Subscriber access provided by University of Akron
Article
Comparing gene silencing and physiochemical properties in siRNA bound cationic star-polymer complexes Megan Dearnley, Nicholas P. Reynolds, Peter Cass, Xiaohu Wei, Shuning Shi, A. Aalam Mohammed, Tam Le, Pathiraja Gunatillake, Mark L. Tizard, San H. Thang, and Tracey M. Hinton Biomacromolecules, Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.biomac.6b01029 • Publication Date (Web): 06 Oct 2016 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on October 10, 2016
Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
Biomacromolecules is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.
Page 1 of 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Biomacromolecules
1
Comparing gene silencing and physiochemical
2
properties in siRNA bound cationic star-polymer
3
complexes
4
Megan Dearnley1‡, Nicholas P. Reynolds2‡, Peter Cass3, Xiaohu Wei 3,4, Shuning Shi1, A. Aalam
5
Mohammed1, Tam Le3, Pathiraja Gunatillake3*, Mark L. Tizard1, San H. Thang3*, Tracey M.
6
Hinton1*
7
‡
8
*Corresponding Authors
9
1
These authors contributed equally
CSIRO-Health and Biosecurity Business Unit, Australian Animal Health Laboratory, 5
10
Portarlington Road, Geelong, Vic 3220 Australia.
11
2
12
3122, Australia.
13
3
14
4
15
Beijing 100029, China
16
Keywords Gene-Silencing, siRNA, quantitative nanoscale mechanical-AFM, Nanoparticle
17
Tracking Analysis, siRNA-polymer complex stiffness, siRNA-polymer complex, Cell Uptake,
18
Protein Corona
ARC Training Centre for Biodevices, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Vic
CSIRO-Manufacturing Business Unit, Bayview Avenue, Clayton, Vic 3168 Australia. College of Materials Science and Engineering, Beijing University of Chemical Technology,
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
1
Biomacromolecules
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 2 of 47
19
20
ABSTRACT
21
The translation of siRNA into clinical therapies has been significantly delayed by issues
22
surrounding the delivery of naked siRNA to target cells. Here we investigate siRNA delivery by
23
cationic acrylic polymers developed by Reversible Addition Fragmentation chain Transfer
24
(RAFT) mediated free radical polymerization. We investigated cell uptake and gene silencing of
25
a series of siRNA-star polymer complexes both in the presence and absence of a protein
26
“corona”. Using a multidisciplinary approach including quantitative nanoscale mechanical-
27
atomic force microscopy, dynamic light scattering and nanoparticle tracking analysis we have
28
characterized the nanoscale morphology, stiffness and surface charge of the complexes with and
29
without the protein corona. This is one of the first examples of a comprehensive physiochemical
30
analysis of siRNA-polymer complexes being performed alongside in vitro biological assays,
31
allowing us to describe a set of desirable physical features that promote gene silencing in
32
cationic polymer complexes. Multi-faceted studies such as this will improve our understanding
33
of structure-function relationships in nano-therapeutics, facilitating the rational design of
34
polymer-mediated siRNA delivery systems for novel treatment strategies.
35 36 37 38 39 40
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
2
Page 3 of 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Biomacromolecules
41
Introduction
42
Therapies based on gene silencing through small interfering (si)RNAs have the potential to
43
revolutionize the treatment of a number of genetic and viral diseases, including influenza,1-3
44
respiratory syncytial virus,4 and dengue virus.5 However, the development of clinically viable
45
therapeutics is limited due to a lack of reliable methods for the safe and effective delivery of
46
siRNA to specific tissues and target cells. Several key problems surrounding robust siRNA
47
delivery are yet be overcome, including protection of the siRNA from RNAase degradation in
48
body fluids, efficient cell uptake and proficient release of siRNA within the cell cytoplasm.
49
In an effort to address these issues, there has been a rapid development around technologies that
50
function to protect siRNA and enhance cellular delivery. Conjugation of siRNA to nano-carriers,
51
such as polymer complexes, has led to reports of successful delivery and siRNA-mediated
52
treatment in human cancer studies.6 Similarly, siRNA therapeutic approaches delivered within
53
‘smart’ lipoplexes7 and linear, cationic cyclodextrin-based polymers8,9 have also entered clinical
54
trials. Cationic polymers show promise for siRNA delivery10 as they can assemble into
55
complexes through interactions with anionic phosphates on the siRNA. The resultant polymer
56
complex offers physical protection of the siRNA from RNAse degradation and enhances cellular
57
uptake.11
58
siRNA uptake efficiency in relation to polymer architecture has been investigated in studies
59
including di-blocks,12 linear ABA triblocks,13 polymeric micelles,14 dendrimers15 and star
60
polymers.16-22 The efficiency by which a siRNA-polymer complex will achieve cellular uptake
61
has been shown to depend on a combination of factors, including the surface chemistry, polymer
62
architecture and physical properties of the complexes.23 Additional studies have indicated that
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
3
Biomacromolecules
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 4 of 47
63
star polymers are more efficient at nucleic acid delivery than equivalent linear polymers due to a
64
combination of factors including a smaller hydrodynamic radius, increased molecular mass, low
65
solution viscosity, high charge density, and abundant internal and peripheral groups for
66
functionalization.19,24 For example, Pafiti et al.25 showed that star homopolymers of poly 2-
67
dimethlyamino ethyl methacrylate (pDMAEMA) with the cross-linker
68
bis(methacryloyloxyethyl)methylamine (BMEMA) performed better than equivalent linear
69
polymers, with greater gene silencing and lower toxicity due to the formation of more compact,
70
stable complexes.
71
Oligoethylene based star polymer systems have been used to demonstrate that an increasing
72
molecular mass improves serum stability, prolongs blood circulation times and enhances
73
distribution of the polymer to multiple organs.26-2822,23 For polymer-mediated DNA delivery, the
74
optimal molecular mass of the delivery vector was assessed to be between 50 and 100 kDa.21
75
However, increasing molecular mass can also increase cellular toxicity.29 Therefore there is a
76
fine balance between optimal transfection efficiency and cytotoxicity.
77
In addition to architecture, high cellular uptake is dependent on a complicated relationship
78
between complex size, shape, stiffness and nonspecific interactions with the cell (i.e.
79
hydrophobic, electrostatic and Van der Waals forces).23 Yi et. al.28 developed a theoretical model
80
that predicts that the endocytosis of a nanoscale particle is highly sensitive to the ratio of
81
stiffness between the particle and the cell membrane. That is, as the particle becomes softer
82
endocytosis becomes more difficult to complete. This effect can be explained by the fact that
83
softer particles will undergo increased deformation and spread to a greater extent on the
84
extracellular side of the cell membrane, creating a large bending energy barrier that must be
85
overcome for the particle to complete endocytosis. The tendency for stiffer particles to be more
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
4
Page 5 of 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Biomacromolecules
86
successfully endocytosed has also been demonstrated experimentally for complexes with a lipid
87
core-shell structure,30 hydrogel nanopartices30 and by comparing solid particles with fluid
88
vesicular particles.31
89
Complex size and surface chemistry can also be strongly affected by the adsorption of proteins
90
and other biomolecules from the biological milieu.32,33 The protein “corona”, which forms
91
around the complex upon contact with biological fluid, can also affect cellular uptake. In some
92
instances, adsorbed biomolecules interact with receptor proteins on the cell membrane to
93
enhance cell uptake,34 whilst in instances uptake is reduced.35 Thus, it is important to consider
94
the effect of the protein corona when performing in vitro measurements of cellular
95
internalisation.
96
Whilst the chemistry and physical properties of a range of complexes has been investigated,23
97
there are few studies which perform a detailed comparison between the physical parameters of a
98
complex, such as size and stiffness, and its ability to elicit the targeted action of a cargo
99
therapeutic agent. Our laboratory recently reported the synthesis and characterization of mikto
100
star polymers prepared by combining hydrophobic [poly(n-butylmethacrylate), P(BMA)],
101
cationic [poly(2-dimethlyamino ethyl methacrylate), P(DMAEMA)], and hydrophilic
102
[poly(oligoethylene glycol methacrylates), P(OEGMA)] arms using Bis(2-methacryloyl)oxyethyl
103
disulfide (DSDMA) cross linker to form the core of the star polymer.36 This formulation was
104
designed to include disulfide bonds in the cross-linking bridge, allowing for polymer
105
degradability.36 Similarly, a 4 arm star containing disulfide bonds in the RAFT core was
106
produced by the core first approach and characterized by our laboratory.17
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
5
Biomacromolecules
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 6 of 47
107
Here we compare the in vitro gene silencing ability of the mikto star and 4-arm star polymers
108
with and without the hydrophobic BMA block present. Complex stability, cellular uptake and
109
gene silencing ability of the siRNA cargo was compared with the nanoscale morphology, surface
110
charge and stiffness of the polymer complexes. All experiments were performed both in the
111
presence and absence of foetal bovine serum (FBS) to model protein corona forming conditions
112
in vitro.
113
From our detailed quantitative nanoscale analysis we have identified the best performing
114
complex and suggest a combination of physiochemical properties that are likely to promote gene
115
silencing in similar cationic polymer-nucleic acid complexes. To our knowledge this is the first
116
time that both gene silencing and a comprehensive physiochemical analysis of a range of
117
polymeric siRNA complexes derived from RAFT polymerization has been investigated
118
simultaneously, allowing us to identify a subset of physiochemical characteristics important for
119
efficient siRNA delivery.
120
Materials and Methods
121
Materials:
122
Oligo(ethylene glycol) methacrylate (OEGMA8-9, Mn ~0.475 kDa ), 2-(dimethylamino)ethyl
123
methacrylate (DMAEMA), n-butyl methacrylate (BMA), monomers were purchased from Sigma
124
Aldrich and purified by stirring in the presence of inhibitor-remover (for hydroquinone or
125
hydroquinone monomethyl ether for 30 min prior to use. Methacryloxyethyl thiocarbamoyl
126
rhodamine B (PolyFluor 570, PF) monomer was purchased from Polysciences and used as
127
received. 4-Cyano-4-[(dodecylsulfanylthiocarbonyl)sulfanyl]pentanoic acid (DTTCP),37
128
disulfide dimethacrylate (DSDMA) cross-linker were prepared according to the previously
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
6
Page 7 of 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Biomacromolecules
129
published methods. 1,1’-azobis(cyclohexanecarbonitrile) (ACHN, DuPont Vazo 88), 4,4'-
130
azobis(4-cyanovaleric acid) (ACVA) initiator, tributylphosphine (Bu3P, Aldrich) reducing agent
131
and methyl iodide (Sigma Aldrich) were used as received. N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF),
132
dichloromethane (DCM), n-heptane, diisopropyl ether, methanol, and other chemicals were
133
purchased as commercial reagents and used without further purification. Spectra/Por Dialysis
134
membrane MM cutoff of 3.5 kDa and 25 kDa were obtained from Spectrumlabs.
135
Polymer characterization:
136
Proton nuclear magnetic resonance (1H NMR) spectra were obtained with a Bruker Avance 400
137
MHz spectrometer (1H 400 MHz). Gel permeation chromatography (GPC) measurements of
138
polymers were performed on a Shimadzu system equipped with a CMB-20A controller system, a
139
SIL-20A HT autosampler, a LC-20AT tandem pump system, a DGU-20A degasser unit, a CTO-
140
20AC column oven, a RDI-10A refractive index detector with 4 Waters Styragel columns (HT2,
141
HT3, HT4, HT5 each 300 × 7.8 mm) providing an effective molar mass range of 100−4×106, and
142
with N,N-dimethylacetamide (DMAc) containing 2.1 gL−1 of lithium chloride (LiCl) as eluent
143
with a flow rate of 1 mLmin−1 at 80°C. The molar masses in poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA)
144
equivalents were obtained from a calibration curve constructed with low dispersity PMMA
145
standards (Polymer Laboratories). A third-order polynomial was used to fit the log Mp versus
146
time calibration curve, which was approximately linear across the molar mass range from 1.020
147
to 1.94 kDa.
148
Synthesis of linear triblock (LB-C&D)
149
The linear RAFT agent and disulfide linked linear triblock copolymers used in this study were
150
synthesised as described previously in Hinton et al.2 using the bis RAFT agent (1). Refer to
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
7
Biomacromolecules
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 8 of 47
151
supplementary information section for details of the procedures to synthesize the RAFT agent,
152
bis-macro-RAFT agent and triblock copolymer LB-C&D. S C12H25 S
153
O CH3 O CH3 C S CH2CH2 C O CH2CH2S-SCH2CH2 O CH2CH2 S CN CN
S S C12H25
154
Disulfide linked linear RAFT agent (1)
155
Synthesis of 4-arm star block copolymers (4-arm star + BMA and 4-arm star –BMA):
156
Synthesis of 4 -arm star block copolymers PDMAEME -b-(POEGMA8-9)4: The disulfide linked
157
4-arm RAFT agent (2) was synthesized using the procedure described by Rosselgong et. al.17
158 159
disulfide linked 4-arm RAFT agent (2)
160
Refer to the supplementary section for details of the procedures used to prepare 4-arm RAFT
161
agent (2), macro-RAFT DMAEMA, 4-arm star + BMA and 4-arm star – BMA. Representative
162
NMR spectra are shown in Figure 1 and SI Figure S2.
163
Synthesis of mikto star polymer (mikto star + BMA and mikto star – BMA):
164
Synthesis of the dansyl-RAFT agent:The precursor dansyl ethylenediamine (3) for making the
165
title dansyl-RAFT agent was prepared in 84.8% yield after recrystallization in
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
8
Page 9 of 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Biomacromolecules
166
dichloromethane:n-hexane (1:1) solvent mixture according to a published procedure by Schrader
167
et. al.38
168 169
Scheme 1. Synthesis of dansyl-RAFT (3): a) DIC, DMAP, CH2Cl2, room temperature, 4 h.
170
To a solution of dansyl ethylenediamine (1) (293 mg, 1.0 mmol), 4-cyano-4-
171
[(dodecylsulfanylthiocarbonyl)sulfanyl]pentanoic acid (2) (403 mg, 1.0 mmol) and catalytic N,N-
172
dimethylaminopyridine (DMAP) in dichloromethane (5 mL) was added diisopropyl
173
carbodiimide (DIC) (140 mg, 1.1 mmol), and the reaction mixture was allowed to stir at room
174
temperature for 4 h. The DIC-urea by-product was filtered, volatiles removed in vacuum and the
175
crude reaction mixture (790 mg) was purified by column chromatography (ethyl acetate: n-
176
hexane 3:2 v/v as eluent) to give the title product dansyl-RAFT (3) agent as a yellow liquid (460
177
mg, 67.8%). 1H NMR (CDCl3) δ(ppm) 0.88 (t, 3H, CH3), 1.21 – 1. 40 (br.s, 18H, 9xCH2), 1.70
178
(m, 2H, CH2), 1.85 (s, 3H, CH3), 2.30-2.42 (m, 4H, CH2CH2), 2.89 (s, 6H, N(CH3)2), 3.05 (m,
179
2H, C(=O)NH CH2), 3.30 (m, 2H, S(O)2NHCH2), 3.33 (dd, 2H, CH2S), 5.49 (t, 1H, NH), 5.99 (t,
180
1H, NH), 7.21 (d, 1H, Ar-H), 7.53 (dd, 1H, Ar-H), 7.60 (dd, 1H, Ar-H), 8.24 (dd, 1H, Ar-H),
181
8.55 (d, 1H, Ar-H).
182
Synthesis of dansyl functional macroRAFT agent: A typical procedure for RAFT polymerization
183
is as follows. Stock solution I of ACHN (25 mg) in DMF (2.5 g) was prepared in a flask. A
184
mixture of dansyl-RAFT (0.113 g), OEGMA8-9 (3.0 g), stock solution I (0.406 g) and DMF (2.7
185
g) was prepared in a second flask. This stock solution was transferred to an ampoule which was
186
degassed by three consecutive freeze-evacuate-thaw cycles and sealed under vacuum. The
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
9
Biomacromolecules
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 10 of 47
187
ampoule was heated at 90°C for 4.5 h and then subjected to GPC and 1H NMR analysis. Dansyl-
188
P(OEGMA8-9)32 (M-CTA) was purified by two precipitations into pentane and dried under
189
vacuum to give 60% yield by weight.
190
The dansyl- P(DMAEMA)94 and dansyl-P(BMA)104 were also prepared using a similar
191
procedure, except the respective monomers DMAEMA and BMA were used in place of the
192
OEGMA8-9.
193
The optimal experimental conditions to form the mikto star polymer + BMA in using
194
macroRAFT agents based on hydrophilic P[(OEGMA8-9)], cationizable P(DMAEMA) and
195
hydrophobic P(BMA) were established in the previous study.36 The experimental detials for the
196
synthesis of macro RAFT agents and mikto star + BMA and mikto star – BMA are provided in
197
the supplementary section.
198
Quaternization of copolymers:
199
Previous research has shown that quaternization of the polymer complexes significantly
200
improves cell uptake.2,13 Thus, in this study all the purified copolymers were quaternized by
201
redissolving in either acetonitrile (LB(C&D), 4-Arm star-BMA, 4-arm star + BMA), or DMF
202
(mikto star + BMA and mikto star-BMA). An excess of methyl iodide with respect to the
203
PDMAEMA portion in the block copolymer was then added. The mixture was stirred at room
204
temperature overnight, and excess solvents and methyl iodide were removed at 40°C in vacuo.
205
Dialysis:
206
Further purification was carried out by dialysis against de-ionized water for 3 days using dialysis
207
membrane MM cut off of 3.5 kDa for copolymers of linear triblock and 4-Arm star. Molecular
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
10
Page 11 of 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Biomacromolecules
208
cut off of 25 kDa was used for mikto star. After dialysis, the water was removed from the
209
polymer solution by lyophilization.
210
Cells:
211
Chinese Hamster Ovary cells constitutively expressing Green Fluorescent Protein (CHO-GFP)
212
(kindly donated from K. Wark; CSIRO Australia) were grown in MEMα modification
213
supplemented with 10% foetal bovine serum, 10 mM Hepes, 0.01% penicillin and 0.01%
214
streptomycin at 37 °C with 5% CO2 and subcultured twice weekly.
215
Adenocarcinomic human alveolar basal epithelial cells (A549; ATCC No.CCL-185) and human
216
hepatocarcinoma cells (Huh7; kindly received from VIDRL, Victoria Australia) were grown in
217
DMEM supplemented with 10% foetal bovine serum, 10 mM Hepes, 2 mM glutamine, 0.01%
218
penicillin and 0.01% streptomycin at 37 °C with 5% CO2 and subcultured twice weekly.
219
Synthetic siRNA oligonucleotides:
220
The anti-GFP siRNA was obtained from QIAGEN (USA). The anti-GFP siRNA sequence is
221
sense 5’- GCAAGCUGACCCUGAAGUUCAU [dT][dT] -3’ and antisense 5’-
222
GAACUUCAGGGUCAGCUUGCCG [dT][dT] -3’ and is referred to as si22. Fluorescently
223
labelled [6 FAM] si22 was purchased from Sigma Aldrich (USA) with the FAM label on the 5’
224
end of the sense strand.
225
The anti coatomer protein complex, subunit alpha (COPA) siRNA pool was purchased from
226
Sigma Aldrich (USA). The four siRNA sequences are 1; 5’-
227
ACUCAGAUCUGGUGUAAUA[dT][dT]-3’ 2; 5’-GCAAUAUGCUACACUAUGU[dT][dT]-3’
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
11
Biomacromolecules
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 12 of 47
228
3; 5’-GAUCAGACCAUCCGAGUGU[dT][dT]-3’ 4; 5’-
229
GAGUUGAUCCUCAGCAAUU[dT][dT]-3’.
230
Formation of polymer-siRNA complexes:
231
Nitrogen: Phosphate (N:P) ratios of polymer to siRNA were calculated at required
232
concentrations. Complexes were formed by the addition of media with or without 5% FBS
233
(Invitrogen, USA) to Eppendorf tubes. The required amount of polymer resuspended in water
234
was added to the tubes and the mixture vortexed. siRNA was then added to the tubes and the
235
sample vortexed. Complexation was allowed to continue for 1 h at room temperature.
236
Agarose gel electrophoresis:
237
Samples at molar ratios of polymer relative to 50 pmol siRNA were electrophoresed on a 2%
238
agarose gel in TBE at 100V for 40 min. siRNA was visualized by gel red (Jomar Bioscience) on
239
a UV transilluminator with camera, the image was recorded by the GeneSnap program (Syngene,
240
USA).
241
In-vitro disulfide bond reduction assay:
242
TCEP solution (50 mM) was prepared using deoxygenated water and stored at -20°C. Polymer-
243
si22 complexes (50 pmol) were assembled as described above. These polyplexes were subjected
244
to 50 mM TCEP reduction in the presence of 30 mM NaCl in pH 5 sodium acetate buffer.
245
Reactions were incubated at 37°C for 4 h and analysed for si22 release by electrophoresis on a
246
2% agarose gel as described above.
247
Heparin displacement assay:
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
12
Page 13 of 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Biomacromolecules
248
10 units of heparin were added to the polymer-siRNA complexes. Competition by the heparin for
249
binding with the polymer was assessed by siRNA release through electrophoresis as described
250
above.
251
Quantitative Nanoscale Mechanical-Atomic Force Microscopy (QNM-AFM):
252
QNM-AFM was performed on a Multimode 8 AFM with a nanoscope V controller (Bruker). All
253
imaging was performed using the fluid cell either in PBS or PBS containing 5% FBS. Scanasyst-
254
Fluid (Bruker) cantilevers were used with an approximate spring constant of 0.7 N/m and a
255
resonant frequency of 150 kHz. To produce quantitative nano-mechanical maps all imaging was
256
performed in peak force tapping mode where the cantilever is oscillated at a frequency much
257
lower than its resonant frequency. Before imaging each cantilever was calibrated using the
258
absolute method outlined by Bruker to accurately determine the deflection sensitivity, spring
259
constant, and the tip radius. Deflection sensitivity was calculated from a force curve generated by
260
indenting the tip into a hard sapphire surface. The spring constant was determined in both air and
261
the imaging fluid using the thermal tune procedure. The tip radius was calculated by analysis of a
262
1.5 µm scan of the roughened Ti control sample using the tip analysis tool in the NanoScope
263
Analysis software (Bruker). Nanoscale force maps were generated by analyzing force–
264
indentation curves by using the Derjaguin–Muller–Toporov (DMT) model,39 and analysed using
265
the section tool in the software without any additional processing. After absolute calibration 1
266
µm2 scans of a polycaprolactone film were captured and found to possess a mean DMT modulus
267
typically within 10% of the known elasticity (200 MPa).
268
Topographic images were analysed using the NanoScope Analysis software. Images were
269
flattened using the first order flattening algorithm and subjected to no further processing.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
13
Biomacromolecules
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 14 of 47
270
Complex diameters were calculated from datasets of 200-300 complexes by analysis of multiple
271
images using the particle analysis tool in the software. Errors quoted are the standard error of
272
mean from the average value of at least 3 separate experiments.
273
Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis (NTA) by NanoSight:
274
Nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) was performed with a Nanosight NS300 (NanoSight,
275
Amesbury, United Kingdom) to determine the size distribution of the polymer-siRNA complexes
276
in solution. Samples were prepared at the optimal N:P ratio in nuclease free water, vortexed and
277
incubated for a minimum of 4 h at room temperature. Immediately prior to analysis, samples
278
were diluted in pre-filtered water to a concentration range between 1x108 - 1x109 particles/ml.
279
All samples were vortexed thoroughly before loading on the sample chamber using a sterile
280
syringe. Triplicate measurements were taken with 405 nm laser at 25°C over a 60 second period
281
using a CMOS camera. Automated analysis was performed using the NTA 3.0 software package
282
using a constant detection threshold between samples.
283
Dynamic Light scattering and zetapotential:
284
Dynamic light scattering (DLS) experiments were used to calculate the mean hydrodynamic
285
diameters of the polymer-siRNA complexes by converting fluctuations of scattered light based
286
on Brownian motion to the hydrodynamic diameter of the particle according to the Stokes–
287
Einstein equation. Measurements were taken on a Malvern Zetasizer Nano Series DLS detector
288
with a 22 mW He–Ne laser operating at 632.8 nm, an avalanche photo-diode detector with high
289
quantum efficiency and an ALV/LSE-5003 multiple digital correlate electronics system. The
290
samples were prepared at 0.1 mgml-1 concentration. All measurements were performed in
291
triplicate at 25°C. The zeta potential of the complexes were obtained by the same instrument in
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
14
Page 15 of 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Biomacromolecules
292
different buffered solutions. 1 mL samples of the polyplexes were prepared at approximately 300
293
mgml-1 concentration in 10 mM NaCl. All measurements were performed via three separate
294
measurements averaging approximately 10 scans at 25°C.
295
FAM labelled siRNA uptake:
296
Polymer/si22-FAM complexes at required concentration were assembled as described above
297
using the [6FAM] labelled si22.
298
Flow cytometry:
299
A549 and CHO-WT cells were seeded at 3x104 cells per well in 96-well tissue culture plates and
300
grown overnight at 37°C with 5% CO2. Polymer/FAM siRNA complexes at optimal N:P ratios
301
were prepared, cell media was removed and replaced with 200 µl media with or without 10%
302
FBS. The siRNA-polymer complexes at appropriate concentrations were added in triplicate for
303
each sample and incubated for 5 h. Cells were then trypsinized and analysed by a Becton
304
Dickinson LSRII flow cytometer. All experiments were performed as biological replicates.
305
Confocal microscopy and immunofluorescence analysis:
306
A549 and CHO-WT cells were seeded at 1x105 cells on 13 mm round glass coverslips (Menzel,
307
Germany) in 24 well plates (Nunc, USA) and grown overnight at 37°C with 5% CO2. Polymer
308
and [6FAM] labelled siRNA complexes were produced as described above and added to the cells
309
for 4 h at 37°C with or without 10% FBS. Following incubation, cells were washed in 0.5 mgml-
310
1
311
interacting with the cell membrane. Cells were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde (Sigma, USA) in
312
PBS and processed as required.
Heparin Sulfate (Sigma, USA) in PBS to remove residual polymer that may be weakly
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
15
Biomacromolecules
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 16 of 47
313
For immunofluorescence analysis, cells were permeabilized with 0.1% (v/v) Triton X-100 in
314
PBS for 10 min and blocked in 0.5% bovine serum albumin in PBS (PBS/BSA) for 30 min.
315
EEA-1 and LAMP-2 antibodies (DSHB, U.S.A) were diluted 1:200 in PBS/BSA and incubated
316
at room temperature for 2 h. After 3 × 5 min washes, primary antibodies were detected with
317
fluorescent-conjugated species-specific secondary antibodies diluted 1:200 in PBS/BSA (Life
318
Technologies) for 1 h. Following 3 × 5 min washes in PBSA and one wash with dH20, nuclei
319
were stained with a 1:4000 4’,6’-Diamidino-2-Phenylindole (DAPI) (Sigma). Coverslips were
320
mounted onto glass microscope slides in Vectashield mounting media (Vector Laboratories,
321
USA) and images acquired on a Leica SP5 confocal microscope (Leica Microsystems,
322
Germany).
323
Silencing assay:
324
CHO-GFP, and A549 cells were seeded at 1x104 or 2x104 cells per well respectively in 96-well
325
tissue culture plates and grown overnight at 37°C with 5% CO2. As controls samples siRNAs
326
were transfected into cells using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen, USA) as per manufacturer’s
327
instructions. Briefly, the appropriate concentration of the relevant siRNA were mixed with 0.5 µl
328
of Lipofectamine 2000 both diluted in 50 µl OPTI-MEM (Invitrogen, USA) and incubated at
329
room temperature for 20 min. The siRNA: lipofectamine mix was added to cells and incubated
330
for 4 h. Cell media was replaced and incubated for 72 h. For polymer/siRNA complexes
331
prepared cell media was removed and replaced with 200 µl media with or without 10% FBS.
332
siRNA:polymer complexes was added in a volume of 10µl to 3 wells of cells per sample and
333
incubated for 5 h. Cell media was replaced and cells incubated for a further 72 h. All
334
experiments performed as biological replicates.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
16
Page 17 of 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Biomacromolecules
335
GFP silencing read out; Following incubation with siRNA polymer complexes, cells were
336
washed twice with PBS, and read on a Fluoroskan Ascent FL (Thermo Scientific, USA) and
337
EGFP silencing was analysed as a percentage of the siDNA or polymer/siDNA complexes mean
338
EGFP (ex 488 nm em 516 nm) fluorescence.
339
COPA silencing read out; Cells were washed twice with PBS, toxicity was measured using the
340
Alamar Blue reagent (Invitrogen USA) according to manufacturer’s instructions and described
341
previously.13
342
Haemolysis assay:
343
Mouse blood in EDTA was obtained from C57/Blk6 mice from the AAHL small animal facility
344
according to AEC approval. The blood was washed in PBS three times and resuspended at a
345
concentration of approximately 7.5 x 106 cells/ml. Polymer complexes at the required
346
concentration were added to triplicate wells in a 96 well plate in 100 µl of PBS. An aliquot of
347
100 µl of diluted mouse blood was added to the materials and incubated for 1 h at 37°C with
348
constant shaking. After removal of the un-lysed erythrocytes by centrifugation (1000 x g, 5 min),
349
150 µl of the supernatant were transferred to a new microtiter plate, and haemoglobin absorption
350
was determined at 450 nm on an EL808 absorbance microplate reader (BIOTEK, USA) with
351
background correction at 750 nm. 100% lysis was determined by adding 5 µ1 of a 0.1% Triton
352
X-100 solution prior to centrifugation. Results are presented as percentage haemoglobin release
353
compared to the PBS control. All experiments performed as biological replicates.
354
Statistics:
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
17
Biomacromolecules
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 18 of 47
355
The difference between two groups was statistically analysed by one way repeated measures
356
ANOVA, parametric, with Dunnett post analysis. ***p LB(C&D)) (SI Table S3). However, here the
654
complexes were larger in size; presumably due to the formation of a protein corona on the
655
complex surface. The effect was most dramatic for the mikto star + BMA complex with the
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
34
Page 35 of 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Biomacromolecules
656
mean diameter increasing to 94.4 ± 13.2 nm. The large increase in diameter observed for the
657
mikto star + BMA in FBS is likely due to the hydrophobicity of the BMA polymer chains, as it is
658
generally accepted that protein adsorption on surfaces and interfaces increases with increasing
659
hydrophobicity.58 Further support for this hypothesis is seen by the fact that the increase in
660
diameter of the polar surfaces of the lipofectamine siRNA lipoplexes (L2000) is only modest
661
(65.13 ± 14.9 nm in PBS and 80.3 ± 11.4 nm in 5% FBS).
662
The 4 arm + BMA complex does not exhibit this dramatic increase in diameter in the presence of
663
FBS. This is explained by differences in composition between the 4 arm and mikto star
664
complexes. NMR analysis (Table 1) showed that the molar percentage of BMA in the 4 arm
665
complex was only 15%, whereas in the mikto star complex it was 49%. This considerable
666
increase in hydrophobicity of the mikto star complexes would conceivably promote the
667
adsorption of serum proteins, resulting in the larger protein corona seen via AFM (Figure 7).
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
35
Biomacromolecules
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 36 of 47
668 669
Figure 7. AFM imaging of complex morphology and elastic modulus, ai-ei) Topographical
670
images with z-scale optimised to each image (ai = 10 nm, bi = 20 nm, ci = 6 nm, di = 10 nm, ei =
671
5 nm), aii – eii). QNM-AFM images showing quantitative maps of elastic modulus with z-scale
672
optimised to each image (ai = 1000 MPa, bii = 200 MPa, cii-eii = 40 MPa), insets show higher
673
magnification images at the same z-scale, f) particle diameter analysis of all complexes and
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
36
Page 37 of 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Biomacromolecules
674
lipofectamine siRNA lipoplexes (L2000) was performed for > 300 complexes for AFM images
675
taken either in PBS (black bars) or 5% FBS (red bars), g) elastic modulus analysis of > 50
676
complexes for AFM images taken either in PBS (black bars) or 5% FBS (red bars). * *, p < 0.01,
677
* * *, p < 0.001. Error bars show ± standard error of mean.
678
In addition to AFM, complex size was quantified from much larger data sets containing over 106
679
complexes using DLS and NTA. As expected the measured diameters quantified by DLS and
680
NTA were larger than those measured by AFM, as AFM measures the true diameter of the
681
polymer complex whilst the other techniques measure the hydrodynamic diameter.39,54,55
682
Encouragingly the trends measured by all 3 techniques were similar. Both DLS and NTA
683
showed the mikto star complexes to be largest (average particle size > 100 nm), and the 4 arm
684
and LB(C&D) to display an average size between 58-90 nm (Table 2 and Figure 8). Objects
685
between 50-200 nm are believed to be preferential for cellular endocytosis and therefore all of
686
the complexes fall within the ideal range for cellular uptake and delivery of siRNA cargo.59 DLS
687
experiments were also performed on the polymers prior to siRNA complexation (not shown). At
688
0.1 mgml-1 no complexes were detected for the triblock or 4 arm polymers. Conversely the mikto
689
stars formed particles with diameters only slightly smaller than the siRNA complexes
690
(approximately 140 nm for both mikto stars).
691
Time resolved DLS studies were performed to check the stability of the complexes over time
692
(Figure S10). After 48 h, little complex aggregation was observed. Only the 4 arm - BMA and 4
693
arm + BMA complexes showed a small increase in observed particle diameter compared to t = 0
694
(26 ± 9% and 34.7 ± 9% increases for the 4 arm and 4 arm + BMA respectively). The increased
695
aggregation of the 4 arm complexes is likely due to their lower zeta potential (Table 2) resulting
696
in less electrostatic repulsion between the complexes. To investigate if complex aggregation was
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
37
Biomacromolecules
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 38 of 47
697
affected in protein corona forming conditions, the DLS time course experiment was repeated in
698
5% FBS (Figure S11). Under these circumstances no significant complex aggregation was
699
observed after 48 h.
700
In summary, the results of the particle size analysis showed a large increase in particle size for
701
the mikto + BMA complex in the presence of serum proteins is likely due to the increased
702
hydrophobicity of the complex that promotes the adsorption of a large corona around the
703
complex. Surprisingly, cell uptake (Figure 3) and gene silencing (Figure 6) of the mikto + BMA
704
with a large protein corona, is inhibited to a lesser degree than the other 4 polymer complexes.
705
The physical basis of this seemingly counterintuitive effect of corona formation, is further
706
explored below.
707
Improved cell uptake and gene silencing in hydrophobic mikto star complexes may be
708
aided by increased stiffness
709
In addition to size and shape, elasticity of each complex plays an important role in determining
710
uptake efficiency. Quantitative Nanomechanical Atomic Force Microscopy (QNM-AFM) is able
711
to provide nanoscale maps of the elastic modulus of polymeric materials with minimal tip
712
indentation depth (< 2 nm). This is particularly important as complex stiffness has been shown to
713
be important in governing cell uptake.23 Simultaneous recordings of topography and elastic
714
modulus were performed on complexes immobilized on mica substrates (Figure 7, and SI Figure
715
S6).39 From these maps we quantified a mean value for the stiffness of each complex, imaged in
716
both PBS and 5% FBS. All complexes investigated possessed an elastic modulus of less than 150
717
MPa, within the same order of magnitude as previously investigated polymer complexes30 and
718
the L2000 controls (Figure 7).
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
38
Page 39 of 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Biomacromolecules
719
In PBS, the mikto star complexes were significantly stiffer than the 4 Arm or LB(C&D)
720
polymers. In FBS the same trend is observed. However, as with particle diameter, the increase in
721
stiffness for the mikto + BMA complexes is disproportionally large. This is likely due to the
722
greater concentration of hydrophobic BMA units which encourage the adsorption of densely
723
packed serum proteins to form an extensive protein corona encapsulating the softer complex. The
724
increase in both complex size and stiffness of the mikto + BMA complex is in agreement with
725
the fact that no significant increase in stiffness was seen in the presence of FBS for the
726
lipofectamine control, presumably due to the polar nature of the lipoplex surface. It is interesting
727
to note that there appears to be a linear correlation between the measured diameter of the
728
complexes and their stiffness (Figure S12). This correlation is stronger for the complexes imaged
729
in FBS (R2 = 9.1) than PBS (R2 = 8.6), giving support to the hypothesis that a large protein
730
corona increases the stiffness of the complexes.
731
Table 2: Complex characterisation in PBS via QNM-AFM, DLS, Zeta potential and
732
nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA). Polymer
Diameter
Stiffness
Diameter
PDI
AFM
QNM-AFM
DLS
(nm)
(DMT MPa)
(ZAve d.nm)
LB(C&D)
28.7 ± 4.6
10.4 ± 3.4
58.16
0.5
4 Arm -BMA
34.4 ± 5.3
5.9 ± 0.4
40.30
4 Arm +BMA
30.1 ± 7.6
19.5 ± 1.3
Mikto Arm BMA
39.7 ± 8.3
38.7 ± 1.6
Zeta Potential (mV)
Diameter
Diameter
NTA (Mode nm)
NTA (Mean nm)
41.6 ± 1.72
77.1 ± 3.2
81.0 ± 2.6
0.4
10.7 ± 0.8
75.1 ± 14.5
92.0 ± 12.1
43.57
0.4
18.0 ±1.7
73.9 ± 6.6
98.1 ± 9.6
151.2
0.5
41.7 ± 1.9
87.4 ± 3.8
102.1 ± 1.9
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
39
Biomacromolecules
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Mikto Arm +BMA
46.2 ± 16.4
41.2 ± 2.8
163.40
0.5
Page 40 of 47
41.9 ± 1.0
118.5 ± 15.8
134.0 ± 2.4
733
734
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
40
Page 41 of 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Biomacromolecules
735
Figure 8. Nanoparticle tracking analysis summary of polymer/siRNA complexes size range
736
profiles. Complexes were prepared at the optimal N:P ratio in nuclease free water at a
737
concentration range between 1x108 - 1x109 particles/ml. Triplicate measurements were taken
738
with 405 nm laser at 25°C for 60 s using a CMOS camera. Automated analysis was performed
739
using the NTA 3.0 software package using a constant detection threshold between samples. Red
740
error bars = ± 1 standard deviation.
741
Our hypothesis that a large protein corona surrounding the mikto + BMA complex permits a
742
more efficient cell uptake than complexes coated with smaller coronas, may be partially
743
explained by the large increase in stiffness observed by QNM-AFM. Increased stiffness has been
744
theoretically proven to promote endocytosis, as the energy barrier to the membrane wrapping
745
required for endocytosis is lower for stiffer complexes due to reduced complex deformation.23
746
Similarly, the increase in stiffness of the mikto + BMA complexes may also explain the more
747
efficient membrane rupture in the haemolysis assay (Figure 5) as the stiffer complexes will
748
deform less and exert a greater bending force that is sufficient to damage the lipid bilayer of the
749
RBC. This physical property of the polymer may in turn may play a role in promoting endosome
750
escape.
751
Whilst the 4 arm and mikto star complexes are all composed of the same basic polymer building
752
blocks (POEGMA, PDMAEMA and PBMA) they do possess different molecular masses and
753
physical properties which we have shown to affect gene silencing efficiency. A number of
754
theories have previously been published to explain the apparent increase in efficacy of star
755
polymers compared to their linear counterparts. Pafity and co-workers cite reduced cytotoxicity
756
and the formation of more compact complexes that can cross the cell membrane more easily, 25
757
whilst others have shown that molecular mass, polymer architecture, degree of branching and
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
41
Biomacromolecules
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 42 of 47
758
charge density can all affect gene delivery.19 The above examples clearly show that the gene
759
silencing efficiency of nucleic acid delivery vehicles depends on multiple physiochemical
760
parameters which should be taken into account during the development and testing of novel
761
complexes. This highlights the importance of studies such as this, where a quantitative
762
physiochemical analysis is undertaken alongside in vitro cell uptake and silencing assays. From
763
our findings we suggest a combination of physical and chemical features that should be
764
considered for polymer design which will enhance siRNA delivery and gene silencing in similar
765
cationic star polymers (Table 3).
766
Table 3: Physiochemical Properties of cationic PDMAEMA/POEGMA/PBMA based star
767
polymers that promote gene silencing Polymer Architecture
Surface Charge
Hydrodynamic Diameter
Absolute Diameter
Stiffness
Hydrophobic/Hydrophilic
~ 40 MPa
More Hydrophobic Preferred
(From AFM) (Linear/Star) Star Polymer
(From DLS) ~40 mV
100-200 nm
40-50 nm
768 769
Following this study, future research in our laboratory will continue to investigate the in vivo
770
gene silencing efficacy of the mikto + BMA complex in mouse models. We will also perform
771
additional studies to systematically enhance some of these key physical parameters governing
772
efficacy of this siRNA polymer complex. This will enable us to develop an improved generation
773
of mikto star complexes tailored towards in vivo delivery applications.
774
Conclusion
775
For the first time we have performed an comprehensive and quantitative physiochemical
776
characterization of a range of siRNA-cationic polymer complexes in conjunction with an in-
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
42
Page 43 of 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Biomacromolecules
777
depth investigation into their gene silencing efficacies. Whilst all the polymer complexes shared
778
similar chemistries they were found to significantly vary in architecture, surface charge, size,
779
stiffness and target gene silencing. The best performing complex was the mikto star polymer
780
containing a hydrophobic poly(butylmethacrylate) block. Not only did it show the best silencing
781
ability both in serum free media, but also retained a significant degree of target gene attenuation
782
in the presence of a foetal bovine serum-induced protein corona.
783
Additional experiments performed to probe the sub-processes required for gene silencing also
784
revealed the hydrophobic mikto star complexes was the best performing complex showing
785
increased cell uptake, endosome escape and siRNA release. These complexes also displayed the
786
largest diameter, elastic modulus, and zeta-potential, suggesting that a combination of large
787
particle size (allowing for greater nucleic acid loading), stiffness (exerting greater mechanical
788
strain on the cell and endosomal membrane), and surface charge (promoting electrostatic
789
interactions with the cell and endosomal membrane) are desirable characteristics for polymer
790
complexes coated with a protein corona.
791
Studies exploring the complex relationships between the physical properties of the delivery
792
vehicles and their cellular uptake will improve our knowledge of structure-function relationships
793
in the field of drug delivery. Approaches such as those presented here are invaluable for future
794
rational design of nano-vehicles in a range of delivery applications and will enhance the
795
manufacture of the next generation of siRNA delivery agents towards therapeutic applications.
796
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
797
Supporting Information. Further details on polymer preparation and characterization. Gene
798
silencing assays to determine the optimal N:P ratio for each polymer. Cell viability data for the
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
43
Biomacromolecules
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
799
complexes at 125 nM. Further details, images and graphs from complex characterization
800
techniques.
801
AUTHOR INFORMATION
802
Corresponding Author Dr. Tracey Hinton:
[email protected] Page 44 of 47
803 804
Author Contributions
805
The manuscript was written through contributions of all authors. All authors have given approval
806
to the final version of the manuscript. M.D‡. and N.P.R‡. contributed equally.
807
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
808
N.P.R Would like to thank the ARC Training Centre for Biodevices at Swinburne University of
809
Technology for funding (IC140100023), Dr. Mirren Charnley (Swinburne University of
810
Technology) for valuable discussions and Jay Gilbert (Perdue University) for supplying the
811
polycaprolactone substrates. The authors also acknowledge the scientific and technical assistance
812
from the Pathology and Pathogenesis team and the facilities of the Australian Microscopy &
813
Microanalysis Research Facility linked laboratory at the CSIRO Australian Animal Health
814
laboratories.
815
REFERENCES
816 817 818 819 820 821
(1) Barik, S. Viruses 2010, 2, 1448. (2) Hinton, T. M.; Challagulla, A.; Stewart, C. R.; Guerrero-Sanchez, C.; Grusche, F. A.; Shi, S.; Bean, A. G.; Monaghan, P.; Gunatillake, P. A.; Thang, S. H.; Tizard, M. L. Nanomedicine 2013, 1. (3) Tompkins, S. M.; Lo, C.-Y.; Tumpey, T. M.; Epstein, S. L. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2004, 101, 8682.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
44
Page 45 of 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866
Biomacromolecules
(4) DeVincenzo, J.; Cehelsky, J. E.; Alvarez, R.; Elbashir, S.; Harborth, J.; Toudjarska, I.; Nechev, L.; Murugaiah, V.; Vliet, A. V.; Vaishnaw, A. K.; Meyers, R. Antiviral Res. 2008, 77, 225. (5) Stein, D. A.; Perry, S. T.; Buck, M. D.; Oehmen, C. S.; Fischer, M. A.; Poore, E.; Smith, J. L.; Lancaster, A. M.; Hirsch, A. J.; Slifka, M. K.; Nelson, J. A.; Shresta, S.; Früh, K. J. Virol. 2011, 85, 10154. (6) Kanasty, R.; Dorkin, J. R.; Vegas, A.; Anderson, D. Nat. Mater. 2013, 12, 967. (7) Tabernero, J.; Shapiro, G. I.; LoRusso, P. M.; Cervantes, A.; Schwartz, G. K.; Weiss, G. J.; Paz-Ares, L.; Cho, D. C.; Infante, J. R.; Alsina, M.; Gounder, M. M.; Falzone, R.; Harrop, J.; White, A. C. S.; Toudjarska, I.; Bumcrot, D.; Meyers, R. E.; Hinkle, G.; Svrzikapa, N.; Hutabarat, R. M.; Clausen, V. A.; Cehelsky, J.; Nochur, S. V.; Gamba-Vitalo, C.; Vaishnaw, A. K.; Sah, D. W. Y.; Gollob, J. A.; Burris, H. A. Cancer Discovery 2013, 3, 406. (8) Zuckerman, J. E.; Gritli, I.; Tolcher, A.; Heidel, J. D.; Lim, D.; Morgan, R.; Chmielowski, B.; Ribas, A.; Davis, M. E.; Yen, Y. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014, 111, 11449. (9) Davis, M. E. Mol. Pharmaceutics 2009, 6, 659. (10) Smith, D.; Holley, A. C.; McCormick, C. L. Polym. Chem. 2011, 2, 1428. (11) Aliabadi, H. M.; Landry, B.; Sun, C.; Tang, T.; Uludağ, H. Biomaterials 2012, 33, 2546. (12) Scales, C. W.; Huang, F.; Li, N.; Vasilieva, Y. A.; Ray, J.; Convertine, A. J.; McCormick, C. L. Macromolecules 2006, 39, 6871. (13) Hinton, T. M.; Guerrero-Sanchez, C.; Graham, J.; Le, T. P. T.; Muir, B. W.; Shi, S.; Tizard, M. L.; Gunatillake, P.; McLean, K.; Thang, S. H. Biomaterials 2012, 33, 7631. (14) Flores, J. D.; Xu, X.; Treat, N. J.; McCormick, C. L. Macromolecules 2009, 42, 4941. (15) Cloninger, M. J. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2002, 6, 742. (16) Blencowe, A.; Tan, J. F.; Goh, T. K.; Qiao, G. G. Polymer 2009, 50, 5. (17) Rosselgong, J.; Williams, E. G. L.; Le, T. P.; Grusche, F.; Hinton, T. M.; Tizard, M.; Gunatillake, P.; Thang, S. H. Macromolecules 2013, 46, 9181. (18) Boyer, C.; Teo, J.; Phillips, P.; Erlich, R. B.; Sagnella, S.; Sharbeen, G.; Dwarte, T.; Duong, H. T. T.; Goldstein, D.; Davis, T. P.; Kavallaris, M.; McCarroll, J. Mol. Pharmaceutics 2013, 10, 2435. (19) Wu, W.; Wang, W.; Li, J. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2015, 46, 55. (20) Pafiti, K. S.; Patrickios, C. S.; Georgiou, T. K.; Yamasaki, E. N.; Mastroyiannopoulos, N. P.; Phylactou, L. A. European Polymer Journal 2012, 48, 1422. (21) Georgiou, T. K. Polymer International 2014, 63, 1130. (22) Teo, J.; McCarroll, J. A.; Boyer, C.; Youkhana, J.; Sagnella, S. M.; Duong, H. T. T.; Liu, J.; Sharbeen, G.; Goldstein, D.; Davis, T. P.; Kavallaris, M.; Phillips, P. A. Biomacromolecules 2016, 17, 2337. (23) Zhang, S.; Gao, H.; Bao, G. ACS Nano 2015, 9, 8655. (24) Li, Z.; Tan, B. H. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2014, 45, 620. (25) Pafiti, K. S.; Mastroyiannopoulos, N. P.; Phylactou, L. A.; Patrickios, C. S. Biomacromolecules 2011, 12, 1468. (26) Etrych, T.; Šubr, V.; Strohalm, J.; Šírová, M.; Říhová, B.; Ulbrich, K. J. Controlled Release 2012, 164, 346.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
45
Biomacromolecules
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912
Page 46 of 47
(27) Khor, S. Y.; Hu, J.; McLeod, V. M.; Quinn, J. F.; Williamson, M.; Porter, C. J. H.; Whittaker, M. R.; Kaminskas, L. M.; Davis, T. P. Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine. (28) Yi, X.; Shi, X.; Gao, H. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2011, 107. (29) Synatschke, C. V.; Schallon, A.; Jerome, V.; Freitag, R.; Mueller, A. H. E. Biomacromolecules 2011, 12, 4247. (30) Anselmo, A. C.; Zhang, M.; Kumar, S.; Vogus, D. R.; Menegatti, S.; Helgeson, M. E.; Mitragotri, S. ACS Nano 2015, 9, 3169. (31) Yi, X.; Gao, H. Soft Matter 2015, 11, 1107. (32) Roecker, C.; Poetzl, M.; Zhang, F.; Parak, W. J.; Nienhaus, G. U. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2009, 4, 577. (33) Jiang, X.; Weise, S.; Hafner, M.; Roecker, C.; Zhang, F.; Parak, W. J.; Nienhaus, G. U. J. R. Soc., Interface 2010, 7, S5. (34) Shang, L.; Nienhaus, K.; Nienhaus, G. U. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2014, 12. (35) Gao, H.; He, Q. Expert Opin. Drug Delivery 2014, 11, 409. (36) Wei, X.; Moad, G.; Muir, B. W.; Rizzardo, E.; Rosselgong, J.; Yang, W.; Thang, S. H. Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2014, 35, 840. (37) Moad, G.; Chong, Y. K.; Rizzardo, E.; Postma, A.; Thang, S. H. Polymer 2005, 46, 8458. (38) Sun, W.; Bandmann, H.; Schrader, T. Chemistry 2007, 13, 7701. (39) Dokukin, M. E.; Sokolov, I. Langmuir 2012, 28, 16060. (40) Dahlman, J. E.; Barnes, C.; Khan, O.; Thiriot, A.; Jhunjunwala, S.; Shaw, T. E.; Xing, Y.; Sager, H. B.; Sahay, G.; Speciner, L.; Bader, A.; Bogorad, R. L.; Yin, H.; Racie, T.; Dong, Y.; Jiang, S.; Seedorf, D.; Dave, A.; Sandu, K. S.; Webber, M. J.; Novobrantseva, T.; Ruda, V. M.; Lytton-Jean, A. K. R.; Levins, C. G.; Kalish, B.; Mudge, D. K.; Perez, M.; Abezgauz, L.; Dutta, P.; Smith, L.; Charisse, K.; Kieran, M. W.; Fitzgerald, K.; Nahrendorf, M.; Danino, D.; Tuder, R. M.; von Andrian, U. H.; Akinc, A.; Schroeder, A.; Panigrahy, D.; Kotelianski, V.; Langer, R.; Anderson, D. G. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2014, 9, 648. (41) Liu, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Zhou, C.; Jiao, Y. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2010, 35, 1144. (42) Cho, H. Y.; Srinivasan, A.; Hong, J.; Hsu, E.; Liu, S.; Shrivats, A.; Kwak, D.; Bohaty, A. K.; Paik, H.-j.; Hollinger, J. O.; Matyjaszewski, K. Biomacromolecules 2011, 12, 3478. (43) Georgiou, T. K.; Vamvakaki, M.; Phylactou, L. A.; Patrickios, C. S. Biomacromolecules 2005, 6, 2990. (44) Yang, C.; Li, H.; Goh, S. H.; Li, J. Biomaterials 2007, 28, 3245. (45) Georgiou, T. K.; Vamvakaki, M.; Patrickios, C. S.; Yamasaki, E. N.; Phylactou, L. A. Biomacromolecules 2004, 5, 2221. (46) Georgiou, T. K.; Phylactou, L. A.; Patrickios, C. S. Biomacromolecules 2006, 7, 3505. (47) Agarwal, S.; Zhang, Y.; Maji, S.; Greiner, A. Materials Today 2012, 15, 388. (48) Mahmoudi, M.; Saeedi-Eslami, S. N.; Shokrgozar, M. A.; Azadmanesh, K.; Hassanlou, M.; Kalhor, H. R.; Burtea, C.; Rothen-Rutishauser, B.; Laurent, S.; Sheibani, S.; Vali, H. Nanoscale 2012, 4, 5461. (49) Hühn, D.; Kantner, K.; Geidel, C.; Brandholt, S.; De Cock, I.; Soenen, S. J. H.; Rivera_Gil, P.; Montenegro, J.-M.; Braeckmans, K.; Müllen, K.; Nienhaus, G. U.; Klapper, M.; Parak, W. J. ACS Nano 2013, 7, 3253.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
46
Page 47 of 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929
Biomacromolecules
(50) Lesniak, A.; Fenaroli, F.; Monopoli, M. P.; Åberg, C.; Dawson, K. A.; Salvati, A. ACS Nano 2012, 6, 5845. (51) Lunov, O.; Syrovets, T.; Loos, C.; Beil, J.; Delacher, M.; Tron, K.; Nienhaus, G. U.; Musyanovych, A.; Mailänder, V.; Landfester, K.; Simmet, T. ACS Nano 2011, 5, 1657. (52) Yan, Y.; Gause, K. T.; Kamphuis, M. M. J.; Ang, C.-S.; O’Brien-Simpson, N. M.; Lenzo, J. C.; Reynolds, E. C.; Nice, E. C.; Caruso, F. ACS Nano 2013, 7, 10960. (53) Chen, C. J.; Wang, J. C.; Zhao, E. Y.; Gao, L. Y.; Feng, Q.; Liu, X. Y.; Zhao, Z. X.; Ma, X. F.; Hou, W. J.; Zhang, L. R.; Lu, W. L.; Zhang, Q. Biomaterials 2013, 34, 5303. (54) Troiber, C.; Kasper, J. C.; Milani, S.; Scheible, M.; Martin, I.; Schaubhut, F.; Küchler, S.; Rädler, J.; Simmel, F. C.; Friess, W.; Wagner, E. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2013, 84, 255. (55) Filipe, V.; Hawe, A.; Jiskoot, W. Pharm. Res. 2010, 27, 796. (56) Bhattacharjee, S. J. Controlled Release 2016, 235, 337. (57) Schroeder, A.; Levins, C. G.; Cortez, C.; Langer, R.; Anderson, D. G. J. Intern. Med. 2010, 267, 9. (58) Sigal, G. B.; Mrksich, M.; Whitesides, G. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 3464. (59) Oh, N.; Park, J.-H. Int. J. Nanomed. 2014, 9, 51.
930 931 932
Table of Contents Graphic
933
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
47