1. Background
2. Objectives
3. Methods
3.1. Materials
3.2. Preparation of PEG-nVCR
3.3. Characterization of PEG-nVCR
3.4. In Vitro Drug Release Study
3.5. Stability Study
3.6. Cell Viability Study
3.7. Induction of Mouse Lymphoma Model
3.8. In Vivo Antitumor Activity
3.9. Extraction and Preparation of Lymphocytes from Spleen
3.10. Neurotoxicity Study
3.11. Statistical Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Characterization of Niosomes
| Formulation Type | Parameters, mean ± SD (N = 3) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Size (nm) | Zeta Potential (mV) | PDI | EE (%) | |
| PEG-nVCR | 220.6 ± 5.7 | -18.8 ± 2.4 | 0.40 ± 0.15 | 81.2 ± 2.5 |
| Empty PEG-nisomes | 227.4 ± 4.6 | -16.5 ± 3.1 | 0.34 ± 0.12 | - |
Abbreviations: EE %, entrapment efficiency; PDI, polydispersity index
4.2. In Vitro Drug Release Study
4.3. Stability Study
4.4. Cell Viability Study
4.5. In Vivo Antitumor Activity
| Parameter | Normal Mice | Mice with Lymphoma (Untreated) | Mice with Lymphoma Which Treated by Different Formulations | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PBS | Empty PEG-Niosome | Free VCR | PEG-nVCR | |||
| BW (g) | 21.52 ± 1.02 | 21.3 ± 1.58 | 21.14 ± 0.94 | 20.68 ± 1.37 | 20.34 ± 1.81 | 20.86 ± 1.09 |
| SW (g) | 0.14 ± 0.009 | 0.17 ± 0.008 | 0.17 ± 0.007 | 0.17 ± 0.01 | 0.17 ± 0.014 | 0.16 ± 0.010 |
| SI | 0.0066 ± 0.0004 | 0.008 ± 0.0006 | 0.008 ± 0.0006 | 0.008 ± 0.0008 | 0.008 ± 0.001 | 0.008 ± 0.0005 |
Abbreviations: BW, body weight (g); SI, spleen index; SW, spleen weight (g)
aEach data represents the mean ± SD (n = 3).
Flow cytometric analysis of lymphoma cells (CD and IgM positive cells) in spleens of mice with lymphoma (untreated group) and treated groups by different formulations. Each group consists of 8 mice. Results were expressed as mean ± SD. *P value = 0.01; **P value = 0.001; ***P value = 0.0001.


