Redox-Responsive Polysulfide-Based Biodegradable Organosilica Nanoparticles for Delivery of Bioactive Agents
Source abstract
Abstract
Design and development of silica nanoparticles (SiO 2 NPs) with a controlled degradation profile promises effective drug delivery with a predetermined carrier elimination profile. In this research, we fabricated a series of redox-responsive polysulfide-based biodegradable SiO 2 NPs with low polydispersity and with variations in size (average diameters of 58 ± 7, 108 ± 11, 110 ± 9, 124 ± 9, and 332 ± 6 nm), porosity, and composition (disulfide vs tetrasulfide bonds). The degradation kinetics of the nanoparticles was analyzed in the presence of 8 mM glutathione (GSH), mimicking the intracellular reducing condition. Results indicate that porosity and core composition play the predominant roles in the degradation rate of these nanoparticles. The 108 nm mesoporous disulfide-based nanoparticles showed the highest degradation rate among all the synthesized nanoparticles. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) reveals that nonporous nanoparticles undergo surface erosion, while porous nanoparticles undergo both surface and bulk erosion under reducing environment. The cytotoxicity of these nanoparticles in RAW 264.7 macrophages was evaluated. Results show that all these nanoparticles with the IC 50 values ranging from 233 ± 42 to 705 ± 17 μg mL –1 do not have cytotoxic effect in macrophages at concentrations less than 125 μg mL –1 . The degradation products of these nanoparticles collected within 15 days did not show cytotoxicity in the same macrophage cell line after 24 h of incubation. In vitro doxorubicin (DOX) release was examined in 108 nm mesoporous disulfide-based nanoparticles in the absence and presence of 8 mM GSH. It was shown that drug release depends on intracellular reducing conditions. Due to their ease of synthesis and scale up, robust structure, and the ability to control size, composition, release, and elimination, biodegradable SiO 2 NPs provide an alternative platform for delivery of bioactive and imaging agents.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery · Dendrimers and Hyperbranched Polymers · Nanoplatforms for cancer theranostics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Utah Center for Nanomedicine, Nano Institute of Utah, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, United States
Funding
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences · Division of Materials Research
References (48)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.nano.2013.08.00810.1016/j.nano.2013.08.008 ↗
2. 10.1021/acsami.6b1037010.1021/acsami.6b10370 ↗
3. 10.1021/ar200025910.1021/ar2000259 ↗
4. 10.1088/0957-4484/26/2/02510210.1088/0957-4484/26/2/025102 ↗
5. 10.1021/acsami.5b0693810.1021/acsami.5b06938 ↗
6. 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.5b0039810.1021/acsbiomaterials.5b00398 ↗
7. 10.1039/c3nr06049g10.1039/c3nr06049g ↗
8. 10.1021/ic302426510.1021/ic3024265 ↗
9. 10.1080/1093452080217167510.1080/10934520802171675 ↗
10. 10.1186/1556-276X-6-9310.1186/1556-276X-6-93 ↗
11. 10.1021/nn204380310.1021/nn2043803 ↗
12. 10.1039/C5NR03065J10.1039/C5NR03065J ↗
13. 10.1002/chem.20150460510.1002/chem.201504605 ↗
14. 10.1002/chem.20160171410.1002/chem.201601714 ↗
15. 10.1039/C5CC03736K10.1039/C5CC03736K ↗
16. 10.1002/adma.20140193110.1002/adma.201401931 ↗
17. 10.1039/C5NR09112H10.1039/C5NR09112H ↗
18. 10.1002/smll.20130019810.1002/smll.201300198 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.11.03210.1016/j.jconrel.2016.11.032 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.bbamem.2009.11.00710.1016/j.bbamem.2009.11.007 ↗
21. 10.1128/JVI.76.12.6302-631-.200210.1128/JVI.76.12.6302-631-.2002 ↗
22. 10.1021/la401958510.1021/la4019585 ↗
23. 10.1038/srep2076910.1038/srep20769 ↗
24. 10.1186/1556-276X-8-48410.1186/1556-276X-8-484 ↗
25. 10.3390/ma305318810.3390/ma3053188 ↗
26. 10.1039/c3cc42210k10.1039/c3cc42210k ↗
27. 10.1021/acsami.6b0995010.1021/acsami.6b09950 ↗
28. 10.1002/anie.20050307510.1002/anie.200503075 ↗
29. 10.1039/C2CS35222B10.1039/C2CS35222B ↗
30. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2011.01.03010.1016/j.jconrel.2011.01.030 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.redox.2013.10.00510.1016/j.redox.2013.10.005 ↗
32. 10.1155/2012/73683710.1155/2012/736837 ↗
33. Wu G. · J. Nutr. · 2004 · 134 · 48910.1093/jn/134.3.489 ↗
34. 10.1046/j.1432-1327.2000.01701.x10.1046/j.1432-1327.2000.01701.x ↗
35. 10.1006/abio.2000.449810.1006/abio.2000.4498 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2011.02.01710.1016/j.jconrel.2011.02.017 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.nantod.2015.06.00610.1016/j.nantod.2015.06.006 ↗
38. 10.1002/smll.20080092610.1002/smll.200800926 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.tiv.2011.06.01210.1016/j.tiv.2011.06.012 ↗
40. 10.1007/s13273-013-0010-710.1007/s13273-013-0010-7 ↗
41. 10.1016/S0168-3659(99)00248-510.1016/S0168-3659(99)00248-5 ↗
42. Hu L. · J. Nanosci. Lett. · 2011 · 1 · 110.4236/snl.2011.11001 ↗
43. 10.1074/jbc.M00345920010.1074/jbc.M003459200 ↗
44. Collins D. S. · J. Immunol. · 1991 · 147 · 405410.4049/jimmunol.147.12.4054 ↗
45. 10.1042/bj307031310.1042/bj3070313 ↗
46. 10.1073/pnas.97.2.74510.1073/pnas.97.2.745 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.vetimm.2011.01.01210.1016/j.vetimm.2011.01.012 ↗
48. 10.1089/ars.2010.368410.1089/ars.2010.3684 ↗