3,336
Views
44
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

In vitro and in vivo antitumor effect of gefitinib nanoparticles on human lung cancer

, , , , , , , , , & show all
Pages 1501-1512 | Received 23 Jul 2017, Accepted 22 Sep 2017, Published online: 29 Sep 2017

Figures & data

Figure 1. Physicochemical characterization of nanoparticles (A–D) and cytotoxicity study in vitro (E–G) (A): GEF-NPs particle size distribution; (B): Zeta Potential of GEF-NPs; (C): AFM image of GEF-NPs (scale bar =50 nm); (D): In vitro drug release of GEF-NPs and free GEF. Data are shown as means ± SD (n = 3). Cytotoxicity study in vitro: 24-h MTT and 48-h MTT was shown in Figure E and F, respectively. (G): The toxicity of PCEC to A549.

Figure 1. Physicochemical characterization of nanoparticles (A–D) and cytotoxicity study in vitro (E–G) (A): GEF-NPs particle size distribution; (B): Zeta Potential of GEF-NPs; (C): AFM image of GEF-NPs (scale bar =50 nm); (D): In vitro drug release of GEF-NPs and free GEF. Data are shown as means ± SD (n = 3). Cytotoxicity study in vitro: 24-h MTT and 48-h MTT was shown in Figure E and F, respectively. (G): The toxicity of PCEC to A549.

Table 1. Characteristics of GEF-NPs.

Figure 2. In vitro cellular uptake of PCEC polymeric micelles (A–C), example of each group mice on PET imaging (D–F) and evaluation of antitumor efficiency(G–I) A: blank control; B: The mixture of Coumarin-6 and PCEC; C:Coumarin-6-labeled PCEC nanoparticles (×400); (D):NS group, (E):GEF group, (F):GEF-NPs group; Evaluation of antitumor efficiency in vivo (G) and body weight changes (H) after treatment on A549 tumor-bearing nude BALB/c mice. Each point represents the mean of tumor size ± SD (6≤N ≤ 12). (I): The fraction survival of each group.

Figure 2. In vitro cellular uptake of PCEC polymeric micelles (A–C), example of each group mice on PET imaging (D–F) and evaluation of antitumor efficiency(G–I) A: blank control; B: The mixture of Coumarin-6 and PCEC; C:Coumarin-6-labeled PCEC nanoparticles (×400); (D):NS group, (E):GEF group, (F):GEF-NPs group; Evaluation of antitumor efficiency in vivo (G) and body weight changes (H) after treatment on A549 tumor-bearing nude BALB/c mice. Each point represents the mean of tumor size ± SD (6≤N ≤ 12). (I): The fraction survival of each group.

Figure 3. The tumor tissue apoptotic distribution (A–E) and cell-cycle distribution (F–J): (A–D): tumor tissue apoptotic distribution of different therapeutic effects on A549 tumor-bearing nude BALB/c mice; (E) Quantitative analysis of the proportion of cells in each group tumor tissue apoptotic distribution. (F–I): cell-cycle distribution of different therapeutic effects on A549 tumor-bearing nude BALB/c mice; (J): Quantitative analysis of the proportion of cells in each group cell-cycle distribution.

Figure 3. The tumor tissue apoptotic distribution (A–E) and cell-cycle distribution (F–J): (A–D): tumor tissue apoptotic distribution of different therapeutic effects on A549 tumor-bearing nude BALB/c mice; (E) Quantitative analysis of the proportion of cells in each group tumor tissue apoptotic distribution. (F–I): cell-cycle distribution of different therapeutic effects on A549 tumor-bearing nude BALB/c mice; (J): Quantitative analysis of the proportion of cells in each group cell-cycle distribution.

Figure 4. Side effects evaluation: H&E staining sections of skin and lung of each group (Original magnification, ×200): (A): The level of TGF-β1 in blood; (B): The content of HYP in lung tissue. (C): The level of IL-6 in blood. *p < .05 and **p < .01.

Figure 4. Side effects evaluation: H&E staining sections of skin and lung of each group (Original magnification, ×200): (A): The level of TGF-β1 in blood; (B): The content of HYP in lung tissue. (C): The level of IL-6 in blood. *p < .05 and **p < .01.

Figure 5. Representative images of immunohistochemistry analysis of each group for the evaluation of ki67, CD31 and EGFR. (Original magnification, ×400) The quantification immunohistochemistry analysis of each group for the evaluation of ki67, CD31 and EGFR were Figure A–C respectively. *p < .05 and **p < .01.

Figure 5. Representative images of immunohistochemistry analysis of each group for the evaluation of ki67, CD31 and EGFR. (Original magnification, ×400) The quantification immunohistochemistry analysis of each group for the evaluation of ki67, CD31 and EGFR were Figure A–C respectively. *p < .05 and **p < .01.
Supplemental material

IDRD_Fu_et_al_Supplemental_Content.doc

Download MS Word (2 MB)