Slippery Nanoparticles as a Diffusion Platform for Mucin Producing Gastrointestinal Tumors

  • Marian Khalili
  • Hao Zhou
  • Anusha Thadi
  • Lynsey Daniels
  • Zhiyuan Fan
  • William F. Morano
  • Joanne Ang
  • Eve Goldstein
  • Boris Polyak
  • Beth C. Mapow
  • Hao Cheng
  • Wilbur B. BowneEmail author
Peritoneal Surface Malignancy



Treatment failure in pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) is partly attributed to the ineffective delivery of therapeutics through dense mucinous tumor barriers. We modified the surface of Poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid)-b-polyethylene glycol (PLGA-PEG-NPs) with a low-density, second PEG layer (PLGA-TPEG-NPs-20) to reduce their binding affinity to proteins and improve diffusion through mucin.


Nanoprecipitation was used to fabricate PLGA-PEG-NPs. To construct the second PEG layer of PLGA-TPEG-NPs-20, PEG-Thiol was conjugated to PLGA-PEG-NPs composed of 80% methoxy PLGA-PEG and 20% of PLGA-PEG-Maleimide. DiD-labeled nanoparticles (NPs) were added to the inner well of a trans-well system containing cultured LS174T or human PMP tissue. Diffusion of NPs was measured via fluorescence signal in the bottom well. In an ex vivo rat model, small intestine was treated with DiD-labeled NPs. In an in vivo murine LS174T subcutaneous tumor model, Nu/Nu nude mice received supratumoral injections (subcutaneous injection above the tumor) of DiD-labeled NPs. Thirty minutes after injection, mice were sacrificed, and tumors were collected. All tissue was cryosectioned, mounted with DAPI-containing media, and inspected via confocal microscopy.


Diffusion profiles of NPs through PMP and cultured LS174T cells were generated. PLGA-TPEG-NPs-20 diffused faster with ~ 100% penetration versus PLGA-PEG-NPs with ~ 40% penetration after 8 h. Increased diffusion of PLGA-TPEG-NPs-20 was further observed in ex vivo rat small intestine as evidenced by elevated luminal NP fluorescence signal on the luminal surface. Subcutaneous LS174T tumors treated with PLGA-TPEG-NPs-20 demonstrated greater diffusion of NPs, showing homogenous fluorescence signal throughout the tumor.


PLGA-TPEG-NPs-20 can be an effective mucin penetrating drug delivery system.



This work has received funding from the National Organization of Rare Disorders (NORD) (Grant number 260696) through Appendix Cancer Pseudomyxoma Peritonei (ACPMP) Research Foundation.


The authors have no commercial interests to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Kawamura H, Kondo Y, Osawa S, et al. A clinicopathologic study of mucinous adenocarcinoma of the stomach. Gastric Cancer. 2001;4(2):83–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sugarbaker PH. Surgical treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis: 1988 Du Pont lecture. Canadian J Surg. 1989;32(3):164–70.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chua TC, Moran BJ, Sugarbaker PH, et al. Early- and long-term outcome data of patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei from appendiceal origin treated by a strategy of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(20):2449–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ensign LM, Tang BC, Wang YY, et al. Mucus-penetrating nanoparticles for vaginal drug delivery protect against herpes simplex virus. Sci Translational Med. 2012;4(138):138ra179.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lai SK, Wang YY, Hanes J. Mucus-penetrating nanoparticles for drug and gene delivery to mucosal tissues. Adv Drug Delivery Rev. 2009;61(2):158–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peer D, Karp JM, Hong S, Farokhzad OC, Margalit R, Langer R. Nanocarriers as an emerging platform for cancer therapy. Nat Nanotech. 2007;2(12):751–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brigger I, Dubernet C, Couvreur P. Nanoparticles in cancer therapy and diagnosis. Adv Drug Delivery Rev. 2002;54(5):631–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Matsumura Y, Maeda H. A new concept for macromolecular therapeutics in cancer chemotherapy: mechanism of tumoritropic accumulation of proteins and the antitumor agent smancs. Cancer Res. 1986;46(12 Pt 1):6387–92.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kratz F, Warnecke A. Finding the optimal balance: challenges of improving conventional cancer chemotherapy using suitable combinations with nano-sized drug delivery systems. J Controlled Release. 2012;164(2):221–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chauhan VP, Stylianopoulos T, Boucher Y, Jain RK. Delivery of molecular and nanoscale medicine to tumors: transport barriers and strategies. Ann Rev Chem Biomolec Eng. 2011;2:281–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhou H, Fan Z, Deng J, et al. Hyaluronidase embedded in nanocarrier PEG shell for enhanced tumor penetration and highly efficient antitumor efficacy. Nano Lett. 2016;16(5):3268–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tsoi KM, MacParland SA, Ma XZ, et al. Mechanism of hard-nanomaterial clearance by the liver. Nat Mater. 2016;15(11):1212–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen F, Wang G, Griffin JI, et al. Complement proteins bind to nanoparticle protein corona and undergo dynamic exchange in vivo. Nat Nanotech. 2017;12(4):387–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Owens DE, 3rd, Peppas NA. Opsonization, biodistribution, and pharmacokinetics of polymeric nanoparticles. Int J Pharm. 2006;307(1):93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhou H, Fan Z, Li PY, et al. Dense and dynamic polyethylene glycol shells cloak nanoparticles from uptake by liver endothelial cells for long blood circulation. ACS Nano. 2018;12(10):10130–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Popov AE, Bourassa J, Gardner CR, et al. Inventor; Kala Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Waltham, MA), The Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, MD), assignee. Nanocrystals, composition, and methods that aid particle transport in mucus. 2013.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tang BC, Dawson M, Lai SK, et al. Biodegradable polymer nanoparticles that rapidly penetrate the human mucus barrier. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(46):19268-73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grießinger J, Dünnhaupt S, Cattoz B, et al. Methods to determine the interactions of micro- and nanoparticles with mucus. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2015;96:464–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Friedl H, Dunnhaupt S, Hintzen F, et al. Development and evaluation of a novel mucus diffusion test system approved by self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems. J Pharm Sci. 2013;102(12):4406–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Choudry HA, O’Malley ME, Guo ZS, Zeh HJ, Bartlett DL. Mucin as a therapeutic target in pseudomyxoma peritonei. J Surg Oncol. 2012;106(7):911–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hollingsworth MA, Swanson BJ. Mucins in cancer: protection and control of the cell surface. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4(1):45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dilly AK, Lee YJ, Zeh HJ, Guo ZS, Bartlett DL, Choudry HA. Targeting hypoxia-mediated mucin 2 production as a therapeutic strategy for mucinous tumors. Translational Res. 2016;169:19–30.e11.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Amini A, Masoumi-Moghaddam S, Ehteda A, Morris DL. Secreted mucins in pseudomyxoma peritonei: pathophysiological significance and potential therapeutic prospects. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014;9:71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Choudry HA, Mavanur A, O’Malley ME, Zeh HJ, Guo Z, Bartlett DL. Chronic anti-inflammatory drug therapy inhibits gel-forming mucin production in a murine xenograft model of human pseudomyxoma peritonei. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(5):1402–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leal J, Smyth HDC, Ghosh D. Physicochemical properties of mucus and their impact on transmucosal drug delivery. Int J Pharm. 2017;532(1):555–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kalra AV, Campbell RB. Mucin impedes cytotoxic effect of 5-FU against growth of human pancreatic cancer cells: overcoming cellular barriers for therapeutic gain. Br J Cancer. 2007;97(7):910–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kalra AV, Campbell RB. Mucin overexpression limits the effectiveness of 5-FU by reducing intracellular drug uptake and antineoplastic drug effects in pancreatic tumours. Eur Cancer (Oxford, Engl 1990). 2009;45(1):164–73.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Skrypek N, Duchene B, Hebbar M, Leteurtre E, van Seuningen I, Jonckheere N. The MUC4 mucin mediates gemcitabine resistance of human pancreatic cancer cells via the Concentrative Nucleoside Transporter family. Oncogene. 2013;32(13):1714–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Trehoux S, Duchene B, Jonckheere N, Van Seuningen I. The MUC1 oncomucin regulates pancreatic cancer cell biological properties and chemoresistance. Implication of p42-44 MAPK, Akt, Bcl-2 and MMP13 pathways. Biochem Biophys Res Comm. 2015;456(3):757–62.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wissniowski TT, Meister S, Hahn EG, Kalden JR, Voll R, Ocker M. Mucin production determines sensitivity to bortezomib and gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer cells. Int J Oncol. 2012;40(5):1581–9.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Perry JL, Reuter KG, Kai MP, et al. PEGylated PRINT Nanoparticles: The Impact of PEG density on protein binding, macrophage association, biodistribution, and pharmacokinetics. Nano Lett. 2012;12(10):5304–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yang M, Lai SK, Yu T, et al. Nanoparticle penetration of human cervicovaginal mucus: the effect of polyvinyl alcohol. J Controlled Release. 2014;192:202–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marian Khalili
    • 1
  • Hao Zhou
    • 2
  • Anusha Thadi
    • 1
  • Lynsey Daniels
    • 1
  • Zhiyuan Fan
    • 2
  • William F. Morano
    • 1
  • Joanne Ang
    • 4
  • Eve Goldstein
    • 1
  • Boris Polyak
    • 1
  • Beth C. Mapow
    • 4
  • Hao Cheng
    • 2
    • 3
  • Wilbur B. Bowne
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryDrexel University College of MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Materials Science and EngineeringDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health SystemsDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.Department of PathologyDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations