Microspheres prepared with different co-polymers of poly(lactic-glycolic acid) (PLGA) or with chitosan cause distinct effects on macrophages.
Microencapsulation of bioactive molecules for modulating the immune response during infectious or inflammatory events is a promising approach, since microspheres (MS) protect these labile biomolecules against fast degradation, prolong the delivery over longer periods of time and, in many situations, target their delivery to site of action, avoiding toxic side effects. Little is known, however, about the influence of different polymers used to prepare MS on macrophages. This paper aims to address this issue by evaluating in vitro cytotoxicity, phagocytosis profile and cytokines release from alveolar macrophages (J-774.1) treated with MS prepared with chitosan, and four different co-polymers of PLGA [poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid)]. The five MS prepared presented similar diameter and zeta potential each other. Chitosan-MS showed to be cytotoxic to J-774.1 cells, in contrast to PLGA-MS, which were all innocuous to this cell linage. PLGA 5000-MS was more efficiently phagocytized by macrophages compared to the other MS tested. PLGA 5000-MS and 5002-MS induced significant production of TNF-α, while 5000-MS, 5004-MS and 7502-MS decreased spontaneous IL-6 release. Nevertheless, only PLGA 5002-MS induced significant NFkB/SEAP activation. These findings together show that MS prepared with distinct PLGA co-polymers are differently recognized by macrophages, depending on proportion of lactic and glycolic acid in polymeric chain, and on molecular weight of the co-polymer used. Selection of the most adequate polymer to prepare a microparticulate drug delivery system to modulate immunologic system may take into account, therefore, which kind of immunomodulatory response is more adequate for the required treatment.
Departamento de Análises Clínicas, Toxicológicas e Bromatológicas, Faculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo. Ribeirão Preto, SP, 14040-903, Brazil; Centro Universitário das Faculdades Associadas ao Ensino (UNIFAE), São João da Boa Vista, SP, 13870-377, Brazil.
Claudia da Silva
Cda S
Bitencourt
Departamento de Análises Clínicas, Toxicológicas e Bromatológicas, Faculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo. Ribeirão Preto, SP, 14040-903, Brazil.
Letícia Bueno da
LB
Silva
Departamento de Análises Clínicas, Toxicológicas e Bromatológicas, Faculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo. Ribeirão Preto, SP, 14040-903, Brazil.
Priscilla Aparecida Tartari
PA
Pereira
Laboratório de Tecnologia de Medicamentos, Alimentos e Cosméticos (LTMAC), Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF, 70910-900, Brazil.
Guilherme Martins
GM
Gelfuso
Departamento de Análises Clínicas, Toxicológicas e Bromatológicas, Faculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo. Ribeirão Preto, SP, 14040-903, Brazil; Centro Universitário das Faculdades Associadas ao Ensino (UNIFAE), São João da Boa Vista, SP, 13870-377, Brazil. Electronic address: faccioli@fcfrp.usp.br.
Lúcia Helena
LH
Faccioli
D048271:Chitosan / Q000737:chemistry*; D019344:Lactic Acid / Q000737:chemistry*; D008264:Macrophages / Q000187:drug effects*; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D008863:Microspheres; D011100:Polyglycolic Acid / Q000737:chemistry*; D000077182:Polylactic Acid-Polyglycolic Acid Copolymer; D011108:Polymers / Q000494:pharmacology*
D011108:Polymers; D000077182:Polylactic Acid-Polyglycolic Acid Copolymer; D011100:Polyglycolic Acid; D019344:Lactic Acid; D048271:Chitosan
Chitosan; Macrophage; Microparticle; Microsphere; PLGA; Phagocytosis