Advertisement

Surface- and Hydrogel-Mediated Delivery of Nucleic Acid Nanoparticles

  • Angela K. Pannier
  • Tyler Kozisek
  • Tatiana SeguraEmail author
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1943)

Abstract

Gene expression within a cell population can be directly altered through gene delivery approaches. Traditionally for nonviral delivery, plasmids or siRNA molecules, encoding or targeting the gene of interest, are packaged within nanoparticles. These nanoparticles are then delivered to the media surrounding cells seeded onto tissue culture plastic; this technique is termed bolus delivery. Although bolus delivery is widely utilized to screen for efficient delivery vehicles and to study gene function in vitro, this delivery strategy may not result in efficient gene transfer for all cell types or may not identify those delivery vehicles that will be efficient in vivo. Furthermore, bolus delivery cannot be used in applications where patterning of gene expression is needed. In this chapter, we describe methods that incorporate material surfaces (i.e., surface-mediated delivery) or hydrogel scaffolds (i.e., hydrogel-mediated delivery) to efficiently deliver genes. This chapter includes protocols for surface-mediated DNA delivery focusing on the simplest and most effective methods, which include nonspecific immobilization of DNA complexes (both polymer and lipid vectors) onto serum-coated cell culture polystyrene and self-assembled monolayers (SAMs) of alkanethiols on gold. Also, protocols for the encapsulation of DNA/cationic polymer nanoparticles into hydrogel scaffolds are described, including methods for the encapsulation of low amounts of DNA (<0.2 μg/μl) and high amounts of DNA (>0.2 μg/μl) since incorporation of high amounts of DNA pose significant challenges due to aggregation.

Key words

Gene delivery Hydrogel Surface-mediated Transfection Nonviral 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Andrew Hamann for unpublished results. We also like to thank the National Institutes of Health (R21EB009516, T.S.; 1 DP2 EB025760-01, A.K.P.), the National Science Foundation (CAREER 0747539, T.S.; CAREER CBET-1254415, A.K.P.) the American Heart Association (10SDG2640217), and USDA CSREES-Nebraska (NEB-21-146).

References

  1. 1.
    Bengali Z et al (2005) Gene delivery through cell culture substrate adsorbed DNA complexes. Biotechnol Bioeng 90(3):290–302PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nair BG et al (2016) High density of aligned nanowire treated with polydopamine for efficient gene silencing by siRNA according to cell membrane perturbation. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 8(29):18693–18700PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Segura T, Shea LD (2002) Surface-tethered DNA complexes for enhanced gene delivery. Bioconjug Chem 13(3):621–629PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Segura T, Volk MJ, Shea LD (2003) Substrate-mediated DNA delivery: role of the cationic polymer structure and extent of modification. J Control Release 93(1):69–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bengali Z et al (2009) Efficacy of immobilized polyplexes and lipoplexes for substrate-mediated gene delivery. Biotechnol Bioeng 102(6):1679–1691PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bengali Z, Rea JC, Shea LD (2007) Gene expression and internalization following vector adsorption to immobilized proteins: dependence on protein identity and density. J Gene Med 9(8):668–678PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bengali Z, Shea LD (2005) Gene delivery by immobilization to cell-adhesive substrates. MRS Bull 30:659–662PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Laporte L, Yan AL, Shea LD (2009) Local gene delivery from ECM-coated poly(lactide-co-glycolide) multiple channel bridges after spinal cord injury. Biomaterials 30(12):2361–2368PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jang JH et al (2006) Surface adsorption of DNA to tissue engineering scaffolds for efficient gene delivery. J Biomed Mater Res A 77(1):50–58PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pannier AK, Anderson BC, Shea LD (2005) Substrate-mediated delivery from self-assembled monolayers: effect of surface ionization, hydrophilicity, and patterning. Acta Biomater 1(5):511–522PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pannier AK, Wieland JA, Shea LD (2008) Surface polyethylene glycol enhances substrate-mediated gene delivery by nonspecifically immobilized complexes. Acta Biomater 4(1):26–39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Diao HJ et al (2015) Nanofiber-mediated microRNA delivery to enhance differentiation and maturation of oligodendroglial precursor cells. J Control Release 208:85–92PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hu W-W, Zheng Y-R (2015) Electrophoretic deposition to promote layer-by-layer assembly for in situ gene delivery application. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces 133:171–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ji Q et al (2017) Spongelike porous silica nanosheets: from “soft” molecular trapping to DNA delivery. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 9(5):4509–4518PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kasputis T et al (2014) Dynamic analysis of DNA nanoparticle immobilization to model biomaterial substrates using combinatorial spectroscopic ellipsometry and quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation. Thin Solid Films 571:637–643Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li K et al (2014) Patterned substrates of nano-graphene oxide mediating highly localized and efficient gene delivery. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 6(8):5900–5907PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Joo H et al (2016) Wrinkled-surface mediated reverse transfection platform for highly efficient, addressable gene delivery. Adv Healthc Mater 5(16):2025–2030PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Raisin S, Belamie E, Morille M (2016) Non-viral gene activated matrices for mesenchymal stem cells based tissue engineering of bone and cartilage. Biomaterials 104:223–237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bielinska AU et al (2000) Application of membrane-based dendrimer/DNA complexes for solid phase transfection in vitro and in vivo. Biomaterials 21(9):877–887PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kneuer C et al (2000) A nonviral DNA delivery system based on surface modified silica-nanoparticles can efficiently transfect cells in vitro. Bioconjug Chem 11(6):926–932PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Manuel WS, Zheng JI, Hornsby PJ (2001) Transfection by polyethyleneimine-coated microspheres. J Drug Target 9(1):15–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang JT, Chua LS, Lynn DM (2004) Multilayered thin films that sustain the release of functional DNA under physiological conditions. Langmuir 20(19):8015–8021PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Levy RJ et al (2001) Localized adenovirus gene delivery using antiviral IgG complexation. Gene Ther 8(9):659–667PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Segura T, Chung PH, Shea LD (2005) DNA delivery from hyaluronic acid-collagen hydrogels via a substrate-mediated approach. Biomaterials 26(13):1575–1584PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Houchin-Ray T, Whittlesey KJ, Shea LD (2007) Spatially patterned gene delivery for localized neuron survival and neurite extension. Mol Ther 15(4):705–712PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bonadio J et al (1999) Localized, direct plasmid gene delivery in vivo: prolonged therapy results in reproducible tissue regeneration. Nat Med 5(7):753–759PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chun KW et al (2005) Controlled release of plasmid DNA from photo-cross-linked pluronic hydrogels. Biomaterials 26(16):3319–3326PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cai Y et al (2017) A hyaluronic acid-based hydrogel enabling CD44-mediated chondrocyte binding and gapmer oligonucleotide release for modulation of gene expression in osteoarthritis. J Control Release 253:153–159PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Quick DJ, Anseth KS (2004) DNA delivery from photocrosslinked PEG hydrogels: encapsulation efficiency, release profiles, and DNA quality. J Control Release 96(2):341–351PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kong HJ et al (2008) Design of biodegradable hydrogel for the local and sustained delivery of angiogenic plasmid DNA. Pharm Res 25(5):1230–1238PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kasper FK et al (2006) Characterization of DNA release from composites of oligo(poly(ethylene glycol) fumarate) and cationized gelatin microspheres in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res A 78A(4):823–835Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Megeed Z et al (2004) In vitro and in vivo evaluation of recombinant silk-elastinlike hydrogels for cancer gene therapy. J Control Release 94(2–3):433–445PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Germershaus O, Nultsch K (2015) Localized, non-viral delivery of nucleic acids: opportunities, challenges and current strategies. Asian J Pharm Sci 10(3):159–175Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jang JH, Rives CB, Shea LD (2005) Plasmid delivery in vivo from porous tissue-engineering scaffolds: transgene expression and cellular transfection. Mol Ther 12(3):475–483PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sanches PG et al (2014) Ultrasound-mediated gene delivery of naked plasmid DNA in skeletal muscles: a case for bolus injections. J Control Release 195:130–137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Keeney M et al (2016) Scaffold-mediated BMP-2 minicircle DNA delivery accelerated bone repair in a mouse critical-size calvarial defect model. J Biomed Mater Res A 104(8):2099–2107PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lei P, Padmashali RM, Andreadis ST (2009) Cell-controlled and spatially arrayed gene delivery from fibrin hydrogels. Biomaterials 30(22):3790–3799PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wieland JA, Houchin-Ray TL, Shea LD (2007) Non-viral vector delivery from PEG-hyaluronic acid hydrogels. J Control Release 120(3):233–241PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Saul JM et al (2007) Delivery of non-viral gene carriers from sphere-templated fibrin scaffolds for sustained transgene expression. Biomaterials 28(31):4705–4716PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Trentin D et al (2006) Peptide-matrix-mediated gene transfer of an oxygen-insensitive hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha variant for local induction of angiogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103(8):2506–2511PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Trentin D, Hubbell J, Hall H (2005) Non-viral gene delivery for local and controlled DNA release. J Control Release 102(1):263–275PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lei YG, Segura T (2009) DNA delivery from matrix metal lop roteinase degradable poly(ethylene glycol) hydrogels to mouse cloned mesenchymal stem cells. Biomaterials 30(2):254–265PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Siegman S, Truong NF, Segura T (2015) Encapsulation of PEGylated low-molecular-weight PEI polyplexes in hyaluronic acid hydrogels reduces aggregation. Acta Biomater 28:45–54PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schwabe K et al (2017) Sustained delivery of siRNA poly-and lipopolyplexes from porous macromer-crosslinked gelatin gels. Int J Pharm 526(1):178–187PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tokatlian T, Cam C, Segura T (2015) Porous hyaluronic acid hydrogels for localized nonviral DNA delivery in a diabetic wound healing model. Adv Healthc Mater 4(7):1084–1091PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tokatlian T, Cam C, Segura T (2014) Non-viral DNA delivery from porous hyaluronic acid hydrogels in mice. Biomaterials 35(2):825–835PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lam J, Truong NF, Segura T (2014) Design of cell–matrix interactions in hyaluronic acid hydrogel scaffolds. Acta Biomater 10(4):1571–1580PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kornmuller A et al (2017) Fabrication of extracellular matrix-derived foams and microcarriers as tissue-specific cell culture and delivery platforms. JoVE 122:e55436–e55436Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dosh RH et al (2017) Tissue engineering laboratory models of the small intestine. Tissue Eng Part B 24(2):98–111Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Laughlin TD et al (2017) Development of pre-implantation porcine blastocysts cultured within alginate hydrogel systems either supplemented with secreted phosphoprotein 1 or conjugated with Arg-Gly-Asp peptide. Reprod Fertil Dev 29(12):2345–2356PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Erickson AG et al (2018) A tunable, three-dimensional in vitro culture model of growth plate cartilage using alginate hydrogel scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part A 24(1-2):94–105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Amstein CF, Hartman PA (1975) Adaption of plastic surfaces for tissue culture by glow discharge. J Clin Microbiol 2:46–54PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ramsey WS et al (1984) Surface treatments and cell attachment. In Vitro 20:802–808PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    West JL, Hubbell JA (1999) Polymeric biomaterials with degradation sites for proteases involved in cell migration. Macromolecules 32(1):241–244Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lutolf MP, Hubbell JA (2005) Synthetic biomaterials as instructive extracellular microenvironments for morphogenesis in tissue engineering. Nat Biotechnol 23(1):47–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pannier AK et al (2007) Bioluminescence imaging for assessment and normalization in transfected cell arrays. Biotechnol Bioeng 98(2):486–497PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lei Y et al (2010) Incorporation of active DNA/cationic polymer polyplexes into hydrogel scaffolds. Biomaterials 31(34):9106–9116PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lipofectamine 2000 (2011) www.invitrogen.com. Accessed May 2011
  59. 59.
    Abrahams JM et al (2002) Endovascular microcoil gene delivery using immobilized anti-adenovirus antibody for vector tethering. Stroke 33(5):1376–1382PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Klugherz BD et al (2002) Gene delivery to pig coronary arteries from stents carrying antibody-tethered adenovirus. Hum Gene Ther 13(3):443–454PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Pandori M, Hobson D, Sano T (2002) Adenovirus-microbead conjugates possess enhanced infectivity: a new strategy for localized gene delivery. Virology 299(2):204–212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hobson DA, Pandori MW, Sano T (2003) In situ transduction of target cells on solid surfaces by immobilized viral vectors. BMC Biotechnol 3(1):4PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kofron MD, Laurencin CT (2004) Development of a calcium phosphate co-precipitate/poly(lactide-co-glycolide) DNA delivery system: release kinetics and cellular transfection studies. Biomaterials 25(13):2637–2643PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Katz JM, Roth CM, Dunn MG (2005) Factors that influence transgene expression and cell viability on DNA-PEI-seeded collagen films. Tissue Eng 11(9–10):1398–1406PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angela K. Pannier
    • 1
  • Tyler Kozisek
    • 1
  • Tatiana Segura
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Biological Systems EngineeringUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical EngineeringDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Neurology and DermatologyDuke University School of MedicineDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations