Please do not adjust margins
ChemComm
Page 4 of 5
COMMUNICATION
Journal Name
B16F10 cells compared to the CHO cells can be directly situ formation of active red fluorescent photocage in the
DOI: 10.1039/D0CC03524F
correlated to the fact that the cancer cells have elevated level presence of ROS generated in the mitochondria. This enabled
of ROS compared to the normal cells.17 Therefore, HRhod-cbl the localization of the DDS in the mitochondria of the cancer
can be considered as an ideal tool for the specific sensing of cells having over expressed ROS, causing more efficient and
cancer cells.
target-specific cancer treatment with lower side effects,
Light triggered anticancer activity of HRhod-cbl (3) selectively demonstrated by in vitro studies. Therefore, the developed
to the cancer cells was investigated by measuring the rhodamine based photocage itself serves the key roles of
cytotoxicity of 3 in both B16F10 and CHO cells by MTT assay18 sensing, targeting, releasing, imaging, and treatment, thereby
[MTT
=
3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5- providing a promising platform for efficient cancer diagnosis
diphenyltetrazoliumbromide, a yellow tetrazole] before and and therapy.
after irradiation. It was observed that both B16F10 (Fig. 5a) We thank DST SERB (Grant No. DIA/2018/000019) for financial
and CHO (Fig. 5c) cells showed cell viability of about 80 % after support and DST-FIST for 600 and 400 MHz NMR. A. Paul is
incubation with HRhod-cbl (5-40 μM) in dark for 72 h. thankful to IIT Kharagpur for fellowship. AJ and RM thanks to
However, the cell viability of cancerous B16F10 cells incubated DST, for the INSPIRE Faculty Grant (IFA15, CH171, GAP0546).
with HRhod-cbl (5-40 μM) decreased to 20 % after irradiation The CSIR-IICT Communication number for this manuscript is
of green light (Fig. 5b). On the contrary, the cell viability of IICT/Pubs./2020/113.
non-cancerous CHO cells remained above 70 % even after light
exposure (Fig. 5d). This clearly indicated that HRhod-cbl got
oxidized and generated the active DDS (Rhod-cbl) in situ more
Conflicts of interest
efficiently in the cancer cells (B16F10), which in presence of
light released the anticancer drug (cbl), thereby causing the
enhanced cytotoxicity after irradiation. Moreover, HRhod-cbl
exhibited enhanced cytotoxicity in cancer cells over
commercial anticancer drug chlorambucil in the presence of
light (Fig. 5b). The cytotoxicity of the photoproduct (Rhod-OH)
was also assessed. It exhibited lower cytotoxicity (cell viability
of more than 80 %) in dark as well as after light irradiation on
both B16F10 and CHO cells (Fig. 5a-d). This indicated that the
rhodamine photoproduct has good biocompatibility.
Therefore, the results of MTT assay collectively validated that
the precursor of our rhodamine based DDS (HRhod-cbl)
exhibited an efficient anticancer activity selectively to the
cancer cells in the presence of light.
There are no conflicts to declare.
Notes and references
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A. Umar, B. K. Dunn and P. Greenwald, Nat. Rev. Cancer,
2012, 12, 835–848.
X. Li, J. Kim, J. Yoon and X. Chen, Adv. Mater., 2017, 29,
1606857.
R. R. Nani, A. P. Gorka, T. Nagaya, H. Kobayashi and M. J.
Schnermann, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2015, 54, 13635–13638.
J. N. Demas and G. A. Crosby, J. Phys. Chem., 1971, 75, 991–
1024.
L. M. Henderson and J. B. Chappell, Eur. J. Biochem., 1993,
217, 973–980.
Y. Qin, M. Lu and X. Gong, Cell Biology International, 2008,
32, 224–228.
M. Beija, C. A. Afonso and J. M. G. Martinho, Chem. Soc. Rev.,
2009, 38, 2410 –2433.
M. P. Murphy and R. C. Hartley, Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery,
2018, 17, 865−886.
T. P. Szatrowsk and C. F. Nathan, Cancer Res., 1991, 51, 794–
798.
10 D. Magde, G. E. Rojas and P. Seybold, Photochem. Photobiol.,
1999, 70, 737–744.
11 G. Huang, H. Chen, Y. Dong, X. Luo, H.Yu, Z. Moore, E. A. Bey,
D. A. Boothma and J. Gao, Theranostics, 2013, 3, 116–126.
12 J. Zhang, J. Hu, W. Sang, J. B. Wang and Q. Yan, ACS Macro
Lett., 2016, 5, 919–924.
13 J. N. Dema, W. D. Bowman, E. F. Zalewsk and R. A. J.
Velapold, Phys. Chem., 1981, 85, 2766–2771.
14 R. Schmidt, D. Geissler, V. Hagen and J. Bendig, J. Phys.
Chem. A, 2007, 111, 5768–5774.
15 C. Banerjee, C. Ghatak, S. Mandal, S. Ghosh, J. Kuchlyan and
N. Sarkar, J. Phys. Chem. B, 2013, 117, 6906–6916.
16 S. Uno, M. Kamiya, Y. Toshitada, K. Sugawara, K. Okabe, M.
C. Tarhan, H. Fujita, T. Funatsu, Y. Okada, S. Tobita and Y.
Urano, Nature Chemistry, 2014, 6, 681–689.
17 G. Liou and P. Storz, Free Radical Research, 2010, 44, 479–
496.
Fig. 5. Cell viability assay of HRhod-cbl, Rhod-OH, and free drug (cbl) in in (a)
B16F10 cell line in dark, (b) B16F10 cell line after light irradiation, (c) CHO cell
line in the dark, and (d) CHO cell line after light irradiation. Values are presented
as mean ± SD.
In conclusion, we have utilized the well-known dye, rhodamine
to develop a water-soluble photocage that can be activated by
green light (546 nm) for the release of anticancer drug. The
photocage exhibited efficient uncaging ability in the water and
physiological medium with good chemical and photochemical
quantum yields. The rhodamine based photoresponsive drug
delivery system showed the inherent property of locating the
mitochondria by fluorescence turn-on phenomenon, due to in
18 I. Pal, K. K. Dey, M. Chaurasia, S. Parida, S. Das, Y. Rajesh, K.
Sharma, T. Chowdhury and M. Mandal, Tumor Biol., 2016,
37, 6389−6402.
4 | J. Name., 2012, 00, 1-3
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 20xx
Please do not adjust margins