Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 May 26.
Published in final edited form as: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2015 Apr 14;54(22):6567–6570. doi: 10.1002/anie.201411615

Acylsulfonamide-Functionalized Zwitterionic Gold Nanoparticles for Enhanced Cellular Uptake at Tumor pH

Tsukasa Mizuhara [a],[b],, Krishnendu Saha [a],, Daniel F Moyano [a], Chang Soo Kim [a], Bo Yan [a], Young-Kwan Kim [a], Vincent M Rotello [a],
PMCID: PMC4484729  NIHMSID: NIHMS701869  PMID: 25873209

Abstract

We report here a nanoparticle design featuring pH-responsive alkoxyphenyl acylsulfonamide ligands. Due to ligand structure, this nanoparticle is neutral at pH 7.4, becoming positively charged at tumor pH (< 6.5). The particle uptake and cytotoxicity increases over this pH range. This pH-controlled uptake and toxicity makes this particle a promising tool for cancer therapeutics.

Keywords: pH responsive, zwitterionic, gold nanoparticles, acylsulfonamide, cellular uptake


The pH difference between normal tissue (pH 7.2–7.4) and tumor tissue (pH 6.0–6.8)1 provides an attractive strategy for selective accumulation of nanoparticles (NPs) into tumor tissues for cancer treatment and/or imaging. To supply high tumor selectivity, a pH-responsive bio-interactive surface must be generated with appropriate responses at normal and tumor pH.2 The most common strategy is the use of a non-interactive functional group bearing an acid-cleavable unit; however, difficulty in controlling the acid sensitivity can result in the cleavage reaction taking place even at neutral pH,3 or requiring quite low pH (≈ 5.0) for activation.4 The use of reversible protonation/deprotonation systems provides an alternate strategy that features high tunablity.5 Recent reports employing polymers such as poly-histidine and polyamines as a pH-responsive moieties provided high tumor pH sensitivity.6 Solubility can be a challenge, however, with these neutral-to-cationic systems, requiring the use of additional functional group such as poly(ethylene)glycol chains at neutral pH.

Zwitterionic surfaces have recently received considerable attention as non-interacting chemical surfaces.7 NPs with zwitterionic surfaces exhibit a long circulatory half-life,8 low cytotoxicity,9 and high biocompatibility. Integration of these properties with a pH dependent zwitterionic-to-cationic charge conversion system would make them attractive scaffolds for therapeutics. The low cellular uptake of zwitterionic particles10 makes them excellent candidates for pH-controlled tumor uptake upon protonation to the resulting cationic particle. Moreover, concomitant cytotoxicity resulting from these cationic NPs11 would occur only in the tumor environment, leading to the possibility of tumor-selective therapy.

A few examples of pH-responsive zwitterionic chemical surfaces such as carboxybetaine12 and phosphorylcholine have been reported.13 However, the charge switching abilities of these structures are not sensitive enough to respond to stimuli such as weakly acidic tumor pH, with carboxybetaines protonated at pH <2 and phosphorylcholine at pH <5. The structure of the negatively charged group is the key for precise pH-responsiveness, and been reported using mixed-monolayer particles featuring carboxylic acid and ammonium ligands.14 Here, we report a new pH-responsive zwitterionic surface structure engineered by derivatization of acylsulfonamide group. This designed zwitterionic group becomes cationic at tumor pH (< 6.5), resulting in dramatically enhanced cellular uptake and cytotoxicity. Significantly, these particles show no hemolytic activity at blood pH (7.4).

The acylsulfonamide group features pH behavior similar to that of carboxylic acid groups.15 We chose this group as the negatively charged part of the zwitterionic ligand, with pH-responsiveness controlled by the functional group attached to the sulfonyl group. AuNP 1 features an aryl acylsulfonamide while AuNP 2 provides an alkyl analog (Figure 1). The ligands have trimethylammonium termini, and a tetra(ethylene glycol) spacer between the negative group and the hydrophobic chain was used as a passivating group to avoid irreversible adsorption and denaturation of serum proteins.16 These particles were synthesized from pentanethiol-capped AuNPs (ca. 2 nm core) by means of place-exchange reactions.17

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Chemical structure of the monolayer-protected gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) and our strategy for a pH-responsive delivery system into tumors.

We initially measured zeta potential to determine the pH dependence of the AuNP surface charges (Figure 2). The surface charge of both AuNP 1 and 2 were close to neutral at physiological pH (7.4), consistent with the zwitterionic structure of these NPs. AuNP 1 features a sharp transition from neutral to cationic centered at pH 6.5, with consistent changes observed by 1H-NMR (Supplementary Figure 1).18 In contrast, AuNP 2 displayed a zwitterionic surface even at acidic pH, consistent with the reported pKa value of an alkyl acylsulfonamide group (pKa ≈ 4.5)19 and providing a permanently zwitterionic control particle for our studies. Zeta potentials for particles with higher coverage obtained by two exchange reactions were similar to those formed with only one exchange. (Supplementary Figure 2 and 3). Recent reports on a pH-responsive zwitterionic AuNP with a mixed monolayer of carboxylic acid and quaternary ammonium ligands showed that the neutralization of surface charge during the charge alteration process results in the formation of precipitates.14,20 Therefore, we investigated if similar aggregates formed in our case. Dynamic light scattering data revealed that no aggregation of these NPs was observed in the pH range from 7.4 to 6.0 (see Supporting Information), preventing potential complications. The stability the particles to degradation in serum was confirmed by MALDI-MS (Supplementary Figure 4) after the incubation in 10% serum containing media (37 °C, 24 h).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Zeta potential vs. pH curves obtained for AuNPs 1 and 2 (both 1 μM). Zeta-potentials were measured in 5 mM phosphate buffer at different pH values. Error bars represent standard deviations based on three independent measurements per pH value.

The change of AuNP 1 from zwitterionic to positively charged surface at weakly acidic pH should enhance cellular uptake of AuNP. Both AuNPs 1 (switchable) and 2 (non-switchable) were incubated with HeLa cells for 3 h at three different pH values,21 with the resulting intracellular amount of gold measured using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) (Figure 3). At pH 7.4, very low uptake (~10 ng/well) was observed for both AuNPs 1 and 2, similar to the cellular uptake of recently reported highly nonfouling sulfabetaine functionalized AuNPs.7e Uptake of AuNP 1 increased with decreasing pH value, reaching a four-fold increase at pH 6.0. In contrast, no significant change in uptake was observed with control AuNP 2 over this pH range. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) analysis was used to evaluate the intracellular localization of AuNPs at different pH. AuNP 1 was located only on cell membrane at pH 7.4, while endosomal uptake was observed at pH 6.0 (Supplementary Figure 5), confirming that acidic pH leads to protonation and triggers concomitant endosomal uptake of AuNP 1 in HeLa cells. Taken together, these studies establish the role of acylsulfonamide protonation in determining cellular uptake.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Cellular uptake of AuNPs 1 and 2 (both 1 μM) after 3 h incubation with HeLa (30,000 cells/well) or HMEC-1 cells (100,000 cells/well) in the presence of 10% serum. All experiments were performed in triplicate, and error bars represent standard error of the mean.

We next investigated the pH dependent cellular uptake in human microvascular endothelial cells (HMEC-1). At pH 7.4, the amount of intracellular gold was similar with that with HeLa cells. In contrast to HeLa cells, no significant difference in uptake was observed even at pH 6.0 for HMEC-1 cells (Figure 3). This is presumably due to differential uptake mechanisms in HeLa and HMEC-1 cells.22 Significantly, these results indicate that the cationic charge on the nanoparticle surface can provide different affinity and selective uptake in HeLa cells relative to HMEC-1 cells, which could be a critical parameter for selective delivery of nanomaterials in tumor microenvironment.

Positively charged AuNPs show higher cytotoxicity than their zwitterionic counterpart,10 which indicates that cytotoxicity of AuNP 1 could be triggered by weakly acidic pH. Therefore, we next evaluated the cytotoxicity of AuNPs 1 and 2 at varying pH values and concentrations using the Alamar blue viability assay (Figure 4). At pH 7.4, no cytotoxicity of AuNPs 1 and 2 was observed in HeLa cells due to their non-interactive zwitterionic properties. Enhanced cytotoxicity of AuNP 1 on HeLa cells was observed at pH 6.0, as expected due to the enhanced cellular uptake resulting from the conversion of the particle from zwitterionic to cationic. G6PD assay indicated no cell membrane damage (Supplementary Figures 6), indicating that cytotoxicity arose from intracellular mechanisms, e.g. oxidative stress or DNA damage.11 In contrast, AuNP 2 did not show any significant toxicity at low pH values. In addition, no cytotoxicity was also observed in HMEC-1 cells at both pH 7.4 and pH 6.0 (Supplementary Figures 7).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Cell viability of HeLa cells after 72 h incubation with AuNPs 1 and 2 (0.5 μM–4.0 μM) in the presence of 10% serum. All experiments were performed in triplicate. Error bars are standard error of the mean.

Hemolysis is an important issue for therapeutic nanomaterials.23 Therefore, we performed a hemolytic assay to investigate the blood compatibility of our NPs. AuNP mediated cell lysis events were not observed on either AuNP 1 or 2 in both the presence and absence of plasma proteins (Supplementary Figures 8 and 9).24

In conclusion, we have developed a new pH-responsive zwitterionic ligand based on the alkoxyphenyl acylsulfonamide group. Due to its precisely designed surface structure, zwitterionic AuNPs functionalized with this ligand reversibly becomes cationic at tumor pH, with concomitant enhancement of cellular uptake and cytotoxicity on HeLa cells. This combination of pH-regulated tumor selective cellular uptake and cytotoxicity could make this ligand design promising for imaging, delivery, and self-therapeutic applications.

Supplementary Material

Supporting Information

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the NIH (EB014277). T. M. is grateful to the Japan Society for the Promotion of Sciences (Postdoctoral Fellowship for Research Abroad and Strategic Young Researcher Overseas Visits Program for Accelerating Brain Circulation). The authors thank Ziwen Jiang for assistance with TEM and Singyuk Hou and Riddha Das for mass spectrometry.

References

  • 1.(a) Helmlinger G, Yuan F, Dellian M, Jain RK. Nat Med. 1997;3:177–182. doi: 10.1038/nm0297-177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Gatenby RA, Gillies RJ. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4:891–899. doi: 10.1038/nrc1478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (c) Cardone RA, Stephan VC, Reshkin J. Nat Rev Cancer. 2005;5:786–795. doi: 10.1038/nrc1713. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Tannock IF, Rotin D. Cancer Res. 1989;49:4373–4384. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Schmaljohann D. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2006;58:500–514. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2006.09.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (c) Randolph LM, Chien MP, Gianneschi NC. Chem Sci. 2012;3:1363–1380. doi: 10.1039/C2SC00857B. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (d) Mura S, Nicolas J, Couvreur P. Nat Mater. 2013;12:991–1003. doi: 10.1038/nmat3776. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Du J-Z, Sun T-M, Song W-J, Wu J, Wang J. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2010;49:3621–3626. doi: 10.1002/anie.200907210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Du JZ, Du XJ, Mao CQ, Wang J. J Am Chem Soc. 2011;133:17560–17563. doi: 10.1021/ja207150n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Koren E, Apte A, Jani A, Torchilin VP. J Control Release. 2012;160:264–273. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2011.12.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Nam J, Won N, Jin H, Chung H, Kim S. J Am Chem Soc. 2009;131:13639–13645. doi: 10.1021/ja902062j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Zhou K, Wang Y, Huang X, Luby-Phelps K, Sumer BD, Gao J. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2011;50:6109–6114. doi: 10.1002/anie.201100884. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lee ES, Na K, Bae YH. Nano Lett. 2005;5:325–329. doi: 10.1021/nl0479987. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Lee ES, Gao Z, Kim D, Park K, Kwon IC, Bae YH. J Control Release. 2008;129:228–236. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2008.04.024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (c) Wang Y, Zhou K, Huang G, Hensley C, Huang X, Ma X, Zhao T, Sumer BD, DeBerardinis RJ, Gao J. Nat Mater. 2014;13:204–212. doi: 10.1038/nmat3819. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Holmlin RE, Chen X, Chapman RG, Takayama S, Whitesides GM. Langmuir. 2001;17:2841–2850. doi: 10.1021/la0015258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Aldeek F, Muhammed MAH, Palui G, Zhan N, Mattoussi H. ACS Nano. 2013;7:2509–2521. doi: 10.1021/nn305856t. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (c) Bogart LK, Pourroy G, Murphy CJ, Puntes V, Pellegrino T, Rosenblum D, Peer D, Lévy R. ACS Nano. 2014;8:3107–3122. doi: 10.1021/nn500962q. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (d) Moyano DF, Saha K, Prakash G, Yan B, Kong H, Yazdani M, Rotello VM. ACS Nano. 2014;8:6748–6755. doi: 10.1021/nn5006478. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Arvizo RR, Miranda OR, Moyano DF, Walden CA, Giri K, Bhattacharya R, Robertson JD, Rotello VM, Reid JM, Mukherjee P. PLoS One. 2011;6:e24374. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024374. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kim CK, Ghosh P, Pagliuca C, Zhu Z-J, Menichetti S, Rotello VM. J Am Chem Soc. 2009;131:1360–1361. doi: 10.1021/ja808137c. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Arvizo RR, Miranda OR, Thompson MA, Pabelick CM, Bhattacharya R, Robertson JD, Rotello VM, Prakash YS, Mukherjee P. Nano Lett. 2010;10:2543–2548. doi: 10.1021/nl101140t. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chompoosor A, Saha K, Ghosh PS, Macarthy DJ, Miranda OR, Zhu Z-J, Arcaro KF, Rotello VM. Small. 2010;6:2246–2249. doi: 10.1002/smll.201000463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sundaram HS, Ella-Menye J-R, Brault ND, Shao Q, Jiang S. Chem Sci. 2014;5:200–205. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Jin Q, Xu J-P, Ji J, Shen J-C. Chem Commun. 2008:3058–3060. doi: 10.1039/b801959b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Pillai PP, Huda S, Kowalczyk B, Grzybowski BA. J Am Chem Soc. 2013;135:6392–6395. doi: 10.1021/ja4001272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chakravarty PK, Naylor EM, Chen A, Chang RSL, Chen T-B, Faust KA, Lotti VJ, Kivlighn SD, Gable RA. J Med Chem. 1994;37:4068–4072. doi: 10.1021/jm00050a002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hong R, Fischer NO, Verma A, Goodman CM, Emrick T, Rotello VM. J Am Chem Soc. 2004;126:739–743. doi: 10.1021/ja037470o. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hostetler MJ, Wingate JE, Zhong CJ, Harris JE, Vachet RW, Clark MR, Londono JD, Green SJ, Stokes JJ, Wignall GD, Glish GL, Porter MD, Evans ND, Murray RW. Langmuir. 1998;14:17–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.(a) Ariga K, Nakanishi T, Hill JP, Shirai M, Okuno M, Abe T, Kikuchi J. J Am Chem Soc. 2005;127:12074–12080. doi: 10.1021/ja053226g. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Ariga K, Yuki H, Kikuchi J, Dannemuller O, Albrecht-Gary A, Nakatani Y, Ourisson G. Langmuir. 2005;21:4578–4583. doi: 10.1021/la0467887. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Schuster VL, Itoh S, Andrews SW, Burk RM, Chen J, Kedzie KM, Gil DW, Woodward DF. Mol Pharmacol. 2000;58:61511–61516. doi: 10.1124/mol.58.6.1511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Liu X, Chen Y, Li H, Huang N, Jin Q, Ren K, Ji J. ACS Nano. 2013;7:6244–6253. doi: 10.1021/nn402201w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.We carried out cellular uptake experiment under three different pH values including blood pH (7.4), and two different level of acidic tumor pH (6.6 and 6.0) to have an inclination of results since pH distribution in tumor tissue is not uniform.
  • 22.Saha K, Kim ST, Yan B, Miranda OR, Alfonso FS, Shlosman D, Rotello VM. Small. 2013;9:300–305. doi: 10.1002/smll.201201129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Rother RP, Bell L, Hillmen P, Gladwin MT. JAMA, J Am Med Assoc. 2005;293:1653–1662. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.13.1653. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Saha K, Moyano DF, Rotello VM. Mater Horiz. 2014;1:102–105. doi: 10.1039/C3MH00075C. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supporting Information

RESOURCES