Doxorubicin Loaded Green Synthesized Nanoceria Decorated Functionalized Graphene Nanocomposite for Cancer-Specific Drug Release
- 123 Downloads
In the present study design, the PEGylated nanoceria decorated reduced graphene nanocomposite (RGO-CeNPs-PEG) was successfully prepared by eco-friendly non-toxic green synthesis following syn-graphenization method, and evaluated as an efficient and reliable pH-sensitive nano-carrier. During green synthesis, aqueous leaf extract of Azadirachta indica (neem) was used as a reducing agent and the graphene oxide (GO) was activated by 1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl)-carbodiimide for covalent functionalization by methoxy amino polyethylene glycol. The prepared Smart pH stimuli responded nanoplatform was thoroughly characterized by various analytical techniques. The values of average particle size and hydrodynamic diameter of naturally prepared nanoceria may be suitable for biomedical application. Considering drug loading and release studies, it may be concluded that the higher drug loading and more pH-responsive release of DOX from RGO-CeNPs-PEG lead to a promising nanocarrier for the anticancer drug. Furthermore, DOX-loaded RGO-CeNPs-PEG had lesser harmful effect on normal cells than cancer cells as compared with free DOX, while increased cytotoxicity was evidenced on the cancer cell line against the former sample than the covalently conjugated RGO-PEG-DOX. So, the successful distribution and release of the anticancer drug into acidic microenvironment of the cancerous cells would bring about excellent therapeutic efficacy with reduced side effects than pure GO.
KeywordsReduced graphene oxide Nanoceria Doxorubicin Nanocomposite Cytotoxicity Controlled drug release
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.W. Zhang, Z. Guo, D. Huang, Z. Liu, X. Guo, and H. Zhong (2011). Biomaterials 32, 8555–8561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.07.071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.M. V. Arasu, R. Thirumamagal, M. P. Srinivasan, N. A. Al-Dhabi, A. Ayeshamariam, D. Saravana Kumar, N. Punithavelan, and M. Jayachandran (2017). J. Photochem. Photobiol. B: Biology 173, 50–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2017.05.032.
- 17.T. Zhou, X. Zhou, and D. Xing (2014). Biomaterials 35, 4185–4194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.01.044.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.S. A. Khan and A. Ahmad (2013). Mater. Res. Bull. 48, 4134–4138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.materresbull.2013.06.038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 51.S. Bayda, M. Hadla, S. Palazzolo, V. Kumar, I. Caligiuri, E. Ambrosi, E. Pontoglio, M. Agostini, T. Tuccinardi, A. Benedetti, P. Riello, V. Canzonieri, G. Corona, G. Toffoli, and F. Rizzolio (2017). J. Control. Release 248, 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2017.01.022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 52.X. Zhang, L. Meng, Q. Lu, Z. Fei, and P. J. Dyson (2009). Biomaterials 30, 6041–6047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.07.025.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 56.J. Chen, H. Liu, C. Zhao, G. Qin, G. Xi, T. Li, X. Wang, and T. Chen (2014). Biomaterials 35, 4986–4995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.02.032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 61.M. S. Lord, M. S. Jung, W. Y. Teoh, C. Gunawan, J. A. Vassie, R. Amal, and J. M. Whitelock (2012). Biomaterials 33, 7915–7924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.07.024.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 63.M. Pešić, A. Podolski-Renić, S. Stojković, B. Matović, D. Zmejkoski, V. Kojić, G. Bogdanović, A. Pavićević, M. Mojović, A. Savić, I. Milenković, A. Kalauzi, and K. Radotić (2015). Chem. Biol. Interact. 232, (85–93), 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2015.03.0130009-2797/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 66.P. Horcajada, T. Chalati, C. Serre, B. Gillet, C. Sebrie, T. Baati, J. F. Eubank, D. Heurtaux, P. Clayette, C. Kreuz, J.-S. Chang, Y. K. Hwang, V. Marsaud, P.-N. Bories, L. Cynober, S. Gil, G. Férey, P. Couvreur, and R. Gref (2010). Nat. Mater. 9, 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat2608.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar