4.8 Article

Fluorescence lifetime microscopy unveils the supramolecular organization of liposomal Doxorubicin

期刊

NANOSCALE
卷 14, 期 25, 页码 -

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d2nr00311b

关键词

-

资金

  1. MIUR PRIN Grant [2017YF9FBS]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The supramolecular organization of Doxorubicin within the standard liposomal formulation was investigated using phasor approach to fluorescence lifetime imaging. The study revealed the existence and molar fractions of three fluorescent species: crystallized, free, and membrane-bound Doxorubicin within the formulation. This research is important for understanding the distribution of drugs in vivo.
The supramolecular organization of Doxorubicin (DOX) within the standard Doxoves (R) liposomal formulation (DOX (R)) is investigated using visible light and phasor approach to fluorescence lifetime imaging (phasor-FLIM). First, the phasor-FLIM signature of DOX (R) is resolved into the contribution of three co-existing fluorescent species, each with its characteristic mono-exponential lifetime, namely: crystallized DOX (DOXc, 0.2 ns), free DOX (DOXf, 1.0 ns), and DOX bound to the liposomal membrane (DOXb, 4.5 ns). Then, the exact molar fractions of the three species are determined by combining phasor-FLIM with quantitative absorption/fluorescence spectroscopy on DOXc, DOXf, and DOXb pure standards. The final picture on DOX (R) comprises most of the drug in the crystallized form (similar to 98%), with the remaining fractions divided between free (similar to 1.4%) and membrane-bound drug (similar to 0.7%). Finally, phasor-FLIM in the presence of a DOX dynamic quencher allows us to suggest that DOXf is both encapsulated and non-encapsulated, and that DOXb is present on both liposome-membrane leaflets. We argue that the present experimental protocol can be applied to the investigation of the supramolecular organization of encapsulated luminescent drugs/molecules all the way from the production phase to their state within living matter.

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

4.8
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