epsilon-viniferin and Liver-Neoplasms

The objective of this study was to prepare the ɛ-viniferine and vincristine-loaded PLGA-b-PEG nanoparticle and to investigate advantages of these formulations on the cytotoxicity of HepG2 cells. Prepared nanoparticle has shown a homogeneous distribution with 113 ± 0.43 nm particle size and 0.323 ± 0.01 polydispersity index. Zeta potential was determined as -35.03 ± 1.0 mV. The drug-loading percentages were 6.01 ± 0.23 and 2.01 ± 0.07 for ɛ-viniferine and vincristine, respectively. The cellular uptake efficiency of coumarin-6-loaded nanoparticles was increased up to 87.8% after 4 h. Nanoparticles loaded with high concentrations of both drugs showed a cytotoxic effect on HepG2 cells, having the percentage of cell viability of between 43.23% and 47.37%. Unfortunately, the percentage of apoptotic cells after treated with drugs-loaded nanaoparticles (10.93%) was similar to free forms of drugs (12.1%) that might be due to low ɛ-viniferine release in biological pH at 24 h.

Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic; Apoptosis; Benzofurans; Drug Carriers; Hep G2 Cells; Humans; Liver; Liver Neoplasms; Nanoparticles; Polyethylene Glycols; Polyglactin 910; Stilbenes; Vincristine

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the fifth most common cancer and the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. The efficacy of novel combination treatments are increasingly evaluated with use of integrative biology research and development (R&D) strategies and methodological triangulation. We investigated the anti-tumor effect of ɛ-viniferin alone, and the putative synergy of ɛ-viniferin with vincristine on the growth of HepG2 cells in vitro. Growth inhibition and apoptosis induction were determined by MTT assay and annexin V/propidium iodide (PI), respectively. Morphological changes and DNA fragmentation were investigated under electron microscopy and by agarose gel electrophoresis, respectively. The results collectively showed that treating cells with ɛ-viniferin and vincristine significantly inhibited cell viability at lower doses as compared to each agent applied alone. IC(50) values for ɛ-viniferin and vincristine were determined as 98.3 and 52.5 μM at 24 h, respectively. IC(50) value of ɛ-viniferin in combination with vincristine was 15.8+11.25 μM (mean/SD) at 24 h. The viability of cells treated with 17.9 μM vincristine alone for 24 h was 79.62%; it reduced to 26.53% when 25 μM ɛ-viniferin was added in combination with vincristine (p<0.05). We found that combination of drugs promoted the sensitivity of cells against to vincristine treatment. The effect of combined use was in support of a synergistic pharmacodynamic effect. Moreover, low doses of the combination regimen induced phosphatidyl re-localization, morphological changes, and DNA fragmentation, and therefore caused apoptotic death. This study thus suggests that low concentrations of ɛ-viniferin and vincristine can enhance the anti-tumor effects efficiently by inducing HepG2 cell apoptosis. Further studies in other model systems are warranted with a view to potential future applications in the clinic of such combination regimens and their putative mechanism of action in the observed synergy reported here.

Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic; Apoptosis; Benzofurans; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Cell Shape; Cell Survival; DNA Fragmentation; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Screening Assays, Antitumor; Drug Synergism; Hep G2 Cells; Humans; Inhibitory Concentration 50; Liver Neoplasms; Stilbenes; Vincristine