4.7 Article

EGFR-Targeted Cationic Polymeric Mixed Micelles for Codelivery of Gemcitabine and miR-205 for Treating Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

期刊

MOLECULAR PHARMACEUTICS
卷 14, 期 9, 页码 3121-3133

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.7b00355

关键词

pancreatic cancer; gemcitabine; miR-205; EGFR; targeted drug delivery; polymeric mixed micelles; C225

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [1R01EB017853]
  2. Faculty Start-up fund from the University of Nebraska Medical Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gemcitabine (GEM), a first-line chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer undergoes rapid metabolism and develops chemoresistance after repeated administration. We previously demonstrated that the combination of GEM and miR-205 provides an effective therapeutic strategy to sensitize GEM-resistant pancreatic cancer cells. Since epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is overexpressed in pancreatic cancer cells, in this study, we aimed to deliver mixed micelles containing GEM and miR-205 decorated with EGFR-targeting cetuximab (C225) monoclonal antibody for targeted therapy. Cetuximab C225 was conjugated to malemido-poly(ethylene glycol)-block-poly(2-methyl-2-carboxyl-propylene carbonate-graft-dodecanol (C225 PEG-PCD) to prepare mixed micelles with mPEG-b-PCC-g-GEM-g-DC-g-TEPA for targeted codelivery of GEM and miR-205. This mixed micelle formulation showed a significant enhancement in EGFR-mediated cellular uptake in GEM-resistant MIA PaCa-2(R) cells. Further, an enhanced tumor accumulation of C225-micelles conjugated with near-infrared fluorescent Cy7.5 dye and Dy677-labeled miR-205 in orthotopic pancreatic tumor bearing NSG mice was evident after systemic administration. In addition, inhibition of tumor growth was also observed with increased apoptosis and reduced EMT after treatment with C225-micelles containing GEM and miR-205. Therefore, we believe that the targeted delivery of GEM and miR-205 in combination could be a novel strategy for treating advanced pancreatic cancer.

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

4.7
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