1,369
Views
6
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Sodium N-lauryl amino acids derived from silk protein can form catanionic aggregates with cytarabine as novel anti-tumor drug delivery systems

, , &
Pages 482-490 | Received 10 Dec 2019, Accepted 09 Mar 2020, Published online: 26 Mar 2020

Figures & data

Figure 1. (a) The apparent morphology of catanionic aggregation in solutions of SSS-CH. (b) The TEM photos of SSS-CH catanionic aggregates. X1 is expressed as the mass fraction of CH (X1=mCH/m(SSS+CH)).

Figure 1. (a) The apparent morphology of catanionic aggregation in solutions of SSS-CH. (b) The TEM photos of SSS-CH catanionic aggregates. X1 is expressed as the mass fraction of CH (X1=mCH/m(SSS+CH)).

Figure 2. Particle size distribution diagram of SSS-CH catanionic aggregate solutions with different X1 values.

Figure 2. Particle size distribution diagram of SSS-CH catanionic aggregate solutions with different X1 values.

Figure 3. (a) Conductivity diagram of SSS-CH catanionic aggregate solutions with different X1 values. (b) Turbidity values for SSS-CH catanionic aggregate solutions with different X1 values.

Figure 3. (a) Conductivity diagram of SSS-CH catanionic aggregate solutions with different X1 values. (b) Turbidity values for SSS-CH catanionic aggregate solutions with different X1 values.

Table 1. The zeta potential value of SSS-CH catanionic aggregate solutions with different X1 values.

Figure 4. Drug release results for SSS-CH catanionic aggregate solutions with different X1 values (n = 3).

Figure 4. Drug release results for SSS-CH catanionic aggregate solutions with different X1 values (n = 3).

Figure 5. Cell viability in response to different concentrations of SSS incubated with CEM and Ramous cells (n = 3). (a, b) Represents the effect of SSS on the survival rate of CEM and Ramous cells, respectively.

Figure 5. Cell viability in response to different concentrations of SSS incubated with CEM and Ramous cells (n = 3). (a, b) Represents the effect of SSS on the survival rate of CEM and Ramous cells, respectively.

Figure 6. Cell morphologies of CEM (upper) and Ramous (lower) cells incubated with 100 µg/mL samples for 24 h and 48 h. Magnification: ×100.

Figure 6. Cell morphologies of CEM (upper) and Ramous (lower) cells incubated with 100 µg/mL samples for 24 h and 48 h. Magnification: ×100.

Figure 7. The inhibitory rates of different concentrations of CH and SSS-CH on CEM cells (n = 3), (a): 24 h, (b): 48 h, *Indicates the difference compared with the blank group, *p<.05, significant difference, **p<.01, very significant difference, ***p<.001, extremely significant difference.

Figure 7. The inhibitory rates of different concentrations of CH and SSS-CH on CEM cells (n = 3), (a): 24 h, (b): 48 h, *Indicates the difference compared with the blank group, *p<.05, significant difference, **p<.01, very significant difference, ***p<.001, extremely significant difference.

Figure 8. Inhibitory rates of different concentrations of CH and SSS-CH on Ramous cells (n = 3). (a): 24 h, (b): 48 h. *Indicates the difference compared with the blank group, *p<.05, significant difference, **p<.01, very significant difference, ***p<.001, extremely significant difference.

Figure 8. Inhibitory rates of different concentrations of CH and SSS-CH on Ramous cells (n = 3). (a): 24 h, (b): 48 h. *Indicates the difference compared with the blank group, *p<.05, significant difference, **p<.01, very significant difference, ***p<.001, extremely significant difference.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study as well as analysis scripts are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.