4.6 Article

Photodynamic therapy of mouse tumor model using chlorin e6-polyvinyl alcohol complex

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2017.12.016

关键词

Photodynamic therapy; Photosensitizer; Chlorin e6; Polyvinyl alcohol; Murine colon carcinoma; Fluorescence imaging in vivo

资金

  1. Russian Science Foundation [14-15-00646]
  2. RFBR [17-02-00294]
  3. Russian Science Foundation [17-15-00069] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of polymeric carriers to deliver hydrophobic photosensitizers has been widely discussed as a way to improve both fluorescence diagnostic and photodynamic therapy (PDT) of cancers; however, the photophysical and pharmacokinetic parameters, as well as the PDT activity, of such modifications have, until now, only been poorly investigated. The purpose of the present study was to explore the efficacy of PDT with the formulation of the photosensitizer chlorin e6 (Ce6) in combination with polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) in comparison with Ce6 alone and with the clinical drug, Photodithazine in a mouse tumor model. We also investigated the photoactivity of the Ce6-PVA in a model reaction of tryptophan oxidation, analyzed the polymer Ce6 interaction using fluorescence spectroscopy and atomic-force microscopy, and tested the phototoxicity in vitro. Using fluorescence imaging in vivo we found that injection to mice of Ce6 in a formulation with PVA resulted in a higher tumor-to-normal ratio and greater photobleaching when compared with either the use of Ce6 alone, or with the effects of Photodithazine. Tumor growth study and histological examination of CT26 tumors revealed fast, reproducible tumor regression and more advanced necrosis after PDT with Ce6-PVA. The higher photoactivity of the Ce6-PVA complex was confirmed in a model reaction of tryptophan oxidation and in cultured cells. Therefore, encapsulation of Ce6 in PVA represents a promising strategy for further increasing the selectivity and efficacy of PDT.

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

4.6
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