AAPS PharmSciTech

, Volume 19, Issue 7, pp 3123–3133 | Cite as

Apoptosis Induction and Antimigratory Activity of Andrographolide Analog (3A.1)-Incorporated Self-Assembled Nanoparticles in Cancer Cells

  • Teeratas Kansom
  • Warayuth Sajomsang
  • Rungnapha Saeeng
  • Purin Charoensuksai
  • Praneet Opanasopit
  • Prasopchai TonglairoumEmail author
Research Article


Andrographolide analog, namely 19-tert-butyldiphenylsilyl-8,17-epoxy andrographolide (or 3A.1) has been reported to be a potential anticancer agent for several types of cancer. Due to its poor aqueous solubility, 3A.1 was incorporated within self-assembly polymeric nanoparticles made of naphthyl-grafted succinyl chitosan (NSC), octyl-grafted succinyl chitosan (OSC), and benzyl-grafted succinyl chitosan (BSC). These 3A.1-loaded nanoparticles were nanosized (< 200 nm) and spherical in shape with a negative surface charge. 3A.1-loaded nanoparticles were produced using a dropping method, which 40% initial drug adding exhibited the highest entrapment efficiency. The release of 3A.1 from the 3A.1-loaded nanoparticles displayed a delayed release pattern. Under acidic conditions (pH 1.2), there was no free drug release. After the pH was adjusted to 6.8, a high cumulative 3A.1 release was obtained which was dependent on the hydrophobic moieties. These 3A.1-loaded pH-sensitive nanoparticles proved to be beneficial for specifically delivering anticancer drugs to the targeted colon cancer sites. In vitro anticancer activity against HT-29 found that the 3A.1-loaded nanoparticles had significantly lower IC50 than that of the free drug and promoted apoptosis. Additionally, in vitro wound-healing migration on HN-22 revealed that free 3A.1 and the 3A.1-loaded nanoparticles inhibited cell motility compared with untreated cells. These pH-sensitive amphiphilic chitosan nanoparticles may be promising nanocarriers for oral anticancer drug delivery to colorectal cancer cells.

Graphical abstract


nanoparticles chitosan andrographolide analog colorectal cancer 


Funding Information

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Commission of Higher Education (Thailand) and the Thailand Research Fund through the Golden Jubilee Ph.D. Program (Grant No.PHD/0077/2558), the International Research Network Fund (IRN58W0004), and National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 81561148012) for their financial support.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Siegal RL, Miller MD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization. Cancer fact sheet [homepage on the Internet]. c2018 [updated 2018 Feb 1]. 2018. Available from: Accessed 27 Feb 2018
  3. 3.
    American Cancer Society. Colorectal cancer facts & figures 2017–2019. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2017.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    DiPiro JT, Talbert RL, Yee GC, Matzke GR, Wells BG, Posey LM. Pharmacotherapy: a pathophysiologic approach. In: Holle LM, Clement JM, Davis LE, editors. Colorectal cancer. 10th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2016.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cisterna BA, Kamaly N, Choi WI, Tavakkoli A, Farokhzad OC, Vilos C. Targeted nanoparticles for colorectal cancer. Nanomedicine (London). 2016;11:2443–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kumari P, Ghosh B, Biswas S. Nanocarriers for cancer-targeted drug delivery. J Drug Target. 2016;24:179–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xin Y, Huang Q, Tang JQ, Hou XY, Zhang P, Zhang LZ, et al. Nanoscale drug delivery for targeted chemotherapy. Cancer Lett. 2016;379:24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Biswas S, Kumari P, Lakhani PM, Ghosh B. Recent advances in polymeric micelles for anti-cancer drug delivery. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2016;83:184–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Qu G, Yao Z, Zhang C, Wu X, Ping Q. PEG conjugated N-octyl-O-sulfate chitosan micelles for delivery of paclitaxel: in vitro characterization and in vivo evaluation. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2009;37:98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang F, Fei J, Sun M, Ping Q. Heparin modification enhances the delivery and tumor targeting of paclitaxel-loaded N-octyl-N-trimethyl chitosan micelles. Int J Pharm. 2016;511:390–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jena SK, Sangamwar AT. Polymeric micelles of amphiphilic graft copolymer of alpha-tocopherol succinate-g-carboxymethyl chitosan for tamoxifen delivery: synthesis, characterization and in vivo pharmacokinetic study. Carbohydr Polym. 2016;151:1162–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dai Y, Wang S, Shi W, Lang M. pH-responsive carboxymethyl chitosan-derived micelles as apatinib carriers for effective anti-angiogenesis activity: preparation and in vitro evaluation. Carbohydr Polym. 2017;176:107–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Amin A, Gali-Muhtasib H, Ocker M, Schneider-Stock R. Overview of major class of plant-derived anticancer drugs. Int J Biomed Sci. 2009;5:1–11.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Demain AL, Vaishnav P. Natural products for cancer chemotherapy. Microb Biotechnol. 2011;4:687–99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hossain MS, Urbi Z, Sule A, Rahman KMH. Andrographis paniculata (Burm. F.) Wall. ex Nees: a review of ethnobotany, phytochemistry, and pharmacology. Sci World J. 2014;2014:1–28.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M.o.P.H.D.o.M. Sciences. Thai herbal pharmacopoeia 2017. Nonthaburi: Department of Medical Sciences, Ministry of Public Health.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shi MD, Lin HH, Chiang TA, Tsai LY, Tsai SM, Lee YC, et al. Andrographolide could inhibit human colorectal carcinoma Lovo cells migration and invasion via down-regulation of MMP-7 expression. Chem Biol Interact. 2009;180:344–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Varma A, Padh H, Shrivastava N. Andrographolide: a new plant-derived antineoplastic entity on horizon. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2011;2011:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aromdee C. Modifications of andrographolide to increase some biological activities: a patent review (2006-2011). Expert Opin Ther Pat. 2012;22:169–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nanduri S, Nyavanandi VK, Thunuguntla SS, Kasu S, Pallerla MK, Ram PS, et al. Synthesis and structure-activity relationships of andrographolide analogues as novel cytotoxic agents. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2004;14:4711–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jada SR, Hamzah AS, Lajis NH, Saad MS, Stevens MF, Stanslas J. Semisynthesis and cytotoxic activities of andrographolide analogues. J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem. 2006;21:145–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Das B, Chowdhury C, Kumar D, Sen R, Roy R, Das P, et al. Synthesis, cytotoxicity, and structure-activity relationship (SAR) studies of andrographolide analogues as anti-cancer agent. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2010;20:6947–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sirion U, Kasemsook S, Suksen K, Piyachaturawat P, Suksamrarn A, Saeeng R. New substituted C-19-andrographolide analogues with potent cytotoxic activities. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2012;22:49–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Preet R, Chakraborty B, Siddharth S, Mohapatra P, Das D, Satapathy SR, et al. Synthesis and biological evaluation of andrographolide analogues as anti-cancer agents. Eur J Med Chem. 2014;85:95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nateewattana J, Saeeng R, Kasemsook S, Suksen K, Dutta S, Jariyawat S, et al. Inhibition of topoisomerase II alpha activity and induction of apoptosis in mammalian cells by semi-synthetic andrographolide analogues. Investig New Drugs. 2012;31:320–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nateewattana J, Dutta S, Reabroi S, Saeeng R, Kasemsook S, Chairoungdua A, et al. Induction of apoptosis in cholangiocarcinoma by an andrographolide analogue is mediated through topoisomerase II alpha inhibition. Eur J Pharmacol. 2014;723:148–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sajomsang W, Gonil P, Saesoo S, Ruktanonchai UR, Srinuanchai W, Puttipipatkhachorn S. Synthesis and anticervical cancer activity of novel pH responsive micelles for oral curcumin delivery. Int J Pharm. 2014;477:261–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Woraphatphadung T, Sajomsang W, Gonil P, Saesoo S, Opanasopit P. Synthesis and characterization of pH-responsive N-naphthyl-N,O-succinyl chitosan micelles for oral meloxicam delivery. Carbohydr Polym. 2015;121:99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Woraphatphadung T, Sajomsang W, Gonil P, Treetong A, Akkaramongkolporn P, Ngawhirunpat T, et al. pH-responsive polymeric micelles based on amphiphilic chitosan derivatives: effect of hydrophobic cores on oral meloxicam delivery. Int J Pharm. 2016;497:150–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Miller T, Colen GV, Sander B, Golas MM, Uezguen S, Weigandt M, et al. Drug loading of polymeric micelles. Pharm Res. 2013;30:584–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mosmann T. Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J Immunol Methods. 1983;65:55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reabroi S, Chairoungdua A, Saeeng R, Kasemsuk T, Saengsawang W, Zhu W, et al. A silyl andrographolide analogue suppresses Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway in colon cancer. Biomed Pharmacother. 2018;101:414–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jain A, Barve A, Zhao Z, Jin W, Cheng K. Comparison of avidin, neutravidin, and streptavidin as nanocarriers for efficient siRNA delivery. Mol Pharm. 2017;14:1517–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Grada A, Otero-Vinas M, Prieto-Castrillo F, Obagi Z, Falanga V. Research techniques made simple: analysis of collective cell migration using the wound healing assay. J Investig Dermatol. 2017;137:e11–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wongprayoon P, Charoensuksai P. Cytotoxic and anti-migratory activities from hydroalcoholic extract of Euphorbia lactea Haw. against HN22 cell line. Thai Bull Pharm Sci. 2018;13(1):69–7.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Xiao B, Lin D, Zhang X, Zhang M, Zhang X. TTF1, in the form of nanoparticles, inhibits angiogenesis, cell migration and cell invasion in vitro and in vivo in human hepatoma through STAT3 regulation. Molecules. 2016;21(11):1–16.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhao Z, Li Y, Jain A, Chen Z, Liu H, Jin W, et al. Development of a peptide-modified siRNA nanocomplex for hepatic stellate cells. Nanomedicine. 2018;14(1):51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    You X, Kang Y, Hollett G, Chen X, Zhao W, Gu Z, et al. Polymeric nanoparticles for colon cancer therapy: overview and perspectives. J Mater Chem B. 2016;4:7779–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Opanasopit P, Yokoyama M, Watanabe M, Kawano K, Maitani Y, Okano T. Block copolymer design for camptothecin incorporation into polymeric micelles for passive tumor targeting. Pharm Res. 2004;21:2001–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Haynes WM. Handbook of chemistry and physics. 93th ed. New York: CRC Press; 2012.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yokoyama M. Polymeric micelles as drug carriers: their lights and shadows. J Drug Target. 2014;22:576–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Teeratas Kansom
    • 1
  • Warayuth Sajomsang
    • 2
  • Rungnapha Saeeng
    • 3
  • Purin Charoensuksai
    • 1
  • Praneet Opanasopit
    • 1
  • Prasopchai Tonglairoum
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Faculty of PharmacySilpakorn UniversityNakhon PathomThailand
  2. 2.National Nanotechnology Center (NANOTEC), National Science and Technology, Development Agency (NSTDA)Thailand Science ParkPathum ThaniThailand
  3. 3.Department of Chemistry, Faculty of ScienceBurapha UniversityChonburiThailand

Personalised recommendations