4.6 Article

Systems biology approach for in vivo photodynamic therapy optimization of ruthenium-porphyrin compounds

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2012.08.012

关键词

Combined phototherapy; Ruthenium; Porphyrin; Human oral carcinoma-bearing nude mice; Experimental design approach

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two arene ruthenium porphyrin compounds showing interesting photodynamic activity in vitro, [Ru(eta(6)-p-(PrC6H4Me)-C-i)(PMP)Cl-2] (PMP = 5-(3-pyridyl)-10,15,20-triphenylporphyrin) and [Ru-4(eta(6)-p-(PrC6)-C-i-H4Me)(4)(PTP)C18] (PTP = 5,10,15,20-tetra(3-pyridyl)porphyrin) coined Rut1 and Rut4 respectively, have been evaluated in vivo. Porphyrins alone and the arene ruthenium porphyrin derivatives (Rut1 and Rut4) showed comparable spectroscopic and photophysical properties. The in vivo study consisted in selecting the optimal arene ruthenium porphyrin photosensitizer by using an original experimental design approach on mice bearing an ectopic human oral carcinoma xenograft. The model of experimental design demonstrated to be well suited to the empirical model-building of photodynamic therapy (PDT) response. Arene ruthenium porphyrins concentration and fluence level demonstrated no statistically significant influence on the tumor growth. On the contrary, the presence of ruthenium groups improved the in vivo photodynamic efficiency. By optical fiber fluorimetry, we demonstrated that both compounds exhibited enhanced accumulation in KB tumors from 24 h to 96 h post-intravenous injection. These experiments were completed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry quantification of ruthenium in different organs including tumor tissue. Despite a statistically significant in vivo photodynamic efficiency for Rut4, cellular localization in human oral carcinoma KB cells using fluorescence microscopy demonstrated that both conjugates Rut1 and Rut4 accumulated only in cytoplasm of KB cells but not in the nucleus. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据