» Articles » PMID: 37022437

Glucose-conjugated Glutenin Nanoparticles for Selective Targeting and Delivery of Camptothecin into Breast Cancer Cells

Abstract

Receptor-mediated drug delivery systems are a promising tool for targeting malignant cells to suppress/inhibit the malignancy without disturbing healthy cells. Protein-based nanocarrier systems possess numerous advantages for the delivery of variety of chemotherapeutics, including therapeutic peptides and genes. In the present work, glucose-conjugated camptothecin-loaded glutenin nanoparticles (Glu-CPT-glutenin NPs) were fabricated to deliver camptothecin to MCF-7 cells via GLUT-1 transporter protein. Initially, Glu-conjugated glutenin polymer was successfully synthesized through reductive amination reaction, and this was confirmed by FTIR and C-NMR. Then, camptothecin (CPT) was loaded into Glu-conjugated glutenin polymer forming Glu-CPT-glutenin NPs. The nanoparticles were studied for their drug releasing capacity, morphological shape, size, physical nature, and zeta potential. The fabricated Glu-CPT-glutenin NPs were found to be spherical in shape and amorphous in nature with 200-nm size range and a zeta potential of - 30 mV. Furthermore, MTT assay using Glu-CPT-glutenin NPs confirmed concentration-dependent cytotoxicity against MCF-7 cells after 24-h treatment, and IC was found to be 18.23 μg mL. In vitro cellular uptake study demonstrated that the Glu-CPT-glutenin NPs had enhanced endocytosis and delivered CPT in MCF-7 cells. A typical apoptotic morphological change of condensed nuclei and distorted membrane bodies was found after treatment with IC concentration of NPs. The released CPT from NPs also targeted mitochondria of MCF-7 cells, significantly increasing the level of reactive oxygen species and causing the damage of mitochondrial membrane integrity. These outcomes confirmed that the wheat glutenin can positively serve as a significant delivery vehicle and enhance the anticancer potential of this drug.

Citing Articles

Nanomedicine-Based Drug-Targeting in Breast Cancer: Pharmacokinetics, Clinical Progress, and Challenges.

Rahman M, Afzal O, Najib Ullah S, Alshahrani M, Alkhathami A, Altamimi A ACS Omega. 2024; 8(51):48625-48649.

PMID: 38162753 PMC: 10753706. DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.3c07345.

References
1.
Acevedo-Morantes C, Acevedo-Morantes M, Suleiman-Rosado D, Ramirez-Vick J . Evaluation of the cytotoxic effect of camptothecin solid lipid nanoparticles on MCF7 cells. Drug Deliv. 2013; 20(8):338-48. DOI: 10.3109/10717544.2013.834412. View

2.
Alatrash G, Jakher H, Stafford P, Mittendorf E . Cancer immunotherapies, their safety and toxicity. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2013; 12(5):631-45. DOI: 10.1517/14740338.2013.795944. View

3.
Blumen H, Fitch K, Polkus V . Comparison of Treatment Costs for Breast Cancer, by Tumor Stage and Type of Service. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2016; 9(1):23-32. PMC: 4822976. View

4.
Burke T, Mi Z . The structural basis of camptothecin interactions with human serum albumin: impact on drug stability. J Med Chem. 1994; 37(1):40-6. DOI: 10.1021/jm00027a005. View

5.
Calvaresi E, Hergenrother P . Glucose conjugation for the specific targeting and treatment of cancer. Chem Sci. 2013; 4(6):2319-2333. PMC: 3784344. DOI: 10.1039/C3SC22205E. View