18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The cytotoxicity of BAMLET complexes is due to oleic acid and independent of the α-lactalbumin component

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Graphical abstract

          Highlights

          • We synthesized three different BAMLET complexes consisting of oleic acid coupled to bovine α-lactalbumin.

          • Oleic acid micelles alone are tumoricidal at equimolar concentrations of oleic acid bound in the BAMLET complexes.

          • α-Lactalbumin is non-toxic to cells even when delivered to their cytoplasm.

          • Both, BAMLET and oleic acid micelles showed no selective cytotoxicity to cancer cells.

          Abstract

          Lipid–protein complexes comprised of oleic acid (OA) non-covalently coupled to human/bovine α-lactalbumin, named HAMLET/BAMLET, display cytotoxic properties against cancer cells. However, there is still a substantial debate about the role of the protein in these complexes. To shed light into this, we obtained three different BAMLET complexes using varying synthesis conditions. Our data suggest that to form active BAMLET particles, OA has to reach critical micelle concentration with an approximate diameter of 250 nm. Proteolysis experiments on BAMLET show that OA protects the protein and is probably located on the surface, consistent with a micelle-like structure. Native or unfolded α-lactalbumin without OA lacked any tumoricidal activity. In contrast, OA alone killed cancer cells with the same efficiency at equimolar concentrations as its formulation as BAMLET. Our data show unequivocally that the cytotoxicity of the BAMLET complex is exclusively due to OA and that OA alone, when formulated as a micelle, is as toxic as the BAMLET complex. The contradictory literature results on the cytotoxicity of BAMLET might be explained by our finding that it was imperative to sonicate the samples to obtain toxic OA.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Macromolecular therapeutics in cancer treatment: the EPR effect and beyond.

          In this review, I have discussed various issues of the cancer drug targeting primarily related to the EPR (enhanced permeability and retention) effect, which utilized nanomedicine or macromolecular drugs. The content goes back to the development of the first polymer-protein conjugate anticancer agent SMANCS and development of the arterial infusion in Lipiodol formulation into the tumor feeding artery (hepatic artery for hepatoma). The brief account on the EPR effect and its definition, factors involved, heterogeneity, and various methods of augmentation of the EPR effect, which showed remarkably improved clinical outcomes are also discussed. Various obstacles involved in drug developments and commercialization are also discussed through my personal experience and recollections. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Chemotherapy-induced and/or radiation therapy-induced oral mucositis--complicating the treatment of cancer.

            The term mucositis is coined to describe the adverse effects of radiation and chemotherapy treatments. Mucositis is one of the most common adverse reactions encountered in radiation therapy for head and neck cancers, as well as in chemotherapy, in particular with drugs affecting DNA synthesis (S-phase-specific agents such as fluorouracil, methotrexate, and cytarabine). Mucositis may limit the patient's ability to tolerate chemotherapy or radiation therapy, and nutritional status is compromised. It may drastically affect cancer treatment as well as the patient's quality of life. The incidence and severity of mucositis will vary from patient to patient. It will also vary from treatment to treatment. It is estimated that there is 40% incidence of mucositis in patients treated with standard chemotherapy and this will not only increase with the number of treatment cycles but also with previous episodes. Similarly, patients who undergo bone marrow transplantation and who receive high doses of chemotherapy have a 76% chance of getting mucositis. Patients receiving radiation, in particular to head and neck cancers, have a 30% to 60% chance. The exact pathophysiology of development is not known, but it is thought to be divided into direct and indirect mucositis. Chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy will interfere with the normal turnover of epithelial, cells leading to mucosal injury; subsequently, it can also occur due to indirect invasion of Gram-negative bacteria and fungal species because most of the cancer drugs will cause changes in blood counts. With the advancement in cytology, a more precise mechanism has been established. With this understanding, we can select and target particular mediators responsible for the mucositis. Risk factors such as age, nutritional status, type of malignancy, and oral care during treatment will play important roles in the development of mucositis. Many treatment options are available to prevent and treat this condition, but none of them can completely prevent or treat mucositis. More and more pathological methods are being developed to understand this condition so that better therapeutic regimens can be selected. Emphasis also should be made in assessing the patient's psychologic condition, particular depressive disorders. This is important because treatment with antidepressants will not only contribute in lifting depression but also reduces pain somatization. Although mucositis is rarely life-threatening, it will interfere with treatment of cancer to a great extent.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Pharmacokinetics, tissue distribution and bioavailability of clozapine solid lipid nanoparticles after intravenous and intraduodenal administration.

              Clozapine, a lipophilic effective atypical antipsychotic drug, has very poor oral bioavailability (<27%) due to first pass effect. Clozapine solid lipid nanoparticles have been developed using various triglycerides (trimyristin, tripalmitin and tristearin), soylecithin 95%, poloxamer 188 and stearylamine as a positive charge inducer by hot homogenization followed by ultrasonication method. Particle size and charge measurements were made with Malvern Zetasizer. Pharmacokinetics of clozapine incorporated in solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs), after intravenous (i.v.) administration to conscious male Wistar rats were studied. The aim of this research was to find out whether the bioavailability of clozapine can be improved by administering clozapine SLN duodenally to rats. Tissue distribution studies of clozapine SLN and suspension were carried out in Swiss albino mice. Average size and zeta potential of SLNs of different lipids with stearylamine ranged from 96.7+/-3.8 to 163.3+/-0.7 nm and 21.3+/-1.3 to 33.2+/-0.6 mV, respectively. AUC((0-infinity)) was increased (up to 2.91-fold) and clearance was decreased (up to 2.93-fold) when clozapine entrapped in SLNs with stearylamine were administered intravenously. Bioavailability of clozapine SLNs were 2.45- to 4.51-fold after intraduodenal administration compared with that of clozapine suspension. In tested organs, the AUC and MRT of clozapine SLNs were higher than those of clozapine suspension especially in brain and reticuloendothelial cell-containing organs. These results indicate that SLN are suitable drug delivery system for the improvement of bioavailability of lipophilic drugs such as clozapine.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                FEBS Open Bio
                FEBS Open Bio
                FEBS Open Bio
                Elsevier
                2211-5463
                04 May 2015
                2015
                04 May 2015
                : 5
                : 397-404
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Biology, University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras Campus, P.O. Box 23360, San Juan 00931-3346, Puerto Rico
                [b ]Department of Chemistry, University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras Campus, P.O. Box 23360, San Juan 00931-3346, Puerto Rico
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Department of Chemistry, University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras Campus, P.O. Box 23360, San Juan 00931-3346, Puerto Rico. Tel.: +1 (787) 764 0000x7374; fax: +1 (787) 756 8242. kai.griebenow@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                S2211-5463(15)00040-6
                10.1016/j.fob.2015.04.010
                4430638
                ce723fba-4cf4-44b5-b556-7134d069e6d0
                © 2015 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 26 March 2015
                : 16 April 2015
                Categories
                Article

                α-la, α-lactalbumin,bamlet, bovine α-lactalbumin made lethal to tumor cells,dls, dynamic light scattering,epr, enhanced permeability and retention,fa, fatty acid,foa, folic acid,hamlet, human α-lactalbumin made lethal to tumor cells,mts, 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxymethoxyphenyl)-2-(4-sulfophenyl)-2h-tetrazolium,np, nanoparticles,oa, oleic acid,pms, phenazine methosulfate,sem, scanning electron microscopy,bamlet,cancer therapy,fatty acid,hamlet,α-lactalbumin,oleic acid

                Comments

                Comment on this article