The AAPS Journal

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 114–124 | Cite as

Design and Evaluation of a PEGylated Lipopeptide Equipped with Drug-Interactive Motifs as an Improved Drug Carrier

  • Peng Zhang
  • Jianqin Lu
  • Yixian Huang
  • Wenchen Zhao
  • Yifei Zhang
  • Xiaolan Zhang
  • Jiang Li
  • Raman Venkataramanan
  • Xiang Gao
  • Song Li
Research Article

Abstract

Micelles are attractive delivery systems for hydrophobic drugs due to their small size and the ease of application. However, the limited drug loading capacity and the intrinsic poor stability of drug-loaded formulations represent two major issues for some micellar systems. In this study, we designed and synthesized a micelle-forming PEG-lipopeptide conjugate with two Fmoc groups located at the interfacial region, and two oleoyl chains as the hydrophobic core. The significance of Fmoc groups as a broadly applicable drug-interactive motif that enhances the carrier–drug interaction was examined using eight model drugs of diverse structures. Compared with an analogue without carrying a Fmoc motif, PEG5000-(Fmoc-OA)2 demonstrated a lower value of critical micelle concentration and three-fold increases of loading capacity for paclitaxel (PTX). These micelles showed tubular structures and small particle sizes (∼70 nm), which can be lyophilized and readily reconstituted with water without significant changes in particle sizes. Fluorescence quenching study illustrated the Fmoc/PTX π–π stacking contributes to the carrier/PTX interaction, and drug-release study demonstrated a much slower kinetics than Taxol, a clinically used PTX formulation. PTX/PEG5000-(Fmoc-OA)2 mixed micelles exhibited higher levels of cytotoxicity than Taxol in several cancer cell lines and more potent inhibitory effects on tumor growth than Taxol in a syngeneic murine breast cancer model (4T1.2). We have further shown that seven other drugs can be effectively formulated in PEG5000-(Fmoc-OA)2 micelles. Our study suggests that micelle-forming PEG-lipopeptide surfactants with interfacial Fmoc motifs may represent a promising formulation platform for a broad range of drugs with diverse structures.

KEY WORDS

drug-interactive motif micelle paclitaxel slow release 

Supplementary material

12248_2013_9536_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 18 kb)
12248_2013_9536_MOESM2_ESM.tif (1.4 mb)
ESM 2(TIFF 1401 kb)
12248_2013_9536_Fig8_ESM.jpg (11 kb)

High Resolution Image (JPEG 10 kb)

12248_2013_9536_MOESM3_ESM.tif (1.4 mb)
ESM 3(TIFF 1412 kb)
12248_2013_9536_Fig9_ESM.jpg (11 kb)

High Resolution Image (JPEG 10 kb)

12248_2013_9536_MOESM4_ESM.tif (2.8 mb)
ESM 4(TIFF 2892 kb)
12248_2013_9536_Fig10_ESM.jpg (15 kb)

High Resolution Image (JPEG 15 kb)

12248_2013_9536_MOESM5_ESM.tif (2.9 mb)
ESM 5(TIFF 2925 kb)
12248_2013_9536_Fig11_ESM.jpg (15 kb)

High Resolution Image (JPEG 14 kb)

12248_2013_9536_MOESM6_ESM.tif (349 kb)
ESM 6(TIFF 348 kb)
12248_2013_9536_Fig12_ESM.jpg (7 kb)

High Resolution Image (JPEG 7 kb)

12248_2013_9536_MOESM7_ESM.tif (9.1 mb)
ESM 7(TIFF 9314 kb)
12248_2013_9536_Fig13_ESM.jpg (30 kb)

High Resolution Image (JPEG 30 kb)

12248_2013_9536_MOESM8_ESM.tif (1.5 mb)
ESM 8(TIFF 1521 kb)
12248_2013_9536_Fig14_ESM.jpg (35 kb)

High Resolution Image (JPEG 35 kb)

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Serajuddin AT. Salt formation to improve drug solubility. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2007;59:603–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Löbenberg R, Amidon GL, Vierira M. Solubility as a limiting factor to drug absorption. In: Dressman JB, Lennernäs H, editors. Oral Drug Absorption: Prediction and Assessment. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2000. p. 137.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Matsumura Y. Poly(amino acid) micelle nanocarriers in preclinical and clinical studies. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2008;60:899–914.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maeda H, Wu J, Sawa T, Matsumura Y, Hori K. Tumor vascular permeability and the EPR effect in macromolecular therapeutics: a review. J Control Release. 2000;65:271–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maeda H. The enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect in tumor vasculature: the key role of tumor-selective macromolecular drug targeting. Adv Enzyme Regul. 2001;41:189–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jain RK. Vascular and interstitial barriers to delivery of therapeutic agents in tumors. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 1990;9:253–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gaucher G, Dufresne MH, Sant VP, Kang N, Maysinger D, Leroux JC. Block copolymer micelles: preparation, characterization and application in drug delivery. J Control Release. 2005;109:169–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim JY, Kim S, Papp M, Park K, Pinal R. Hydrotropic solubilization of poorly water-soluble drugs. J Phar Sci. 2010;99:3953–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim JY, Kim S, Pinal R, Park K. Hydrotropic polymer micelles as versatile vehicles for delivery of poorly water-soluble drugs. J Control Release. 2011;152:13–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yoo HS, Park TG. Folate-receptor-targeted delivery of doxorubicin nano-aggregates stabilized by doxorubicin–PEG–folate conjugate. J Control Release. 2004;100:247–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yoo HS, Park TG. Folate receptor targeted biodegradable polymeric doxorubicin micelles. J Control Release. 2004;96:273–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mi Y, Liu Y, Feng SS. 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
  13. 13.
    Zhang Z, Tan S, Feng SS. Vitamin E TPGS as a molecular biomaterial for drug delivery. Biomaterials. 2012;33:4889–906.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lu J, Huang Y, Zhao W, Marquez RT, Meng X, Li J, et al. PEG-derivatized embelin as a nanomicellar carrier for delivery of paclitaxel to breast and prostate cancers. Biomaterials. 2013;34:1591–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huang Y, Lu J, Gao X, Li J, Zhao W, Sun M, et al. PEG-derivatized embelin as a dual functional carrier for the delivery of paclitaxel. Bioconjug Chem. 2012;23:1443–51.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang X, Lu J, Huang Y, Zhao W, Chen Y, Li J, et al. PEG–farnesylthiosalicylate conjugate as a nanomicellar carrier for delivery of paclitaxel. Bioconjug Chem. 2013;24:464–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gao X, Huang Y, Makhov AM, Epperly M, Lu J, Grab S, et al. Nanoassembly of surfactants with interfacial drug-interactive motifs as tailor-designed drug carriers. Mol Pharm. 2013;10:187–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kang N, Leroux JC. Triblock and star-block copolymer of N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide or N-vinyl-2-pyrrolidone and d,l-lactide: synthesis and self-assembling properties in water. Polymer. 2004;45:8967–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lavasanifar A, Samuel J, Kwon GS. The effect of alkyl core structure on micellar properties of poly(ethylene oxide)-block-poly(l-aspartamide) derivatives. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2001;22:115–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kwon GS, Natio M, Yokoyama M, Okano T, Sakurai Y, Kataoka K. Micelles based on AB block copolymers of poly(ethylene oxide) and poly(β benzyl l-aspartate). Langmuir. 1993;9:945–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shirai K, Matsuoka M, Fukunishi K. Fluorescence quenching by intermolecular π–π interactions of 2,5-bis(N,N-dialkylamino)-3,6-dicyanopyrazines. Dyes Pigm. 1999;42:95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhou M, Smith AM, Das AK, Hodson NW, Collins RF, Ulijn RV, et al. Self-assembled peptide-based hydrogels as scaffolds for anchorage-dependent cells. Biomaterials. 2009;30:2523–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Geng Y, Dalhaimer P, Cai S, Tsai R, Tewari M, Minko T, et al. Shape effects of filaments versus spherical particles in flow and drug delivery. Nat Nanotechnol. 2007;2:249–55.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goldspiel BR. Clinical overview of the taxanes. Pharmacotherapy. 1997;17:110S–25S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rowinsky EK, Cazenave LA, Donehower RC. Taxol: a novel investigational antimicrotubule agent. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1990;82:1247–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Spencer CM, Faulds D. Paclitaxel: a review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic potential in the treatment of cancer. Drugs. 1994;48:794–847.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sollott SJ, Cheng L, Pauly RR, Jenkins GM, Monticone RE, Kuzuya M, et al. Taxol inhibits neointimal smooth muscle cell accumulation after angioplasty in the rat. J Clin Invest. 1995;95:1869–76.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gelderblom H, Verweij J, Nooter K, Sparreboom A. Cremophor EL: the drawbacks and advantages of vehicle selection for drug formulation. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:1590–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weiss RB, Donehower RC, Wiernik PH, Ohnuma T, Gralla RJ, Trump DL, et al. Hypersensitivity reactions from taxol. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8:1263–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kloover JS, den Bakker MA, Gelderblom M, van Meerbeeck JP. Fatal outcome of a hypersensitivity reaction to paclitaxel: a critical review of premedication regimens. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:304–5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gao Z, Lukyanov AN, Singhal A, Torchilin VP. Diacyl-polymer micelles as nanocarriers for poorly soluble anticancer drugs. Nano Lett. 2002;2:979–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lukyanov AN, Torchilin VP. Micelles from lipid derivatives of water-soluble polymers as delivery systems for poorly soluble drugs. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2004;56:1273–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gao Z, Lukyanov AN, Chakilam AR, Torchilin VP. PEG–PE/phosphatidylcholine mixed immunomicelles specifically deliver encapsulated taxol to tumor cells of different origin and promote their efficient killing. J Drug Target. 2003;11:87–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jack DB. Handbook of clinical pharmacokinetics data. Houndmills, UK: MacMillan Publisher’s Ltd; 1992.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Persson EM, Gustafsson AS, Carlsson AS, Nilsson RG, Knutson L, Forsell P, et al. The effects of food on the dissolution of poorly soluble drugs in human and in model small intestinal fluids. Pharm Res. 2005;22:2141–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nendza M, Müller M. Discriminating toxicant classes by mode of action: 3. Substructure indicators. SAR QSAR Environ Res. 2007;18:155–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yang W, de Villiers MM. Effect of 4-sulphonato-calix[n]arenes and cyclodextrins on the solubilization of niclosamide, a poorly water soluble anthelmintic. AAPS J. 2005;7:E241–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Alvarez Núñez FA, Yalkowsky SH. Correlation between log P and Clog P for some steroids. J Pharm Sci. 1997;86:1187–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nandi I, Bateson M, Bari M, Joshi HN. Synergistic effect of PEG-400 and cyclodextrin to enhance solubility of progesterone. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2003;4:1–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yang ZQ, Xu J, Pan P, Zhang XN. Preparation of an alternative freeze-dried pH-sensitive cyclosporine A loaded nanoparticles formulation and its pharmacokinetic profile in rats. Pharmazie. 2009;64:26–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Novalbos J, Abad-Santos F, Zapater P, Cano-Abad MF, Moradiellos J, Sánchez-García P, et al. Effects of dotarizine and flunarizine on chromaffincell viability and cytosolic Ca2+. Eur J Pharmacol. 1999;366:309–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yang W, de Villiers MM. The solubilization of the poorly water soluble drug nifedipine by water soluble 4-sulphonic calix[n]arenes. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2004;58:629–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mithani SD, Bakatselou V, TenHoor CN, Dressman JB. Estimation of the increase in solubility of drugs as a function of bile salt concentration. Pharm Res. 1996;13:163–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gramatté T. Griseofulvin absorption from different sites in the human small intestine. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 1994;15:747–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peng Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jianqin Lu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Yixian Huang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Wenchen Zhao
    • 2
  • Yifei Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Xiaolan Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jiang Li
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Raman Venkataramanan
    • 2
  • Xiang Gao
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Song Li
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Pharmacogenetics, School of PharmacyUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of PharmacyUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.University of Pittsburgh Cancer InstituteUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations