4.7 Article

Doxorubicin Delivered Using Nanoparticles Camouflaged with Mesenchymal Stem Cell Membranes to Treat Colon Cancer

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NANOMEDICINE
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 2873-2884

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/IJN.S242787

关键词

iron oxide; mesenchymal stem cells; doxorubicin; colon cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The primary goal of the present study was to design doxorubicin (DOX)-loaded superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) nanoparticles (NPs) coated with mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) membranes and explore their effect on colon cancer in vitro and in vivo. Methods: DOX-SPIO NPs were coated with MSC membranes using an extruder, and the morphological characteristics of MSC membrane-camouflaged nanodrug (DOX-SPIO@MSCs) evaluated by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and NP-tracking analysis. Drug loading and pH response were assessed by UV spectrophotometry. Intracellular colocalization was analyzed using NP-treated MC38 cells stained with 3,3'-dioctadecyloxacarbocyanine perchlorate and Hoechst 33342. Cellular uptake was analyzed using an inverted fluorescence microscope and flow cytometry and cytotoxicity evaluated by cell counting kit-8 assay. Biological compatibility was assessed by hemolysis analysis, immunoactivation test and leukocyte uptake experiments. Furthermore, intravenous injection of chemotherapy drugs into MC38 tumor-bearing C57BL/6 mice was used to study anti-tumor effects. Results: Typical core-shell NP structures were observed by TEM. Particle size remained stable in fetal bovine serum and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Compared with DOXSPIO, DOX-SPIO@MSCs improved cellular uptake efficiency, enhanced anti-tumor effects, and reduced the immune system response. Animal experiments demonstrated that DOXSPIO@MSCs enhanced tumor treatment efficacy while reducing systemic side effects. Conclusion: Our experimental results demonstrate that DOX-SPIO@MSCs are a promising targeted nanocarrier for application in treatment of colon 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