encapsulating genetic material. Ann Oncol 7:479–489Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moghimi SM, Hunter AC, Murray JC (2001) Long-circulating and target-specific nanoparticles: Theory to practice. Pharmacol Rev 53:283–318Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yuan F, Dellian M, Fukumura D, Leunig M, Berk DA, Torchilin VP, Jain RK (1995) Vascular permeability in a human tumor xenograft: molecular size dependence and cutoff size. Cancer Res 55:3752–6Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nagayasu A, Uchiyama K, Kiwada H (1999) The size of liposomes: a factor which affects their targeting efficiency to tumors and therapeutic activity of liposomal antitumor drugs. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 40:75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li X, Hirsh DJ, Cabral-Lilly D, Zirkel A, Gruner SM, Jano AS, Perkins WR (1998) Doxorubicin physical state in solution and inside liposomes loaded via a pH gradient. Biochim Biophys Acta 1415:23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fritze A, Hens F, Kimpfler A, Schubert R, Peschka-Süss R (2006) Remote loading of doxorubicin into liposomes driven by a transmembrane phosphate gradient. Biochim Biophys Acta 1758:1633–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gordon AN, Granai CO, Rose PG, Hainsworth J, Lopez A, Weissman C, Rosales R, Sharpington T (2000) Phase II study of liposomal doxorubicin in platinum- and paclitaxel-refractory epithelial ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:3093–3100Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Johnston SRD, Gore ME (2001) Caelyx: Phase II studies in ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer 37:S8–S14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vaage J, Donovan D, Mayhew E, Abra R, Huang A (1993) Therapy of human ovarian carcinoma xenografts using doxorubicin encapsulated in sterically stabilized liposomes. Cancer 72:3671–3675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hong RL, Huang CJ, Tseng YL (1999) Direct comparison of liposomal doxorubicin with or without polyethylene glycol coating in C-26 tumor-bearing mice: is surface coating with polyethylene glycol beneficial? Clin Cancer Res 5:3645– 3652Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee RJ, Low PS (1995) Folate-mediated tumor cell targeting of liposome-entrapped doxorubicin in vitro. Biochim Biophys Acta 1233:134–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ahmad I, Longenecker Ml, Samuel J, Allen TM (1993) Antibody-targeted delivery of doxorubicin entrapped in sterically stabilized liposomes can eradicate lung cancer in mice. Biochim Biophys Acta 53:I484–1488Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baowan D, Peuschel H, Kraegeloh A, Helms V (2013) Energetics of liposomes encapsulating silica nanoparticles. J Mol Model 19:2459–2472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marrink SJ, Risselada HJ, Yefimov S, Tieleman DP, de Vries AH (2007) The MARTINI force field: Coarse grained model for biomolecular simulations. J Phys Chem B 111:7812–7824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gradshteyn IS, Ryzhik IM (2007) Table of integrals, series, and products, seventh edn. Elsevier Inc., LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Magnus W, Oberhettinger F, Tricomi FG, Erdélyi A (1953) Higher transcendental functions, vol 1. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rappé AK, Casewit CJ, Colwell KS, Goddard III WA, Skid WM (1992) UFF, a full periodic table force field for molecular mechanics and molecular dynamics simulations. J Am Chem Soc 114:10024–10035CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics, Faculty of ScienceMahidol UniversityBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations