A Biomimetic Microfluidic Tumor Microenvironment Platform Mimicking the EPR Effect for Rapid Screening of Drug Delivery Systems

Scientific Reports

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Tang, Yuan ^a   Soroush, Fariborz ^a   Sheffield, Joel B ^b   Wang, Bin ^a,c   Prabhakarpandian, Balabhaskar ^d   Kiani, Mohammad F ^a,e  

^a Temple University   (United States)

^b Temple University   (United States)

^c WIDENER UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d CFD RESEARCH CORPORATION   (United States)

^e TEMPLE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRUG CARRIER; LIPOSOME;

BIOMIMETICS; CELL COMMUNICATION; CELL JUNCTION; CELL MOTION; COCULTURE; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM; DRUG EFFECT; ENDOTHELIUM CELL; FLUORESCENT ANTIBODY TECHNIQUE; HUMAN; METABOLISM; METASTASIS; MICROFLUIDICS; NEOPLASM; PATHOLOGY; PERMEABILITY; PROCEDURES; TUMOR CELL LINE; TUMOR MICROENVIRONMENT;

BIOMIMETICS; CELL COMMUNICATION; CELL LINE, TUMOR; CELL MOVEMENT; COCULTURE TECHNIQUES; DRUG CARRIERS; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS; ENDOTHELIAL CELLS; FLUORESCENT ANTIBODY TECHNIQUE; HUMANS; INTERCELLULAR JUNCTIONS; LIPOSOMES; MICROFLUIDICS; NEOPLASM METASTASIS; NEOPLASMS; PERMEABILITY; TUMOR MICROENVIRONMENT;

EID: 85028049305     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20452322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-09815-9     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Danhier, F., Feron, O. & Preat, V. To exploit the tumor microenvironment: Passive and active tumor targeting of nanocarriers for anti-cancer drug delivery. J Control Release 148, 135-146, doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2010.08.027 (2010).
2. Spill, F., Reynolds, D. S., Kamm, R. D. & Zaman, M. H. Impact of the physical microenvironment on tumor progression and metastasis. Curr Opin Biotechnol 40, 41-48, doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2016.02.007 (2016).
3. Cairns, R., Papandreou, I. & Denko, N. Overcoming physiologic barriers to cancer treatment by molecularly targeting the tumor microenvironment. Mol Cancer Res 4, 61-70, doi:10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-06-0002 (2006).
4. Iyer, A. K., Khaled, G., Fang, J. & Maeda, H. Exploiting the enhanced permeability and retention effect for tumor targeting. Drug Discovery Today 11, 812-818, doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2006.07.005 (2006).
5. Maeda, H. Macromolecular therapeutics in cancer treatment: The EPR effect and beyond. Journal of Controlled Release 164, 138-144, doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2012.04.038 (2012).
6. Nichols, J. W. & Bae, Y. H. EPR: Evidence and fallacy. J Control Release 190, 451-464, doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.03.057 (2014).
7. Danhier, F. To exploit the tumor microenvironment: Since the EPR effect fails in the clinic, what is the future of nanomedicine? J Control Release 244, 108-121, doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.11.015 (2016).
8. Mollard, S. et al. How can grafted breast cancer models be optimized? Cancer Biol Ther 12, 855-864, doi:10.4161/cbt.12.10.18139 (2011).
9. Perlman, H., Budinger, G. R. & Ward, P. A. Humanizing the mouse: in defense of murine models of critical illness. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 187, 898-900, doi:10.1164/rccm.201303-0489ED (2013).
10. Seok, J. et al. Genomic responses in mouse models poorly mimic human inflammatory diseases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 3507-3512, doi:10.1073/pnas.1222878110 [doi] (2013).
11. Frieboes, H. B. et al. An integrated computational/experimental model of tumor invasion. Cancer Res 66, 1597-1604, doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-3166 (2006).
12. Prabhakarpandian, B. et al. Synthetic tumor networks for screening drug delivery systems. J Control Release 201, 49-55, doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.01.018 (2015).
13. Nevill, J. T., Cooper, R., Dueck, M., Breslauer, D. N. & Lee, L. P. Integrated microfluidic cell culture and lysis on a chip. Lab Chip 7, 1689-1695, doi:10.1039/b711874k (2007).
14. Gomez-Sjoberg, R., Leyrat, A. A., Pirone, D. M., Chen, C. S. & Quake, S. R. Versatile, fully automated, microfluidic cell culture system. Anal Chem 79, 8557-8563, doi:10.1021/ac071311w (2007).
15. Wong, K. H., Chan, J. M., Kamm, R. D. & Tien, J. Microfluidic models of vascular functions. Annual review of biomedical engineering 14, 205-230, doi:10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071811-150052 (2012).
16. Wang, X. Y. et al. An artificial blood vessel implanted three-dimensional microsystem for modeling transvascular migration of tumor cells. Lab Chip 15, 1178-1187, doi:10.1039/c4lc00973h (2015).
17. Pisano, M., Triacca, V., Barbee, K. A. & Swartz, M. A. An in vitro model of the tumor-lymphatic microenvironment with simultaneous transendothelial and luminal flows reveals mechanisms of flow enhanced invasion. Integr Biol (Camb) 7, 525-533, doi:10.1039/c5ib00085h (2015).
18. Tourovskaia, A., Fauver, M., Kramer, G., Simonson, S. & Neumann, T. Tissue-engineered microenvironment systems for modeling human vasculature. Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 239, 1264-1271, doi:10.1177/1535370214539228 (2014).
19. Lee, K. H. et al. Integration of microfluidic chip with biomimetic hydrogel for 3D controlling and monitoring of cell alignment and migration. J Biomed Mater Res A 102, 1164-1172, doi:10.1002/jbm.a.34772 (2014).
20. Kwak, B., Ozcelikkale, A., Shin, C. S., Park, K. & Han, B. Simulation of complex transport of nanoparticles around a tumor using tumor-microenvironment-on-chip. J Control Release 194, 157-167, doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.08.027 (2014).
21. Huang, R. et al. Investigation of Tumor Cell Behaviors on a Vascular Microenvironment-Mimicking Microfluidic Chip. Sci Rep 5, 17768, doi:10.1038/srep17768 (2015).
22. Shin, K., Klosterhoff, B. S. & Han, B. Characterization of Cell-Type-Specific Drug Transport and Resistance of Breast Cancers Using Tumor-Microenvironment-on-Chip. Mol Pharm 13, 2214-2223, doi:10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.6b00131 (2016).
23. Mierke, C. T. Cancer cells regulate biomechanical properties of human microvascular endothelial cells. J Biol Chem 286, 40025-40037, doi:10.1074/jbc.M111.256172 (2011).
24. Prabhakarpandian, B. et al. Synthetic microvascular networks for quantitative analysis of particle adhesion. Biomed Microdevices 10, 585-595, doi:10.1007/s10544-008-9170-y (2008).
25. Deshpande, P. P., Biswas, S. & Torchilin, V. P. Current trends in the use of liposomes for tumor targeting. Nanomedicine (London, England) 8, doi:10.2217/nnm.13.118 (2013).
26. Ait-Oudhia, S., Mager, D. E. & Straubinger, R. M. Application of Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Analysis to the Development of Liposomal Formulations for Oncology. Pharmaceutics 6, 137-174, doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics6010137 (2014).
27. Bozzuto, G. & Molinari, A. Liposomes as nanomedical devices. International Journal of Nanomedicine 10, 975-999, doi:10.2147/IJN. S68861 (2015).
28. Ernsting, M. J., Murakami, M., Roy, A. & Li, S.-D. Factors Controlling the Pharmacokinetics, Biodistribution and Intratumoral Penetration of Nanoparticles. Journal of controlled release: official journal of the Controlled Release Society 172, 782-794, doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2013.09.013 (2013).
29. Kou, L., Sun, J., Zhai, Y. & He, Z. The endocytosis and intracellular fate of nanomedicines: Implication for rational design. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 8, 1-10, doi:10.1016/j.ajps.2013.07.001 (2013).
30. Pattillo, C. B. et al. Radiation-guided targeting of combretastatin encapsulated immunoliposomes to mammary tumors. Pharm Res 26, 1093-1100, doi:10.1007/s11095-009-9826-1 (2009).
31. Tang, Y., Wang, Y., Kiani, M. F. & Wang, B. Classification, Treatment Strategy, and Associated Drug Resistance in Breast Cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2016.05.012 (2016).
32. Monsky, W. L. et al. Role of host microenvironment in angiogenesis and microvascular functions in human breast cancer xenografts: mammary fat pad versus cranial tumors. Clin Cancer Res 8, 1008-1013 (2002).
33. Kamoun, W. S. et al. Simultaneous measurement of RBC velocity, flux, hematocrit and shear rate in vascular networks. Nat Methods 7, 655-660, doi:10.1038/nmeth.1475 (2010).
34. Bazzoni, G. & Dejana, E. Endothelial cell-to-cell junctions: molecular organization and role in vascular homeostasis. Physiol Rev 84, 869-901, doi:10.1152/physrev.00035.2003 (2004).
35. Ryschich, E., Schmidt, E., Maksan, S. M., Klar, E. & Schmidt, J. Expansion of endothelial surface by an increase of vessel diameter during tumor angiogenesis in experimental and hepatocellular and pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol 10, 3171-3174 (2004).
36. Kobayashi, H. et al. JTE-522, a selective COX-2 inhibitor, interferes with the growth of lung metastases from colorectal cancer in rats due to inhibition of neovascularization: A vascular cast model study. International Journal of Cancer 112, 920-926, doi:10.1002/ ijc.20523 (2004).
37. Hashizume, H. et al. Openings between defective endothelial cells explain tumor vessel leakiness. Am J Pathol 156, 1363-1380, doi:10.1016/S0002-9440(10)65006-7 (2000).
38. Lamberti, G. et al. Bioinspired microfluidic assay for in vitro modeling of leukocyte-endothelium interactions. Anal Chem 86, 8344-8351, doi:10.1021/ac5018716 (2014).
39. Lee, H., Park, W., Ryu, H. & Jeon, N. L. A microfluidic platform for quantitative analysis of cancer angiogenesis and intravasation. Biomicrofluidics 8, 054102, doi:10.1063/1.4894595 (2014).
40. Reymond, N., d'Agua, B. B. & Ridley, A. J. Crossing the endothelial barrier during metastasis. Nat Rev Cancer 13, 858-870, doi:10.1038/nrc3628 (2013).
41. Sukriti, S., Tauseef, M., Yazbeck, P. & Mehta, D. Mechanisms regulating endothelial permeability. Pulm Circ 4, 535-551, doi:10.1086/677356 (2014).
42. Runkle, E. A. & Mu, D. Tight junction proteins: from barrier to tumorigenesis. Cancer Lett 337, 41-48, doi:10.1016/j. canlet.2013.05.038 (2013).
43. Mierke, C. T. et al. Breakdown of the endothelial barrier function in tumor cell transmigration. Biophys J 94, 2832-2846, doi:10.1529/ biophysj.107.113613 (2008).
44. Yuan, F. et al. Vascular permeability in a human tumor xenograft: molecular size dependence and cutoff size. Cancer research 55, 3752-3756 (1995).
45. Dreher, M. R. et al. Tumor vascular permeability, accumulation, and penetration of macromolecular drug carriers. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 98, 335-344, doi:10.1093/jnci/djj070 (2006).
46. Yuan, F. et al. Time-dependent vascular regression and permeability changes in established human tumor xenografts induced by an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor/vascular permeability factor antibody. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 93, 14765-14770 (1996).
47. Dellian, M., Yuan, F., Trubetskoy, V. S., Torchilin, V. P. & Jain, R. K. Vascular permeability in a human tumour xenograft: molecular charge dependence. British journal of cancer 82, 1513-1518, doi:10.1054/bjoc.1999.1171 (2000).
48. Wu, N. Z., Klitzman, B., Rosner, G., Needham, D. & Dewhirst, M. W. Measurement of material extravasation in microvascular networks using fluorescence video-microscopy. Microvascular research 46, 231-253, doi:10.1006/mvre.1993.1049 (1993).
49. Schmidt, M. M. & Wittrup, K. D. A modeling analysis of the effects of molecular size and binding affinity on tumor targeting. Molecular cancer therapeutics 8, 2861-2871, doi:10.1158/1535-7163.mct-09-0195 (2009).
50. Zervantonakis, I. K. et al. Three-dimensional microfluidic model for tumor cell intravasation and endothelial barrier function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109, 13515-13520, doi:10.1073/pnas.1210182109 (2012).
51. Roth, N. M. & Kiani, M. F. A "geographic information systems" based technique for the study of microvascular networks. Ann Biomed Eng 27, 42-47 (1999).
52. Roth, N. M., Sontag, M. R. & Kiani, M. F. Early effects of ionizing radiation on the microvascular networks in normal tissue. Radiat Res 151, 270-277 (1999).
53. Nguyen, V., Gaber, M. W., Sontag, M. R. & Kiani, M. F. Late effects of ionizing radiation on the microvascular networks in normal tissue. Radiat Res 154, 531-536 (2000).
54. Hashizume, H. et al. Openings between defective endothelial cells explain tumor vessel leakiness. Am J Pathol 156, 1363-1380, doi:10.1016/S0002-9440(10)65006-7 (2000).
55. Prabhakarpandian, B., Shen, M. C., Pant, K. & Kiani, M. F. Microfluidic devices for modeling cell-cell and particle-cell interactions in the microvasculature. Microvasc Res 82, 210-220, doi:10.1016/j.mvr.2011.06.013 (2011).
56. Soroush, F. et al. A novel microfluidic assay reveals a key role for protein kinase C delta in regulating human neutrophil-endothelium interaction. J Leukoc Biol., doi:10.1189/jlb.3MA0216-087R (2016).
57. Mitchell, M. J. & King, M. R. Computational and experimental models of cancer cell response to fluid shear stress. Front Oncol 3, 44, doi:10.3389/fonc.2013.00044 (2013).
58. Lee, H. J. et al. Fluid shear stress activates YAP1 to promote cancer cell motility. Nat Commun 8, 14122, doi:10.1038/ncomms14122 (2017).
59. Deosarkar, S. P. et al. A Novel Dynamic Neonatal Blood-Brain Barrier on a Chip. PLoS One 10, e0142725, doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0142725 (2015).
60. Kano, A. Tumor cell secretion of soluble factor(s) for specific immunosuppression. Sci Rep 5, 8913, doi:10.1038/srep08913 (2015).
61. Ekshyyan, O. et al. Rapamycin targets Interleukin 6 (IL-6) expression and suppresses endothelial cell invasion stimulated by tumor cells. American journal of translational research 8, 4822-4830 (2016).
62. Delitto, D. et al. Human pancreatic cancer cells induce a MyD88-dependent stromal response to promote a tumor-tolerant immune microenvironment. Cancer research. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-16-1765 (2016).
63. Yuan, H. et al. Radiation-induced permeability and leukocyte adhesion in the rat blood-brain barrier: modulation with anti- ICAM-1 antibodies. Brain Res 969, 59-69 (2003).
64. Panyam, J. & Labhasetwar, V. Biodegradable nanoparticles for drug and gene delivery to cells and tissue. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 55, 329-347 (2003). doi:S0169409X02002284 [pii].
65. Astete, C. E. & Sabliov, C. M. Synthesis and characterization of PLGA nanoparticles. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 17, 247-289 (2006).
66. Kobayashi, H., Boelte, K. C. & Lin, P. C. Endothelial cell adhesion molecules and cancer progression. Curr Med Chem 14, 377-386 (2007).
67. Tang, Y. et al. Targeted delivery of vascular endothelial growth factor improves stem cell therapy in a rat myocardial infarction model. Nanomedicine 10, 1711-1718, doi:10.1016/j.nano.2014.06.001 (2014).
68. Pattillo, C. B. et al. Targeting of the antivascular drug combretastatin to irradiated tumors results in tumor growth delay. Pharm Res 22, 1117-1120, doi:10.1007/s11095-005-5646-0 (2005).
69. Nallamothu, R. et al. A tumor vasculature targeted liposome delivery system for combretastatin A4: design, characterization, and in vitro evaluation. AAPS PharmSciTech 7, E32, doi:10.1208/pt070232 (2006).
70. Hooshdaran, B. et al. Abstract 16159: Targeted Delivery of a Dual Cathepsin G and Chymase Inhibitor by Immunoliposomes Augments Cardioprotection in Mice. Circulation 134, A16159 (2016).