The objective of this work is to test the hypothesis that increasing the hydrophilicity of DOX-peptide conjugates may modify their entry mechanisms into HL-60 cells from passive diffusion to receptor-mediated uptake. To test this hypothesis, the entry mechanisms and the intracellular disposition of DOX-cIBR7, DOX-PEGcIBR7, FITC-cIBR, and FITC-cIBR7 were evaluated in HL-60 cells. To increase the hydrophilicity of the peptide, the cIBR peptide (cyclo(1,12)Pen-PRGGSVLVTGC) was modified to cIBR7 peptide (cyclo(1,8)CPRGGSVC) by removing the hydrophobic residues at the C-terminus. DOX-cIBR7 conjugate, which has higher hydrophilicity than DOX-cIBR, was synthesized. Second, a hydrophilic linker (11-amino-3,6,9-trioxaundecanate linker) was incorporated between DOX and cIBR7 to generate DOX-PEGcIBR7 with higher hydrophilicity than DOX-cIBR7. As controls, FITC-cIBR and FITC-cIBR7 were used to check for any endocytic uptake process of the peptide. As previously found with DOX-cIBR, DOX-cIBR7, and DOX-PEGcIBR7, conjugates enter the cells via passive diffusion and not via the energy-dependent endocytic process. This result suggests that an increase in hydrophilicity does not influence the entry mechanism of the DOX-peptide conjugates. In contrast to the DOX-cIBR7 conjugate, the FITC-cIBR7 conjugate showed energy-dependent cellular entry into the cells and followed an endocytic pathway similar to that for dextran. Finally, the entry of DOX-cIBR7 and DOX-PEGcIBR into the cell cytosol was shown to be due to the properties of DOX and not to those of the peptide.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Majumdar et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: