Advertisement

Pharmaceutical Research

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 562–577 | Cite as

Folate-Targeted Multifunctional Amino Acid-Chitosan Nanoparticles for Improved Cancer Therapy

  • Vítor M. Gaspar
  • Elisabete C. Costa
  • João A. Queiroz
  • Chantal Pichon
  • Fani Sousa
  • Ilídio J. CorreiaEmail author
Research Paper

Abstract

Purpose

Tumor targeting nanomaterials have potential for improving the efficiency of anti-tumoral therapeutics. However, the evaluation of their biological performance remains highly challenging. In this study we describe the synthesis of multifunctional nanoparticles decorated with folic acid-PEG and dual amino acid-modified chitosan (CM-PFA) complexed with DNA and their evaluation in organotypic 2D co-cultures of cancer-normal cells and also on 3D multicellular tumor spheroids models.

Methods

The physicochemical characterization of CM-PFA multifunctional carriers was performed by FTIR, 1H NMR and DLS. 2D co-culture models were established by using a 1:2 cancer-to-normal cell ratio. 3D organotypic tumor spheroids were assembled using micromolding technology for high throughput screening. Nanoparticle efficiency was evaluated by flow cytometry and confocal microscopy.

Results

The CM-PFA nanocarriers (126–176 nm) showed hemocompatibility and were internalized by target cells, achieving a 3.7 fold increase in gene expression. In vivo-mimicking 2D co-cultures confirmed a real affinity towards cancer cells and a negligible uptake in normal cells. The targeted nanoparticles penetrated into 3D spheroids to a higher extent than non-targeted nanocarriers. Also, CM-PFA-mediated delivery of p53 tumor suppressor promoted a decrease in tumor-spheroids volume.

Conclusion

These findings corroborate the improved efficiency of this delivery system and demonstrate its potential for application in cancer therapy.

Key Words

cancer therapy gene delivery targeted nanoparticles 2D co-cultures 3D tumor spheroids 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Eng. Ana Paula for her help with the acquisition of SEM images. This work was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), (PTDC/EBB-BIO/114320/2009 and PEst-C/SAU/UI0709/2011). Vítor M. Gaspar is grateful for the PhD fellowship from FCT (SFRH/BD/80402/2011). All the authors do not disclose any conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11095_2014_1486_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.3 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 1.34 mb)

References

  1. 1.
    Zhang X-Q, Xu X, Bertrand N, Pridgen E, Swami A, Farokhzad OC. Interactions of nanomaterials and biological systems: implications to personalized nanomedicine. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2012;64:1363–84.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gaspar VM, Correia IJ, Sousa Â, Silva F, Paquete CM, Queiroz JA, et al. Nanoparticle mediated delivery of pure P53 supercoiled plasmid DNA for gene therapy. J Control Release. 2011;156:212–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ragelle H, Vandermeulen G, Préat V. Chitosan-based siRNA delivery systems. J Control Release. 2013;172:207–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carocho M, Ferreira ICFR. The role of phenolic compounds in the fight against cancer–a review. Anti-Cancer Agents Med Chem (Formerly Current Medicinal Chemistry-Anti-Cancer Agents). 2013;13(1236–58).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cho H, Lai TC, Kwon GS. Poly (ethylene glycol)-block-poly (ε-caprolactone) micelles for combination drug delivery: evaluation of paclitaxel, Cyclopamine and Gossypol in Intraperitoneal Xenograft Models of Ovarian Cancer. J Control Release. 2013;166:1–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maeda H. Tumor-selective delivery of macromolecular drugs via the EPR effect: background and future prospects. Bioconjug Chem. 2010;21:797–802.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bergersand G, Benjamin LE. Tumorigenesis and the angiogenic switch. Nat Rev Cancer. 2003;3:401–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Decuzzi P, Pasqualini R, Arap W, Ferrari M. Intravascular delivery of particulate systems: does geometry really matter? Pharm Res. 2009;26:235–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van de Ven AL, Kim P, Haley OH, Fakhoury JR, Adriani G, Schmulen J, et al. Rapid tumoritropic accumulation of systemically injected plateloid particles and their biodistribution. J Control Release. 2012;158:148–55.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Florence AT. “Targeting” nanoparticles: the constraints of physical laws and physical barriers. J Control Release. 2012;164:115–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hollis CP, Weiss HL, Leggas M, Evers BM, Gemeinhart RA, Li T. Biodistribution and bioimaging studies of hybrid paclitaxel nanocrystals: lessons learned of the EPR effect and image-guided drug delivery. J Control Release. 2013;172:12–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Danhier F, Feron O, Préat V. To exploit the tumor microenvironment: passive and active tumor targeting of nanocarriers for anti-cancer drug delivery. J Control Release. 2010;148:135–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Farokhzad OC, Cheng J, Teply BA, Sherifi I, Jon S, Kantoff PW, et al. Targeted nanoparticle-aptamer bioconjugates for cancer chemotherapy in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2006;103:6315–20.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen R, Braun GB, Luo X, Sugahara KN, Teesalu T, Ruoslahti E. Application of a proapoptotic peptide to intratumorally spreading cancer therapy. Cancer Res. 2013;73:1352–61.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Choe U-J, Rodriguez AR, Lee BS, Knowles SM, Wu AM, Deming TJ, et al. Endocytosis and intracellular trafficking properties of transferrin-conjugated block copolypeptide vesicles. Biomacromolecules. 2013;14:1458–64.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Panand J, Feng S-S. Targeting and imaging cancer cells by folate-decorated, quantum dots (QDs)-loaded nanoparticles of biodegradable polymers. Biomaterials. 2009;30:1176–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen C, Ke J, Zhou XE, Yi W, Brunzelle JS, Li J, et al. Structural basis for molecular recognition of folic acid by folate receptors. Nature. 2013;500:486–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mi Y, Liu Y, Feng S-S. Formulation of docetaxel by folic acid-conjugated d-α-tocopheryl polyethylene glycol succinate 2000 (Vitamin E TPGS2k) micelles for targeted and synergistic chemotherapy. Biomaterials. 2011;32:4058–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garcia-Bennett A, Nees M, Fadeel B. In search of the holy grail: folate-targeted nanoparticles for cancer therapy. Biochem Pharmacol. 2011;81:976–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wu M, Gunning W, Ratnam M. Expression of folate receptor type α in relation to cell type, malignancy, and differentiation in ovary, uterus, and cervix. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 1999;8:775–82.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C. Aranda, K. Urbiola, A. Méndez Ardoy, J.M. García Fernández, C. Ortiz Mellet, and C.T. de Ilarduya. Targeted gene delivery by new folate–polycationic amphiphilic cyclodextrin–DNA nanocomplexes in vitro and in vivo. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics. 2013;85:390–7.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kogure K, Akita H, Yamada Y, Harashima H. Multifunctional envelope-type nano device (MEND) as a non-viral gene delivery system. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2008;60:559–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gaspar V, Marques J, Sousa F, Louro R, Queiroz J, Correia I. Biofunctionalized nanoparticles with pH-responsive and cell penetrating blocks for gene delivery. Nanotechnology. 2013;24:275101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    HogenEschand H, Nikitin AY. Challenges in pre-clinical testing of anti-cancer drugs in cell culture and in animal models. J Control Release. 2012;164:183–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Costa EC, Gaspar VM, Marques JG, Coutinho P, Correia IJ. Evaluation of nanoparticle uptake in co-culture cancer models. PLoS One. 2013;8:e70072.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mehta G, Hsiao AY, Ingram M, Luker GD, Takayama S. Opportunities and challenges for use of tumor spheroids as models to test drug delivery and efficacy. J Control Release. 2012;164:192–204.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    H.-l. Ma, Q. Jiang, S. Han, Y. Wu, J. Cui Tomshine, D. Wang, Y. Gan, G. Zou, and X.-J. Liang. Multicellular tumor spheroids as an in vivo-like tumor model for three-dimensional imaging of chemotherapeutic and nano material cellular penetration. Molecular imaging. 2012;11:487–98.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vargo-Gogolaand T, Rosen JM. Modelling breast cancer: one size does not fit all. Nat Rev Cancer. 2007;7:659–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yoshii Y, Waki A, Yoshida K, Kakezuka A, Kobayashi M, Namiki H, et al. The use of nanoimprinted scaffolds as 3D culture models to facilitate spontaneous tumor cell migration and well-regulated spheroid formation. Biomaterials. 2011;32:6052–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhang C, Gao S, Jiang W, Lin S, Du F, Li Z, et al. Targeted minicircle DNA delivery using folate–poly(ethylene glycol)–polyethylenimine as non-viral carrier. Biomaterials. 2010;31:6075–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    van Gaal EV, van Eijk R, Oosting RS, Kok RJ, Hennink WE, Crommelin DJ, et al. How to screen non-viral gene delivery systems in vitro? J Control Release. 2011;154:218–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9:676–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Napolitano AP, Dean DM, Man AJ, Youssef J, Ho DN, Rago AP, et al. Scaffold-free three-dimensional cell culture utilizing micromolded nonadhesive hydrogels. Biotechniques. 2007;43:494–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fujiwara Y, Kikuchi H, Aizawa S, Furuta A, Hatanaka Y, Konya C, et al. Direct uptake and degradation of DNA by lysosomes. Autophagy. 2013;9:1167–71.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chang KL, Higuchi Y, Kawakami S, Yamashita F, Hashida M. Development of lysine-histidine dendron modified chitosan for improving transfection efficiency in HEK293 cells. J Control Release. 2011;156:195–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ernsting MJ, Murakami M, Roy A, Li S-D. Factors controlling the pharmacokinetics, biodistribution and intratumoral penetration of nanoparticles. J Control Release. 2013;172:782–94.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Johnson RN, Kopecková P, Kopecek J. Synthesis and evaluation of multivalent branched HPMA copolymer − fab’ conjugates targeted to the B-cell antigen CD20. Bioconjug Chem. 2008;20:129–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Maya S, Kumar LG, Sarmento B, Sanoj Rejinold N, Menon D, Nair SV, et al. Cetuximab conjugated O-carboxymethyl chitosan nanoparticles for targeting EGFR overexpressing cancer cells. Carbohydr Polym. 2013;93:661–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ford J. Red blood cell morphology. Int J Lab Hematol. 2013;35:351–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ditto AJ, Shah KN, Robishaw NK, Panzner MJ, Youngs WJ, Yun YH. The Interactions between l-tyrosine based nanoparticles decorated with folic acid and cervical cancer cells under physiological flow. Mol Pharm. 2012;9:3089–98.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Straussman R, Morikawa T, Shee K, Barzily-Rokni M, Qian ZR, Du J, et al. Tumour micro-environment elicits innate resistance to RAF inhibitors through HGF secretion. Nature. 2012;487:500–4.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Delinassiosand J, Kottaridis S. Interactions between human fibroblasts and HeLa cells in vitro. Biol Cell. 1984;50:9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gao Y, Li M, Chen B, Shen Z, Guo P, Wientjes MG, et al. Predictive models of diffusive nanoparticle transport in 3-dimensional tumor cell spheroids. AAPS J. 2013;15:816–31.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    LaBarbera DV, Reid BG, Yoo BH. The multicellular tumor spheroid model for high-throughput cancer drug discovery. Expert Opin Drug Discov. 2012;7:819–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hu Q, Gu G, Liu Z, Jiang M, Kang T, Miao D, et al. F3 peptide-functionalized PEG-PLA nanoparticles co-administrated with tLyp-1 peptide for anti-glioma drug delivery. Biomaterials. 2012;34:1135–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kim Y-K, Minai-Tehrani A, Lee J-H, Cho C-S, Cho M-H, Jiang H-L. Therapeutic efficiency of folated poly (ethylene glycol)-chitosan-graft-polyethylenimine-Pdcd4 complexes in H-ras12V mice with liver cancer. Int J Nanomedicine. 2013;8:1489–98.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Shen J-M, Guan X-M, Liu X-Y, Lan J-F, Cheng T, Zhang H-X. Luminescent/magnetic hybrid nanoparticles with folate-conjugated peptide composites for tumor-targeted drug delivery. Bioconjug Chem. 2012;23:1010–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vítor M. Gaspar
    • 1
  • Elisabete C. Costa
    • 1
  • João A. Queiroz
    • 1
  • Chantal Pichon
    • 2
  • Fani Sousa
    • 1
  • Ilídio J. Correia
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.CICS-UBI – Health Sciences Research CentreUniversidade da Beira InteriorCovilhãPortugal
  2. 2.Centre de Biophysique Moléculaire, CNRS UPR4301Inserm and University of OrléansOrléansFrance

Personalised recommendations