2,850
Views
20
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Articles

Lipidic cubic-phase leflunomide nanoparticles (cubosomes) as a potential tool for breast cancer management

, , & ORCID Icon
Pages 1663-1674 | Received 08 Apr 2022, Accepted 09 May 2022, Published online: 26 May 2022

Figures & data

Table 1. Composition of LEF loaded cubosomes.

Table 2. Colloidal characteristics and % EE of different LEF loaded cubosomes.

Table 3. Release kinetics of different LEF loaded cubosomes.

Figure 1. (A) Effect of GMO concentration on particle size and PDI of cubosomes. (B) Effect of OA concentration on particle size and PDI of cubosomes.

Figure 1. (A) Effect of GMO concentration on particle size and PDI of cubosomes. (B) Effect of OA concentration on particle size and PDI of cubosomes.

Figure 2. X ray diffraction of LEF and different cubosomal formulations.

Figure 2. X ray diffraction of LEF and different cubosomal formulations.

Figure 3. Cumulative percentage of LEF released from LEF loaded cubosomes using dialysis bag method.

Figure 3. Cumulative percentage of LEF released from LEF loaded cubosomes using dialysis bag method.

Table 4. Permeation data analysis.

Figure 4. (A) Cumulative percentage LEF permeated through skin in ex vivo permeation test. (B) Linear correlation between cumulative percentage LEF permeated in ex-vivo for LEF suspension and different cubosomal formulation within the first 8 h of the experiment.

Figure 4. (A) Cumulative percentage LEF permeated through skin in ex vivo permeation test. (B) Linear correlation between cumulative percentage LEF permeated in ex-vivo for LEF suspension and different cubosomal formulation within the first 8 h of the experiment.

Figure 5. Correlation between percentage released and percentage permeated in different cubosomal formulations and LEF suspension.

Figure 5. Correlation between percentage released and percentage permeated in different cubosomal formulations and LEF suspension.

Figure 6. TEM micrographs of selected formulation of LEF loaded cubosomes (F4).

Figure 6. TEM micrographs of selected formulation of LEF loaded cubosomes (F4).

Figure 7. (A) MTT assay. (B) Morphological examination of cell line after treatment with 100 µg/mL of (1) LEF suspension, (2) LEF cubosomes (F4) and (3) Positive control (Doxorubicin). (4) MDA-MB-231 cells before treatment. (C) Percentage Cell viability of: LEF suspension, LEF cubosomes (F4) and positive control (doxorubicin).

Figure 7. (A) MTT assay. (B) Morphological examination of cell line after treatment with 100 µg/mL of (1) LEF suspension, (2) LEF cubosomes (F4) and (3) Positive control (Doxorubicin). (4) MDA-MB-231 cells before treatment. (C) Percentage Cell viability of: LEF suspension, LEF cubosomes (F4) and positive control (doxorubicin).

Figure 8. Uptake of LEF suspension and LEF loaded cubosomes (F4) by MDA-MB-231 cells after 6 and 24 h.

Figure 8. Uptake of LEF suspension and LEF loaded cubosomes (F4) by MDA-MB-231 cells after 6 and 24 h.