Advertisement

3 Biotech

, 8:493 | Cite as

Molecular simulation and in vitro evaluation of chitosan nanoparticles as drug delivery systems for the controlled release of anticancer drug cytarabine against solid tumours

  • G. Deepa
  • K. C. Sivakumar
  • T. P. Sajeevan
Original Article
  • 76 Downloads

Abstract

The present work is an attempt to integrate the molecular simulation studies with in vitro cytotoxicity of cytarabine-loaded chitosan nanoparticles and exploring the potential of this formulation as therapeutics for treating solid tumours. The molecular simulation was performed using GROMACS v5.4 in which, chitosan polymer (CHT; six molecules) was used to study the encapsulation and release of a single molecule of cytarabine. Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD) of the Cα atom of cytarabine (CBR) molecule shows that CBR starts to diffuse out of the CHT polymer binding pocket around 10.2 ns, indicated by increased fluctuation of RMSD at pH 6.4, while the drug diffusion is delayed at pH 7.4 and starts diffusing around 17.5 ns. Cytarabine-loaded chitosan nanoparticles (CCNP), prepared by ionic gelation method were characterized for encapsulation efficiency, particle size and morphology, zeta potential, crystallinity and drug release profile at pH 6.4 and 7.4. CCNPs showed 64% encapsulation efficiency with an average diameter of 100 nm and zeta potential of + 53.9 mV. It was found that cytarabine existed in amorphous state in nanoformulation. In vitro release studies showed 70% cytarabine was released from the chitosan-based nanoformulation release at pH 6.4, which coincides with the pH of tumour microenvironment. Cytotoxicity against breast cancer cell line (MCF 7) was higher for nanoformulation compared to free cytarabine. Haemocompatibility studies showed that chitosan-based nanoformulation is safe, biocompatible and nonhaemolytic in nature; hence, can be used as a safe drug delivery system. Taken together, our study suggests that chitosan nanoformulation would be an effective strategy for the pH-dependent release of cytarabine against solid tumours and might impart better therapeutic efficiency.

Keywords

Cytarabine Chitosan nanoparticles EPR effect Controlled release Molecular simulation Solid tumours 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first author is grateful to University Grants Commission (UGC), Government of India for providing BSR fellowship. The authors acknowledge the facilities extended by Sophisticated Test and Instrumentation Centre (STIC) and National Centre for Aquatic Animal Health, Cochin University of Science and Technology.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors would like to declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

13205_2018_1510_MOESM1_ESM.docx (12 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 KB)
13205_2018_1510_MOESM2_ESM.tif (2.7 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (TIF 2758 KB)
13205_2018_1510_MOESM3_ESM.tif (4.2 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (TIF 4271 KB)

References

  1. Abraham MJ, Murtola T, Schulz R et al (2015) Gromacs: high performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX 1–2:19–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2015.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alley MC, Scudiero DA, Monks A et al (1988) Feasibility of drug screening with panels of human tumor cell lines using a microculture tetrazolium assay. Cancer Res 48:584–588Google Scholar
  3. Arifin DY, Lee LY, Wang CH (2006) Mathematical modeling and simulation of drug release from microspheres: implications to drug delivery systems. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 58:1274–1325CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Augustine R, Nethi SK, Kalarikkal N et al (2017) Electrospun polycaprolactone (PCL) scaffolds embedded with europium hydroxide nanorods (EHNs) with enhanced vascularization and cell proliferation for tissue engineering applications. J Mater Chem B 5:4660–4672.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c7tb00518k CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bae YH, Park K (2011) Targeted drug delivery to tumors: Myths, reality and possibility. J Control Release 153:198–205.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2011.06.001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhattacharjee S (2016) DLS and zeta potential—What they are and what they are not? J Control Release 235:337–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bugnicourt L, Ladavière C (2016) Interests of chitosan nanoparticles ionically cross-linked with tripolyphosphate for biomedical applications. Prog Polym Sci 60:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calvo P, RemunanLopez C, VilaJato JL et al (1997) Chitosan and chitosan ethylene oxide propylene oxide block copolymer nanoparticles as novel carriers for proteins and vaccines. Pharm Res 14:1431–1436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chhikara BS, Parang K (2010) Development of cytarabine prodrugs and delivery systems for leukemia treatment. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 7:1399–1414.  https://doi.org/10.1517/17425247.2010.527330 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Essmann U, Perera L, Berkowitz ML et al (1995) A smooth particle mesh Ewald method. J Chem Phys 103:8577–8593.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.470117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Galmarini CM, Warren G, Senanayake MT, Vinogradov SV (2010) Efficient overcoming of drug resistance to anticancer nucleoside analogs by nanodelivery of active phosphorylated drugs. Int J Pharm 395:281–289.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2010.05.028 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Gowda R, Kardos G, Sharma A et al (2017) Nanoparticle-based celecoxib and plumbagin for the synergistic treatment of melanoma. Mol Cancer Ther 16:440–452.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-16-0285 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamidi M, Azadi A, Rafiei P (2008) Hydrogel nanoparticles in drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 60:1638–1649.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2008.08.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hashad RA, Ishak RAH, Geneidi AS, Mansour S (2016) Methotrexate loading in chitosan nanoparticles at a novel pH: response surface modeling, optimization and characterization. Int J Biol Macromol 91:630–639.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.06.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hess B, Bekker H, Berendsen HJC, Fraaije JGEM (1997) LINCS: A linear constraint solver for molecular simulations. J Comput Chem 18:1463–1472 ::AID-JCC4>3.0.CO;2-H).  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(199709)18:12%3C1463 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Honary S, Zahir F (2013) Effect of zeta potential on the properties of nano-drug delivery systems—a review (part 1). Trop J Pharm Res 12:255–264.  https://doi.org/10.4314/tjpr.v12i2.19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Joshy KS, George A, Jose J et al (2017) Novel dendritic structure of alginate hybrid nanoparticles for effective anti-viral drug delivery. Int J Biol Macromol 103:1265–1275.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.05.094 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kamat V, Marathe I, Ghormade V et al (2015) Synthesis of monodisperse chitosan nanoparticles and in situ drug loading using active microreactor. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 7:22839–22847.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.5b05100 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Keawchaoon L, Yoksan R (2011) Preparation, characterization and in vitro release study of carvacrol-loaded chitosan nanoparticles. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 84:163–171.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2010.12.031 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kojima H, Iida M, Miyazaki H et al (2002) Enhancement of cytarabine sensitivity in squamous cell carcinoma cell line transfected with deoxycytidine kinase. ArchOtolarHead Neck Surg 128:708–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Korsmeyer RW, Gurny R, Doelker E et al (1983) Mechanisms of solute release from porous hydrophilic polymers. Int J Pharm 15:25–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5173(83)90064-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Korsmeyer RW, Von Meerwall E, Peppas NA (1986) Solute and penetrant diffusion in swellable polymers. II. Verification of theoretical models. J Polym Sci Part B Polym Phys 24:409–434.  https://doi.org/10.1002/polb.1986.090240215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu Y, Wang W, Yang J et al (2013) pH-sensitive polymeric micelles triggered drug release for extracellular and intracellular drug targeting delivery. Asian J Pharm Sci 8:159–167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajps.2013.07.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu J, Zhao D, He W et al (2017) Nanoassemblies from amphiphilic cytarabine prodrug for leukemia targeted therapy. J Colloid Interface Sci 487:239–249.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2016.10.041 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Maeda H, Wu J, Sawa T et al (2000) Tumor vascular permeability and the EPR effect in macromolecular therapeutics: a review. J Control Release 65:271–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Martyna GJ, Klein ML, Tuckerman M (1992) Nosé-Hoover chains: the canonical ensemble via continuous dynamics. J Chem Phys 97:2635–2643.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.463940 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miyamoto S, Kollman PA (1992) Settle: an analytical version of the SHAKE and RATTLE algorithm for rigid water models. J Comput Chem 13:952–962.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.540130805 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Parrinello M, Rahman A, Parrinello MRa (1980) Crystal structure and pair potentials: a molecular_dynamics study. Phys Rev Lett 45:1196–1199.  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.45.1196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Posocco B, Dreussi E, De Santa J et al (2015) Polysaccharides for the delivery of antitumor drugs. Materials (Basel) 8:2569–2615.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ma8052569 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prabaharan M (2015) Chitosan-based nanoparticles for tumor-targeted drug delivery. Int J Biol Macromol 72:1313–1322.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2014.10.052 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Rajitha P, Gopinath D, Biswas R et al (2016) Chitosan nanoparticles in drug therapy of infectious and inflammatory diseases. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 13:1177–1194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Schüttelkopf AW, Van Aalten DMF (2004) PRODRG: a tool for high-throughput crystallography of protein-ligand complexes. Acta Crystallogr Sect D Biol Crystallogr 60:1355–1363.  https://doi.org/10.1107/S0907444904011679 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Singh S, Sharma A, Robertson GP (2012) Realizing the clinical potential of cancer nanotechnology by minimizing toxicologic and targeted delivery concerns. Cancer Res 72:5663–5668.  https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-1527 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Sinha VR, Singla AK, Wadhawan S et al (2004) Chitosan microspheres as a potential carrier for drugs. Int J Pharm 274:1–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Thomas X (2009) Chemotherapy of acute leukemia in adults. Expert Opin Pharmacother 10:221–237.  https://doi.org/10.1517/14656560802618746 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Vivek R, Nipun Babu V, Thangam R et al (2013) PH-responsive drug delivery of chitosan nanoparticles as Tamoxifen carriers for effective anti-tumor activity in breast cancer cells. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 111:117–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2013.05.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Yadav P, Bandyopadhyay A, Chakraborty A, Sarkar K (2018) Enhancement of anticancer activity and drug delivery of chitosan-curcumin nanoparticle via molecular docking and simulation analysis. Carbohydr Polym 182:188–198.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.10.102 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Yang Y, Wang S, Wang Y et al (2014) Advances in self-assembled chitosan nanomaterials for drug delivery. Biotechnol Adv 32:1301–1316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang H, Mardyani S, Chan WCW, Kumacheva E (2006) Design of biocompatible chitosan microgels for targeted pH-mediated intracellular release of cancer therapeutics. Biomacromol 7:1568–1572.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm050912z CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Centre for Aquatic Animal HealthCochin University of Science and TechnologyCochinIndia
  2. 2.Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology, PoojappuraThiruvananthapuramIndia

Personalised recommendations