Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Pharmaceutical Nanotechnology

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 2211-7385
ISSN (Online): 2211-7393

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Research Article

Liposomal Doxorubicin Kinetic Study in an In vitro 2D and 3D Tumor Model for Osteosarcoma in a Perfusion Bioreactor

Author(s): H. Abdollahzadeh, G. Amoabediny*, F. Haghiralsadat, F. Rahimi and A. Adibfar

Volume 11, Issue 5, 2023

Published on: 09 June, 2023

Page: [447 - 459] Pages: 13

DOI: 10.2174/2211738511666230501202946

Price: $65

conference banner
Abstract

Background: In vivo drug screening in animal models is contrary to ethical values, costly and time-consuming. Traditional static in vitro models do not reflect the basic characteristics of bone tumor microenvironments; therefore, perfusion bioreactors, in particular, would be an applicable choice due to their advantages to regenerate versatile bone tumor models for studying in vitro novel drug delivery systems.

Methods: In this study, an optimal drug formulation of liposomal doxorubicin was prepared, and the release kinetics of the drug and its toxicity effect on MG-63 bone cancer cell line were investigated in two-dimensional, static three-dimensional media on a PLGA/β-TCP scaffold and also in a dynamic media in a perfusion bioreactor. In this assay, the efficacy of the IC50 of this formulation which had been obtained in two-dimensional cell culture (= 0.1 μg/ml), was studied in static and dynamic threedimensional media after 3 and 7 days. Liposomes with good morphology and encapsulation efficiency of 95% had release kinetics of the Korsmeyer-Peppas model.

Results: The results of cell growth before treatment and cell viability after treatment in all three environments were compared. Cell growth in 2D was rapid, while it was slow in static 3D conditions. In the dynamic 3D environment, it was significant compared to the static tumor models. Cell viability after 3 and 7 days from treatment was 54.73% and 13.39% in 2D conditions, 72.27% and 26.78% in the static 3D model, while 100% and 78.92% in the dynamic culture indicating the effect of drug toxicity over time, but drug resistance of 3D models compared to 2D culture. In the bioreactor, the formulation used in the mentioned concentration showed very small cytotoxicity demonstrating the dominance of mechanical stimuli on cell growth over drug toxicity.

Conclusion: Increasing drug resistance in 3D models compared to 2D models indicates the superiority of liposomal Dox over free form to reduce IC50 concentration.

Keywords: Liposome, static tumor model, perfusion bioreactor, IVIVC, drug resistance, 3D environment.

« Previous Next »
Graphical Abstract

[1]
Xu X, Farach-Carson MC, Jia X. Three-dimensional in vitro tumor models for cancer research and drug evaluation. Biotechnol Adv 2014; 32(7): 1256-68.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2014.07.009] [PMID: 25116894]
[2]
Weaver VM, Lelièvre S, Lakins JN, et al. β4 integrin-dependent formation of polarized three-dimensional architecture confers resistance to apoptosis in normal and malignant mammary epithelium. Cancer Cell 2002; 2(3): 205-16.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1535-6108(02)00125-3] [PMID: 12242153]
[3]
Xin X, Yang H, Zhang F, Yang S-T. 3D cell coculture tumor model: A promising approach for future cancer drug discovery. Process Biochem 2019; 78: 148-60.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2018.12.028]
[4]
Trédan O, Galmarini CM, Patel K, Tannock IF. Drug resistance and the solid tumor microenvironment. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99(19): 1441-54.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djm135] [PMID: 17895480]
[5]
Kwakwa KA, Vanderburgh JP, Guelcher SA, Sterling JA. Engineering 3D models of tumors and bone to understand tumor-induced bone disease and improve treatments. Curr Osteoporos Rep 2017; 15(4): 247-54.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11914-017-0385-9] [PMID: 28646444]
[6]
Sitarski AM, Fairfield H, Falank C, Reagan MR. 3D tissue engineered in vitro models of cancer in bone. ACS Biomater Sci Eng 2018; 4(2): 324-36.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.7b00097] [PMID: 29756030]
[7]
Komez AA. 2-Compartment bone tumor model for testing the efficacy of cancer drugs. bioRxiv 2019; 829879.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/829879]
[8]
Wendt D, Riboldi SA, Cioffi M, Martin I. Potential and bottlenecks of bioreactors in 3D cell culture and tissue manufacturing. Adv Mater 2009; 21(32-33): 3352-67.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/adma.200802748] [PMID: 20882502]
[9]
Antoni D, Burckel H, Josset E, Noel G. Three-dimensional cell culture: A breakthrough in vivo. Int J Mol Sci 2015; 16(12): 5517-27.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms16035517] [PMID: 25768338]
[10]
Weyand B, Meir I, James K, et al. Three-dimensional modelling inside a differential pressure laminar flow bioreactor filled with porous media. BioMed Res Int 2015; 2015: 320280.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/320280]
[11]
Shupp AB, Kolb AD, Bussard KM. Novel techniques to study the bone-tumor microenvironment. Adv Exp Med Biol 2020; 1225: 1-18.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35727-6_1] [PMID: 32030644]
[12]
Guller AE, Grebenyuk PN, Shekhter AB, Zvyagin AV, Deyev SM. Bioreactor-based tumor tissue engineering. Acta Nat 2016; 8(3): 44-58.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.32607/20758251-2016-8-3-44-58] [PMID: 27795843]
[13]
Yu X, Botchwey EA, Levine EM, Pollack SR, Laurencin CT. Bioreactor-based bone tissue engineering: The influence of dynamic flow on osteoblast phenotypic expression and matrix mineralization. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2004; 101(31): 11203-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0402532101] [PMID: 15277663]
[14]
Wang Q, Hu W, Cai L, Huang Y, Qian Z. Nanomedicines in bone cancer-from diagnostics to therapies. J Biomed Nanotechnol 2017; 13(8): 911-30.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1166/jbn.2017.2396]
[15]
Sarkar N, Bose S. Liposome-encapsulated curcumin-loaded 3D printed scaffold for bone tissue engineering. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2019; 11(19): 17184-92.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsami.9b01218] [PMID: 30924639]
[16]
Braham MVJ, Deshantri AK, Minnema MC, et al. Liposomal drug delivery in an in vitro 3D bone marrow model for multiple myeloma. Int J Nanomedicine 2018; 13: 8105-18.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S184262] [PMID: 30555229]
[17]
Mitsiades CS, Davies FE, Laubach JP, et al. Future directions of next-generation novel therapies, combination approaches, and the development of personalized medicine in myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29(14): 1916-23.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.34.0760] [PMID: 21482978]
[18]
Xu X, Sabanayagam CR, Harrington DA, Farach-Carson MC, Jia X. A hydrogel-based tumor model for the evaluation of nanoparticle-based cancer therapeutics. Biomaterials 2014; 35(10): 3319-30.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.12.080] [PMID: 24447463]
[19]
Haghiralsadat F, Amoabediny G, Sheikhha MH, et al. New liposomal doxorubicin nanoformulation for osteosarcoma: Drug release kinetic study based on thermo and pH sensitivity. Chem Biol Drug Des 2017; 90(3): 368-79.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cbdd.12953] [PMID: 28120466]
[20]
Hajizadeh P. Thermodynamic Effect of Temperature and pH on Stability and Size on Liposome as a Carrier System [Master's thesis]: University of Tehran; 2017.
[21]
Jafari D. Optimization of the thermodynamic model and validation of the synthesis of chemical and herbal Drugs incorporating nano-liposome system [Master's thesis]: University of Tehran; 2019.
[22]
Keikha M. Optimization And Kinetic Study Of Drug-Loaded Nano Liposomes On Cancer Cells in a Microfluidic Chip [Master's thesis]: University of Tehran; 2019.
[23]
Rijal G, Li W. A versatile 3D tissue matrix scaffold system for tumor modeling and drug screening. Sci Adv 2017; 3(9): e1700764.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700764] [PMID: 28924608]
[24]
Safari Hajat Aghaei M. Synergistic Effect of Ultrasonic Waves and Hydrodynamic Stress on The Growth of Bone Cells in Three-Dimensional Scaffold in a Bioreactor [Master's thesis]: University of Tehran 2016.
[25]
U.S. Food and Drug Administration/Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Guidance for industry extended release oral dosage forms: development, e., and application of in vitro/in vivo correlations. FDA 1997. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM070239.pdf
[26]
Jain A, Jain SK. In vitro release kinetics model fitting of liposomes: An insight. Chem Phys Lipids 2016; 201: 28-40.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemphyslip.2016.10.005] [PMID: 27983957]
[27]
Beaulac C, Clement-Major S, Hawari J, Lagace J. In vitro kinetics of drug release and pulmonary retention of microencapsulated antibiotic in liposomal formulations in relation to the lipid composition. J Microencapsul 1997; 14(3): 335-48.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/02652049709051137] [PMID: 9147283]
[28]
Briuglia ML, Rotella C, McFarlane A, Lamprou DA. Influence of cholesterol on liposome stability and on in vitro drug release. Drug Deliv Transl Res 2015; 5(3): 231-42.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13346-015-0220-8] [PMID: 25787731]
[29]
Er Y, Barnes TJ, Fornasiero D, Prestidge CA. The encapsulation and release of guanosine from PEGylated liposomes. J Liposome Res 2009; 19(1): 29-36.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08982100802673940] [PMID: 19515005]
[30]
Pamunuwa G, Karunaratne V, Karunaratne D. Effect of lipid composition on in vitro release and skin deposition of curcumin encapsulated liposomes. J Nanomater 2016; 2016: 9.
[31]
Nounou MM, El-Khordagui LK, Khalafallah NA, Khalil SA. In vitro release of hydrophilic and hydrophobic drugs from liposomal dispersions and gels. Acta Pharm 2006; 56(3): 311-24.
[PMID: 19831280]
[32]
Johnston MJW, Edwards K, Karlsson GÖR, Cullis PR. Influence of drug-to-lipid ratio on drug release properties and liposome integrity in liposomal doxorubicin formulations. J Liposome Res 2008; 18(2): 145-57.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08982100802129372] [PMID: 18569449]
[33]
Shibata H, Izutsu K, Yomota C, Okuda H, Goda Y. Investigation of factors affecting in vitro doxorubicin release from PEGylated liposomal doxorubicin for the development of in vitro release testing conditions. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 2015; 41(8): 1376-86.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/03639045.2014.954582] [PMID: 25170659]
[34]
Marturano-Kruik A, Villasante A, Vunjak-Novakovic G. Bioengineered models of solid human tumors for cancer research Bioreactors in Stem Cell Biology. Springer 2016; pp. 203-11.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/7651_2016_353]
[35]
Yoshimoto M, Tamura R, Natsume T. Liposome clusters with shear stress-induced membrane permeability. Chem Phys Lipids 2013; 174: 8-16.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemphyslip.2013.06.001] [PMID: 23792013]
[36]
Natsume T, Yoshimoto M. Mechanosensitive liposomes as artificial chaperones for shear-driven acceleration of enzyme-catalyzed reaction. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2014; 6(5): 3671-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/am405992t] [PMID: 24547684]
[37]
Holme MN, Fedotenko IA, Abegg D, et al. Shear-stress sensitive lenticular vesicles for targeted drug delivery. Nat Nanotechnol 2012; 7(8): 536-43.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2012.84] [PMID: 22683843]
[38]
Fujie T, Yoshimoto M. Rapid leakage from PEGylated liposomes triggered by bubbles. Soft Matter 2019; 15(46): 9537-46.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C9SM01820D] [PMID: 31712795]
[39]
Saatchi A, Hadi S, Ghassem A. Computational fluid dynamics in 3D-printed scaffolds with different strand-orientation in perfusion bioreactors. Iran J Chem Chem Eng 2019; 39(5): 307-20.
[40]
Korsmeyer RW, Gurny R, Doelker E, Buri P, Peppas NA. Mechanisms of solute release from porous hydrophilic polymers. Int J Pharm 1983; 15(1): 25-35.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-5173(83)90064-9]
[41]
Grudic GZ, Mulligan J, Procopio MJ. An experimental analysis of classifier ensembles for learning drifting concepts over time in autonomous outdoor robot navigation. J Field Robot 2007. Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/An-experimental-analysis-of-classifier-ensembles-in-Grudic-Mulligan/e9128044124c761b881cbb8aa01eb6b71df32b7c
[42]
Vidakovic B. Statistics for Bioengineering Sciences. In: With MATLAB and WinBUGS Support. 1st ed. New York: Springer 2011. Available from: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4614-0394-4
[43]
Haghiralsadat F, Amoabediny G, Helder MN, et al. A comprehensive mathematical model of drug release kinetics from nano-liposomes, derived from optimization studies of cationic PEGylated liposomal doxorubicin formulations for drug-gene delivery. Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol 2018; 46(1): 169-77.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21691401.2017.1304403] [PMID: 28376641]
[44]
Olivier V, Hivart P, Descamps M, Hardouin P. In vitro culture of large bone substitutes in a new bioreactor: Importance of the flow direction. Biomed Mater 2007; 2(3): 174-80.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-6041/2/3/002] [PMID: 18458469]
[45]
Hirt C, Papadimitropoulos A, Muraro MG, et al. Bioreactor-engineered cancer tissue-like structures mimic phenotypes, gene expression profiles and drug resistance patterns observed “in vivo”. Biomaterials 2015; 62: 138-46.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.05.037] [PMID: 26051518]
[46]
Chaicharoenaudomrung N, Kunhorm P, Promjantuek W, Heebkaew N, Rujanapun N, Noisa P. Fabrication of 3D calcium‐alginate scaffolds for human glioblastoma modeling and anticancer drug response evaluation. J Cell Physiol 2019; 234(11): 20085-97.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcp.28608] [PMID: 30945284]
[47]
Santoro M, Menegaz BA, Lamhamedi-Cherradi SE, et al. Modeling stroma-induced drug resistance in a tissue-engineered tumor model of ewing sarcoma. Tissue Eng Part A 2017; 23(1-2): 80-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2016.0369] [PMID: 27923328]
[48]
Sladkova M, de Peppo G. Bioreactor systems for human bone tissue engineering. Processes 2014; 2(2): 494-525.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pr2020494]
[49]
Murshid SA. The role of osteocytes during experimental orthodontic tooth movement: A review. Arch Oral Biol 2017; 73: 25-33.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2016.09.001] [PMID: 27653146]
[50]
Yang Z, Zhao X. A 3D model of ovarian cancer cell lines on peptide nanofiber scaffold to explore the cell–scaffold interaction and chemotherapeutic resistance of anticancer drugs. Int J Nanomedicine 2011; 6: 303-10.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S15279] [PMID: 21383855]
[51]
Ong SM, Zhao Z, Arooz T, et al. Engineering a scaffold-free 3D tumor model for in vitro drug penetration studies. Biomaterials 2010; 31(6): 1180-90.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.10.049] [PMID: 19889455]
[52]
Talukdar S, Kundu SC. A non‐mulberry silk fibroin protein based 3D in vitro tumor model for evaluation of anticancer drug activity. Adv Funct Mater 2012; 22(22): 4778-88.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201200375]
[53]
Kedaria D, Vasita R. Bi-functional oxidized dextran–based hydrogel inducing microtumors: An in vitro three-dimensional lung tumor model for drug toxicity assays. J Tissue Eng 2017; 8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2041731417718391] [PMID: 35003617]
[54]
Perrie Y, Rades T. FASTtrack Pharmaceutics: Drug Delivery and Targeting. London, UK: Pharmaceutical press 2012.

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
Article Metrics
28
3
Wayfinder Image
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy