Pharmaceutical Research

, Volume 29, Issue 7, pp 1949–1959

Treatment of Experimental Brain Metastasis with MTO-Liposomes: Impact of Fluidity and LRP-Targeting on the Therapeutic Result

  • Andrea Orthmann
  • Reiner Zeisig
  • Regine Süss
  • Dorothea Lorenz
  • Margit Lemm
  • Iduna Fichtner
Research Paper



To test targeted liposomes in an effort to improve drug transport across cellular barriers into the brain.


Therefore we prepared Mitoxantrone (MTO) entrapping, rigid and fluid liposomes, equipped with a 19-mer angiopeptide as ligand for LDL lipoprotein receptor related protein (LRP) targeting.


Fluid, ligand bearing liposomes showed in vitro the highest cellular uptake and transcytosis and were significantly better than the corresponding ligand-free liposomes and rigid, ligand-bearing vesicles. Treatment of mice, transplanted with human breast cancer cells subcutaneously and into the brain, with fluid membrane liposomes resulted in a significant reduction in the tumor volume by more than 80% and in a clear reduction in drug toxicity. The improvement was mainly depended on liposome fluidity while the targeting contributed only to a minor degree. Pharmacokinetic parameters were also improved for liposomal MTO formulations in comparison to the free drug. So the area under the curve was increased and t1/2 was extended for liposomes.


Our data show that it is possible to significantly improve the therapy of brain metastases if MTO-encapsulating, fluid membrane liposomes are used instead of free MTO. This effect could be further enhanced by fluid, ligand bearing liposomes.


brain metastases LRP targeting transcytosis uptake 



blood–brain barrier


Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium


foetal calf serum


low-density lipoprotein


LDL-lipoprotein receptor related protein


large unilamellar vesicles


Madin-Darby canine kidney




post insertion technology


relative tumor volume

Supplementary material

11095_2012_723_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (12 kb)
S1Vesicle stabilityover timeduring storagein PBS. Changes in vesicle diameter were followed by dynamic light scattering (PCS) measurements. Stock solutions of liposomes were appropriately diluted and measured in triplicate at each predefined time point. Mean unimodal diameters ± S.D. are shown. (PDF 11 kb)
11095_2012_723_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (5 kb)
S2LRP receptorexpression bycells used. Cells were incubated with 50 μg/ml of the fluorescence labeled peptide 2 for indicated times at 37°C and 4°C. Two-color immunofluorescence cytometry was used to quantify the expression of LRP receptor on cellular surface using 10000 cells. Cell populations were gated and the percentage of cells positive for LRP receptor was calculated based on the mean fluorescence intensity (mFI) from histogram plot. (PDF 4 kb)
11095_2012_723_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (19 kb)
S3MTO concentrationversustime inthe heart. NMRI:nu/nu mice were injected with 5 mg/kg MTO as solution or encapsulated in liposomes at t = 0 and mice were sacrificed at pre-defined time points. MTO concentration was determined as described in Material and Methods by HPLC. All data represent the mean ± S.D. for 3 samples, each determined in duplicate. (PDF 19 kb)
11095_2012_723_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (18 kb)
S4MTO concentrationversustime inthe kidney. For details see S3 (PDF 18 kb)
11095_2012_723_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (18 kb)
S5MTO concentrationversustime inthe liver. For details see S3 (PDF 18 kb)
11095_2012_723_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (21 kb)
S6MTO concentrationversustime inthe s.c. tumor. For details see S3 (PDF 21 kb)
11095_2012_723_MOESM7_ESM.pdf (20 kb)
S7MTO concentrationversustime inthe spleen. For details see S3 (PDF 19 kb)
11095_2012_723_MOESM8_ESM.pdf (20 kb)
S8MTO concentrationversustime inthe lung. For details see S3 (PDF 19 kb)
11095_2012_723_MOESM9_ESM.pdf (36 kb)
S9Concentration of MTO in different organs at t = 15 min. NMRI:nu/nu mice were injected with 5 mg/kg MTO as solution or encapsulated in liposomes at t = 0 and mice were sacrificed at pre-defined time points. MTO concentration was determined as described in Material and Methods by HPLC. All data represent the mean ± S.D. for 3 samples, each determined in duplicate. Insert: Concentration of MTO in the brain. (PDF 36 kb)
11095_2012_723_MOESM10_ESM.pdf (6 kb)
S10Tumor growthversustime ofs.c. tumor. MT-3 cells were transplanted s.c. into the left flank (5*106) and into the brain (5*103) of each nude mouse. Mice were treated i.v. with liposomes containing MTO or with free MTO, each in a dose of 4 mg/kg at day 3, 7 and 10. Control mice received saline solution. Diameter of subcutaneously growing tumor was measured twice weekly. Mice were sacrificed at day 22. Data were obtained from two independently performed experiments and are given as mean values +/− S.D (n: 5–16). (PDF 6 kb)
11095_2012_723_MOESM11_ESM.pdf (8 kb)
S11Body weightchange overtime. Body weight of mice, which were treated as described in Fig. S9, was measured twice a week. Given is the relative change in body weight (in%) as compared to the start of the experiment. *: significantly different to saline treated group. **: significantly different to saline treated and to Lfluid-LG treated group. #: three mice died after the third treatment because of drug related toxicity. (P < 0.05) (PDF 8 kb)


  1. 1.
    Abbott NJ, Patabendige AA, Dolman DE, Yusof SR, Begley DJ. Structure and function of the blood–brain barrier. Neurobiol Dis. 2010;37(1):13–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pardridge WM. Preparation of Trojan horse liposomes (THLs) for gene transfer across the blood–brain barrier. Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2010;(4) (2010), db.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Agarwal A, Lariya N, Saraogi G, Dubey N, Agrawal H, Agrawal GP. Nanoparticles as novel carrier for brain delivery: a review. Curr Pharm Des. 2009;15(8):917–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blasi P, Schoubben A, Giovagnoli S, Rossi C, Ricci M. Lipid nanoparticles for drug delivery to the brain: in vivo veritas. J Biomed Nanotechnol. 2009;5(4):344–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Patel MM, Goyal BR, Bhadada SV, Bhatt JS, Amin AF. Getting into the brain: approaches to enhance brain drug delivery. CNS Drugs. 2009;23(1):35–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tiwari SB, Amiji MM. A review of nanocarrier-based CNS delivery systems. Curr Drug Deliv. 2006;3(2):219–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pardridge WM. Biopharmaceutical drug targeting to the brain. J Drug Target. 2010;18(3):157–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Orthmann A, Zeisig R, Koklic T, Sentjurc M, Wiesner B, Lemm M, et al. Impact of membrane properties on uptake and transcytosis of colloidal nanocarriers across an epithelial cell barrier model. J Pharm Sci. 2010;99(5):2423–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chamberlain MC. Anticancer therapies and CNS relapse: overcoming blood–brain and blood-cerebrospinal fluid barrier impermeability. Expert Rev Neurother. 2010;10(4):547–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laquintana V, Trapani A, Denora N, Wang F, Gallo JM, Trapani G. New strategies to deliver anticancer drugs to brain tumors. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2009;6(10):1017–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Orthmann A, Fichtner I, Zeisig R. Improving the transport of chemotherapeutic drugs across the blood–brain barrier. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2011;4(4):465–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cerletti A, Drewe J, Fricker G, Eberle AN, Huwyler J. Endocytosis and transcytosis of an immunoliposome-based brain drug delivery system. J Drug Target. 2000;8(6):435–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boado RJ. Blood–brain barrier transport of non-viral gene and RNAi therapeutics. Pharm Res. 2007;24(9):1772–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McNeeley KM, Karathanasis E, Annapragada AV, Bellamkonda RV. Masking and triggered unmasking of targeting ligands on nanocarriers to improve drug delivery to brain tumors. Biomaterials. 2009;30(23–24):3986–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Feng B, Tomizawa K, Michiue H, Miyatake S, Han XJ, Fujimura A, et al. Delivery of sodium borocaptate to glioma cells using immunoliposome conjugated with anti-EGFR antibodies by ZZ-His. Biomaterials. 2009;30(9):1746–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Demeule M, Currie JC, Bertrand Y, Che C, Nguyen T, Regina A, Gabathuler R, Castaigne JP, Beliveau R. Involvement of the low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein in the transcytosis of the brain delivery vector angiopep-2. J Neurochem. 2008;106(4):1534–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li Y, Cam J, Bu G. Low-density lipoprotein receptor family: endocytosis and signal transduction. Mol Neurobiol. 2001;23(1):53–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lillis AP, Van Duyn LB, Murphy-Ullrich JE, Strickland DK. LDL receptor-related protein 1: unique tissue-specific functions revealed by selective gene knockout studies. Physiol Rev. 2008;88(3):887–918.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hussain MM, Strickland DK, Bakillah A. The mammalian low-density lipoprotein receptor family. Annu Rev Nutr. 1999;19:141–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Demeule M, Regina A, Che C, Poirier J, Nguyen T, Gabathuler R, Castaigne JP, Beliveau R. Identification and design of peptides as a new drug delivery system for the brain. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2008;324(3):1064–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Regina A, Demeule M, Che C, Lavallee I, Poirier J, Gabathuler R, et al. Antitumour activity of ANG1005, a conjugate between paclitaxel and the new brain delivery vector Angiopep-2. Br J Pharmacol. 2008;155(2):185–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Che C, Yang G, Thiot C, Lacoste MC, Currie JC, Demeule M, et al. New Angiopep-modified doxorubicin (ANG1007) and etoposide (ANG1009) chemotherapeutics with increased brain penetration. J Med Chem. 2010;53(7):2814–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chan WC, White PD. Fmoc solid phase peptide synthesis – A practical Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fritze A, Hens F, Kimpfler A, Schubert R, Peschka-Süss R. Remote loading of doxorubicin into liposomes driven by a transmembrane phosphate gradient. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2006;1758(10):1633–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gantert M, Lewrick F, Adrian JE, Rossler J, Steenpass T, Schubert R, et al. Receptor-specific targeting with liposomes in vitro based on sterol-PEG(1300) anchors. Pharm Res. 2009;26(3):529–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zeisig R, Müller K, Maurer N, Arndt D, Fahr A. The composition-dependent presence of free (micellar) alkylphospholipid in liposomal formulations of octadecyl-1,1-dimethyl-piperidino-4-yl-phosphate affects its cytotoxic activity in vitro. J Membr Biol. 2001;182(1):61–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Naundorf H, Fichtner I, Saul GJ, Haensch W, BÜttner B. Establishment and characteristics of two new human mammary carcinoma lines serially transplantable in nude mice. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 1993;119(11):652–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Johnson JL, Ahmad A, Khan S, Wang YF, Abu-Qare AW, Ayoub JE, et al. Improved liquid chromatographic method for mitoxantrone quantification in mouse plasma and tissues to study the pharmacokinetics of a liposome entrapped mitoxantrone formulation. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2004;799(1):149–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Diehl KH, Hull R, Morton D, Pfister R, Rabemampianina Y, Smith D, et al. A good practice guide to the administration of substances and removal of blood, including routes and volumes. J Appl Toxicol. 2001;21(1):15–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pflanzner T, Janko MC, André-Dohmen B, Reuss S, Weggen S, Roebroek AJ, Kuhlmann CR, Pietrzik CU. LRP1 mediates bidirectional transcytosis of amyloid-beta across the blood–brain barrier. Neurobiol Aging. 2011;32(12):2323e1-11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gubernator J, Chwastek G, Korycinska M, Stasiuk M, Grynkiewicz G, Lewrick F, et al. The encapsulation of idarubicin within liposomes using the novel EDTA ion gradient method ensures improved drug retention in vitro and in vivo. J Control Release. 2010;146(1):68–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ramsay E, Alnajim J, Anantha M, Zastre J, Yan H, Webb M, Waterhouse D, Bally M. A novel liposomal irinotecan formulation with significant anti-tumour activity: use of the divalent cation ionophore A23187 and copper-containing liposomes to improve drug retention. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2008;68(3):607–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zucker D, Barenholz Y. Optimization of vincristine-topotecan combination–paving the way for improved chemotherapy regimens by nanoliposomes. J Control Release. 2010;146(3):326–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ishida T, Harashima H, Kiwada H. Liposome clearance. Biosci Rep. 2002;22(2):197–224.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zeisig R, Eue I, Kosch M, Fichtner I, Arndt D. Preparation and properties of sterically stabilized hexadecylphosphocholine (miltefosine)-liposomes and influence of this modification on macrophage activation. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1996;1283(2):177–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Xi X, Yang F, Chen D, Luo Y, Zhang D, Gu N, et al. A targeting drug-delivery model via interactions among cells and liposomes under ultrasonic excitation. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53(12):3251–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Torchilin VP. Recent approaches to intracellular delivery of drugs and DNA and organelle targeting. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2006;8:343–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bhaskar S, Tian F, Stoeger T, Kreyling W, de la Fuente JM, Grazu V, Borm P, Estrada G, Ntziachristos V, Razansky D. Multifunctional Nanocarriers for diagnostics, drug delivery and targeted treatment across blood–brain barrier: perspectives on tracking and neuroimaging. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2010;7(3):3. doi:10.1186/1743-8977-7-3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yemisci M, Bozdag S, Cetin M, Soylemezoglu F, Capan Y, Dalkara T, et al. Treatment of malignant gliomas with mitoxantrone-loaded poly (lactide-co-glycolide) microspheres. Neurosurgery. 2006;59(6):1296–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Boiardi A, Eoli M, Salmaggi A, Lamperti E, Botturi A, Broggi G, et al. Systemic temozolomide combined with loco-regional mitoxantrone in treating recurrent glioblastoma. J Neurooncol. 2005;75(2):215–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Boiardi A, Eoli M, Salmaggi A, Lamperti E, Botturi A, Solari A, et al. Local drug delivery in recurrent malignant gliomas. Neurol Sci. 26 2005; Suppl 1(S37–9):S37–S39.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kawano K, Onose E, Hattori Y, Maitani Y. Higher liposomal membrane fluidity enhances the in vitro antitumor activity of folate-targeted liposomal mitoxantrone. Mol Pharm. 2009;6(1):98–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    van Rooy I, Mastrobattista E, Storm G, Hennink WE, Schiffelers RM. Comparison of five different targeting ligands to enhance accumulation of liposomes into the brain. J Control Release. 2011;150(1):30–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zeisig R, Koklic T, Wiesner B, Fichtner I, Sentjurc M. Increase in fluidity in the membrane of MT3 breast cancer cells correlates with enhanced cell adhesion in vitro and increased lung metastasis in NOD/SCID mice. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2007;459(1):98–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Orthmann
    • 1
  • Reiner Zeisig
    • 2
  • Regine Süss
    • 3
  • Dorothea Lorenz
    • 4
  • Margit Lemm
    • 1
  • Iduna Fichtner
    • 1
  1. 1.Experimental PharmacologyMax Delbrück Center for Molecular MedicineBerlin-BuchGermany
  2. 2.Experimental Pharmacology & Oncology Berlin-Buch GmbHBerlin-BuchGermany
  3. 3.Department of Pharmaceutical Technology and BiopharmacyAlbert-Ludwigs UniversityFreiburgGermany
  4. 4.Cellular Imaging Leibniz-Institut für Molekulare Pharmakologie (FMP)BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations