Effects of Chrysin-PLGA-PEG Nanoparticles on Proliferation and Gene Expression of miRNAs in Gastric Cancer Cell Line

Abstract

Background: Recently, Chrysin, as a flavone, has revealed cancer chemo-preventive activity. The present experiment utilized the PLGA-PEG-chrysin complex, and free chrysin, to evaluation of the expression of miR-22, miR-34a and miR-126 in human gastric cell line.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine whether nano encapsulating chrysin improves the anti-cancer effect of free chrysin on AGS human gastric cell line.

Methods: Properties of the chrysin encapsulated in PLGA-PEG nanoparticles were investigated by SEM, H NMR, and FTIR. The assessment of cytotoxicity on the growth of the human gastric cell line was carried out through MTT assay. After treating the cells with a prearranged amount of pure and encapsulated chrysin, RNA was extracted and the expressions of miR-22, miR-34a and miR-126 were measured by using real-time PCR.

Results: With regard to the amount of the chrysin loaded in PLGA-PEG nanoparticles, IC50 value was significantly decreased in nanocapsulatedchrysin, in comparison with free chrysin. This finding has been proved through the further increase of miR-22, miR-34a and miR-126 gene expression of nanocapsulatedchrysin, in comparison with free chrysin.

Conclusions: In this study, we revealed that the PLGA-PEG-chrysin is more effective than free chrysin in inhibiting the growth of human gastric cell line.

Keywords: Chrysin, PLGA-PEG; Gastric Cancer; Micro RNA; Real-Time PCR.

Figure 1.. 1H NMR Spectrum of PEG-PLGA co-Polymer

Figure 2.. A, IR spectrum of pure chrysin; B, FT-IR plot of chrysin loaded PLGA-PEG

Figure 3.. Chrysin and Nano Chrysin in Scanning Electron Microscopy Micrograph

A, The size of PLGA-PEG and; b, drug loaded in PLGA-PEG nanoparticle.

Figure 4.. Comparison of Cytotoxic Effects for Different Concentration of Pure and Nano Chrysin for 24, 48 and 72 Hours

A, B and C related to treatment for 24, 48 and 72 hours, respectively. Results expressed as the mean ± SEM (n = 3), (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01).

Figure 5.. (A), (B) and (C) Shows Comparison Between Effect of Chrysin and Nano-Chrysin on mir-22, mir-34a and mir-126 Expression Respectively

Result shows that nanocapsulated form of chrysin are more effective to increase the expression level of micro RNAs. Data are presented as mean ± SEM from three independent experiments, (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01).