ROS-Mediated Photodynamic Cancer Therapy by Nanoparticle
Jian Zhao, Yang Li*, Enxiang Shang and Wen Pang
State Key Laboratory of Water Environment Simulation, Beijing Normal University, China
Submission: February 14, 2017; Published: March 10, 2017
*Corresponding author:Yang Li, State Key Laboratory of Water Environment Simulation, Beijing Normal University, China, Tel:+86 -10-58807612;Fax:+86-10-58807612; Email:liyang_bnu@bnu.edu.cn
How to cite this article: Jian Z, Yang L, Enxiang S, Wen P. ROS-Mediated Photodynamic Cancer Therapy by Nanoparticle. Glob J Nano. 2017; 1(3): 555563. DOI: 10.19080/GJN.2017.01.555563
Abstract
Photodynamic therapy (PDT) offers great promise for cancer treatment in the presence of photosensitizer and molecular oxygen. Because of their biocompatibility, metal-based nanoparticles (NPs) are promising materials for applications as photosensitizers of PDT. The ROS-based therapeutic mechanism of NPs toward cancer cells has been elucidated. The influence factors of ROS production by NPs, including physicochemical properties of NPs (e.g. particle size and surface coating), solution chemistry (e.g. aqueous media) and experimental conditions (e.g. humic acid and light conditions), have been summarized. In addition, the ROS generation mechanism of metal-based NPs is elucidated. Finally, key challenges facing cancer therapy by metal-based NPs are listed and the directions for further research are pointed out.
Keywords: Nanoparticles; Cancer therapy; ROS; Impact factors
Abbreviations: PDT: Photodynamic Therapy; ROS: Reactive Oxygen Species; NPs: Nanoparticles; •OH: Hydroxyl Radical; 1O2: Singlet Oxygen; O2•−: Superoxide Radical; H2O2: Hydrogen Peroxide; DOM: Dissolved Organic Matter; HA: Humic Acid; SPR: Surface Plasmon Resonance; NHE: Normal Hydrogen Electrodes
Introduction
Traditional cancer treatment technologies such as chemotherapy and surgery have some limitations, including poor patient compliance and adverse drug reaction [1]. In recent years, photodynamic therapy (PDT) has received extensive attention for cancer treatment in the presence of photosensitizer and molecular oxygen due to its minimal invasiveness, nondrug resistance, low poison, and accurate tumor therapy [1-3]. PDT depends on the photochemical reaction between light and the photosensitizer to produce reactive oxygen species (ROS) that eventually leading to cancer cell death [4,5]. Since metal-based nanoparticles (NPs) are biocompatible, they are promising materials that can be used as photosensitizer for PDT [6,7]. It has been demonstrated that metal oxide or metallic NPs exposed to light can produce ROS that induce cancer cell damage [7,8]. In this review, we will summary the therapeutic mechanism of metal-based NPs toward cancer cells, influence factors of ROS production, and ROS production mechanism of metal-based NPs.
Therapeutic mechanism of metal-based nanoparticles
The main therapeutic mechanism of metal-based NPs to cancer cells is associated with the production of ROS andsubsequent ROS-induced apoptosis in cancer cells [7,8]. Three types of ROS (hydroxyl radical (•OH), singlet oxygen (1O2) and superoxide radical (O2•−) jointly contribute to the death of tumor cells [9]. Among them, •OH has the ability to non-specifically oxidize many any types of macromolecules, such as nucleic acids, carbohydrates, and DNA [8]. 1O2 is the most detrimental ROS to tumor cells because it reacts extensively with amine acids, proteins unsaturated fatty acids and steroids [8]. This can lead to oxidation and degradation of bio membrane in cancer cells. O2•− reacts with macromolecules slowly. However, O2•− can produce hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) by disproportionate reaction [9]. H2O2 can be converted to •OH and 1O2. Consequently,1O2, •OH and O2•− may coexist and contribute to cancer therapy by NPs.
Effect factors of ROS production by metal-based nanoparticle
ROS production of metal-based NPs could be influenced by many factors, such as physicochemical properties of NPs (e.g. particle size and surface coating), solution chemistry (e.g. aqueous media), and environmental conditions (e.g. dissolved organic matter (DOM) and light conditions) [8,10]. The role of these parameters in ROS production is discussed below.
Effect of particle size
In general, when the particle size reduces, ROS production concentrations increase due to the larger surface areas and more reactive sites of NPs [11]. Previous study has shown that ROS production by Au (5-250 nm) under UV or X-ray irradiation linearly increased with the decrease of NPs diameters [6]. Metaloxide NPs have been found to produce more ROS than their bulk counterparts because larger surface areas of NPs provide more reaction sites for light absorption and oxygen exposure [8].
Effect of surface coating
Surface coating can change the light absorption characteristics of metal-based NPs and will eventually affect their ROS production profile. In the field of biomedicine, surface coating was decorated on the metal-based NP surface to enhance ROS generation for photodynamic treatment of cancer [12]. However, Wang et al. demonstrated that ginger and mint decreased ROS production by Ag NPs in cells of Hep G2 and He La [7]. This is mainly because biocapping agents on the surface of Ag NPs have antioxidant activity [8].
Effect of aqueous medium
The ability of ROS production by metal-based NPs is significantly impacted by the physicochemical properties of the aqueous medium [13,14]. Previous studies have found that ZnO NPs generated O2•−, •OH and 1O2 in deionized water, sodium chloride solution, phosphate-buffered saline and minimal Davis medium, but only formed 1O2 and O2•− in Luria-Bertani medium [14]. ROS production ability could be decreased by the organic components (e.g., yeast extract glucose, tryptone and citrate) in the aqueous media [14].
Effect of DOM
No consistent conclusions on the role of DOM in ROS production by metal-based NPs exist. For example, researchers have shown that intracellular ROS production by TiO2 NPs was promoted by humic acid (HA) in aquatic environment under natural sunlight irradiation. However, Lin et al. have demonstrated that HA inhibited ROS production by TiO2 NPs under natural sunlight irradiation, which was mainly because HA acted as ROS quenchers [15]. The metal ions released by metal-based NPs could disable the triplet states of HA, resulting in their reduced sensitization ability for ROS production [16]. Moreover, DOM may serve as a UV filter and finally reduced ROS generation by NPs [17].
Effect of light condition
Light exposure plays an important role in ROS production of metal-based NPs in natural condition [14,18,19]. Previous studies have shown that light exposure, such as irradiation by xenon lamp, UV lamp, X-ray, and solar, could enhance ROS production by metal-based NPs [14,18,19]. 1O2, •OH and O2•−cannot be detected by all metal-oxide and metallic NPs in the dark, but at least one type of ROS was detected when exposed to UV light. This was because the light irradiation induces surface plasmon resonance (SPR) production in the surface of metallic NPs and electron-hole pairs in metal-oxide NPs, which will be elucidated in the following section.
Production mechanism of ROS
The generation mechanism of ROS in metal-oxide NP suspensions was clarified by comparing the band edge energy levels of metal oxides with the redox potentials of various ROS production [20,21]. For example, the Ec value of TiO2 is -0.28 eV relative to normal hydrogen electrodes (NHE; all Ec and Ev values are relative to NHE) [22], which is lower than -0.2 eV (EH of O2/O2•−). This demonstrate that the electrons in TiO2 NPs have enough reductive power to reduce O2 and result in O2•− production. The reductive ability of the electrons in CuO conduction band (Ec value of 0.69 eV) is not enough to reduce O2 [22], thus no measurable amount of O2•− was detected in CuO suspension.
Metallic NPs can interact with light by scattering or absorbing the photons [6,18]. When excited by light, the oscillating electric field of the incoming radiation leads to coherent collective oscillation of the free mobile electrons on the surface of metallic NPs [6,18]. When the frequency of surface electron oscillation equals to that of the photon, SPR is produced [6,18]. A strong absorption of incident photon energy is induced by SPR, which can be transferred to O2 and result in 1O2 production [6,12]. The photoelectrons transferred to O2 are responsible for the production of O2•− [6], which can further enhance •OH production under light irradiation [6,12]. Research has showed that Ag NPs generated O2•− and •OH [23]. 1O2 was not discovered, which was primarily due to the consumption of 1O2 by the released Ag+ [23].
Conclusion and Perspectives
The applications of metal-oxide NPs for PDT are limited because the high band gap of NPs allows ROS production in the presence of UV light, which has poor penetration into biological tissue and can cause DNA damage. Efforts should be made to develop NPs capable of response to visible light or X-ray. In addition, further work should be done to combine with other therapies, such as photo acoustic and photo catalytic, to decrease the doses of NPs and overcome the drug resistance problem.
References
- Zhuang X, Ma X, Xue X, Jiang Q, Song L, et al. (2016) A photosensitizerloaded DNA origami nanosystem for photodynamic therapy. ACS Nano 10(3): 3486-3495.
- Han K, Wang SB, Lei Q, Zhu JY, Zhang XZ (2015) Ratiometric biosensor for aggregation-induced emission-guided precise photodynamic therapy. ACS Nano 9(10): 10268-10277.
- Wen AM, Lee KL, Cao PF, Pangilinan K, Carpenter BL, et al. (2016) Utilizing viral nanoparticle/dendron hybrid conjugates in photodynamic therapy for dual delivery to macrophages and cancer cells. Bioconjug Chem 27(5): 1227-1235.
- Chen KC, Hsieh YS, Tseng YF, Shieh MJ, Chen JS, et al. (2015) Pleural photodynamic therapy and surgery in lung cancer and thymoma patients with pleural spread. PloSOne 10(7): e0133230.
- Gong H, Chao Y, Xiang J, Han X, Song G, et al. (2016) Hyaluronidase to enhance nanoparticle-based photodynamic tumor therapy. Nano Letters 16(4): 2512-2521.
- Misawa M, Takahashi J (2011) Generation of reactive oxygen species induced by gold nanoparticles under X-ray and UV irradiations. Nanomedicine 7(5): 604-614.
- Wang Chunyan, Suresh Valiyaveettil (2013) Correlation of biocapping agents with cytotoxic effects of silver nanoparticles on human tumor cells. RSC Adv 3(34): 14329-14338.
- Li Y, Zhang W, Niu JF, Chen YS (2012) Mechanism of photogenerated reactive oxygen species and correlation with the antibacterial properties of engineered metal-oxide nanoparticles. ACS Nano 6(6): 5164-5173.
- You DG, Deepagan VG, Um W, Jeon S, Son S, et al. (2016) ROS-generating TiO2 nanoparticles for non-invasive sonodynamic therapy of cancer. Sci Rep 6: 23200.
- Li Y, Niu JF, Shang EX, Crittenden JC (2016) Influence of dissolved organic matter on photogenerated reactive oxygen species and metaloxide nanoparticle toxicity. Water Res 98: 9-18.
- Carlson C, Hussain SM, Schrand AM, Braydichstolle LK, Hess KL, et al. (2008) Unique cellular interaction of silver nanoparticles: sizedependent generation of reactive oxygen species. J Phys Chem B 112(43): 13608-13619..
- Wieder ME, Hone DC, Cook MJ, Handsley MM, Gavrilovic J, et al. (2006) Intracellular photodynamic therapy with photosensitizer-nanoparticle conjugates: cancer therapy using a ‘Trojan horse’. Photochem Photobiol Sci 5(8): 727-734..
- Brunet L, Lyon DY, Hotze EM, Alvarez PJJ, Wiesner MR (2009) Comparative photoactivity and antibacterial properties of C60 fullerenes and titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Environ Sci Technol 43(12): 4355-4360.
- Dasari TP, Hwang HM (2013) Effect of humic acids and sunlight on the cytotoxicity of engineered zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles to a river bacterial assemblage. J Environ Sci 25(9): 1925-1935.
- Lin DH, Ji J, Long ZF, Yang K, Wu FC (2012) The influence of dissolved and surface-bound humic acid on the toxicity of TiO2 nanoparticles to chlorella sp. Water Res 46(14): 4477-4487.
- Luciano Carlos, Mariano Cipollone, Delia B Soria, M Sergio Morenod, Peter Rogilby, et al. (2012) The effect of humic acid binding to magnetite nanoparticles on the photogeneration of reactive oxygen species. Separation and Purification Technology 91(3): 23-29.
- Eunjoo Bae, Hee-Jin Park, Jaeyong Yoon, Younghun Kim, Kyunghee Choi, et al. (2011) Bacterial uptake of silver nanoparticles in the presence of humic acid and AgNO3. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering 28(1): 267-271.
- Batley GE, Kirby JK, Mc Laughlin MJ (2013) Fate and risks of nanomaterials in aquatic and terrestrial environments. Acc Chem Res 46(3): 854-862.
- Li Y, Niu JF, Zhang W, Zhang LL, Shang E (2014) Influence of aqueous media on the ROS-mediated toxicity of ZnO nanoparticles toward green fluorescent protein-expressing Escherichia coli under UV-365 irradiation. Langmuir 30(10): 2852-2862.
- Grätzel M (2001) Photoelectrochemical cells. Nature 414(6861): 338- 344.
- Kormann C, Bahnemann DW, Michael R Hoffmann (1991) Photolysis of chloroform and other organic-molecules in aqueous TiO2 suspensions. Environ Sci Technol 25(3): 494-500.
- Yong Xu, Martin AA Schoonen (2000) The absolute energy positions of conduction and valence bands of selected semiconducting minerals. American Mineralogist 85(3-4): 543-556.
- Zhang W, Li Y, Niu JF, Chen YS (2013) Photogeneration of reactive oxygen species on uncoated silver, gold, nickel, and silicon nanoparticles and their antibacterial effects. Langmuir 29(15): 4647-4651.