4.7 Article

The effect of co-delivery of paclitaxel and curcumin by transferrin-targeted PEG-PE-based mixed micelles on resistant ovarian cancer in 3-D spheroids and in vivo tumors

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2014.07.001

关键词

Cancer cell spheroids; Multi drug resistance; Paclitaxel; Curcumin; Micelles; Co-delivery; Transferrin

资金

  1. NIH/NCI CCNE Grant [5U54CA151881]
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [U54CA151881] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multicellular 3D cancer cell culture (spheroids) resemble to in vivo tumors in terms of shape, cell morphology, growth kinetics, gene expression and drug response. However, these characteristics cause very limited drug penetration into deeper parts of the spheroids. In this study, we used multi drug resistant (MDR) ovarian cancer cell spheroid and in vivo tumor models to evaluate the co-delivery of paclitaxel (PCL) and a potent NF-kappa B inhibitor curcumin (CUR). PCL and CUR were co-loaded into the polyethylene glycol-phosphatidyl ethanolamine (PEG-PE) based polymeric micelles modified with transferrin (TF) as the targeting ligand. Cytotoxicity, cellular association and accumulation into the deeper layers were investigated in the spheroids and compared with the monolayer cell culture. Comparing to non-targeted micelles, flow cytometry and confocal imaging proved significantly deeper and higher micelle penetration into the spheroids with TF-targeting. Both in monolayers and in spheroids, PCL cytotoxicity was significantly increased when co-delivered with CUR in non-targeted micelles or as single agent in TF-targeted micelles, whereas TF-modification of co-loaded micelles did not further enhance the cytotoxicity. In vivo tumor inhibition studies showed good correlation with the 3D cell culture experiments, which suggests the current spheroid model can be used as an intermediate model for the evaluation of co-delivery of anticancer compounds in targeted micelles. (C) 2014 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

4.7
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