pH-sensitive liposomes are designed to undergo acid-triggered destabilization. In the present study, we prepared polymer-modified, plasma stable, pH-sensitive fusogenic mitoxantrone liposomes to increase efficacy and selectivity on cancer cell lines. Conventional liposomes were prepared using cholesterol and dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphatidylethanolamine. Dioleoylphosphatidylethanolamine and a cholesteryl derivative, poly(monomethylitaconate)-co-poly(N,N-dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate) (PMMI-co-PDMAEMA), were used for the preparation of pH-sensitive fusogenic liposomes. Using polyethylene glycol (PEG)-poly(monomethylitaconate)-CholC6 (PEG-PMMI-CholC6) copolymers instead of cholesterol introduced pH-sensitive and plasma stability properties simultaneously in prepared liposomes. All formulations were prepared by thin film hydration method and subsequently, pH-sensitivity and stability in human serum were evaluated. The ability of pH-sensitive fusogenic liposomes to enhance the mitoxantrone cytotoxicity and selectivity in cancerous cell lines was assessed in vitro compared to normal cell line using human breast cancer cell line (MCF-7), human prostate cancer cell line (PC-3), and human umbilical vein endothelial cells line. Results revealed that both PMMI-co-PDMAEMA and PEG-PMMI-CholC6-based formulations showed pH-sensitive property and were found to rapidly release mitoxantrone under mildly acidic conditions. Nevertheless, only the PEG-PMMI-CholC6-based liposomes preserved pH-sensitivity after incubation in plasma. Mitoxantrone loaded-pH-sensitive fusogenic liposomes exhibited a higher cytotoxicity than the control conventional liposomes on MCF-7 and PC-3 cell lines. On the contrary, both pH-sensitive fusogenic liposomes showed lower cytotoxic effect on human umbilical vein endothelial cell line. Plasma stable, pH-sensitive fusogenic liposomes are promising carriers for enhancing the efficiency and selectivity, besides reduction of the side effects of anticancer agents.
CukiermanEKhanDR. The benefits and challenges associated with the use of drug delivery systems in cancer therapy. Biochem Pharmacol2010; 80: 762–770.
3.
FernándezASesselS. Selective antagonism of anticancer drugs for side-effect removal. Trends Pharmacol Sci2009; 30: 403–410.
4.
AllenTMCullisPR. Liposomal drug delivery systems: from concept to clinical applications. Adv Drug Del Rev2013; 65: 36–48.
5.
ForssenEWillisM. Ligand-targeted liposomes. Adv Drug Del Rev1998; 29: 249–271.
6.
GhanbarzadehSValizadehHZakeri-MilaniP. The effects of lyophilization on the physico-chemical stability of sirolimus liposomes. Adv Pharm Bull2013; 3: 25–29.
7.
ManosroiAWongtrakulPManosroiJ. Characterization of vesicles prepared with various non-ionic surfactants mixed with cholesterol. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces2003; 30: 129–138.
8.
AllenTMMoaseEH. Therapeutic opportunities for targeted liposomal drug delivery. Adv Drug Del Rev1996; 21: 117–133.
9.
JiangTZhangZZhangY. Dual-functional liposomes based on pH-responsive cell-penetrating peptide and hyaluronic acid for tumor-targeted anticancer drug delivery. Biomaterials2012; 33: 9246–9258.
10.
MuroS. Challenges in design and characterization of ligand-targeted drug delivery systems. J Control Release2012; 164: 125–137.
11.
RapoportN. Physical stimuli-responsive polymeric micelles for anti-cancer drug delivery. Prog Polym Sci2007; 32: 962–990.
12.
SułkowskiWWPentakDNowakK. The influence of temperature, cholesterol content and pH on liposome stability. J Mol Struct2005; 744–747: 737–747.
13.
CollinsDLitzingerDCHuangL. Structural and functional comparisons of pH-sensitive liposomes composed of phosphatidylethanolamine and three different diacylsuccinylglycerols. Biochim Biophys Acta (BBA) – Biomembr1990; 1025: 234–242.
14.
DrummondDCZignaniMLerouxJ-C. Current status of pH-sensitive liposomes in drug delivery. Prog Lipid Res2000; 39: 409–460.
15.
LeeSKimJShimG. Tetraiodothyroacetic acid-tagged liposomes for enhanced delivery of anticancer drug to tumor tissue via integrin receptor. J Control Release2012; 164: 213–220.
16.
SimõesSMoreiraJNFonsecaC. On the formulation of pH-sensitive liposomes with long circulation times. Adv Drug Del Rev2004; 56: 947–965.
17.
WeinerAL. Liposomes as carriers for polypeptides. Adv Drug Del Rev1989; 3: 307–341.
18.
CazzolaRVianiPAlleviP. pH sensitivity and plasma stability of liposomes containing N-stearoylcysteamine. Biochim Biophys Acta (BBA) – Biomembr1997; 1329: 291–301.
19.
DengZZhenZHuX. Hollow chitosan–silica nanospheres as pH-sensitive targeted delivery carriers in breast cancer therapy. Biomaterials2011; 32: 4976–4986.
20.
FelberAEDufresneM-HLerouxJ-C. pH-sensitive vesicles, polymeric micelles, and nanospheres prepared with polycarboxylates. Adv Drug Del Rev2012; 64: 979–992.
21.
MomekovaDRangelovSYanevS. Long-circulating, pH-sensitive liposomes sterically stabilized by copolymers bearing short blocks of lipid-mimetic units. Eur J Pharm Sci2007; 32: 308–317.
22.
YangYPanDLuoK. Biodegradable and amphiphilic block copolymer–doxorubicin conjugate as polymeric nanoscale drug delivery vehicle for breast cancer therapy. Biomaterials2013; 34: 8430–8443.
23.
YubaEHaradaASakanishiY. Carboxylated hyperbranched poly(glycidol)s for preparation of pH-sensitive liposomes. J Control Release2011; 149: 72–80.
24.
JungSHKimSKJungSH. Increased stability in plasma and enhanced cellular uptake of thermally denatured albumin-coated liposomes. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces2010; 76: 434–440.
25.
MoghimiSMSzebeniJ. Stealth liposomes and long circulating nanoparticles: critical issues in pharmacokinetics, opsonization and protein-binding properties. Prog Lipid Res2003; 42: 463–478.
26.
NormanMEWilliamsPIllumL. Influence of block copolymers on the adsorption of plasma proteins to microspheres. Biomaterials1993; 14: 193–202.
27.
WuXKay HoonLLiQ-T. Stability and pH sensitivity of sulfatide-containing phosphatidylethanolamine small unilamellar vesicles. Biochim Biophys Acta (BBA) – Biomembr1996; 1284: 13–19.
28.
YoshizawaYKonoYOgawaraK-I. PEG liposomalization of paclitaxel improved its in vivo disposition and anti-tumor efficacy. Int J Pharm2011; 412: 132–141.
29.
NeuhausOKieseierBCHartungH-P. Therapeutic role of mitoxantrone in multiple sclerosis. Pharmacol Ther2006; 109: 198–209.
30.
BjermerLGruberASue-ChuM. Effects of intrapleural mitoxantrone and mepacrine on malignant pleural effusion—a randomised study. Eur J Cancer1995; 31: 2203–2208.
31.
TourbahAStievenartJLEdanG. Acute demyelination: an insight into the effect of mitoxantrone on CNS lesions. J Neuroradiol2005; 32: 63–66.
32.
NeuhausOKieseierBCHartungH-P. Mechanisms of mitoxantrone in multiple sclerosis–what is known?J Neurol Sci2004; 223: 25–27.
33.
WundesAKraftGHBowenJD. Mitoxantrone for worsening multiple sclerosis: tolerability, toxicity, adherence and efficacy in the clinical setting. Clin Neurol Neurosurg2010; 112: 876–882.
34.
LlesuySFArnaizSL. Hepatotoxicity of mitoxantrone and doxorubicin. Toxicology1990; 63: 187–198.
35.
LawSLHoCKJangTF. Antitumor effect of mitoxantrone-containing liposomes. Int J Pharm1996; 128: 139–143.
36.
ChugunAUchideTFujimoriY. Anti-muscarinic actions of mitoxantrone in isolated heart muscles of guinea pigs. Eur J Pharmacol2000; 407: 183–189.
KwonIKLeeSCHanB. Analysis on the current status of targeted drug delivery to tumors. J Control Release2012; 164: 108–114.
39.
SezakiHTakakuraYHashidaM. Soluble macromolecular carriers for the delivery of antitumour drugs. Adv Drug Del Rev1989; 3: 247–266.
40.
WongHLBendayanRRauthAM. Chemotherapy with anticancer drugs encapsulated in solid lipid nanoparticles. Adv Drug Del Rev2007; 59: 491–504.
41.
BagheriMPourmoazzenZEntezamiAA. Synthesis, characterization and liquid crystalline behavior of poly(monomethyl itaconate)s with new pendant cholesterol moieties. Iran Polym J2013; 22: 361–367.
42.
BagheriMPourmoazzenZEntezamiAA. pH-responsive nanosized-micelles based on poly(monomethylitaconate)-co-poly(dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate) and cholesterol side chains effect on pH change-induced release of piroxicam. J Polym Res2013; 20: 231–231.
43.
GhanbarzadehSValizadehHZakeri-MilaniP. Application of factorial designs and response surface methodology in formulation development of sirolimus liposome prepared by thin film hydration technique. BioImpacts2013; 3: 75–81.
44.
GhanbarzadehSAramiS. Formulation and evaluation of piroxicam transferosomal gel: an approach for penetration enhancement. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol2013, pp. (in press)–(in press).
45.
GhanbarzadehSAramiS. Enhanced transdermal delivery of diclofenac sodium via conventional liposomes, ethosomes, and transfersomes. BioMed Res Int2013; 23: 587–590.
46.
LiCCuiJLiY. Copper ion-mediated liposomal encapsulation of mitoxantrone: the role of anions in drug loading, retention and release. Eur J Pharm Sci2008; 34: 333–344.
47.
LiCCuiJWangC. Encapsulation of mitoxantrone into pegylated SUVs enhances its antineoplastic efficacy. Eur J Pharm Biopharm2008; 70: 657–665.
48.
ChangRSKimJLeeHY. Reduced dose-limiting toxicity of intraperitoneal mitoxantrone chemotherapy using cardiolipin-based anionic liposomes. Nanomed: Nanotechnol, Biol, Med2010; 6: 769–776.
49.
LiCCuiJWangC. Lipid composition and grafted PEG affect in vivo activity of liposomal mitoxantrone. Int J Pharm2008; 362: 60–66.
50.
Li C, Zhao X, Deng C, et al. Pegylated liposomal mitoxantrone is more therapeutically active than mitoxantrone in L1210 ascitic tumor and exhibits dose-dependent activity saturation effect. Int J Pharm. Epub ahead of print 19 October 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2013.10.023.
51.
Sundman-EngbergBTidefeltUGruberA. Intracellular concentrations of mitoxantrone in leukemic cells in vitro vs in vivo. Leukemia Res1993; 17: 347–352.
52.
NiangMMělkaMStoklasováA. Evaluation of the antineoplastic activity of mitoxantrone–l-carnitine combination therapy on an experimental solid form of ehrlich tumour in mice. Pharmacol Res2006; 54: 447–451.
53.
TianM-YZhangX-FXieL. The effect of Cu2+ on the interaction between an antitumor drug–mitoxantrone and human serum albumin. J Mol Struct2008; 892: 20–24.
54.
DadashzadehSMirahmadiNBabaeiMH. Peritoneal retention of liposomes: effects of lipid composition, PEG coating and liposome charge. J Control Release2010; 148: 177–186.
55.
SadzukaYHirotaS. Physical properties and tissue distribution of adriamycin encapsulated in polyethyleneglycol-coated liposomes. Adv Drug Del Rev1997; 24: 257–263.
56.
ShehataTOgawaraK-IHigakiK. Prolongation of residence time of liposome by surface-modification with mixture of hydrophilic polymers. Int J Pharm2008; 359: 272–279.
57.
ChoECLimHJShimJ. Effect of polymer characteristics on structure of polymer–liposome complexes. J Colloid Interface Sci2007; 311: 243–252.
58.
ShimanouchiTIshiiHYoshimotoN. Calcein permeation across phosphatidylcholine bilayer membrane: effects of membrane fluidity, liposome size, and immobilization. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces2009; 73: 156–160.
59.
WongPTSchauerteJAWisserKC. Amyloid-β membrane binding and permeabilization are distinct processes influenced separately by membrane charge and fluidity. J Mol Biol2009; 386: 81–96.
60.
GhanbarzadehSKhorramiAPourmoazzenZH. Plasma stable, pH-sensitive non-ionic surfactant vesicles simultaneously enhance antiproliferative effect and selectivity of sirolimus. Pharm Dev Tech 2014, (in press)–(in press).
