Factors affecting the selectivity of nanoparticle-based photoinduced damage in free and xenografted chorioallantoïc membrane model

Journal of Drug Targeting

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 220-231

  Garrier, Julie ^a,b,c   Reshetov, Vadzim ^a,b,c,d   Gräfe, Susanna ^e   Guillemin, François ^a,b,c   Zorin, Vladimir ^d   Bezdetnaya, Lina ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE LORRAINE   (France)

^b CENTRE DE RECHERCHE EN AUTOMATIQUE DE NANCY   (France)

^c Service d'anatomie pathologique Institut de cancérologie de Lorraine   (France)

^d BELARUSIAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (Belarus)

^e Biolitec Research GmbH   (Germany)

Author keywords

CAM; Drug delivery; Liposome; MTHPC; Nanophotosensitizers; Photodynamic therapy

Indexed keywords

FOSLIP; FOSPEG; LIPOSOME; TETRAKIS(3 HYDROXYPHENYL)CHLORIN; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ANALYSIS; ANIMAL CELL; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ANTINEOPLASTIC ACTIVITY; ARTICLE; BLOOD VESSEL INJURY; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER TISSUE; CARCINOMA CELL; CHORIOALLANTOIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG ACCUMULATION; DRUG RELEASE; DRUG SELECTIVITY; DRUG STABILITY; EMBRYO; HISTOPATHOLOGY; IN VIVO STUDY; LIPOSOMAL DELIVERY; MEMBRANE MODEL; NANOPARTICLE TRACKING ANALYSIS; NONHUMAN; PHOTODYNAMIC THERAPY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TISSUE NECROSIS; TUMOR XENOGRAFT;

EID: 84896761157     PISSN: 1061186X     EISSN: 10292330     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/1061186X.2013.860981     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Agostinis P, Berg K, Cengel KA, et al. Photodynamic therapy of cancer: an update. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61:250-81.
2. Derycke AS, De Witte PA. Liposomes for photodynamic therapy. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2004;56:17-30.
3. Taurin S, Nehoff H, Greish K. Anticancer nanomedicine and tumor vascular permeability; where is the missing link? J Control Release 2012;164:265-75.
4. Maherani B, Arab-Tehrani E, Linder M. Mechanism of bioactive transfer through liposomal bilayers. Curr Drug Targets 2011;12: 531-45.
5. Lim CK, Heo J, Shin S, et al. Nanophotosensitizers toward advanced photodynamic therapy of Cancer. Cancer Lett 2013;334: 176-87.
6. Senge MO, Brandt JC. Temoporfin (Foscan(R), 5,10,15,20- tetra(mhydroxyphenyl) chlorin) - a second-generation photosensitizer. Photochem Photobiol 2011;87:1240-96.
7. Bovis MJ, Woodhams JH, Loizidou M, et al. Improved in vivo delivery of m-THPC via pegylated liposomes for use in photodynamic therapy. J Control Release 2012;157:196-205.
8. Kubler AC, Stenzel W, Ruhling M, et al. Experimental evaluation of possible side effects of intra-operative photodynamic therapy on rabbit blood vessels and nerves. Lasers Surg Med 2003;33:247-55.
9. Lange N, Ballini JP, Wagnieres G, Van Den Bergh H. A new drugscreening procedure for photosensitizing agents used in photodynamic therapy for CNV. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001;42: 38-46.
10. Debefve E, Pegaz B, Van Den Bergh H, et al. Video monitoring of neovessel occlusion induced by photodynamic therapy with verteporfin (Visudyne), in the CAM model. Angiogenesis 2008; 11:235-43.
11. Garrier J, Reshetov V, Zorin V, et al. Contrasting facets of nanoparticles-based phototherapy: photo-damage and photo-regeneration. In: Photodynamic therapy: new research. New York, USA: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
12. Pegaz B, Debefve E, Ballini JP, et al. Photothrombic activity of m- THPC-loaded liposomal formulations: pre-clinical assessment on chick chorioallantoic membrane model. Eur J Pharm Sci 2006;28: 134-40.
13. Hornung R, Hammer-Wilson MJ, Kimel S, et al. Systemic application of photosensitizers in the chick chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) model: photodynamic response of CAM vessels and 5-aminolevulinic acid uptake kinetics by transplantable tumors. J Photochem Photobiol 1999;B49:41-9.
14. Gottfried V, Davidi R, Averguj C, Kimel S. In vivo damage to chorioallantoic membrane blood vessels by porphycene-induced photodynamic therapy. J Photochem Photobiol B 1995;30:115-21.
15. Cho CF, Ablack A, Leong HS, et al. Evaluation of nanoparticle uptake in tumors in real time using intravital imaging. J Vis Exp 2011 doi: 10.3791/2808.
16. Ribatti D. The chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane in the study of tumor angiogenesis. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2008; 49:131-5.
17. Liu M, Scanlon CS, Banerjee R, et al. The histone methyltransferase EZH2 mediates tumor progression on the chick chorioallantoic membrane assay, a novel model of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Transl Oncol 2013;6:273-81.
18. Zeisser-Labouebe M, Delie F, Gurny R, Lange N. Screening of nanoparticulate delivery systems for the photodetection of cancer in a simple and cost-effective model. Nanomedicine 2009;4:135-43.
19. Ismail MS, Torsten U, Dressler C, et al. Photodynamic therapy of malignant ovarian tumours cultivated on CAM. Lasers Med Sci 1999;14:91-6.
20. Reshetov V, Kachatkou D, Shmigol T, et al. Redistribution of metatetra (hydroxyphenyl)chlorin (m-THPC) from conventional and PEGylated liposomes to biological substrates. Photochem Photobiol Sci 2011;10:911-19.
21. Romanoff AL, Romanoff AJ. 1967. Biochemistry of the avian embryo: a quantitative analysis of prenatal development. New York: Interscience Publishers.
22. Malloy A, Carr B. NanoParticle Tracking Analysis - The Halo- System. Part Part Syst Charact 2006;23:197-204.
23. Reshetov V, Zorin V, Siupa A, et al. Interaction of liposomal formulations of meta-tetra(hydroxyphenyl)chlorin (temoporfin) with serum proteins: protein binding and liposome destruction. Photochem Photobiol 2012;88:1256-64.
24. Filipe V, Hawe A, Jiskoot W. 2010. Critical evaluation of Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis (NTA) by NanoSight for the measurement of nanoparticles and protein aggregates. Pharm Res 2010;27:796-810.
25. Kachatkou D, Sasnouski S, Zorin V, et al. Unusual photoinduced response of mTHPC liposomal formulation (Foslip). Photochem Photobiol 2009;85:719-24.
26. Lasic DD, Martin FJ, Gabizon A, et al. Sterically stabilized liposomes: a hypothesis on the molecular origin of the extended circulation times. Biochim Biophys Acta 1991;1070:187-92.
27. Yan X, Scherphof GL, Kamps JA. Liposome opsonization. J Liposome Res 2005;15:109-39.
28. Harashima H, Hiraiwa T, Ochi Y, Kiwada H. Size dependent liposome degradation in blood: in vivo/in vitro correlation by kinetic modeling. J Drug Target 1995;3:253-61.
29. Ishida T, Funato K, Kojima S, et al. Enhancing effect of cholesterol on the elimination of liposomes from circulation is mediated by complement activation. Int J Pharm 1997;156:27-37.
30. Torchilin VP. Recent advances with liposomes as pharmaceutical carriers. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2005;4:145-60.
31. Ribatti D. Chicken chorioallantoic membrane angiogenesis model. Methods Mol Biol 2012;843:47-57.
32. Ribatti D. Chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane as a useful tool to study angiogenesis. Int Rev Cell Mol Biol 2008;270: 181-224.
33. Hagedorn M, Balke M, Schmidt A, et al. VEGF coordinates interaction of pericytes and endothelial cells during vasculogenesis and experimental angiogenesis. Dev Dyn 2004;230:23-33.
34. Vargas A, Zeisser-Labouebe M, Lange N, et al. The chick embryo and its chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) for the in vivo evaluation of drug delivery systems. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2007;59:1162-76.
35. Richardson M, Singh G. Observations on the use of the avian chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) model in investigations into angiogenesis. Curr Drug Targets Cardiovasc Haematol Disord 2003;3:155-85.
36. Ausprunk DH, Knighton DR, Folkman J. Differentiation of vascular endothelium in the chick chorioallantois: a structural and autoradiographic study. Dev Biol 1974;38:237-48.
37. Ausprunk DH. 1986. Distribution of hyaluronic acid and sulfated glycosaminoglycans during blood-vessel development in the chick chorioallantoic membrane. Am J Anat 1986;177:313-31.
38. Ulrich AS. Biophysical aspects of using liposomes as delivery vehicles. Biosci Rep 2002;22:129-50.
39. Kunzi-Rapp K, Genze F, Kufer R, et al. Chorioallantoic membrane assay: vascularized 3-dimensional cell culture system for human prostate cancer cells as an animal substitute model. J Urol 2001; 166:1502-7.
40. Ozcetin A, Aigner A, Bakowsky U. A chorioallantoic membrane model for the determination of anti-angiogenic effects of imatinib. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2013;85:711-15.
41. Hagedorn M, Javerzat S, Gilges D, et al. Accessing key steps of human tumor progression in vivo by using an avian embryo model. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005;102:1643-8.
42. Fang J, Nakamura H, Maeda H. The EPR effect: unique features of tumor blood vessels for drug delivery, factors involved, and limitations and augmentation of the effect. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2011;63:136-51.
43. Sadzuka Y, Tokutomi K, Iwasaki F, et al. The phototoxicity of photofrin was enhanced by PEGylated liposome in vitro. Cancer Lett 2006;241:42-8.
44. Allen C, Dos Santos N, Gallagher R, et al. Controlling the physical behavior and biological performance of liposome formulations through use of surface grafted poly(ethylene glycol). Biosci Rep 2002;22:225-50.
45. Buchholz J, Kaser-Hotz B, Khan T, et al. Optimizing photodynamic therapy: in vivo pharmacokinetics of liposomal meta-(tetrahydroxyphenyl) chlorin in feline squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:7538-44.
46. De Visscher SA, Kascakova S, De Bruijn HS, et al. Fluorescence localization and kinetics of mTHPC and liposomal formulations of mTHPC in the window-chamber tumor model. Lasers Surg Med 2011;43:528-36.
47. Charrois GJ, Allen TM. Drug release rate influences the pharmacokinetics, biodistribution, therapeutic activity, and toxicity of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin formulations in murine breast cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta 2004;1663:167-77.