METHOD: TQ-nanoparticles were prepared and optimized by using two different formulations with different drugs to PLGA-PEG ratio (1:20 and 1:7) and different PLGA-PEG to Pluronic F68 ratio (10:1 and 2:1). The morphology and size were determined using TEM and DLS. Characterization of particles was done using UV-VIS, ATR-IR, entrapment efficiency, and drug release. The effects of drug, polymer, and surfactants were compared between the two formulations. Cytotoxicity assay was performed using MTS assay.
RESULTS: TEM finding showed 96% of particles produced with 1:7 drug to PLGA-PEG were less than 90 nm in size and spherical in shape. This was confirmed with DLS which showed smaller particle size than those formed with 1:20 drug to PLGA-PEG ratio. Further analysis showed zeta potential was negatively charged which could facilitate cellular uptake as reported previously. In addition, PDI value was less than 0.1 in both formulations indicating monodispersed and less broad in size distribution. The absorption peak of PLGA-PEG-TQ-Nps was at 255 nm. The 1:7 drug to polymer formulation was selected for further analysis where the entrapment efficiency was 79.9% and in vitro drug release showed a maximum release of TQ of 50%. Cytotoxicity result showed IC50 of TQ-nanoparticle at 20.05 μM and free TQ was 8.25 μM.
CONCLUSION: This study showed that nanoparticle synthesized with 1:7 drug to PLGA-PEG ratio and 2:1 PLGA-PEG to Pluronic F68 formed nanoparticles with less than 100 nm and had spherical shape as confirmed with DLS. This could facilitate its transportation and absorption to reach its target. There was conserved TQ stability as exhibited slow release of this volatile oil. The TQ-nanoparticles showed selective cytotoxic effect toward UACC 732 cells compared to MCF-7 breast cancer cells.
METHODS: Gallic acid (1), and methyl gallate (2), were isolated via bioassay-directed isolation, and they exhibited anticancer properties towards several cancer cell lines, examined using MTT cell viability assay. Pyrogallol (3) was examined against the same cancer cell lines to deduce the bioactive functional group of the phenolic compounds.
RESULTS: The results showed that the phenolic compounds could exhibit moderate to weak cytotoxicity towards certain cell lines (GI50 30 - 86 µM), but were inactive towards DU145 prostate cancer cell (GI50 > 100 µM).
CONCLUSION: It was observed that pyrogallol moiety was one of the essential functional structures of the phenolic compounds in exhibiting anticancer activity. Also, the carboxyl group of compound 1 was also important in anticancer activity. Examination of the PC-3 cells treated with compound 1 using fluorescence microscopy showed that PC-3 cells were killed by apoptosis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In hepatoprotective activity, liver damage was induced by treating rats with 1.0 mL carbon tetrachloride (CCl4)/kg and MEA extract was administered at a dose of 50, 250 and 500 mg/kg 24 h before intoxication with CCl4. Cytotoxicity study was performed on MCF-7 (human breast cancer), DBTRG (human glioblastoma), PC-3 (human prostate cancer) and U2OS (human osteosarcoma) cell lines. 1H, 13C-NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance), and IR (infrared) spectral analyses were also conducted for MEA extract.
RESULTS: In hepatoprotective activity evaluation, MEA extract at a higher dose level of 500 mg/kg showed significant (p<0.05) potency. In cytotoxicity study, MEA extract was more toxic towards MCF-7 and DBTRG cell lines causing 78.7% and 64.3% cell death, respectively. MEA extract in 1H, 13C-NMR, and IR spectra exhibited bands, signals and J (coupling constant) values representing aromatic/phenolic constituents.
CONCLUSIONS: From the results, it could be concluded that MEA extract has potency to inhibit hepatotoxicity and MCF-7 and DBTRG cancer cell lines which might be due to the phenolic compounds depicted from NMR and IR spectra.