Enhancing cisplatin delivery to hepatocellular carcinoma HepG2 cells using dual sensitive smart nanocomposite

Figures & data

Scheme 1. Synthesis and chemical structure of P(NIPAM-co-DMA).

Figure 1. ¹H NMR spectrum of P(NIPAM-co-DMA).

Figure 2. IR spectrum of P(NIPAM-co-DMA).

Figure 3. SEM micrographs of P(NIPAM-co-DMA) nanogel (A) and cisplatin-loaded P(NIPAM-co-DMA)/Fe₃O₄ nanocomposite (B).

Figure 4. Size distribution of P(NIPAM-co-DMA) nanogel (A) and cisplatin-loaded P(NIPAM-co-DMA)/Fe₃O₄ nonocomposite (B) analysed by DLS.

Figure 5. Magnetization curves of Fe₃O₄ magnetic nanoparticles (A) and cisplatin-loaded P(NIPAM-co-DMA)/Fe₃O₄ nanocomposite (B).

Figure 6. Separation-redispersion behaviour of cisplatin-loaded P(NIPAM-co-DMA)/Fe₃O₄ nanocomposite: without external magnetic field (left), with external magnetic field (right).

Table 1. Swelling ratio of the P(NIPAM-co-DMA) nanogel at two different temperature and pH values.

	Swelling ratio in pH of
Temperature (°C)	7.4	5.8
37	2.01	3.75
40	1.00	2.66

Figure 7. (A) The release behaviour of cisplatin-loaded P(NIPAM-co-DMA) nanogel. (B) The release behaviour of cisplatin-loaded P(NIPAM-co-DMA)/Fe₃O₄ nanocomposite.

Figure 8. The HepG2 cells in cultivation medium (A). The cytocompatibility checking of P(NIPAM-co-DMA) nanogel using MTT assay which showed no significant cytotoxicity to HepG2 cells (B).

Figure 9. Growth inhibition rates by different concentration of free cisplatin and cisplatin-loaded P(NIPAM-co-DMA)/Fe₃O₄ nanocomposite after 24 (A), 48 (B) and 72 h (C). IC50 reduced to lower doses 72 h post incubation (D).