DOI:
10.1039/C6RA10757E
(Paper)
RSC Adv., 2016,
6, 68018-68027
PDEAEMA-based pH-sensitive amphiphilic pentablock copolymers for controlled anticancer drug delivery†
Received
26th April 2016
, Accepted 12th July 2016
First published on 12th July 2016
Abstract
The synthesis of a series of PDEAEMA-based pH-sensitive amphiphilic pentablock copolymers poly(methyl methacrylate)-b-poly(2-(diethylamino)ethyl methacrylate)-b-poly(ethylene glycol)-b-poly(2-(diethylamino)ethyl methacrylate)-b-poly(methyl methacrylate) [PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2] with different compositions proceeded via the combination of a bromination reaction and continuous activators regenerated by electron transfer atom transfer radical polymerization (ARGET ATRP). All the copolymers were characterized by 1H NMR and gel permeation chromatography (GPC). The amphiphilic copolymers can self-assemble into micelles in aqueous solution, and the CMC values were comparatively low (2.40–2.80 mg L−1). The pKb buffering region, particle sizes, zeta potentials and optical transmittance were measured to investigate the pH-sensitivity of the polymeric micelles. The size and morphology of the self-assembled blank and DOX-loaded micelles were determined by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and dynamic light scattering (DLS). The in vitro release rate was sharply increased by decreasing the pH from 7.4 to 5.0, due to the swelling of micelles at lower pH caused by the protonation of tertiary amine groups of PDEAEMA. The in vitro cytotoxicity of DOX-loaded micelles against Hela cells were measured and compared with free DOX, suggesting that the blank micelles provide low cytotoxicity and the DOX-loaded micelles provided high cytotoxicity nearly that of free DOX. The results indicate that this new kind of amphiphilic copolymers could serve as promising nanocarriers for controlled anticancer drug delivery.
1. Introduction
In recent years, growing attention has been paid to novel nano drug delivery approaches (e.g. polymer nanoparticles, liposomes, hydrogels and polymeric micelles), which have been investigated to obtain higher antitumor efficiency with reduced toxicity and side effects to normal tissues by altering the biodistribution of anticancer drugs.1–5 Particularly, polymeric micelles with nanoscopic core–shell structures formed by amphiphilic copolymers, demonstrate a series of attractive properties.6–8 The polymeric micelles can provide high loading capacity of hydrophobic drugs, improve the apparent water solubility, prolong the in vivo circulation duration, increase the specific accumulation within tumor tissues, thus enhance therapeutic efficacy and decrease the adverse effects to the normal tissues. The micelles inner core made up of hydrophobic segments of the copolymers serves as a nanocontainer for the incorporation of hydrophobic drug and controls their release in specific sites. The micelles outer shell made up of hydrophilic segments is utilized to realize steady transporting and prolonged circulation time in blood.9–12
An ideal anticancer drug delivery system can not only keep stable in normal tissues and blood with little drug release or even no drug release, but also can release drug with a very high speed at tumor tissues. To achieve these goals, stimuli responsive (pH, temperature, reducibility, ion concentration, etc.) nanocarriers were developed.13–17 Among these various stimuli, pH-responsive character is still one of the most efficient and the most significant methods aiming at tumor-targeting, due to the reason that the tumor extracellular environment is more acidic (pH 6.5) than blood and normal tissues (pH 7.4), and the pH of endosome and lysosome are even much lower (pH 4.5–5.0).18–20 Poly(2-(diethylamino)ethyl methacrylate) (PDEAEMA) is a kind of pH-responsive cationic polymers with pendant tertiary amine group. The pKb of DEAEMA is about 6.9, which can be soluble in weakly acidic conditions, but turn to be insoluble at normal physiological conditions. Because of the protonation and deprotonation of the tertiary amine group, the responsiveness indicates that PDEAEMA can be a promising pH-sensitive material for tumor pH-targeting drug delivery.21
However, the formation of polymeric micelles is thermodynamically favorable only above the critical micelles concentration (CMC) of the amphiphilic molecules, and it is relatively unstable to infinitely dilute environments.22,23 Once introduced into the bloodstream by intravenous administration, the polymeric micelles become unstable when the concentration of the amphiphilic copolymers drops below the CMC by series dilution. The disruption of micellar structures might lead to the burst release of anticancer drugs, which limits the application of the polymeric micelles.
To achieve a series micelles with better stability, amphiphilic pentablock copolymers were taken into consider. It can be served as symmetrical structure CBABC linear polymers.24–28 It could be incorporated into a crosslinked polymeric micelles, so it has some unique properties such as better thermodynamically stability, lower CMC value resulting in much more stable polymeric micelles. And there are some others advantages such as low intrinsic viscosity and crystallinity, high functionality, bigger drug loading capacity, drug loading efficiency and more neat shape. On the another hand, it will show high symmetry and it involved simple synthetic steps which only need two steps to graft several functional blocks, decreased the use of organic solvent, then reduced the toxicity of the material.29–31 Therefore, the pentablock copolymers and its micelles could have great potentials to be used as a drug carrier for controlled anticancer drug delivery.32,33
Herein, we prepared a series well-defined pentablock copolymers [PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2] and their pH-sensitive self-assembled micelles for anti-cancer drug delivery. The method was employed for synthesis of the pentablock copolymers with an easily removable catalyst CuBr2, reducing the cytotoxicity of the polymer, thus providing a advantage for potential in biomedical application. These micelles have a PMMA hydrophobic core for wrapping anticancer drugs, a PEG out layer for maintaining the stability of micelles during biological circulation, and a pH-sensitive middle PDEAEMA layer (Scheme 1). Poly(2-(diethylamino)ethyl methacrylate) (PDEAEMA), one kind of cationic polyelectrolyte with a pKb of 6.9 which makes it soluble in acidic solution by protonation of the pendant amine groups while become hydrophobic at around neutral pH. At the same time, it becomes highly positively charged by protonation of the pendant tertiary amine groups and leads the micelles to be absorbed into negatively charged cell membranes and subsequently endocytosed by tumor cells at tumor extracellular pH.34,35 The symmetry structure of the copolymers with PEG in the middle may result in the small CMC value of copolymer micelles, thus improve the dispersion stability of the micelles when in blood circulation.36 Doxorubicin (DOX), one of the most potential anticancer drugs, is used as a model drug and encapsulated into the PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 micelles. In this study, preparation and characterization of copolymers PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 pH-sensitive self-assembled micelles, loading and releasing of DOX, the cytotoxicity of the micelles were explored in depth.
 |
| Scheme 1 Scheme of micelle forming and pH-dependent release from the polymeric micelle. | |
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
Poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG, Mn = 2000 g mol−1, Aldrich) was dried by azeotropic distillation using anhydrous toluene. Triethylamine (TEA), tetrahydrofuran (THF), dichloromethane (DCM) and toluene were distilled from calcium hydride (CaH2) before use. Methyl methacrylate (MMA, 99%, Aldrich) and 2-(diethylamino)ethyl methacrylate (DEAEMA, TCI-EP) were distilled from calcium hydride and stored under nitrogen at −20 °C. Doxorubicin hydrochloride (DOX·HCl) was bought from Wuhan Yuancheng Gongchuang Technology Co. Ltd. and used as received. Dulbecco's modified Eagle medium (DMEM), fetal bovine serum (FBS), penicillin and streptomycin were all purchased from Invitrogen. Hela cells were bought from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) and cultured under the recommended conditions according to the supplier. 3-(4,5-Dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazoxium bromide (MTT) was purchased from Sigma Chemical Co. Pyrene (99%, Aldrich), 2-bromoisobutyryl bromide (98%, Alfa Aesar), 1,1,4,7,10,10-hexamethyltriethylenetetramine (HMTETA, 99%, Aldrich), cupric bromide (CuBr2), stannous octoate (Sn(Oct)2), dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), acetone, and all other reagents were used as received.
2.2. Measurements
1H NMR spectra measurements were obtained on a Bruker AVANCE III 400 operating at 400 MHz, which executed in CDCl3 as solvent and tetramethylsilane (TMS) as the internal standard. The number average molecular weight (Mn) and polydispersity index (Mw/Mn) were determined by GPC adopting an Agilent 1200 series GPC system equipped with a LC quant pump, PL gel 5 mm 500 Å, 10
000 Å and 100
000 Å columns in series, and RI detector. The column system was calibrated with a set of monodisperse polystyrene standards using HPLC grade THF as mobile phase with a flow rate of 1.0 mL min−1 at 30 °C. Fluorescence spectra were measured by a fluorescence spectrophotometer (F-4500, Hitachi, Japan). The micelle sizes, distribution (PDI) and zeta potentials were determined by dynamic light scattering (DLS, Malvern Zetasizer Nano S, UK). Morphologies of the blank and drug-loaded micelles were investigated by transmission electron microscopy (TEM, Hitachi H-7650, Japan) operating at 80 kV.
2.3. Synthesis of PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 copolymers
Pentablock PDEAEMA-based PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 were synthesized by bromination PEG as initiator, followed by continuous activators regenerated by ARGET ATRP of DEAEMA and MMA, the typical procedure were as follows:
PEG and DMAP added to a dry 250 mL round bottom flask with a magnetic stir bar inside was placed in an oil bath at 80 °C under argon, maintained for 2 h and then allowed to cool to room temperature, DCM was added to dissolve the polymer and then an excess amount of TEA was added. Then the mixture was cooled and maintained at 0 °C in the ice bath, followed by the addition of 2-bromoisobutyryl bromide in a dropwise manner in 1 h. After completion of the addition, the reaction mixture was allowed to warm up to room temperature and continuous stirring was applied for 24 h. After all the residue of quaternary ammonium salt was removed by filtering and then the solution was concentrated, following by precipitation in cold ether to obtain the macroinitiator Br–PEG–Br, which was dried under vacuum at room temperature for 48 h.
To a flamed-dried 50 mL Schlenk flask with a magnetic stirring bar, CuBr2 and the macroinitiator Br–PEG–Br were added, and the flask was evacuated and flushed with argon for thrice. Anhydrous toluene, DEAEMA and ligand HMTETA were introduced into the flask with degassed syringes in turn. The mixture was stirred for 10 min and a required amount of Sn(Oct)2 solution in toluene was added into the flask by syringe. The flask was placed in a preheated oil bath maintained at 70 °C for 7 h, then the second monomer MMA was added by syringe to continue the polymerization for another 8 h. Then the flask was removed from oil bath and cooled to room temperature. The mixture was solved in THF and was purified by passing through a neutral alumina column to remove the catalyst. After rotary evaporation, the copolymers was recovered by being precipitated into 10-fold excess of n-hexane, filtered, and dried under vacuum for 48 h.
2.4. Determination of CMC values
The critical micellar concentration (CMC) values of PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 were evaluated using fluorescence spectroscopy probe technique in the presence of pyrene.37–39 Briefly, a pyrene solution (12 × 10−7 M) was prepared in distilled water and then mixed with the block copolymers PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 solution to obtain a polymer concentration ranging from 0.0001 to 0.1 mg mL−1. The resulted solutions were equilibrated at room temperature in dark for 24 h before measurement, and the final concentration of pyrene was 6 × 10−7 M. The fluorescence excitation spectra of polymer/pyrene solutions were measured and used for determining the CMC values.
2.5. Acid–base titration
The base dissociation constant (pKb) buffering region of the copolymers were measured by the acid–base titration method.40 In briefly, the polymer was dissolved in deionized water at concentration of 1 mg mL−1, and the pH was adjusted to almost 3 by HCl (0.1 mol L−1). The solution was titrated by NaOH (0.1 mol L−1) aqueous solution at an increment of 100 μL. It was finished when the pH exceeded 10. The pH increase of the solution was monitored with an automatic titration titrator (Hanon T-860, Jinan, China) at room temperature. The pKb region of the polymers was calculated from the derivative values of the titration curves, responding to the inflection point.
2.6. Preparation of blank and DOX-loaded micelles
The blank and DOX-loaded PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 micelles were formed using the diafiltration method. DOX·HCl (0–15 mg) was stirred with 2-fold excess TEA (molar ratio) in 20 mL of DMSO overnight to obtain a DOX base. The PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 (20 mg) were dissolved in another 20 mL of DMSO (40 mL for blank micelles) and then mixed with the DOX base solution followed by stirring for 4 h in dark. The resulted solution was moved into a cellulose membrane bag (MWCO = 3.5 kDa) and dialyzed against deionized water for 48 h at room temperature. The deionized water was changed every 2 h for the first 12 h and then replaced every 6 h. After dialysis, the micelles were filtered by a 0.45 μm membrane filter to remove aggregated particles. The remaining blank and DOX-loaded micelles was collected by freeze-drying, the received white and red powder was stored at −20 °C until further experiments. The micelles used to study the pH-responsive behavior were prepared by solvent evaporation method, 5 mg polymers was dissolved in 20 mL acetone, then 50 mL deionized water was added with stirring for overnight to evaporate the acetone, the micelles solution was achieved after filtering.
For the determination of the total loading of the drug, DOX-loaded micelles were dissolved in 10 mL of DMSO under vigorous vortexing and were analyzed by UV-VIS spectrophotometer (UV-2450, Shimadzu, Japan) at 480 nm, wherein a calibration curve was obtained with DOX–DMSO solutions with different DOX concentrations. DOX loading content (LC) and entrapment efficiency (EE) were calculated using the equation reported by Zhang et al.19,21 All samples were analyzed in triplicates.
2.7. In vitro DOX release properties
The in vitro release properties of DOX from the micelles were evaluated by using the Dissolution Tester (RCZ-8B, TDTF, China) at two pH values (5.0 and 7.4). In a typical experiment, DOX-loaded micelles (5 mg) was dissolved in the PBS buffer (5 mL) with two pH values (5.0 and 7.4). The experiment was carried out in a 37 °C water bath at 100 rpm in triplicate. The medium was refreshed at predetermined time intervals, 4 mL (Ve) sample was taken outside the dialysis bag each time and the same volume PBS was added into the system. The quantitative samples were received and monitored by UV-VIS spectrophotometry at 480 nm. The cumulative drug release percent (Er) was calculated as following: |
 | (1) |
where mDOX represents the amount of DOX in the micelle, V0 is the volume of the solution in the beaker (V0 = 44 mL), and Ci represents the concentration of DOX in the ith sample.
2.8. In vitro cytotoxicity test
The in vitro cytotoxicity of the free DOX, blank and DOX-loaded micelles were evaluated against Hela cells by the standard MTT assay. The Hela cells were first cultured and maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units per mL), streptomycin (100 μg mL−1), 2 mM L-glutamine and 1 mM pyruvate at 37 °C in a CO2 (5%) atmosphere. For MTT assay, the samples were prepared with DMEM medium at stock concentrations and then diluted to various desired concentrations. Hela cells were seeded in a 96-well plate at a density of 5 × 103 cells per well in 100 μL of complete DMEM medium and allowed to grow for 24 h to reach 60–70% confluence. Each well was replaced with 200 μL of pre-prepared sample solutions and the treated cells were incubated in 5% CO2 at 37 °C for another 24 h or 48 h. After that, 10 μL of MTT (5 mg mL−1) were added to each well and the plate was incubated for another 4 h. Afterwards, the medium in each well was then removed and 100 μL of DMSO was added to dissolve the internalized purple formazan crystals. Finally, the plate was gently agitated for 15 min before the absorbance at 490 nm recorded by a microplate reader (SpectraMax M5 Microplate reader, Molecular Devices, USA). Cell viability was expressed as the percentage of survival cells compared to the cells in untreated control wells. All tests were performed in sextuplicate.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Synthesis and characterization of PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 pentablock copolymers
The amphiphilic pentablock copolymers PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 was synthesized via bromination and ARGET ATRP (shown in Schemes S1 and S2†).41,42 In the first step, the macroinitiator Br–PEG–Br was synthesized using 2-bromoisobutyryl bromide react with PEG-2000 in CH2Cl2, with TEA as the acid-binding agent and DMAP as the catalyst. The Br–PEG–Br (GPC and 1H NMR shown in Fig. S1 and S2†) was then utilized as macroinitiator for the continuous ARGET ATRP of DEAEMA and MMA. The molar ratio of Sn(Oct)2 to CuBr2 was 10
:
1, a tiny amount of CuBr2 catalyst used together with a sufficiently large excess of reducing agent Sn(Oct)2.43 The reaction was carried out in toluene at 70 °C. After the polymerization of DEAEMA was proceeded for 7 h the second monomer MMA was added to continue the polymerization for another 8 h.19
Three kinds of pentablock copolymers were synthesized by changing the mole ratio of DEAEMA in the second step, which result in different pH-sensitive middle layer thickness of the micelles. The molecular weights and chemical structure of the pentablock copolymers PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 was determined by GPC and 1H NMR (Table 1). All the GPC traces of the PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 appeared a monomodal symmetric distribution, indicating a good controlled process of ARGET ATRP (shown in Fig. 1). The Mw/Mn values were all below 1.4, which is a good result for further application of drug delivery system.
Table 1 GPC, 1H NMR data, CMC of PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2
Polymer |
Samplea |
Mn,Thb |
Mn,GPCc |
Mw/Mnc |
Mn,NMRd |
CMCe (mg L−1) |
E = PEG, D = DEAEMA, M = MMA, the subscripts of DEAEMA, MMA were the DP of PDEAEMA (x) and PMMA (y) calculated by 1H NMR spectra. Calculated by theory analysis from the feed ratio of monomers to initiator. Measured by GPC in THF. Calculated by the integration ratio of 1H NMR. Calculated from a fluorescence spectroscopic method. |
Polymer-1 |
E(D18.9M16.9)2 |
10 131 |
10 089 |
1.33 |
12 348 |
2.80 |
Polymer-2 |
E(D25.6M18.6)2 |
11 984 |
12 153 |
1.33 |
15 192 |
2.68 |
Polymer-3 |
E(D36.9M14.4)2 |
13 837 |
14 536 |
1.39 |
18 533 |
2.48 |
 |
| Fig. 1 GPC traces of PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 products. | |
Representatively, 1H NMR spectra of PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 products were depicted in Fig. 2. The signal at 3.70 (a) ppm was ascribed to –CH2CH2– of the PEG units, the signal at 1.95 (b) ppm was belonged to –C(CH3)2– of 2-bromoisobutyryl bromide, the signals of –CCH2–, –CCH3– in DEAEMA and MMA units were appeared at 1.85 (c) ppm, 1.20 (d) ppm, the peaks at 3.55 (e) ppm was ascribed –OCH3– of MMA, the signals at 4.05 (f) ppm, 2.80 (g) ppm, 2.70 (h) ppm, 0.90 (i) ppm were the characteristics peaks of DEAEMA unit on the side chain.
 |
| Fig. 2 1H NMR spectra of PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 products. | |
The degree of polymerization (DP) of PDEAEMA (x) and PMMA (y) in per block were calculated from the integration ratio values of signal (h) to (a) (Ih/Ia), and signal (e) to (a) (Ie/Ia). The molecular weights (Mn,NMR) of the PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 were also calculated from the integration ratios and the results were summarized in Table 1. The results suggesting that the PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 with different polymerization degree have been successfully synthesized and characterized.
3.2. CMC values determined by fluorescence analysis
The CMC values of PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 copolymers were estimated to confirm the formation of micelles. A lower CMC value is better for increasing the stability of micelles in the blood stream. Fluorescence probe technique was used to determine the CMC values, pyrene probe strongly associated with hydrophobic units and dissolved within the hydrophobic part of the micelles. As the concentrations of the PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 copolymers increased, the pyrene probe was reflected by a red shift from 336 nm to 339 nm in its excitation spectra,44 where the intensity ratio I339/I336 began to increase markedly as shown in Fig. 3. The CMC values of the polymers were determined to be 2.48–2.80 mg L−1 listed in Table 1. Compared to the amphiphilic triblock copolymers micelles (CMC 5.10–6.92 mg L−1)40 and star-shape copolymer micelles (CMC 2.90–3.50 mg L−1),21 the CMC values are all comparatively low, the self-assembled micelles could provide good stability in solution and in the body, even after extremely diluted by the large amount of systemic circulation liquid.
 |
| Fig. 3 Graphs of intensity ratio (I339/I336) of copolymers in aqueous solution. | |
It's known that the longer hydrophobic block in the copolymers result in lower CMC value,45 so the polymers with longer PMMA length had a lower CMC. But in our system, most tertiary amine residues of PDEAEMA were still deprotonated and exhibited as hydrophobic at pH 7.4, so the bigger PMMA core and PDEAEMA middle layer of the micelles with lower CMC value. For example, Polymer-3 (2.48 mg L−1) had a lower CMC value compared to Polymer-1 (2.80 mg L−1).
3.3. pH-Responsive self-assembly behaviors of PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 micelles
The PDEAEMA block of PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 could exhibit pH-sensitive properties in aqueous solution. The pendant tertiary amine groups in DEAEMA unit could be protonated or deprotonated when the pH below or above the pKb of DEAEMA, resulting in a transformation of water solubility between hydrophilic and hydrophobic. As expected, the pKb of the synthesized copolymers micelles were measured by acid–base titration were presented in Fig. 4(A). The buffering pH regions of Polymer-1, Polymer-2 and Polymer-3 are 6.4–7.6, 6.4–7.4 and 6.4–7.3, respectively, attributed to the protonation of the amine group in the PDEAEMA block. The responsive region of the copolymers is weak acidic, close to the cytoplasm of tumor environment. A small difference between the three copolymers in pKb is because small difference of the PDEAEMA segment length in the structure, demonstrating that the pKb of the copolymers could be adjusted by changing the ratio of PDEAEMA. Also we can see the copolymers with a longer DEAEMA segments need more titrating solution sodium hydroxide, the same tendency of the result calculated by 1H NMR. And then we evaluated the pH-responsive behavior of the copolymers in aqueous solution by measuring the visible light transmittance (T%), micelle size and zeta potential.
 |
| Fig. 4 Titration curves of copolymers micelles in aqueous solution (A). Effects of pH on T% (B), the size (C) and the zeta potential (D) of the copolymers micelles in aqueous solution. | |
The visible light transmittance of the copolymers micelles solutions (0.1 mg mL−1) with different pH were measured by UV-VIS spectrophotometer at 500 nm were presented in Fig. 4(B). No obvious fluctuation was observed at pH 3 to 8, which mainly because that the transmittance was nearly not affected by the deprotonation of the DEAEMA tertiary amine groups, and the relatively tiny amount of PDEAEMA in the diluted micelles solution. When pH at 8 to 10, the aggregation of the micelle appeared, leading to the decrease of the visible light transmittance.
The micelle size and zeta potential of blank PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 micelles were plotted as a function of pH, as shown in Fig. 4(C) and (D). At pH > 7.5, the PDEAEMA block fully deprotonated, with a compact structure, led to the aggregation the copolymers micelles, and some of the micelles may be converted to large compound micelles, lead to the increase of the micelles sizes. When decreasing pH, the tertiary amine groups of DEAEMA were gradually protonated and the increased hydrophilicity of PDEAEMA introduced the stretching of the polymer chains and swelling of the micelles. When the pH increased from 3 to 5, the sizes of the micelles showed an increasing trend, indicating that the PDEAEMA block were fully protonated and the extremely strong electrostatic repulsion between polymer chains caused the decrease of the aggregation number of the copolymers or even slight dissociation of the micelle structure. The effects of pH values on the zeta potentials of copolymers micelles exhibited almost the same tendency of the size when pH < 7.5, the zeta potential increased gradually from almost negative charge to high positive charge followed by a little descend, due to the tertiary amine groups of DEAEMA were gradually protonated to a completely protonated hydrophilic state. However, when pH > 7.5, the zeta potential decreased sequentially, then to the negative potential, and which may good for the aggregation of the micelles. This tendency was in accordance with the increase of the size. As the pH decreased from 7.4 to 5.0, the size of the micelles and the zeta potential increased 70 nm and 20 mV respectively due to the swollen of the micelles caused by protonation of DEAEMA.
To summarize, the above results proved that the PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 self-assembled micelles had a pretty good pH-responsive behavior, which could have great potential as anticancer drug delivery vehicles.
3.4. Characterization of blank and DOX-loaded micelles
The physicochemical properties of the blank and DOX-loaded micelles were characterized by DLS analysis and UV-VIS as shown in Table 2. All the sizes of the blank and DOX-loaded micelles are below 300 nm with a reasonable PDI (PDI < 0.5), which indicated narrow unimodal distribution and good physical performance of the micelles. Duo to most of the tertiary amine groups residues of PDEAEMA were still deprotonated and exhibited as hydrophobic at pH 7.4, the micelles with longer PDEAEMA and PMMA chains (Polymer-2 and Polymer-3) would have larger hydrophobic core which resulted in the increase of micelle size, Polymer-3 showed bigger micelle size compared to Polymer-1 and Polymer-2. In our present work, all the copolymers have the same length of hydrophilic block chain PEG, so the copolymers with shorter PDEAEMA and PMMA chain length have smaller micelles core and better protective outer hydrophilic PEG layer preventing micelles aggregation. While the dispersion stability of the copolymers micelles is beneficial to the circulation in vivo, and good for the interaction between the tertiary amino groups in PDEAEMA and the cell membrane.19,21,46,47 After incorporated DOX, the size of the micelles increased compared to blank micelles, and more DOX loaded resulted in bigger size of the micelles. However, no obviously change in zeta potentials and PDI before and after DOX-loading, suggesting that the small drug molecules changed hardly the self-assembly process of the micelles.
Table 2 The properties of blank and DOX-loaded micelles
Sample |
DOX/polymer (mg mg−1) |
LC (%) |
EE (%) |
Size (nm) |
Zeta potential (mV) |
Polymer-1 |
0/20 |
|
|
163.4 |
36.6 |
5/20 |
6.4 |
26.2 |
209.1 |
23.3 |
10/20 |
11.3 |
25.4 |
242.1 |
25.2 |
15/20 |
13.3 |
20.5 |
250.7 |
19.8 |
Polymer-2 |
0/20 |
|
|
172.4 |
33.9 |
5/20 |
6.7 |
27.4 |
217.7 |
31.8 |
10/20 |
11.8 |
26.6 |
223.9 |
27.5 |
15/20 |
17.7 |
28.6 |
226.7 |
23.7 |
Polymer-3 |
0/20 |
|
|
173.8 |
12.6 |
5/20 |
7.2 |
29.7 |
254.6 |
18.2 |
10/20 |
14.7 |
33.1 |
252.7 |
21.0 |
15/20 |
21.0 |
35.4 |
280.6 |
17.3 |
The weight ratio of drug to polymer had a major influence on the loading content (LC), encapsulation efficiency (EE) and micelle sizes.48 Due to the fact that most of the tertiary amine groups residues of PDEAEMA were still deprotonated and exhibited as hydrophobic at pH 7.4, increasing the length of PDEAEMA and PMMA caused increase of LC, the micelles with more drug-loaded exhibited a bigger size. For the same polymer micelles, the LC increased with the increase fed drug, but no obviously changes of EE. In common, if more drug was fed to the copolymers micelles, a higher LC would achieved but lower EE. However, Polymer-3 in Table 2 displayed a reverse tendency, this is because the LC increased too much with more drug were fed. In our present work, the highest LC we achieved was 21%.
The TEM images of blank and DOX-loaded micelles of Polymer-1 were presented in Fig. 5. The micelles showed a spherical morphology and both micelles have similar morphologies. However, the sizes of the micelles observed from TEM measurement were not in accordance with DLS measurement, which may be attributed to the different principle of DLS and TEM,49,50 and the different methods of preparing test samples. The DLS data presents an intensity average with a comprehensive balance result, while TEM image is a direct picture of polymeric micelles and only shows parts of the viewing field. The dialysis method was used to prepare blank and drug-loaded micelles. After dialysis, the micelles solution was freeze-dried and the micelles powder were dispersed in ethanol for TEM testing, while the micelles solution was used directly for DLS testing.
 |
| Fig. 5 TEM of blank (A) and DOX-loaded (B) micelles. | |
3.5. In vitro drug release and mechanism studies of DOX from micelles
The in vitro drug release performances was measured to evaluated the effects of pH-responsive behavior on controlled drug delivery, which was performed under physiological conditions (PBS, pH 7.4) and weakly acidic environment (PBS, pH 5.0) as exhibited in Fig. 6. The release behavior of DOX exhibited pH-dependent and the release rates markedly accelerated as the pH decrease from 7.4 to 5.0. In neutral conditions, less than 20% DOX released in 10 h and then the release rates were almost constant, owing to the tight structure of the micelles, at last, about 40% DOX released in 96 h, indicating that the drug could be protected and stayed stable at this pH. In the acidic conditions, the release rates of DOX was accelerated significantly, about 60% DOX was released in 10 h, then reach about 90% in 96 h, most of the tertiary amine groups of DEAEMA had been protonated led to the swollen of the drug-loaded micelles. In addition, the protonation of amino groups of DOX at acidic pH increase its water solubility and leads a higher accumulative DOX release at pH 5.0.51 The distinctly decreased hydrophobicity of the micellar core and greatly increased electrostatic repulsion between PDEAEMA contributed to the greater degree of swelling or even slight dissociation of micelles, and the entrapped DOX could be released in an accelerated rate. The copolymers with longer PDEAEMA length exhibited a little higher cumulative release of DOX, attributing to more drug entrapped in hydrophobic PDEAEMA region.
 |
| Fig. 6 In vitro drug release profiles of DOX-loaded micelles at pH 7.4 and pH 5.0. | |
The drug release from polymer matrices is a very complicated process and is still not completely understood. It can be simply classified as pure diffusion, erosion controlled and a combination of the two mechanisms.52 A semi-empirical eqn (2) established by Ritger and Peppas53 is widely applied to roughly analysis the drug release mechanism from polymeric matrices.54,55
|
log(Mt/M∞) = n log t + log k
| (2) |
where
Mt and
M∞ are the absolute cumulative amount of drug released at time
t and infinite time respectively,
n is the release exponent indicating the drug release mechanism and
k is a constant incorporating structural and geometric characteristics of the device. For spherical particles, the value of
n is equal to 0.43 for Fickian diffusion and 0.85 for non-Fickian mechanism,
n < 0.43 is due to the combination of diffusion and erosion control, and 0.43 <
n < 0.85 corresponds to anomalous transport mechanism.
56 Based on the above theory, the release data at pH 7.4 and 5.0 was fitted to theoretical release profiles given by
eqn (2), as shown in
Fig. 7.
 |
| Fig. 7 In vitro drug release mechanism of DOX-loaded micelles at pH 7.4 (A) and pH 5.0 (B). | |
It could be seen that the release of DOX from PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2 micelles and all pH conditions was divided into two stages with good linearity. The first stage was from 0 to 12 h and the second stage was from 12 to 96 h. The fitting parameters, including the release exponent n and rate constant k were tabulated in Table 3. At both pH value, the n values in the first stage were lower than 0.43, indicating that the DOX release in the first 10 h corresponded to the combination of diffusion and erosion control. At pH 5.0, the second stage shown the same release mechanism with the first stage. But at pH 7.4, the second stage displayed anomalous transport mechanism. Almost all of the k values at the second stage was smaller than which at the first stage, because the release speed at first 10 h was faster than 10 to 96 h.
Table 3 Fitting parameters of DOX release data from the micelles at pH 7.4 and 5.0
pH |
Matrix |
n1a |
k1a |
n2b |
k2b |
The stage is 0–10 h. The stage is 10–96 h. |
7.4 |
Polymer-1 |
0.13 |
0.11 |
0.56 |
0.03 |
Polymer-2 |
0.22 |
0.10 |
0.54 |
0.04 |
Polymer-3 |
0.16 |
0.13 |
0.52 |
0.05 |
5.0 |
Polymer-1 |
0.14 |
0.37 |
0.24 |
0.27 |
Polymer-2 |
0.19 |
0.32 |
0.24 |
0.28 |
Polymer-3 |
0.20 |
0.35 |
0.20 |
0.35 |
In short, the pH value and the ratio of PDEAEMA content have major influence on DOX release process. When changing pH from 7.4 to 5.0, the drug release rates were significantly accelerated and the mechanism of DOX transformed from the combination of diffusion and erosion control (pH 7.4) to anomalous transport mechanism action (pH 5.0) in the first 10 h. Then the micelles began to dissociate or degrade and drug release were controlled by the interaction of diffusion and erosion and anomalous transport mechanism in the second stage.
3.6. In vitro cytotoxicity of blank and DOX-loaded micelles
The in vitro cytotoxicity of free DOX, blank and DOX-loaded micelles were determined by MTT assay conducted in Hela cells, as shown in Fig. 8. The blank micelles were used as negative controls and free DOX at a different concentration were served as positive controls. At the highest concentration (400 mg L−1) of blank micelles, the cell viabilities were all above 75% after 48 h incubation Fig. 8(A), which was in agreement with no obvious cytotoxicity of blank micelles were found in Hela cells, it means they show a good biocompatibility to Hela cells.
 |
| Fig. 8 The cytotoxicity of polymers at the designed concentrations (A) for 48 h and free DOX and DOX-loaded micelles for 24 h (B) or 48 h (C) in concentration gradients in Hela cells. | |
Fig. 8(B) and (C) show the results of samples treated with free DOX and DOX-loaded micelles for 24 h or 48 h. The cell viability of DOX-loaded micelles at 48 h was much more closer to free DOX compared to which at 24 h, this is because the cumulative release of DOX at 48 h is higher than at 24 h. At the highest concentration, the DOX-loaded micelles were similar to that of free DOX, which the cytotoxicity of DOX was still higher, but it could not be affected by the polymers. Meanwhile, we can see the free DOX at the rates of killing Hela cells was faster than DOX-loaded micelles, this is because the DOX in the DOX-loaded micelles were released gradually, and with the passage of time, the pH of the environment was changed duo to the cellular respiration. On the other hand, the length of PDEAEMA block had a slight influences on the cytotoxicity of the DOX-loaded micelles, because the length of PDEAEMA had influences on the internalization of micelles, DOX release properties from the micelles and so on.
4. Conclusions
We have synthesized a series PDEAEMA-based pH-sensitive amphiphilic copolymers PEG-b-(PDEAEMA-b-PMMA)2, and their self-assembled micelles were used as the drug delivery carrier for anti-cancer therapy. The results of the UV-VIS, DLS and titration experiments showed that the copolymers possessed well pH-sensitivity and reasonable particle size and zeta potentials. The copolymers showed comparatively low CMC values which could markedly enhance stability and extend the application in controlled drug delivery. The copolymers with longer PDEAEMA chain length which is a pH-sensitive block showed higher drug-loading capacity and slightly larger particle size. The in vitro release properties of DOX from the drug-loaded micelles exhibited desired pH-dependence owing to the protonation of tertiary amine groups of DEAEMA in the middle layer of the micelles. The DOX release rate at pH 5.0 was much faster than at pH 7.4, which closely related with the PMMA and PDEAEMA contents and the topological structures of the polymers. The in vitro cytotoxicity of DOX-loaded micelles against Hela cells suggested that the blank micelles revealed bare toxicity and the DOX-loaded micelles showed higher toxic effect which was similar to free DOX. Therefore, the well-defined PDEAEMA-based copolymers micelles have great potential to be used as an promising controlled anticancer drug delivery carriers.
Acknowledgements
This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 91434125), Team Project of Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China (No. S2011030001366), the Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China (No. 20130172110009), and the Science and Technology Foundation of Guangdong Province (No. 2013B010404006).
References
- V. P. Torchilin, Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery, 2014, 13, 813–827 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- Y. Miura, T. Takenaka, K. Toh, S. Wu, H. Nishihara and M. R. Kano, et al., ACS Nano, 2013, 7, 8583–8592 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- V. Heleg-Shabtai, R. Aizen, R. Orbach, M. A. Aleman-Garcia and I. Willner, Langmuir, 2015, 31, 2237–2242 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- Z. J. Deng, S. W. Morton, E. Ben-Akiva, E. C. Dreaden, K. E. Shopsowitz and P. T. Hammond, ACS Nano, 2013, 7, 9571–9584 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- T. M. Allen and P. R. Cullis, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev., 2013, 65, 36–48 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- G. Mehta, A. Y. Hsiao and M. Ingram, et al., J. Controlled Release, 2012, 164, 192–204 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- K. Thanki, R. P. Gangwal and A. T. Sangamwar, et al., J. Controlled Release, 2013, 170, 15–40 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- J. Cui, Y. Yan and G. K. Such, et al., Biomacromolecules, 2012, 13, 2225–2228 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- Z. Ge and S. Liu, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2013, 42, 7289–7325 RSC.
- C. Deng, Y. Jiang and R. Cheng, et al., Nano Today, 2012, 7, 467–480 CrossRef CAS.
- Q. Zhang, N. R. Ko and J. K. Oh, Chem. Commun., 2012, 48, 7542–7552 RSC.
- H. Wei, R. X. Zhuo and X. Z. Zhang, Prog. Polym. Sci., 2013, 38, 503–535 CrossRef CAS.
- J. Liu, Y. Huang and A. Kumar, et al., Biotechnol. Adv., 2014, 32, 693–710 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- R. Cheng, F. Meng and C. Deng, et al., Biomaterials, 2013, 34, 3647–3657 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- X. Cai, C. Dong and H. Dong, et al., Biomacromolecules, 2012, 13, 1024–1034 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- J. Rao and A. Khan, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2013, 135, 14056–14059 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- F. Gambinossi, M. Chanana and S. E. Mylon, et al., Langmuir, 2014, 30, 1748–1757 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- L. Lu, Y. Zou and W. Yang, et al., Biomacromolecules, 2015, 16, 1726–1735 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- Y. Q. Yang, B. Zhao and Z. D. Li, et al., Acta Biomater., 2013, 9, 7679–7690 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- F. Meng, Y. Zhong and R. Cheng, et al., Nanomedicine, 2014, 9, 487–499 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- W. J. Lin, S. Y. Nie and Q. Zhong, et al., J. Mater. Chem. B, 2014, 2, 4008–4020 RSC.
- S. C. Owen, D. P. Y. Chan and M. S. Shoichet, Nano Today, 2012, 7, 53–65 CrossRef CAS.
- X. Zhao, Z. Poon and A. C. Engler, et al., Biomacromolecules, 2012, 13, 1315–1322 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- V. Tamboli, G. P. Mishra and A. K. Mitra, Colloid Polym. Sci., 2013, 291, 1235–1245 CAS.
- M. Ghaemy, S. Ziaei and R. Alizadeh, Eur. Polym. J., 2014, 58, 103–114 CrossRef CAS.
- D. J. Siegwart, J. K. Oh and K. Matyjaszewski, Prog. Polym. Sci., 2012, 37, 18–37 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- J. Wang, M. H. Kim and D. E. Kang, et al., J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem., 2012, 50, 2553–2564 CrossRef CAS.
- V. A. Bobrin and M. J. Monteiro, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2015, 137, 15652–15655 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- E. Martinelli, E. Guazzelli and C. Bartoli, et al., J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem., 2015, 53, 1213–1225 CrossRef CAS.
- Y. Li, Y. Shen and S. Wang, et al., RSC Adv., 2015, 5, 30380–30388 RSC.
- R. Banerjee, S. Parida and C. Maiti, et al., RSC Adv., 2015, 5, 83565–83575 RSC.
- K. Byagari, A. Shanavas and A. K. Rengan, et al., J. Biomed. Nanotechnol., 2014, 10, 109–119 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- B. Zhang, F. Jia and M. Q. Fleming, et al., Int. J. Pharm., 2012, 427, 88–96 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- C. Feng, C. Zhu and W. Yao, et al., Polym. Chem., 2015, 6, 7881–7892 RSC.
- Z. Zhao, F. Zhu and X. Qu, et al., Polym. Chem., 2015, 6, 4144–4153 RSC.
- M. Ghaemy, S. Ziaei and R. Alizadeh, Eur. Polym. J., 2014, 58, 103–114 CrossRef CAS.
- C. Y. Chen, T. H. Kim and W. C. Wu, et al., Biomaterials, 2013, 34, 4501–4509 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- L. Zhang, R. Guo and M. Yang, et al., Adv. Mater., 2007, 19, 2988–2992 CrossRef CAS.
- X. J. Loh, S. J. Ong and Y. T. Tung, et al., Polym. Chem., 2013, 4, 2564–2574 RSC.
- C. Y. Zhang, W. S. Wu and N. Yao, et al., RSC Adv., 2014, 4, 40232–40240 RSC.
- B. Kumar and Y. S. Negi, Polymer, 2015, 80, 159–170 CrossRef CAS.
- K. Matyjaszewski, Macromolecules, 2012, 45, 4015–4039 CrossRef CAS.
- K. Matyjaszewski, W. Jakubowski and K. Min, et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 2006, 103, 15309–15314 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- Y. Q. Yang, X. D. Guo and W. J. Lin, et al., Soft Matter, 2012, 8, 454–464 RSC.
- B. S. Lele and J. C. Leroux, Macromolecules, 2002, 35, 6714–6723 CrossRef CAS.
- X. D. Guo, F. Tandiono and N. Wiradharma, et al., Biomaterials, 2008, 29, 4838–4846 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- X. D. Guo, L. J. Zhang and Y. Chen, et al., AIChE J., 2010, 56, 1922–1931 CrossRef CAS.
- V. P. Sant, D. Smith and J. C. Leroux, J. Controlled Release, 2004, 97, 301–312 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- J. Jiang, Y. Liu and Y. Gong, et al., Chem. Commun., 2012, 48, 10883–10885 RSC.
- H. Yin, H. C. Kang and K. M. Huh, et al., J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22, 19168–19178 RSC.
- Z. Liu, X. Sun and N. Nakayama-Ratchford, et al., ACS Nano, 2007, 1, 50–56 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- C. R. Young, C. Dietzsch and M. Cerea, et al., Int. J. Pharm., 2005, 301, 112–120 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- P. L. Ritger and N. A. Peppas, J. Controlled Release, 1987, 5, 37–42 CrossRef CAS.
- J. Siepmann and N. A. Peppas, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev., 2012, 64, 163–174 CrossRef.
- J. Siepmann and A. Göpferich, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev., 2001, 48, 229–247 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- Y. Li, H. Li and M. Wei, et al., Chem. Eng. J., 2009, 151, 359–366 CrossRef CAS.
Footnote |
† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: 10.1039/c6ra10757e |
|
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 |
Click here to see how this site uses Cookies. View our privacy policy here.