ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Optimizing Biocompatibility and Gene Delivery with DMAEA and DMAEAm: A Niacin-Derived Copolymer Approach
My Activity

Figure 1Loading Img
  • Open Access
Article

Optimizing Biocompatibility and Gene Delivery with DMAEA and DMAEAm: A Niacin-Derived Copolymer Approach
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Prosper P. Mapfumo
    Prosper P. Mapfumo
    Institute of Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry (IOMC), Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Humboldtstrasse 10, Jena 07743, Germany
  • Liên S. Reichel
    Liên S. Reichel
    Institute of Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry (IOMC), Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Humboldtstrasse 10, Jena 07743, Germany
  • Thomas André
    Thomas André
    Leibniz Institute on Aging-Fritz Lipmann Institute, Jena 07745, Germany
  • Stephanie Hoeppener
    Stephanie Hoeppener
    Institute of Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry (IOMC), Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Humboldtstrasse 10, Jena 07743, Germany
    Jena Center for Soft Matter (JCSM), Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Philosophenweg 7, Jena 07743, Germany
  • Lenhard K. Rudolph
    Lenhard K. Rudolph
    Leibniz Institute on Aging-Fritz Lipmann Institute, Jena 07745, Germany
  • Anja Traeger*
    Anja Traeger
    Institute of Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry (IOMC), Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Humboldtstrasse 10, Jena 07743, Germany
    Jena Center for Soft Matter (JCSM), Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Philosophenweg 7, Jena 07743, Germany
    *Email: [email protected]
    More by Anja Traeger
Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

Biomacromolecules

Cite this: Biomacromolecules 2024, 25, 8, 4749–4761
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.4c00007
Published July 4, 2024

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Gene therapy is pivotal in nanomedicine, offering a versatile approach to disease treatment. This study aims to achieve an optimal balance between biocompatibility and efficacy, which is a common challenge in the field. A copolymer library is synthesized, incorporating niacin-derived monomers 2-acrylamidoethyl nicotinate (AAEN) or 2-(acryloyloxy)ethyl nicotinate (AEN) with N,N-(dimethylamino)ethyl acrylamide (DMAEAm) or hydrolysis-labile N,N-(dimethylamino)ethyl acrylate (DMAEA). Evaluation of the polymers’ cytotoxicity profiles reveals that an increase in AAEN or DMAEA molar ratios correlates with improved biocompatibility. Remarkably, an increase in AAEN in both DMAEA and DMAEAm copolymers demonstrated enhanced transfection efficiencies of plasmid DNA in HEK293T cells. Additionally, the top-performing polymers demonstrate promising gene expression in challenging-to-transfect cells (THP-1 and Jurkat cells) and show no significant effect on modulating immune response induction in ex vivo treated murine monocytes. Overall, the best performing candidates exhibit an optimal balance between biocompatibility and efficacy, showcasing potential advancements in gene therapy.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society

Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

In nanomedicine, gene therapy has emerged as a key treatment method due to its high potential and adaptable mechanism for treating incurable diseases such as autoimmune diseases, genetic disorders, and cancer. (1,2) It involves the transient or stable expression of exogenous nucleic acids, such as small interfering RNA (siRNA), mRNA (mRNA), and plasmid DNA (pDNA), within specific cells or tissues. (3,4) Introduction of nucleic acids into specific cells or targeted areas demands a carrier system because of the swift extracellular nuclease degradation and the potential to induce nonspecific immune reactions. (5,6) In the case of siRNA or mRNA expression, the release from the complex should take place in the cell cytoplasm, while pDNA requires access to the nucleus. Consequently, among other factors, delivering nucleic acids, especially pDNA, presents a relatively greater challenge. (7−9) Although viruses have demonstrated success in delivering pDNA and other nucleic acids, as evident from numerous approved clinical trials, concerns about their capacity to trigger undesirable immune responses persist. (10) To surmount these challenges, approaches involving nonviral carriers hold great promise. (10,11)
To this end, lipids have emerged as the most promising among nonviral carriers, as underscored by their recent success in facilitating lipid nanoparticle–mRNA vaccines. (7,12) Nonetheless, while they have proved to be effective at delivering siRNA or mRNA, their capacity to effectively deliver pDNA remains constrained. (10,12) As a result, polymer-based delivery systems have emerged as an alternative technology that brings additional advantages in terms of robustness, reproducibility, scalability, and adaptability. (13) However, the advancement of polymer-based strategies into translational research has been hindered by a pivotal challenge: striking the right balance between toxicity and efficacy, as researchers contend with the task of designing polymers that exhibit minimal toxicity while maximizing their efficacy. (10,13) In brief, a successful gene carrier system should (i) be biocompatible, (ii) bind and protect nucleic acids from extracellular degradation and serum interaction, (iii) ensure safe transport and targeted uptake into specific cell types, (iv) exhibit high transfection profiles without deleterious unwanted reactions, and (v) be inexpensive and reproducible. (14−17)
Advances in synthetic methodologies, including controlled radical polymerization, such as reversible addition–fragmentation chain-transfer (RAFT), have facilitated the synthesis of polymers with tailored compositions and complex architectures. (18−21) This becomes particularly advantageous when designing a carrier to meet specific requirements. In recent research, poly[N,N-(dimethylamino)ethyl acrylate] (PDMAEA) has emerged as a highly promising polymeric gene carrier due to its charge-shifting capabilities. (22−24) PDMAEA self-hydrolyzes, transitioning from a predominantly cationic polymer to one with a more anionic backbone. (25,26) The resulting nontoxic byproducts reduce the overall polymer toxicity. (26) Additionally, this property of charge-shifting enables the controlled release of the genetic payload during gene delivery. (27) For example, Truong et al. observed enhanced transfection efficiencies with higher molecular weight PDMAEA. (27) However, the charge-shifting property also contributes to the low success of PDMAEA, as hydrolysis can occur faster than the delivery of genetic material, resulting in the loss of the payload. (27) Interestingly, a study of the hydrolytically stable acrylamide variant, poly[N,N-(dimethylamino)ethyl acrylamide] (PDMAEAm), showed that the polymer exhibits low transfection efficiencies across various molecular weights, albeit with enhanced cell internalization. (28)
To this end, to enhance the delivery performance of cationic polymers, one approach involves the incorporation of hydrophobic components. (29−32) Hydrophobic components enhance complex stability, protect against serum interactions, and promote membrane interactions for improved cellular uptake and potential endosomal release mechanisms. (33−36) However, the selection of the hydrophobic moieties is important because they can induce cytotoxicity, even though transfection performance is improved. (36−38) For example, in our previous work, a positive correlation between cytotoxicity, transfection performance, and pendant acyclic alkyl chain length was observed. In contrast, an increase in lipoic acid-derived monomer reduced cytotoxicity and boosted transfection performance. (38) This result highlighted the potential of incorporating nutrient-derived components to improve performance. To elaborate further, hydrophobic homopolymers derived from niacin were investigated. (39) The rationale was to utilize niacin, a natural compound, to improve nanoparticle formation, biocompatibility, and uptake profiles of polymers by harnessing the intrinsic advantages of the natural compound. Poly[2-acrylamidoethyl nicotinate] (PAAEN) and poly[2-(acryloyloxy)ethyl nicotinate] (PAEN) emerged as the top performers, with their nanoparticles showcasing high biocompatibility and enhanced uptake profiles, making them promising candidates for gene delivery if their attributes can be retained. (39)
In this study, we investigate a copolymer library comprising niacin-derived monomers (AAEN or AEN) in combination with either DMAEAm or DMAEA. The latter is incorporated to harness its charge-shifting property and compare its performance to that of the hydrolytically stable DMAEAm. Furthermore, we aim to retain and utilize the high uptake profiles of niacin-derived moieties to enhance the overall delivery performance of the polymers.

Experimental Section

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information contains additional details about the experimental specifics of materials and instrumentation, as well as the procedures used for monomer synthesis and biological investigations. Monomer and polymer characterizations were carried out by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy and size-exclusion chromatography (SEC) (Supporting Information; Figure S1 shows 1H and 13C NMR spectra of monomers. Figures S2 and S3: 1H NMR and SEC plots of all polymers).

Polymer Synthesis

The quantities of monomers used for synthesis and their conversions are further detailed in the Supporting Information, Table S1.

Synthesis of P(AAEN148/123/48-co-DMAEAm50/75/142) (A1–A3)

(Propionic acid)yl butyl trithiocarbonate (PABTC) (10.0 mg, 4.19 × 10–5 moles), DMAEAm, AAEN, dioxane (4.3 g), a 1 wt % solution of 2,2′-azobis(2,4-dimethylvaleronitrile) (V-65) in dioxane (0.95 g, 9.25 mg V-65b, 3.58 × 10–5 moles), and 1,3,5-trioxane (external NMR standard) (28–30 mg) were, respectively, introduced to a 8 mL microwave vial equipped with a magnetic stirring bar. The vial was sealed, and the solution was deoxygenated by bubbling argon through it for 10 min. Afterward, the vial was placed in an oil bath at 50 °C and allowed to stir for 4.5 h. Samples were taken prior to the start of the reaction and after the reaction was stopped. The polymers were precipitated three times into cold ether, and each time they were redissolved in methanol (MeOH). Finally, the polymers were dried under reduced pressure to give a yellowish solid.

Synthesis of P(AAEN152/120/49-co-DMAEA50/72/149) (B1–B3)

PABTC (10.0 mg, 4.19 × 10–5 moles), DMAEA, AAEN, dioxane (3.9 g), a 0.5 wt % solution of 4,4′-azobis(4-cyanovaleric acid) (ACVA) in dioxane (344.0 mg, 1.72 mg ACVA, 6.13 × 10–6 moles), and 1,3,5-trioxane (external NMR standard) (26–29 mg) were, respectively, introduced to a 8 mL microwave vial equipped with a magnetic stirring bar. The vial was sealed, and the solution deoxygenated by bubbling argon through it for 10 min. Afterward, the vial was placed in an oil bath at 70 °C and allowed to stir for 23 h. Samples were taken prior to start of reaction and after reaction was stopped. The polymers were precipitated three times into cold ether, redissolving it each time in chloroform (CHCl3) for B1 and B2 and tetrahydrofuran (THF) for B3. Finally, the polymers were dried under reduced pressure to give a yellowish solid.

Synthesis of P(AEN115-co-DMAEA65) (C1)

PABTC (10.0 mg, 4.19 × 10–5 moles), DMAEA (0.54 g, 3.78 × 10–3 moles), AEN (1.48 g, 6.71 × 10–3 moles), dioxane (4.6 g), a 0.5 wt % solution of ACVA in dioxane (764.0 mg, 3.82 mg ACVA, 1.36 × 10–5 moles), and 1,3,5-trioxane (external NMR standard) (29 mg) were, respectively, introduced to a 8 mL microwave vial equipped with a magnetic stirring bar. The vial was sealed, and the solution deoxygenated by bubbling argon through it for 10 min. Afterward, the vial was placed in an oil bath at 70 °C and allowed to stir for 15 h. Samples were taken prior to start of reaction and after reaction was stopped. The polymer was precipitated three times into cold ether, with the solution redissolved each time in CHCl3. Lastly, the polymer was dissolved in MeOH and to this was added 582 μL of 4 M HCl in dioxane, and the solution was precipitated into cold ether and dried under reduced pressure to give a yellowish solid.

Titrations

Titrations of the polymers were conducted by using a Metrohm OMNIS integrated titration system. For a typical measurement, 200 mg of polymer was dissolved in 0.2 M HCl (10 mL), and an additional 1 equiv of HCl to the polymer amine groups was added. The polymers were titrated (with dynamic flow rate adjustment) against a 0.15 M NaOH solution.

DMAEA Copolymer Degradation

The polymers used for the investigation were HCl salts; 1 equiv of HCl to the DMAEA components was added and dried. In a standard measurement, 30 mg of the copolymers and 26 mg for PDMAEA125 were dissolved in D2O, followed by the addition of 200 mM NaOH in D2O (Supporting Information. Added amounts used are provided in Table S2. The resulting pH for all samples was approximately 7.5. The 1H NMR sample was measured and subsequently incubated at 37 °C for 24 h (Supporting Information; Figure S6: 1H NMR spectra analyzing the hydrolysis of DMAEA containing polymers). After incubation, a second measurement was taken, and the degree of degradation was calculated based on the 1H NMR results using previously reported formulas shown in eqs S3 and S4. (26)

Biological Assays

Cell Culture

The mouse fibroblast cell line L929 and human embryonic kidney cell line HEK293T were cultivated in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM, 1 g L–1 glucose), supplemented with 10% (v/v) fetal bovine serum (FBS), 100 U mL–1 penicillin, and 100 μg mL–1 streptomycin (D10). The human monocytic cell line (THP-1) and the human T-lymphocyte cell line (Jurkat) were cultivated in RPMI 1640 with Stable Glutamine medium (RPMI), supplemented with 10% (v/v) FBS, 100 U mL–1 penicillin, and 100 μg mL–1 streptomycin (R10). All cell lines were cultivated at 37 °C in a humidified 5% (v/v) CO2 atmosphere.
For PrestoBlue assay, L929 cell line was seeded at a cell concentration of 0.1 × 106 cells mL–1 in a 96-well plate in a total volume of 100 μL D10, supplemented with 10 mM HEPES buffer (D10H) per well.
For transfection efficiency studies in HEK293T cells, 24 h before, the cells were seeded in a 24-well plate at a cell concentration of 0.2 × 106 cells mL–1 in 500 μL of D10H to reach a cell confluency > 70%. One hour before the experiment started, the medium was changed to fresh D10H.
For transfection efficiency studies in THP-1 and Jurkat cell lines, the cells were seeded in a 24-well plate at a cell concentration of 0.3 × 106 cells mL–1 in 500 μL of R10, supplemented with 10 mM HEPES buffer (R10H) 3 h before the transfection efficiency studies.

Cytocompatibility (PrestoBlue Assay)

The cytotoxicity of the polymers was conducted by determining the metabolic activity of viable cells. The PrestoBlue assay was performed based on ISO10993-5 with L929 cells. (40) The medium was changed to 90 μL of fresh D10H 1 h before treatment. To determine the cytocompatibility in THP-1 and Jurkat cells, the cells were seeded 3 h before treatment. In triplicate, cells were treated with 10 μL of polymers, which were diluted in 20 mM sodium acetate buffer (NaOAc buffer, pH 5.4). The tested polymer concentrations were ranging from 15 to 500 μg mL–1 and 3 to 100 μg mL–1 for linear polyethylenimine (LPEI) as positive control for the assay. After 24 h of incubation, the medium was replaced by a 10% (v/v) PrestoBlue solution in fresh D10 and prepared according to the manufacturer’s instructions for the L929 cell line. For THP-1 and Jurkat cell lines, 10 μL of PrestoBlue solution was added directly to the medium. Cells were further incubated for 45 min at 37 °C before the fluorescence was measured with the multiplate reader at λEx = 570/λEm = 610 nm. The NaOAc buffer-treated cells on the same plate were defined as having 100% viability. The relative number of viable cells was calculated as in eq 1
Rel.viability/%=FIsampleFI0FICtrlFI0×100
(1)
where FIsample, FI0, and FICtrl represent the fluorescence intensity of a given sample, medium without cells (the blank), and NaOAc buffer-treated control (100% viability), respectively.

Polymer–Membrane Interaction

To investigate the polymer–cellular membrane interaction, human erythrocytes were used. Blood from three different human donors preserved with EDTA additive was obtained from the Department of Transfusion Medicine of the University Hospital, Jena. To purify the erythrocytes, the blood was centrifuged without pooling at 4500 g for 5 min, and the supernatant (the serum) was removed. The pellet of erythrocytes was washed three times with cold phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, pH 7.4) and resuspended 10-fold with PBS (pH 7.4). The tested polymers were diluted with PBS (pH 7.4) to the aimed concentrations, ranging from 10 to 200 μg mL–1. Subsequently, 350 μL aliquots of erythrocyte suspension were mixed 1:1 (v/v) with the polymer solutions. The erythrocyte-polymer suspensions were incubated at 37 °C for 60 min and centrifuged at 2400g for 5 min before the supernatant was transferred in triplicate to a clear flat-bottomed 96-well plate. The hemoglobin release was determined as the hemoglobin absorption at λ = 544 nm. Absorption at λ = 630 nm was used as a reference. Complete hemolysis (100%) was achieved using 1% Triton X-100 as the positive control, since Triton X-100 strongly disrupts the cell membrane. Pure PBS was used as the negative control (0% hemolysis). The hemolytic activity of the polymer was calculated as follows
hemolysis/%=(AsampleAnegativecontrol)(ApositivecontrolAnegativecontrol)×100
(2)
where Asample, Anegative control, and Apositive control are the absorption values of a given sample, the PBS treatment, and the Triton X-100 treatment, respectively. A value less than 2% hemolysis rate was classified as nonhemolytic, 2 to 5% as slightly hemolytic, and values > 5% as hemolytic.

Polyplexation

Plasmid DNA (pDNA) was diluted in 5% glucose supplemented with 20 mM HEPES buffer (HBG) to have a master mix with a pDNA concentration, which was twice as high as the final polyplex solution. The polymers were diluted in 20 mM NaOAc buffer at double the concentration as aimed in the final N*/P ratio (molar ratio of DMAEA/DMAEAm amines in the polymer to phosphates in pDNA). The master mix was added in a 1:1 (v/v) ratio to the diluted polymer solution. Immediately, the mixture was vortexed for 10 s at a maximum speed and further incubated for 15 min at room temperature.

Size Determination via Dynamic Light Scattering

Polyplex, prepared as described, was further investigated for its hydrodynamic diameter using dynamic light scattering (DLS Zetasizer Nano ZS). 70 μL of the polyplexes with the EGFP-noncoded plasmid pKMyc was used. Each sample was measured at 25 °C after an equilibration time of 30 s, and 15 size runs were performed with 0.839 s per run. The counts were detected at an angle of 173°. Water was used as a dispersant with a viscosity of 0.8872 mPa·s (at 25 °C) and a refractive index of 1.33. The mean particle size was approximated as the effective (z-average) diameter, and the distribution width was approximated as the polydispersity index (PDI) of the particles. General purpose was used as the analysis model, assuming a spherical shape of the polyplexes. Data was analyzed using ZS Xplorer software.

Interaction of Polymers and Genetic Material

Ethidium bromide (EtBr) binding assay (EBA) and heparin release assay (HRA) were conducted to investigate the binding affinity and release ability between the polymer and genetic material. The assays are based on measuring the increased or decreased fluorescence intensity of EtBr when intercalating with the genetic material or release of genetic material, respectively. (41) To study the ability of the polymer to complex genetic material, an EBA was performed. Therefore, the pKMyc was diluted as described in the polyplexation section with addition of EtBr (1 μg mL–1). The solution was incubated and protected from light at RT for 10 min. The polymers were diluted with HBG buffer (pH 7.4) to give an N*/P ratio from 1 to 20. Subsequently, the master mix-EtBr solution was added 1 to a 1:1 volume ratio with the different polymer solutions using black 96-well plates. The solution was mixed by resuspension and incubated at 37 °C for 15 min. The fluorescence intensity was measured at λEx = 525 nm/λEm = 605 nm. As maximum fluorescence (100%), a sample containing only pKMyc and EtBr was used as the control. To investigate the ability to release genetic material from the polyplex, heparin, a polyanion, was added to the polyplexes at different concentrations using the dispenser of the microplate (Supporting Information; added amounts are shown in Table S3). After each addition, the plate was shaken and incubated for 10 min before determining the fluorescence intensity.
The percentage of EtBr displaced due to polyplex formation or reintercalating following pDNA release by heparin was calculated in the following eq 3
rFI/%=FIsampleFIpDNA×100
(3)
rFI is the relative fluorescence intensity, FIsample and FIpDNA are the fluorescence intensities of the sample, and the EtBr is intercalated into pDNA only (100%), respectively.

Cryogenic Transmission Electron Microscopy (Cryo-TEM)

The samples for cryo-TEM were prepared as described in the polyplexation section. Cryo-TEM images were acquired with an FEI Tecnai G2 20 at an acceleration voltage of 120 kV with an Olympus MegaView camera (1379 × 1024 pixels). Sample preparation was performed by plunge-freezing the samples with a Vitrobot Mark IV system. 9.0 μL of the aqueous solutions were blotted on Quantifoil grids (R2/2, Quantifoil, Jena, Germany) and were vitrified in liquid ethane. The grids were rendered hydrophilic by Ar-plasma cleaning for 30 s (Diener Electronics, Germany) prior to the sample preparation process. After vitrification, samples were stored in liquid nitrogen until transferred to the cryo-holder (Gatan 626). Transfer to the microscope was performed with a Gatan cryo-stage, and the temperature was always maintained below −172 °C after vitrification.

Particle Uptake

HEK293T cells were seeded as described in the cell culture section. One hour before treatment, the medium was replaced with fresh 45 μL of D10H medium. The polyplexes were prepared as previously described in the polyplexation section but with the addition of YOYO-1 to the master mix. Cells were treated with 50 μL polyplex at N*/P 20 with a final concentration of 3 μg mL–1 EGFP-noncoded plasmid pKMyc on cells over 1 and 4 h. After the incubation, cells were harvested by adding 150 μL of Trypsin EDTA and incubating them for 10 min at 37 °C (5% CO2). Following, 350 μL of fresh D10 was added to stop trypsinization, and 250 μL of cell suspension was transferred to a 96-well plate for flow cytometry analysis. For detection, a bandpass detection filter 525 ± 40 nm was used.

Transfection Efficiency

HEK293T cells were seeded as described in the cell culture section. One hour before treatment, the medium was replaced with fresh 45 μL D10H medium. The polyplexes were prepared as previously described in the polyplexation section. Cells were treated with 50 μL polyplex at N*/P 20 with a final pDNA concentration of 3/2/1 μg mL–1 on cells or with 50 μL polyplex at N*/P 20/10/5/3 and a final pDNA concentration of 3 μg mL–1 on cells over 24 h. After 24 h incubation, 50 μL of the supernatant was transferred to a 96-well plate in triplicate for membrane integrity investigation. After the incubation, the supernatant was used to conduct the cytocompatibility of polyplexes (CytoTox-One assay), and cells were harvested as described in the particle uptake section.
To investigate the transfection in hard-to-transfect cell lines THP-1 and Jurkat, cells were seeded 3 h before treatment, as described in the cell culture section. Cells were treated with 50 μL polyplex at N*/P 20 and a final pDNA concentration of 3 μg mL–1 on cells over 24 h. Then 250 μL of the cell suspension was transferred to a U-bottom 96-well plate. Cells were washed with centrifugation (1000 g, 5 min) twice with PBS (pH 7). For flow cytometry, cells were resuspended in 250 μL of PBS (pH 7), and a bandpass detection filter 510 ± 10 nm with signal attenuation (OD1) was used.

Cytocompatibility of Polyplexes (CytoTox-ONE Assay)

To determine the membrane integrity of polyplex-treated HEK293T cells for transfection efficiency studies, the CytoTox-ONE assay was performed. After incubation with the polyplexes, 50 μL of the supernatant was transferred to a 96-well plate in triplicate and was equilibrated for 20 min to reach room temperature. Following, 50 μL of CytoTox-ONE reagent was added to each well. After 10 min of incubation at room temperature, 25 μL of stop solution was added. Cells treated with lysis solution were used as a 100% control. Values lower than 90% viability were regarded as being cytotoxic. The fluorescence intensity was measured at λEx = 570/λEm = 610 nm, and cytotoxicity was calculated as follows
Rel.cytotoxicity/%=FIsampleFI0FICtrlFI0
(4)
where FIsample, FI0, and FICtrl represent the fluorescence intensity of a given sample, medium without cells (the blank), and lysis-treated cells (100% cytotoxicity), respectively.

Endosomal Release

To study the endosomal release, HEK293T cells were seeded at 0.2 × 106 cells mL–1 in an 8-well chamber slide. The cells were preincubated for 24 h in D10H. One hour before treatment, old medium was replaced by 225 μL of new D10H. Cells were treated with calcein (25 μg mL–1) followed by treatment with the polyplexes (N*/P 20, 3 μg mL–1 pDNA). After 4 h incubation, cell nuclei were stained with Hoechst 33342 for 5 min and washed twice with warm Hanks’5 balanced salt solution with addition of 2% serum. For imaging, cells were further incubated in full growth medium with 10% FCS (D10).
Cell images were captured using a confocal laser scanning microscope LSM880, Elyra PS.1 system (Zeiss, Germany).

Ex Vivo Monocyte Culture

Nonsuffering mice with a noninduced transgenic construct and a C57BL/6 background were used. All animals were kept in a specific pathogen-free animal facility with a 12 h light/dark cycle. Mice were killed according to international and national regulations with an increasing CO2 exposure. All mice were 4–5 months old.
The mice’s hind limbs (including hip bones joints), forelimbs, and spines were dissected, cleaned, and crushed in 2% FBS using mortar and pestle. After incubation for 5 min on ice with FcR-Blocking Reagent, bone marrow cells were incubated with 7 μL APC-conjugated anti-Ly-6C antibody for 30 min, and Ly-6C+ cells were enriched using anti-APC magnetic beads (MACS Miltenyi Biotec 130-09-855) and LS columns. Ly-6C positive cells were then stained with an antibody mix against CD11B, CD115, and Ly6C (Supporting Information; added amounts are provided in Table S5) for 60 min on ice. In addition, samples were stained 5 min before sorting with DAPI. 200.000 cells were sorted on an ARIA III cell sorter (BD bioscience) into one tube (for one well). Single cells being DAPI negative, CD11b+, CD115+, and Ly-6C+ (classical monocytes) were sorted. Cells were spun down, and supernatant was removed. Cells were resuspended in 900 μL monocyte culture medium and plated in 24-well plates. Cells were incubated at 37 °C, 5% CO2, and 95% humidity for 1 day. The next day, 100 μL of the following five chemicals were added (one per well), and incubation was continued for 24 h until RNA isolation: (1) NaOAc 20 mM buffer (pH 5.4) was used as a solvent for all following chemicals. (2) Niacin was solved and diluted to the same molarity corresponding to the niacin molarity in the polymer sample (1.09 mmol L–1). (3) Polymer C1 was diluted to the same polymer concentration as that used in the polyplex (35 μg mL–1). (4) pDNA was diluted to 10 μg mL–1. (5) Polyplex (pDNA + C1) was assembled as described in the methodology for polyplexation with N*/P 20 and 10 μg mL–1 EGFP-pDNA to achieve a final concentration of 1 μg mL–1 EGFP-pDNA on cells. Lastly, the untreated group received nothing. One replicate (=biological replicate) per each condition represents one mouse donor, so that no condition has multiple replicates from the same mouse.

RNA Isolation and RT-qPCR

Cell culture supernatant was removed, and cells were washed once with DPBS. 1 mL portion of TRIzol (Invitrogen) was directly added onto the plate and incubated for 5 min at room temperature. RNA was isolated with 200 μL of chloroform by shaking for 15 s, centrifuging for 15 min at 16100 G, and then transferring the upper, aqueous layer to a new tube. RNA was then precipitated with 500 μL of isopropanol and 3 μL of 20 mg mL-1 glycogen overnight at −20 °C. RNA was washed twice with 75% ethanol, and DNA was digested with DNase for 20 min at 37 °C. DNase reaction was stopped with EDTA incubation for 10 min at 65 °C. RNA content was measured on a Nanodrop 2000c, Thermo Fisher. 200 ng of RNA was used for cDNA conversion using the GoScript Reverse Transcriptase Kit (Promega, Cat. No: A5001) following manufacturer’s recommendations. The RT-qPCR reaction was performed in a volume of 15 μL with 7.5 μL of iTaq Universal SBYR Green Supermix (BIO-RAD, cat. no: 1725124), 3 μL of 1:1 with water diluted cDNA, and 500 nm of each Primer and run on a BIO-RAD CFX384 Real-Time System machine in 384-well plates. The following RT-qPCR primers (all for mice) were used in this study: TNF-α sense 5′- GCC TCT TCT CAT TCC TGC TTG -3′, TNF-α antisense 5′- CTG ATG AGA GGG AGG CCA TT -3′, GAPDH-sense 5′- TCA TGG ATG ACC TTG GCC AG-3′, and GAPDH-antisense 5′- GTC TTC ACT ACC ATG GAG AAG G-3′. Each sample was run in duplicates. Mean Ct values were normalized against the GAPDH expression. Nuclease-free, DEPC-treated water was used in every step.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were calculated using OriginPro2022b for data of transfection efficiency assays. All data were first tested for normality with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Before testing for normality, log transformation was calculated for the ratio of EGFP positive cells to total cell count. Following, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed with Turkey posthoc test for MFI and the ratio of EGFP positive cells to total cell count.
Statistical testing for the RT-qPCR data was performed in GraphPad Prism version 9.0.2 (161). DeltaCt values were tested condition-wise onto normality with an Anderson–Darling, D’Agostino–Pearson, Shapiro–Wilk, and Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. A student-t test with Welch́s correction was performed on every comparison. P-values were corrected with a Holm-Šídák test. Results were considered significant on each test if p < 0.05.

Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Synthesis and Characterization

In our previous study, PAAEN demonstrated superior attributes in both encapsulation and cellular uptake when compared to PAEN. (39) Therefore, to further explore the potential applications of niacin-derived polymers as gene carriers, a copolymer library primarily centered on AAEN was synthesized with one additional polymer consisting of AEN (Figure 1A). The A and B polymer series, which were based on the more promising AAEN, i.e., P(AAEN148/123/48-co-DMAEAm50/75/142) (A1–A3) and P(AAEN152/120/49-co-DMAEA50/72/149) (B1–B3), encompassed three distinct molar ratios each. The molar ratios between the polymer sets were comparable to facilitate comparisons of biological and polymer properties. On the other hand, the synthesis of P(AEN115-co-DMAEA65) (C1) was conducted following initial investigations into the transfection efficiency of the A and B series, which resulted in the identification and selection of the optimal ratio. Analysis of molar mass distributions of the polymers using SEC revealed monomodal distributions, as depicted in Figure 1B. In addition, the dispersities (D̵) of the molar mass distributions remained consistently at 1.3, except for C1, which showed a slight deviation with a value of 1.4, as outlined in Table 1. These findings collectively suggest a relatively effective control of the RAFT polymerization process. This was further substantiated by examining the polymerization kinetics of each copolymer composition (Supporting Information; plots monitoring polymerization kinetics are provided in Figure S4). In each composition, the kinetics exhibited a similar rate of polymerization for each monomer with conversions typically ranging from 70 to 80%. Moreover, the polymerization kinetic for each polymer set revealed similar monomer reactivities, which were reproducible during polymerization of the library (Supporting Information; monomer conversions are provided in Table S1). This suggests a statistical distribution of copolymers, even in the B set, which comprised two distinct functional groups (acrylamide and acrylate).

Figure 1

Figure 1. (A) Reaction scheme illustrates the structures of the polymer library and their polymerization conditions. (B) SEC traces of the polymer library using DMAc (0.21 wt % LiCl) as eluent. (C) Titration curves of the polymer library were determined using 0.15 M NaOH as the base with a Metrohm OMNIS integrated titration system.

Table 1. Summary of the Molar Masses of the Polymer Library and the Apparent pKa Values of DMAEAm or DMAEA
 A1A2A3B1B2B3C1
Mn,tha (kg mol1)40.138.031.140.837.032.334.9
Mn,SECb, (kg mol1)41.041.533.240.536.826.514.7
b1.31.31.31.31.31.31.4
pKacDMAEAm/DMAEA7.67.88.07.27.57.77.3
a

Calculated via conversion using 1H NMR and eq S1.

b

Determined by SEC using DMAc (0.21 wt % LiCl) as eluent and PMMA standards for calibration.

c

Determined using degree of charge (DoC) plots, which were calculated using eq S2 (Supporting Information; DoC and titration plots of all polymers are provided in Figure S5).

Following polymerization, titration experiments were conducted to determine the apparent pKa values of the polymers. The relevance of this parameter stems from the correlation between pKa and efficacy of carriers. (42,43) During these titrations, all polymers exhibited a tendency to precipitate from solution due to their hydrophobic nature. As shown in Figure 1C, the buffering regions for DMAEAm and DMAEA displayed a plateau, expanding as their molar ratios increased. The calculated pKa values for these tertiary amines ranged between pH 7.2 and 8.0, as summarized in Table 1. When comparing the similar molar ratios between the polymer series, it was evident that the pKa values for the A series consistently exceeded those of the corresponding B series, underscoring the influence of hydrophobicity in reducing pKa values. This effect was further displayed when comparing polymers A2, B2, and C1, which shared similar ratios and exhibited a decreasing pKa in that respective order with an increase in hydrophobicity.
Notably, an intriguing buffering region spanning approximately pH 1.8 to 3.8 was observed for all polymers, as illustrated in Figure 1C. The buffering range decreased noticeably as the niacin content decreased, a trend particularly evident when comparing polymers A3 and B3 with their respective counterparts. Therefore, this buffering range could be attributed to the nitrogen of niacin. Since the nitrogen in niacin has a known pKa value of 4.8, (44) it was postulated that the hydrophobic nature of the polymers led to the lowering of the pKa value. Consequently, the pKa of niacin within the copolymers was estimated to be in a range of 2.5–3.0.
Since PDMAEA is known for its self-hydrolysis and previous studies have explored its behavior under various conditions, (27,45) an in-depth study on its hydrolysis was not conducted. Nevertheless, the stability of A2, A3, and PDMAEA125 was investigated by 1H NMR at physiological pH, over 24 h at 37 °C, a condition relevant to transfection studies. A1 and C1 were excluded due to poor solubility at similar pH. Subsequent analysis indicated a 52% hydrolysis rate for A2 and a 43% hydrolysis rate for both A3 and PDMAEA125 (Supporting Information; 1H NMR spectra analyzing the hydrolysis of DMAEA containing polymers are shown in Figure S6). The slightly elevated level of hydrolysis of A2 was attributed to its lower pKa value, resulting in fewer protonated DMAEA moieties and, consequently, more hydrolysis.

Polyplex Formation and Characterization

To assess the polymers’ ability to bind and release pDNA, fluorescence-based assays (EBA and HRA) were utilized (Figure 2A). These assays characterize the polymer’s complexation potential with pDNA by measuring the fluorescence intensity changes of EtBr, an intercalating dye. In EBA, polyplex formation displaces EtBr from pDNA into the aqueous environment, resulting in a decreased signal intensity. Conversely, in HRA, heparin competes for the cationic polymer within the polyplex, leading to the release of pDNA, followed by its reintercalation with EtBr in the solution, causing an increase in signal intensity. (46,47) Initially, EBA was conducted for all polymers at varying N*/P ratios (3 to 20). Figure 2B shows a decrease in fluorescence intensity due to EtBr displacement from pDNA for all polymer polyplexes. The decrease correlates with an increase in the N*/P ratio, indicating an enhanced polyplex formation. Consequently, N*/P 20 was selected as the optimal ratio. Interestingly, A polymers exhibited improved binding capacity compared to B polymers and C1. Conversely, in HRA at N*/P 20 (Figure 2C), C1 released pDNA at lower heparin concentrations compared to those of the B and A polymers, respectively. Approximately, 20 U mL–1 of heparin was required to completely release pDNA for all polymers, which is consistent with previous findings from our research group. (33,48) Further results of different N*/P ratios can be found in the Supporting Information, Figure S7.

Figure 2

Figure 2. (A) Experiment design of EBA (first two steps) and HRA (all three steps). (B) EBA was performed at different N*/P ratios ranging from 3 to 20. (C) HRA assay at N*/P = 20. All data points were performed in triplicate, and values were fitted using a B-Spline function. (D) Hydrodynamic size measurement via DLS. (E) Cryo-TEM image of polyplexes of C1.

These observations are mainly due to two factors: (i) electrostatic interactions between the cationic polymer and anionic pDNA, and (ii) hydrogen bonding between polymer moieties, such as the amide backbone and pDNA. Although other factors also contribute, these have been previously demonstrated as crucial in enhancing binding affinity. (49) This is exemplified by the improved binding capacity observed in the order of A1 to A3 and B1 to B3, respectively, as depicted in Figure 2B. It is worth noting that electrostatic interactions appear to be more dominant as the binding improves with an increase in cationic moieties (DMAEAm/DMAEA) and a decrease in backbone amide bonds. However, when comparing the performance of B polymers to A polymer series, the impact of hydrogen bonding is emphasized, as substituting amide bonds with ester bonds leads to a decrease in efficient binding. Nevertheless, a contrasting trend was observed for pDNA release, with C1 demonstrating the easiest release, followed by B polymers and then A polymers, respectively. This pattern emerged because enhanced binding corresponded to a relatively lower tendency to release pDNA, as depicted in Figure 2C. Surprisingly, C1 exhibited improved binding affinity compared to B1 and B2. This was hypothesized to be due to increased hydrophobicity and a low glass transition temperature (Tg) of C1 (6 °C) compared to B1 (69 °C) and B2 (52 °C) (Supporting Information; differential scanning calorimetry plots are provided in Figure S8). A lower Tg indicates more flexible chains, potentially promoting electrostatic entanglement with the pDNA. (50,51) However, the low Tg also potentially results in reduced particle stability, leading to a faster release of pDNA, as observed in Figure 2C. A similar tendency to lose cargo due to Tg was observed in our previous study on PAEN with small molecular weight model drugs. (39)
Since cellular internalization of polyplexes is strongly influenced by their size, (52) the sizes of polyplexes for all polymers formulated at N*/P 20 were determined using DLS. As shown in Figure 2D, the hydrodynamic diameters of the polyplexes ranged between 64 and 109 nm, which is suitable for controlled cellular uptake through endocytosis. (52,53) Interestingly, when comparing the hydrodynamic diameters of A2 (64 nm), B2 (92 nm), and C1 (109 nm), which consist of similar molar ratios, a slight and gradual increase in the hydrodynamic diameter was evident. This increase in size was attributed to the transition from a predominantly acrylamide backbone (A2) to an acrylate backbone (C1), further showcasing the role of hydrogen bonding in complexation of pDNA into small nanoparticles since the cationic moieties were comparable. Furthermore, A1 (73 nm) and A2 (64 nm) were slightly smaller than their counterparts, B1 (91 nm) and B2 (92 nm), which aligned with the EBA and HRA observations. Lastly, a morphology investigation of C1 polyplexes by Cryo-TEM revealed a spherical morphology (Figure 2E).

Cytotoxicity and Polymer–Membrane Interaction

Biocompatibility is an essential prerequisite for the success of a gene carrier. Polymeric carriers often encounter the toxicity-efficiency dilemma, in which the increase in transfection performance is associated with an increase in cytotoxicity and vice versa. (54) Polycations can interact with cell surfaces and cause membrane destabilization and, consequently, necrosis. (28,29,55) However, as cell surface interactions play a pivotal role in enhancing transfection, it becomes imperative to strike a delicate balance between the compatibility of particles with the biological system and their interaction with the cell membrane. Therefore, to assess the cytocompatibility of the polymers, a PrestoBlue assay was conducted in accordance with ISO10993-5. (40) The assay is based on a fluorometric method and is used to determine the cell’s metabolic activity (Figure 3A). Viability below 70% is considered cytotoxic. (40)

Figure 3

Figure 3. (A) Mechanism of the cytotoxicity assay (PrestoBlue assay). (B) PrestoBlue assay in L929 over 24 h in a full growth medium (D10H). Dots represent values of single repetitions. Lines were fitted, and IC50 values were calculated with dose–response function (n = 3). Stars indicate the polymer concentration (μg mL–1), which induces 50% cytotoxicity. Viability below 70% was considered cytotoxic. (C) Hemolysis assay was performed in triplicate with three different donors. A relative hemolysis of > 2% is considered slightly hemolytic, and > 5% is considered hemolytic.

As shown in Figure 3B, A and B polymer sets with an AAEN side chain exhibit high cytocompatibility. Generally, when comparing the A and B polymer sets, two distinct observations emerge: an increase in AAEN leads to improved biocompatibility, and substituting DMAEAm with DMAEA also contributes to enhanced biocompatibility as indicated by high IC50 and IC70 values (Supporting Information; half-maximal inhibitory concentrations are provided in Table S4).
The effect of the latter, i.e., substituting DMAEAm with DMAEA, was particularly evident when extreme molar ratios were analyzed, i.e., P(AAEN148-co-DMAEAm50) (A1) vs P(AAEN152-co-DMAEA50) (B1) and P(AAEN48-co-DMAEAm142) (A3) vs P(AAEN49-co-DMAEA149) (B3), whereby the B polymers were less toxic. Moreover, B3 was nontoxic across the tested concentration range. The improved cytotoxicity profiles of DMAEA containing copolymers are due to the self-hydrolysis nature of DMAEA, which leads to nontoxic byproducts. (27) In contrast, the increase in cytotoxicity observed for the A polymer set is positively correlated with the molar ratio of DMAEAm. While DMAEAm is essential for binding with pDNA due to its cationic charged amine, it has a strong interaction with the negatively charged cellular membrane, leading to decreased cytocompatibility. (28) Remarkably, an increase in the relative metabolic activity of A and B polymers, surpassing 100%, was also observed at lower concentrations. This phenomenon can be attributed to AAEN, as its homopolymer nanoparticles demonstrated a similar enhancement of cellular metabolism. (39) Additionally, this effect was similarly more pronounced with AAEN compared to AEN. Surprisingly, C1 was notably cytotoxic. This was unexpected, considering that in our previous work, PAEN and PAAEN were found to be nontoxic up to 300 μg mL–1. (39) Therefore, the cytotoxicity profile of C1 was anticipated to mirror that of B2 considering their similar molar ratios, with the main difference being the substitution of AEN with AAEN. However, the observed higher cytotoxicity might be linked to the decreased particle stability and poor polymer solubility due to increased hydrophobicity, potentially resulting in increased aggregation at higher concentrations.
To assess the interaction between the polymers and the cellular membrane, isolated erythrocytes were exposed to varying concentrations of polymer in a hemolysis assay. A membrane disruption leads to release of hemoglobin and an increase of the measurable absorbance of the samples. Remarkably, as shown in Figure 3C, both the A and B polymer sets exhibit less than 2% hemolytic activity. While C1 also falls within this range for most concentrations, it slightly exceeds the 2% limit only at the highest tested concentration. These observations not only indicate hemocompatibility but also underscore the high cytocompatibility of the polymers.

Particle Uptake Study

The internalization of the polyplexes with nucleic acids is the first cellular barrier for efficient gene delivery. To determine the uptake efficiency, HEK293T cells are incubated with polyplexes of the EGFP-noncoded plasmid pKMyc which is labeled with the green fluorescent, dimeric cyanine nucleic acid stain YOYO-1. The particle uptake study was performed over 1 and 4 h (Figure 4A).

Figure 4

Figure 4. (A) Schematic illustration of complexation between the polymers and pDNA and YOYO-1. The experiment was used to determine the particle uptake behavior. (B) Particle uptake was performed in HEK293T cells with full growth medium (D10H) over 1 and 4 h at N*/P ratio 20 and c(pDNA) = 3 μg mL–1 on cells (n = 3). The gating strategy can be found in the Supporting Information, Figure S9.

All polymers demonstrated a fast internalization within the first hour, especially for the A polymer series, in terms of YOYO-1 positive cells (Figure 4B). However, when considering the mean fluorescence intensity (MFI), the uptake efficiency for all polymers is time-dependent. Remarkably, A1 with the highest AAEN content in the A polymer set exhibited superior performance out of all of the investigated polymers, followed by B2. This outcome highlights that the internalization of the polyplexes is influenced not only by efficient binding but also by an optimized ratio of the monomers within the polymer composition.

Transfection Efficiency

The transfection efficiencies of the polymers were evaluated by using HEK293T cells over two different incubation periods at N*/P 20 (Figure 5A). The assessment is based on quantifying the proportion of viable single cells expressing enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP-pos. viable single cells) and their MFI (Supporting Information; the gating strategy is shown in Figure S10). Initially, to ascertain the effect of shorter exposure time on the transfection efficiency, the cells were incubated with polyplexes for 4 h at pDNA concentration of 3 μg mL–1 in full growth medium (D10H), followed by a medium change to D10H, and further incubated for 20 h (4 + 20 h). Figure 5B illustrates that all polymers, except P(AAEN48-co-DMAEAm142) A3 and P(AAEN49-co-DMAEA149) B3, displayed a transfection performance. However, A3 exhibited notably low performance, comparable to LPEI, with less than 20% of EGFP-positive single cells, while the rest exhibited transfection efficiencies of ≥40% (Supporting Information; Table S7 shows that A1, B1, B2, and C1 reveal significantly higher EGFP positive cells). Interestingly, assessment of endosomal release after 4 h using nonpermeable dye calcein revealed low levels of endosomal release for all polymers (Supporting Information; endosomal images are provided in Figures S11 and S12). When the high uptake efficacy of the polymers is considered (Figure 4), it can be concluded that the observed differences in transfection performances were likely due to the slow and varied endosomal release profiles of the polymers.

Figure 5

Figure 5. (A) Schematic illustration of the experimental design for determining transfection efficiency under two different conditions (4 + 20 and 24 h). (B) Transfection efficiency was performed in HEK293T cells with full growth medium (D10H) over 4 + 20 h at N*/P 20 and c(pDNA) = 3 μg mL–1 on cells (n = 3). (C) Performed over 24 h at N*/P 20 and three different concentrations of the genetic material (n = 3). Details of statistical tests can be found in the Supporting Information, Tables S6–S11.

Afterward, each polymer was tested at three pDNA concentrations (3, 2, and 1 μg mL–1) with an extended exposure period of 24 h. As shown in Figure 5C, at a pDNA concentration of 3 μg mL–1, a trend similar to that observed at 4 + 20 h was noted, with a gradual increase in the proportion of EGFP-positive single cells and a substantial increase in their corresponding MFI values. The similarity in performance trends at 4 + 20 and 24 h, combined with a substantial increase in MFI values, further supports that the variations in performance are largely due to differences in endosomal release, as long exposure times result in improved release, albeit increased uptake.
Nonetheless, at both tested conditions (4 + 20 and 24 h), A1, B1, and C1 were significantly superior to the commonly used transfection agent control, LPEI, at pDNA ≥ 2 μg mL–1 and B2 at pDNA ≥ 3 μg mL–1 in terms of EGFP-positive cells (Supporting Information; calculated statistics of EGFP-positive cells are shown in Table S9). Additionally, A1 and B2 were significantly superior to LPEI in terms of MFI at pDNA ≥ 3 μg mL–1 (Supporting Information; calculated statistics of MFI are shown in Table S11). Furthermore, it can be observed from the transfection performance of each polymer set that an increase in the molar ratio of AAEN, hence niacin, leads to an enhancement in transfection performance. This pattern is similar to the cytotoxicity profile observed in Figure 3B. Moreover, CytoTox-ONE assay results revealed that all polymers exhibit low membrane destabilizing effects (Supporting Information; CytoTox-ONE plots are shown in Figure S13). This finding is aligned with the hemolysis results (Figure 3C). Overall, this emphasizes the vital role of the niacin-derived monomer in augmenting the transfection performance and biocompatibility.
When comparing P(AAEN148-co-DMAEAm50) (A1) and P(AAEN123-co-DMAEAm75) (A2), the latter only shows low performance at the highest pDNA concentration (3 μg mL–1), while A1 maintains relatively high transfection efficiency at pDNA concentrations ≥ 2 μg mL–1 and experiences a drastic decrease of performance at the lowest pDNA concentration (1 μg mL–1). As such, the performance of the A polymer set improved in the order of A1 > A2 > A3. On the other hand, a different trend is observed for P(AAEN152-co-DMAEA50) (B1) vs P(AAEN120-co-DMAEA72) (B2), where both polymers maintain enhanced and comparable proportions of EGFP-positive cells at pDNA concentrations of 2 and 3 μg mL–1. Interestingly, B2 outperformed B1 in terms of MFI values. This aligns with the uptake observations (Figure 4B), where B2 shows a higher MFI than B1, implying that both endosomal release profiles and uptake profiles contribute to the observed performance differences. Consequently, the effectiveness in performance of the B polymers was concluded to be in the order of B2B1 > B3.
Analyzing transfection performance of the polymers with similar molar ratios but different compositions, i.e., P(AAEN123-co-DMAEAm75) (A2), P(AAEN120-co-DMAEA72) (B2), and P(AEN115-co-DMAEA65) (C1), reveals intriguing insights. At pDNA concentrations of 2 and 3 μg mL–1, the transfection performance in terms of EGFP-positive cells and their corresponding MFI values follows the order B2 > C1 > A2. The results of B2 and C1 indicate that substituting AAEN with AEN has a minimal impact on transfection performance. Interestingly, C1 surpasses B2 and even A1 at the lowest pDNA concentration (Supporting Information; a closer look at the transfection results at 1 μg mL–1 is shown in Figure S14). Considering the EBA and HRA results (Figure 2B,C), the polymers’ ability to bind and release pDNA probably plays a role in the observed results. C1 demonstrates superior binding compared to B1 and B2, while exhibiting faster release profiles. This implies that at lower pDNA concentrations and thus lower polymer concentrations, B1 and B2 may be prone to genetic material loss, potentially explaining performance differences. Conversely, the strong binding propensity of the A polymers potentially hinders pDNA release (Figure 2C). This underscores the importance of striking a balance between binding to shield genetic material from serum interactions and facilitating its release for transfection.
To gain a deeper understanding of how N*/P ratios affect performance, additional transfection efficiency tests were conducted at N*/P ratios of 3, 5, and 10 for A1, B2, and C1. Figure 6 reveals a gradual improvement in transfection efficiency with an increased N*/P ratio for all polymers. However, at N*/P 10, both A1 and C1 achieve transfection efficiencies comparable to those at N*/P 20. This outcome showcases the superior performance of A1 and C1, which allows for optimal performance at low material input. This is particularly useful since the use of excess polymer is minimized. Furthermore, the CytoTox-ONE assay again revealed low membrane destabilizing effects across all tested N*/P ratios (Supporting Information; CytoTox-ONE plots at different N*/P ratios are shown in Figure S15).

Figure 6

Figure 6. Transfection efficiency was performed in HEK293T cells with full growth medium (D10H) over 24 h at different N*/P ratios and c(pDNA) = 3 μg mL–1 on cells for A1, B2, and C1 (n ≥ 3). Details of statistical tests can be found in the Supporting Information, Tables S12–S15.

Immunomodulatory Role of Niacin-Derived Copolymer

First, transfection performance of the top-performing polymers (A1, B1, B2 and C1) was evaluated using immortalized THP-1 and Jurkat cells. The transfection investigation was performed in full growth medium (R10H) over 24 h at N*/P 20 and a pDNA concentration of 3 μg mL–1. THP-1, a monocytic leukemia cell line, serves as a widely recognized model for studying human monocytes and macrophages, while Jurkat T cells, a T lymphocyte line, are employed in research on acute T cell leukemia and T cell signaling. (56−58) Though transfection efficacy in both cell lines is advantageous for treating immune-related disorders, they are both difficult to transfect. (59,60) As shown in Figure 7A, the polymers demonstrated lower performance compared to HEK293T cells (Figure 5C). However, given the inherent difficulties in transfecting these cell lines, the performance is positive. Notably, P(AEN115-co-DMAEA65) (C1) outperformed P(AAEN148-co-DMAEAm50) (A1), P(AAEN152-co-DMAEA50) (B1), and P(AAEN120-co-DMAEA72) (B2) in both Jurkat and THP-1 cells. Regarding the latter, C1 exhibited approximately a 3-fold improvement compared to the second-best, A1, for both EGFP-positive cells and MFI values.

Figure 7

Figure 7. (A) Transfection efficiency was performed with A1, B1, B2, and C1 in hard-to-transfect suspension cell lines THP-1 and Jurkat. Transfection was performed in full growth medium (R10H) over 24 h at N*/P 20 and 3 μg mL–1 genetic material on cells (n = 3). (B) Fold change (compared to non-treated cells) of the relative TNF-α mRNA expression (normalized to GAPDH) of ex vivo murine classical monocytes from the bone marrow. One point represents one biological replicate (mice, blue = male, black = female). Mean with standard deviation is depicted. Details of statistical tests can be found in the Supporting Information, Tables S16 and S17.

Additionally, the cytocompatibility of the polymers to the THP-1 and Jurkat cell lines remained high at the polymer concentrations used for the transfection (N*/P 20, c(pDNA) = 3 μg mL–1 on cells) over AAEN, emphasizing the potential of niacin-derived components to target monocytes. To this end, when considering future applications, it is important to consider the immunomodulation properties of the used materials. In addition, niacin is known to have anti-inflammatory effects (such as a decreased secretion of the pro-inflammatory cytokine TNF-α) and is holding promising results as a therapeutic reagent. (61−64) To test whether the niacin-based polymer, C1, might have anti-inflammatory effects similar to those of niacin, murine classical monocytes were isolated from the bone marrow and treated in culture with the following: NaOAc buffer (contained as solvent in all other groups as well), niacin, polymer C1 pure pDNA, and the polyplex (pDNA + C1) for 24 h. Simultaneously, untreated cells were used as a control. After 18 h, cells were checked under a light microscope to observe the morphology. No condition induced obvious morphological changes or excessive amounts of dead cells (not depicted). After the treatment, a possible immunomodulatory response of the monocytes via TNF-α mRNA expression of male and female mice was analyzed (Figure 7B), and no significant differences were found. However, cells treated with the C1 polymer have the lowest mean of all groups with 0.80 compared to buffer (1.12), niacin (1.03), pDNA (1.04), and the polyplex (1.13) (Supporting Information; descriptive statistics are provided in Table S17). Since TNF-α serves as a endocrine and paracrine mediator, influencing inflammatory and immune responses, (65,66) C1 exhibits promise in avoiding inflammatory responses, a desirable trait for gene carriers. Even though pure niacin is reported to be anti-inflammatory, (61−64) an effect which could not be reproduced in this study, changes might be more pronounced on the protein level or under acute inflammatory stimuli. It would be beneficial to counteract this in future studies. However, in summary, a significant increase of TNF-α expression was not proved in any kind of treatment, which could be useful for potential novel gene delivery concepts, where no simultaneous immune activation is envisaged, e.g., diseases beyond vaccination, such as clinical patients with acute inflammatory diseases. These findings underscore the important potential of the niacin-derived copolymer (a combination of AEN and DMAEA) as a safe gene carrier.

Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

A library of cationic hydrophobic copolymers (A1–A3, B1B3, and C1), incorporating niacin-derived monomers (AAEN or AEN) in combination with either DMAEAm or DMAEA, was successfully synthesized by RAFT polymerization. The technique yielded polymers with narrow monomodal mass distributions (dispersities of 1.3, except for C1, which had a value of 1.4). Titration studies on the polymers revealed apparent pKa values of DMAEA and DMAEAm ranging from 7.2 to 8.0.
Regarding the biological investigations, an increase in AAEN in both polymer sets resulted in improved transfection and biocompatibility profiles. However, when the cytotoxicity associated with DMAEA and DMAEAm is considered, it is evident that DMAEA-containing polymers offer the optimal balance between transfection efficiency and cytotoxicity. The low cytotoxicity of DMAEA is due to its self-hydrolysis nature, yielding low toxic byproducts. Alternatively, a combination of AAEN and low amounts of DMAEAm also achieves an optimal compromise between these two factors as showcased by A1. Overall, the exceptional performance of the top performers (A1, B1, B2, and C1) in HEK293T cells addresses several pivotal challenges in gene delivery, including (i) affinity to complex genetic material and formation of suitable polyplexes, (ii) delivering pDNA under full serum conditions, highlighting particle stability, (iii) maintaining high transfection and biocompatibility levels across varying pDNA concentrations and N*/P ratios, (iv) showing promise in delivery to different cell lines, and (v) nonimmunoactivity property.
Finally, when the transfection performance of the best performers on difficult-to-transfect cells (THP-1 and Jurkat cells) was evaluated, C1 emerged as the top performer, especially in THP-1 cells, followed by A1, B1, and B2, respectively. Importantly, C1 demonstrated biocompatibility with the cells, as did the other polymers. Remarkably, ex vivo investigations of C1 on its effect on TNF-α mRNA levels showed that it did not significantly increase the levels of TNF-α, even showing a slight decrease. This finding could potentially be useful for transfection experiments with the polyplex, as an increased immune response might not be feasible in all situations, such as in clinical patients with acute inflammatory diseases. However, further experiments should be conducted to determine whether the polymer C1 totally exhibits a potential in avoiding inflammatory responses. Overall, the performance of the niacin-derived polymers showcases the potential of utilizing nutrient-derived polymers to unlock the performance of gene carriers.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.biomac.4c00007.

  • Instruments and materials, monomer and polymer synthesis and characterization, polymerization kinetics procedures, titrations, degradation of DMAEA, N*/P ratio calculations, EBA and HRA, cytocompatibility (PrestoBlue and CytoTox-One assay), particle uptake study, transfection efficiency, endosomal escape, antibody mix for murine monocyte staining, and statistics (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
    • Anja Traeger - Institute of Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry (IOMC), Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Humboldtstrasse 10, Jena 07743, GermanyJena Center for Soft Matter (JCSM), Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Philosophenweg 7, Jena 07743, GermanyOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7734-2293 Email: [email protected]
  • Authors
    • Prosper P. Mapfumo - Institute of Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry (IOMC), Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Humboldtstrasse 10, Jena 07743, GermanyOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0009-0001-4132-3741
    • Liên S. Reichel - Institute of Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry (IOMC), Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Humboldtstrasse 10, Jena 07743, Germany
    • Thomas André - Leibniz Institute on Aging-Fritz Lipmann Institute, Jena 07745, GermanyOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9686-9012
    • Stephanie Hoeppener - Institute of Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry (IOMC), Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Humboldtstrasse 10, Jena 07743, GermanyJena Center for Soft Matter (JCSM), Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Philosophenweg 7, Jena 07743, GermanyOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5770-5197
    • Lenhard K. Rudolph - Leibniz Institute on Aging-Fritz Lipmann Institute, Jena 07745, Germany
  • Author Contributions

    The manuscript was written through the contributions of all authors. All authors have given approval to the final version of the manuscript. Prosper P. Mapfumo and Liên S. Reichel: conceptualization, investigation, methodology, visualization, writing─original draft. Thomas André: investigation, writing─original draft. Stephanie Hoeppener: investigation, writing─review and editing. Lenhard K. Rudolph: writing─review and editing. Anja Traeger: conceptualization, methodology, writing─review and editing, project administration, funding acquisition. P.P.M. and L.S.R. contributed equally.

  • Funding

    This work was supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung and Forschung (BMBF, Germany, #13XP5034A PolyBioMik), German Research Foundation (DFG) within the Heisenberg Programme (514006196) and the CRC PolyTarget (SFB 1278, project ID: 316213987, B01, and Z01). The authors further acknowledge the support from the “Thüringer Aufbaubank (TAB)” (2021 FGI 0005) and the “Europäischer Fond für regionale Entwicklung (EFRE)” (2018FGI0025) for funding of flow cytometry devices at the JCSM.

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The authors thankfully acknowledge Carolin Kellner and Sandra Henk for performing toxicity assays and EBA/HRA assay, taking care of the cell culture, and pDNA preparation and Elisabeth Moek for her support in transfection efficiency assay. Furthermore, we acknowledge Prof. U.S. Schubert for providing excellent facilities. Figures are partially created with BioRender.com.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 66 other publications.

  1. 1
    Li, Q.; Jin, B.; Luo, Y.; Li, X. Amphiphilic Block Copolymer Micelles for Gene Delivery. Chem. Res. Chin. Univ. 2022, 38 (6), 13681379,  DOI: 10.1007/s40242-022-2005-1
  2. 2
    Pahle, J.; Walther, W. Vectors and strategies for nonviral cancer gene therapy. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 2016, 16 (4), 443461,  DOI: 10.1517/14712598.2016.1134480
  3. 3
    Piotrowski-Daspit, A. S.; Kauffman, A. C.; Bracaglia, L. G.; Saltzman, W. M. Polymeric vehicles for nucleic acid delivery. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 2020, 156, 119132,  DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2020.06.014
  4. 4
    Davis, M. E. Non-viral gene delivery systems. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2002, 13 (2), 128131,  DOI: 10.1016/S0958-1669(02)00294-X
  5. 5
    Han, S.-o.; Mahato, R. I.; Sung, Y. K.; Kim, S. W. Development of biomaterials for gene therapy. Mol. Ther. 2000, 2 (4), 302317,  DOI: 10.1006/mthe.2000.0142
  6. 6
    Sayed, N.; Allawadhi, P.; Khurana, A.; Singh, V.; Navik, U.; Pasumarthi, S. K.; Khurana, I.; Banothu, A. K.; Weiskirchen, R.; Bharani, K. K. Gene therapy: Comprehensive overview and therapeutic applications. Life Sci. 2022, 294, 120375,  DOI: 10.1016/j.lfs.2022.120375
  7. 7
    Gaspar, R.; Coelho, F.; Silva, B. F. Lipid-nucleic acid complexes: Physicochemical aspects and prospects for cancer treatment. Molecules 2020, 25 (21), 5006,  DOI: 10.3390/molecules25215006
  8. 8
    Ginn, S. L.; Amaya, A. K.; Alexander, I. E.; Edelstein, M.; Abedi, M. R. Gene therapy clinical trials worldwide to 2017: An update. J. Gene Med. 2018, 20 (5), e3015  DOI: 10.1002/jgm.3015
  9. 9
    Dunbar, C. E.; High, K. A.; Joung, J. K.; Kohn, D. B.; Ozawa, K.; Sadelain, M. Gene therapy comes of age. Science 2018, 359 (6372), eaan4672  DOI: 10.1126/science.aan4672
  10. 10
    Shi, B.; Zheng, M.; Tao, W.; Chung, R.; Jin, D.; Ghaffari, D.; Farokhzad, O. C. Challenges in DNA delivery and recent advances in multifunctional polymeric DNA delivery systems. Biomacromolecules 2017, 18 (8), 22312246,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.biomac.7b00803
  11. 11
    Guo, X.; Huang, L. Recent advances in nonviral vectors for gene delivery. Acc. Chem. Res. 2012, 45 (7), 971979,  DOI: 10.1021/ar200151m
  12. 12
    Hou, X.; Zaks, T.; Langer, R.; Dong, Y. Lipid nanoparticles for mRNA delivery. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2021, 6 (12), 10781094,  DOI: 10.1038/s41578-021-00358-0
  13. 13
    Kumar, R.; Santa Chalarca, C. F.; Bockman, M. R.; Bruggen, C. V.; Grimme, C. J.; Dalal, R. J.; Hanson, M. G.; Hexum, J. K.; Reineke, T. M. Polymeric delivery of therapeutic nucleic acids. Chem. Rev. 2021, 121 (18), 1152711652,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00997
  14. 14
    Pack, D. W.; Hoffman, A. S.; Pun, S.; Stayton, P. S. Design and development of polymers for gene delivery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2005, 4 (7), 581593,  DOI: 10.1038/nrd1775
  15. 15
    Durymanov, M.; Reineke, J. Non-viral Delivery of Nucleic Acids: Insight Into Mechanisms of Overcoming Intracellular Barriers. Front. Pharmacol 2018, 9, 971,  DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2018.00971
  16. 16
    Jhaveri, A. M.; Torchilin, V. P. Multifunctional polymeric micelles for delivery of drugs and siRNA. Front. Pharmacol 2014, 5, 77,  DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2014.00077
  17. 17
    Gardlík, R.; Pálffy, R.; Hodosy, J.; Lukács, J.; Turna, J.; Celec, P. Vectors and delivery systems in gene therapy. Med. Sci. Monit. 2005, 11 (4), RA110
  18. 18
    Perrier, S. 50th Anniversary Perspective: RAFT Polymerization─ A User Guide. Macromolecules 2017, 50 (19), 74337447,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.7b00767
  19. 19
    Gregory, A.; Stenzel, M. H. Complex polymer architectures via RAFT polymerization: From fundamental process to extending the scope using click chemistry and nature’s building blocks. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2012, 37 (1), 38105,  DOI: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2011.08.004
  20. 20
    Matyjaszewski, K. Atom transfer radical polymerization (ATRP): current status and future perspectives. Macromolecules 2012, 45 (10), 40154039,  DOI: 10.1021/ma3001719
  21. 21
    Synatschke, C. V.; Schallon, A.; Jérôme, V.; Freitag, R.; Müller, A. H. E. Influence of Polymer Architecture and Molecular Weight of Poly(2-(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate) Polycations on Transfection Efficiency and Cell Viability in Gene Delivery. Biomacromolecules 2011, 12 (12), 42474255,  DOI: 10.1021/bm201111d
  22. 22
    Burgevin, F.; Hapeshi, A.; Song, J.-I.; Omedes-Pujol, M.; Christie, A.; Lindsay, C.; Perrier, S. Cationic star copolymers obtained by the arm first approach for gene transfection. Polym. Chem. 2023, 14, 37073717,  DOI: 10.1039/D3PY00352C
  23. 23
    Ros, S.; Freitag, J. S.; Smith, D. M.; Stöver, H. D. H. Charge-Shifting Polycations Based on N, N-(dimethylamino) ethyl Acrylate for Improving Cytocompatibility During DNA Delivery. ACS Omega 2020, 5 (16), 91149122,  DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.9b03734
  24. 24
    Cook, A. B.; Peltier, R.; Hartlieb, M.; Whitfield, R.; Moriceau, G.; Burns, J. A.; Haddleton, D. M.; Perrier, S. Cationic and hydrolysable branched polymers by RAFT for complexation and controlled release of dsRNA. Polym. Chem. 2018, 9 (29), 40254035,  DOI: 10.1039/C8PY00804C
  25. 25
    McCool, M.; Senogles, E. The self-catalysed hydrolysis of poly (N, N-dimethylaminoethyl acrylate). Eur. Polym. J. 1989, 25 (7–8), 857860,  DOI: 10.1016/0014-3057(89)90054-2
  26. 26
    Truong, N. P.; Jia, Z.; Burges, M.; McMillan, N. A.; Monteiro, M. J. Self-catalyzed degradation of linear cationic poly (2-dimethylaminoethyl acrylate) in water. Biomacromolecules 2011, 12 (5), 18761882,  DOI: 10.1021/bm200219e
  27. 27
    Truong, N. P.; Jia, Z.; Burgess, M.; Payne, L.; McMillan, N. A.; Monteiro, M. J. Self-catalyzed degradable cationic polymer for release of DNA. Biomacromolecules 2011, 12 (10), 35403548,  DOI: 10.1021/bm2007423
  28. 28
    Richter, F.; Martin, L.; Leer, K.; Moek, E.; Hausig, F.; Brendel, J. C.; Traeger, A. Tuning of Endosomal Escape and Gene Expression by Functional Groups, Molecular Weight and Transfection Medium: A Structure-Activity Relationship Study. J. Mater. Chem. B 2020, 8, 50265041,  DOI: 10.1039/D0TB00340A
  29. 29
    Richter, F.; Leer, K.; Martin, L.; Mapfumo, P.; Solomun, J. I.; Kuchenbrod, M. T.; Hoeppener, S.; Brendel, J. C.; Traeger, A. The impact of anionic polymers on gene delivery: how composition and assembly help evading the toxicity-efficiency dilemma. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2021, 19, 292,  DOI: 10.1186/s12951-021-00994-2
  30. 30
    Truong, N. P.; Gu, W.; Prasadam, I.; Jia, Z.; Crawford, R.; Xiao, Y.; Monteiro, M. J. An influenza virus-inspired polymer system for the timed release of siRNA. Nat. Commun. 2013, 4 (1), 1902,  DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2905
  31. 31
    Tran, N. T.; Truong, N. P.; Gu, W.; Jia, Z.; Cooper, M. A.; Monteiro, M. J. Timed-release polymer nanoparticles. Biomacromolecules 2013, 14 (2), 495502,  DOI: 10.1021/bm301721k
  32. 32
    Tran, N. T.; Jia, Z.; Truong, N. P.; Cooper, M. A.; Monteiro, M. J. Fine tuning the disassembly time of thermoresponsive polymer nanoparticles. Biomacromolecules 2013, 14 (10), 34633471,  DOI: 10.1021/bm4007858
  33. 33
    Solomun, J. I.; Cinar, G.; Mapfumo, P.; Richter, F.; Moek, E.; Hausig, F.; Martin, L.; Hoeppener, S.; Nischang, I.; Traeger, A. Solely aqueous formulation of hydrophobic cationic polymers for efficient gene delivery. Int. J. Pharm. 2021, 593, 120080,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.120080
  34. 34
    Adolph, E. J.; Nelson, C. E.; Werfel, T. A.; Guo, R.; Davidson, J. M.; Guelcher, S. A.; Duvall, C. L. Enhanced Performance of Plasmid DNA Polyplexes Stabilized by a Combination of Core Hydrophobicity and Surface PEGylation. J. Mater. Chem. B 2014, 2 (46), 81548164,  DOI: 10.1039/C4TB00352G
  35. 35
    Convertine, A. J.; Benoit, D. S.; Duvall, C. L.; Hoffman, A. S.; Stayton, P. S. Development of a novel endosomolytic diblock copolymer for siRNA delivery. J. Controlled Release 2009, 133 (3), 221229,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2008.10.004
  36. 36
    Liu, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Zhou, C.; Jiao, Y. Hydrophobic modifications of cationic polymers for gene delivery. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2010, 35 (9), 11441162,  DOI: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2010.04.007
  37. 37
    Eliyahu, H.; Makovitzki, A.; Azzam, T.; Zlotkin, A.; Joseph, A.; Gazit, D.; Barenholz, Y.; Domb, A. Novel dextran-spermine conjugates as transfecting agents: comparing water-soluble and micellar polymers. Gene Ther. 2005, 12 (6), 494503,  DOI: 10.1038/sj.gt.3302395
  38. 38
    Mapfumo, P. P.; Reichel, L. S.; Hoeppener, S.; Traeger, A. Improving Gene Delivery: Synergy Between Alkyl Chain Length And Lipoic Acid for Pdmaema Hydrophobic Copolymers. Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2024, 45, 2300649,  DOI: 10.1002/marc.202300649
  39. 39
    Mapfumo, P. P.; Solomun, J. I.; Becker, F.; Moek, E.; Leiske, M. N.; Rudolph, L. K.; Brendel, J. C.; Traeger, A. Vitamin B3 Containing Polymers for Nanodelivery. Macromol. Biosci. 2024, 2400002,  DOI: 10.1002/mabi.202400002
  40. 40
    Standard, I. 10993-5 Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices. Tests for in Vitro Cytotoxicity; Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2009; p 194.
  41. 41
    Leer, K.; Reichel, L. S.; Kimmig, J.; Richter, F.; Hoeppener, S.; Brendel, J. C.; Zechel, S.; Schubert, U. S.; Traeger, A. Optimization of Mixed Micelles Based on Oppositely Charged Block Copolymers by Machine Learning for Application in Gene Delivery. Small 2024, 20, 2306116,  DOI: 10.1002/smll.202306116
  42. 42
    Patel, P.; Ibrahim, N. M.; Cheng, K. The importance of apparent pKa in the development of nanoparticles encapsulating siRNA and mRNA. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2021, 42 (6), 448460,  DOI: 10.1016/j.tips.2021.03.002
  43. 43
    Alabi, C. A.; Love, K. T.; Sahay, G.; Yin, H.; Luly, K. M.; Langer, R.; Anderson, D. G. Multiparametric approach for the evaluation of lipid nanoparticles for siRNA delivery. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2013, 110 (32), 1288112886,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1306529110
  44. 44
    Appleby, C. A.; Wittenberg, B. A.; Wittenberg, J. B. Nicotinic acid as a ligand affecting leghemoglobin structure and oxygen reactivity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1973, 70 (2), 564568,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.70.2.564
  45. 45
    Ros, S.; Wang, J.; Burke, N. A.; Stöver, H. D. H. A Mechanistic Study of the Hydrolysis of Poly [N, N-(dimethylamino) ethyl acrylates] as Charge-Shifting Polycations. Macromolecules 2020, 53 (9), 35143523,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.9b02272
  46. 46
    LePecq, J.-B.; Paoletti, C. A fluorescent complex between ethidium bromide and nucleic acids: physical─chemical characterization. J. Mol. Biol. 1967, 27 (1), 87106,  DOI: 10.1016/0022-2836(67)90353-1
  47. 47
    Olmsted, J., III; Kearns, D. R. Mechanism of ethidium bromide fluorescence enhancement on binding to nucleic acids. Biochemistry 1977, 16 (16), 36473654,  DOI: 10.1021/bi00635a022
  48. 48
    Richter, F.; Mapfumo, P.; Martin, L.; Solomun, J. I.; Hausig, F.; Frietsch, J. J.; Ernst, T.; Hoeppener, S.; Brendel, J. C.; Traeger, A. Improved gene delivery to K-562 leukemia cells by lipoic acid modified block copolymer micelles. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2021, 19 (1), 70,  DOI: 10.1186/s12951-021-00801-y
  49. 49
    Prevette, L. E.; Kodger, T. E.; Reineke, T. M.; Lynch, M. L. Deciphering the role of hydrogen bonding in enhancing pDNA- polycation interactions. Langmuir 2007, 23 (19), 97739784,  DOI: 10.1021/la7009995
  50. 50
    Kong, D. C.; Yang, M. H.; Zhang, X. S.; Du, Z. C.; Fu, Q.; Gao, X. Q.; Gong, J. W. Control of polymer properties by entanglement: a review. Macromol. Mater. Eng. 2021, 306 (12), 2100536,  DOI: 10.1002/mame.202100536
  51. 51
    Koltzenburg, S.; Maskos, M.; Nuyken, O.; Mülhaupt, R. Polymere: Synthese, Eigenschaften und Anwendungen; Springer, 2014.
  52. 52
    Rejman, J.; Oberle, V.; Zuhorn, I. S.; Hoekstra, D. Size-dependent internalization of particles via the pathways of clathrin-and caveolae-mediated endocytosis. Biochem. J. 2004, 377 (1), 159169,  DOI: 10.1042/bj20031253
  53. 53
    Bus, T.; Traeger, A.; Schubert, U. S. The great escape: how cationic polyplexes overcome the endosomal barrier. J. Mater. Chem. B 2018, 6 (43), 69046918,  DOI: 10.1039/C8TB00967H
  54. 54
    Chen, J.; Wang, K.; Wu, J.; Tian, H.; Chen, X. Polycations for gene delivery: dilemmas and solutions. Bioconj. Chem. 2019, 30 (2), 338349,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.8b00688
  55. 55
    Chen, J.; Tian, H.; Dong, X.; Guo, Z.; Jiao, Z.; Li, F.; Kano, A.; Maruyama, A.; Chen, X. Effective Tumor Treatment by VEGF si RNA Complexed with Hydrophobic Poly (A mino Acid)-M odified Polyethylenimine. Macromol. Biosci. 2013, 13 (10), 14381446,  DOI: 10.1002/mabi.201300211
  56. 56
    Auwerx, J. The human leukemia cell line, THP-1: a multifacetted model for the study of monocyte-macrophage differentiation. Experientia 1991, 47 (1), 2231,  DOI: 10.1007/BF02041244
  57. 57
    Im, D. J.; Jeong, S. N. Transfection of Jurkat T cells by droplet electroporation. Biochem. Eng. J. 2017, 122, 133140,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bej.2017.03.010
  58. 58
    Abraham, R. T.; Weiss, A. Jurkat T cells and development of the T-cell receptor signalling paradigm. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2004, 4 (4), 301308,  DOI: 10.1038/nri1330
  59. 59
    Pepe, J.; Rincón, M.; Wu, J. Experimental comparison of sonoporation and electroporation in cell transfection applications. Acoust Res. Lett. Online 2004, 5 (2), 6267,  DOI: 10.1121/1.1652111
  60. 60
    Schnoor, M.; Buers, I.; Sietmann, A.; Brodde, M. F.; Hofnagel, O.; Robenek, H.; Lorkowski, S. Efficient non-viral transfection of THP-1 cells. J. Immunol. Methods 2009, 344 (2), 109115,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jim.2009.03.014
  61. 61
    Lipszyc, P. S.; Cremaschi, G. A.; Zubilete, M. Z.; Bertolino, M. L. A.; Capani, F.; Genaro, A. M.; Wald, M. R. Niacin modulates pro-inflammatory cytokine secretion. A potential mechanism involved in its anti-atherosclerotic effect. Open Cardiovasc. Med. J. 2013, 7, 9098,  DOI: 10.2174/1874192401307010090
  62. 62
    Digby, J. E.; Martinez, F.; Jefferson, A.; Ruparelia, N.; Chai, J.; Wamil, M.; Greaves, D. R.; Choudhury, R. P. Anti-inflammatory effects of nicotinic acid in human monocytes are mediated by GPR109A dependent mechanisms. Atertio. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 2012, 32 (3), 669676,  DOI: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.111.241836
  63. 63
    Salem, H. A.; Wadie, W. Effect of niacin on inflammation and angiogenesis in a murine model of ulcerative colitis. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7 (1), 7139,  DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-07280-y
  64. 64
    Si, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, J.; Guo, S.; Zhai, L.; Yao, S.; Sang, H.; Yang, N.; Song, G.; Gu, J. Niacin inhibits vascular inflammation via downregulating nuclear transcription factor-κB signaling pathway. Mediators Inflamm. 2014, 2014, 112,  DOI: 10.1155/2014/263786
  65. 65
    Fitzgerald, K.; O’Neill, L.; Gearing, A.; Callard, R. E. The Cytokine Factsbook and Webfacts; Elsevier, 2001.
  66. 66
    Aggarwal, B. B.; Gupta, S. C.; Sung, B. Curcumin: an orally bioavailable blocker of TNF and other pro-inflammatory biomarkers. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2013, 169 (8), 16721692,  DOI: 10.1111/bph.12131

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Citation Statements
Explore this article's citation statements on scite.ai

This article is cited by 1 publications.

  1. Anja Traeger, Meike N. Leiske. The Whole Is Greater than the Sum of Its Parts – Challenges and Perspectives in Polyelectrolytes. Biomacromolecules 2025, 26 (1) , 5-32. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.4c01061

Biomacromolecules

Cite this: Biomacromolecules 2024, 25, 8, 4749–4761
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.4c00007
Published July 4, 2024

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Article Views

1016

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. (A) Reaction scheme illustrates the structures of the polymer library and their polymerization conditions. (B) SEC traces of the polymer library using DMAc (0.21 wt % LiCl) as eluent. (C) Titration curves of the polymer library were determined using 0.15 M NaOH as the base with a Metrohm OMNIS integrated titration system.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. (A) Experiment design of EBA (first two steps) and HRA (all three steps). (B) EBA was performed at different N*/P ratios ranging from 3 to 20. (C) HRA assay at N*/P = 20. All data points were performed in triplicate, and values were fitted using a B-Spline function. (D) Hydrodynamic size measurement via DLS. (E) Cryo-TEM image of polyplexes of C1.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. (A) Mechanism of the cytotoxicity assay (PrestoBlue assay). (B) PrestoBlue assay in L929 over 24 h in a full growth medium (D10H). Dots represent values of single repetitions. Lines were fitted, and IC50 values were calculated with dose–response function (n = 3). Stars indicate the polymer concentration (μg mL–1), which induces 50% cytotoxicity. Viability below 70% was considered cytotoxic. (C) Hemolysis assay was performed in triplicate with three different donors. A relative hemolysis of > 2% is considered slightly hemolytic, and > 5% is considered hemolytic.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. (A) Schematic illustration of complexation between the polymers and pDNA and YOYO-1. The experiment was used to determine the particle uptake behavior. (B) Particle uptake was performed in HEK293T cells with full growth medium (D10H) over 1 and 4 h at N*/P ratio 20 and c(pDNA) = 3 μg mL–1 on cells (n = 3). The gating strategy can be found in the Supporting Information, Figure S9.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. (A) Schematic illustration of the experimental design for determining transfection efficiency under two different conditions (4 + 20 and 24 h). (B) Transfection efficiency was performed in HEK293T cells with full growth medium (D10H) over 4 + 20 h at N*/P 20 and c(pDNA) = 3 μg mL–1 on cells (n = 3). (C) Performed over 24 h at N*/P 20 and three different concentrations of the genetic material (n = 3). Details of statistical tests can be found in the Supporting Information, Tables S6–S11.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. Transfection efficiency was performed in HEK293T cells with full growth medium (D10H) over 24 h at different N*/P ratios and c(pDNA) = 3 μg mL–1 on cells for A1, B2, and C1 (n ≥ 3). Details of statistical tests can be found in the Supporting Information, Tables S12–S15.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7. (A) Transfection efficiency was performed with A1, B1, B2, and C1 in hard-to-transfect suspension cell lines THP-1 and Jurkat. Transfection was performed in full growth medium (R10H) over 24 h at N*/P 20 and 3 μg mL–1 genetic material on cells (n = 3). (B) Fold change (compared to non-treated cells) of the relative TNF-α mRNA expression (normalized to GAPDH) of ex vivo murine classical monocytes from the bone marrow. One point represents one biological replicate (mice, blue = male, black = female). Mean with standard deviation is depicted. Details of statistical tests can be found in the Supporting Information, Tables S16 and S17.

  • References


    This article references 66 other publications.

    1. 1
      Li, Q.; Jin, B.; Luo, Y.; Li, X. Amphiphilic Block Copolymer Micelles for Gene Delivery. Chem. Res. Chin. Univ. 2022, 38 (6), 13681379,  DOI: 10.1007/s40242-022-2005-1
    2. 2
      Pahle, J.; Walther, W. Vectors and strategies for nonviral cancer gene therapy. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 2016, 16 (4), 443461,  DOI: 10.1517/14712598.2016.1134480
    3. 3
      Piotrowski-Daspit, A. S.; Kauffman, A. C.; Bracaglia, L. G.; Saltzman, W. M. Polymeric vehicles for nucleic acid delivery. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 2020, 156, 119132,  DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2020.06.014
    4. 4
      Davis, M. E. Non-viral gene delivery systems. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2002, 13 (2), 128131,  DOI: 10.1016/S0958-1669(02)00294-X
    5. 5
      Han, S.-o.; Mahato, R. I.; Sung, Y. K.; Kim, S. W. Development of biomaterials for gene therapy. Mol. Ther. 2000, 2 (4), 302317,  DOI: 10.1006/mthe.2000.0142
    6. 6
      Sayed, N.; Allawadhi, P.; Khurana, A.; Singh, V.; Navik, U.; Pasumarthi, S. K.; Khurana, I.; Banothu, A. K.; Weiskirchen, R.; Bharani, K. K. Gene therapy: Comprehensive overview and therapeutic applications. Life Sci. 2022, 294, 120375,  DOI: 10.1016/j.lfs.2022.120375
    7. 7
      Gaspar, R.; Coelho, F.; Silva, B. F. Lipid-nucleic acid complexes: Physicochemical aspects and prospects for cancer treatment. Molecules 2020, 25 (21), 5006,  DOI: 10.3390/molecules25215006
    8. 8
      Ginn, S. L.; Amaya, A. K.; Alexander, I. E.; Edelstein, M.; Abedi, M. R. Gene therapy clinical trials worldwide to 2017: An update. J. Gene Med. 2018, 20 (5), e3015  DOI: 10.1002/jgm.3015
    9. 9
      Dunbar, C. E.; High, K. A.; Joung, J. K.; Kohn, D. B.; Ozawa, K.; Sadelain, M. Gene therapy comes of age. Science 2018, 359 (6372), eaan4672  DOI: 10.1126/science.aan4672
    10. 10
      Shi, B.; Zheng, M.; Tao, W.; Chung, R.; Jin, D.; Ghaffari, D.; Farokhzad, O. C. Challenges in DNA delivery and recent advances in multifunctional polymeric DNA delivery systems. Biomacromolecules 2017, 18 (8), 22312246,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.biomac.7b00803
    11. 11
      Guo, X.; Huang, L. Recent advances in nonviral vectors for gene delivery. Acc. Chem. Res. 2012, 45 (7), 971979,  DOI: 10.1021/ar200151m
    12. 12
      Hou, X.; Zaks, T.; Langer, R.; Dong, Y. Lipid nanoparticles for mRNA delivery. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2021, 6 (12), 10781094,  DOI: 10.1038/s41578-021-00358-0
    13. 13
      Kumar, R.; Santa Chalarca, C. F.; Bockman, M. R.; Bruggen, C. V.; Grimme, C. J.; Dalal, R. J.; Hanson, M. G.; Hexum, J. K.; Reineke, T. M. Polymeric delivery of therapeutic nucleic acids. Chem. Rev. 2021, 121 (18), 1152711652,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00997
    14. 14
      Pack, D. W.; Hoffman, A. S.; Pun, S.; Stayton, P. S. Design and development of polymers for gene delivery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2005, 4 (7), 581593,  DOI: 10.1038/nrd1775
    15. 15
      Durymanov, M.; Reineke, J. Non-viral Delivery of Nucleic Acids: Insight Into Mechanisms of Overcoming Intracellular Barriers. Front. Pharmacol 2018, 9, 971,  DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2018.00971
    16. 16
      Jhaveri, A. M.; Torchilin, V. P. Multifunctional polymeric micelles for delivery of drugs and siRNA. Front. Pharmacol 2014, 5, 77,  DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2014.00077
    17. 17
      Gardlík, R.; Pálffy, R.; Hodosy, J.; Lukács, J.; Turna, J.; Celec, P. Vectors and delivery systems in gene therapy. Med. Sci. Monit. 2005, 11 (4), RA110
    18. 18
      Perrier, S. 50th Anniversary Perspective: RAFT Polymerization─ A User Guide. Macromolecules 2017, 50 (19), 74337447,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.7b00767
    19. 19
      Gregory, A.; Stenzel, M. H. Complex polymer architectures via RAFT polymerization: From fundamental process to extending the scope using click chemistry and nature’s building blocks. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2012, 37 (1), 38105,  DOI: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2011.08.004
    20. 20
      Matyjaszewski, K. Atom transfer radical polymerization (ATRP): current status and future perspectives. Macromolecules 2012, 45 (10), 40154039,  DOI: 10.1021/ma3001719
    21. 21
      Synatschke, C. V.; Schallon, A.; Jérôme, V.; Freitag, R.; Müller, A. H. E. Influence of Polymer Architecture and Molecular Weight of Poly(2-(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate) Polycations on Transfection Efficiency and Cell Viability in Gene Delivery. Biomacromolecules 2011, 12 (12), 42474255,  DOI: 10.1021/bm201111d
    22. 22
      Burgevin, F.; Hapeshi, A.; Song, J.-I.; Omedes-Pujol, M.; Christie, A.; Lindsay, C.; Perrier, S. Cationic star copolymers obtained by the arm first approach for gene transfection. Polym. Chem. 2023, 14, 37073717,  DOI: 10.1039/D3PY00352C
    23. 23
      Ros, S.; Freitag, J. S.; Smith, D. M.; Stöver, H. D. H. Charge-Shifting Polycations Based on N, N-(dimethylamino) ethyl Acrylate for Improving Cytocompatibility During DNA Delivery. ACS Omega 2020, 5 (16), 91149122,  DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.9b03734
    24. 24
      Cook, A. B.; Peltier, R.; Hartlieb, M.; Whitfield, R.; Moriceau, G.; Burns, J. A.; Haddleton, D. M.; Perrier, S. Cationic and hydrolysable branched polymers by RAFT for complexation and controlled release of dsRNA. Polym. Chem. 2018, 9 (29), 40254035,  DOI: 10.1039/C8PY00804C
    25. 25
      McCool, M.; Senogles, E. The self-catalysed hydrolysis of poly (N, N-dimethylaminoethyl acrylate). Eur. Polym. J. 1989, 25 (7–8), 857860,  DOI: 10.1016/0014-3057(89)90054-2
    26. 26
      Truong, N. P.; Jia, Z.; Burges, M.; McMillan, N. A.; Monteiro, M. J. Self-catalyzed degradation of linear cationic poly (2-dimethylaminoethyl acrylate) in water. Biomacromolecules 2011, 12 (5), 18761882,  DOI: 10.1021/bm200219e
    27. 27
      Truong, N. P.; Jia, Z.; Burgess, M.; Payne, L.; McMillan, N. A.; Monteiro, M. J. Self-catalyzed degradable cationic polymer for release of DNA. Biomacromolecules 2011, 12 (10), 35403548,  DOI: 10.1021/bm2007423
    28. 28
      Richter, F.; Martin, L.; Leer, K.; Moek, E.; Hausig, F.; Brendel, J. C.; Traeger, A. Tuning of Endosomal Escape and Gene Expression by Functional Groups, Molecular Weight and Transfection Medium: A Structure-Activity Relationship Study. J. Mater. Chem. B 2020, 8, 50265041,  DOI: 10.1039/D0TB00340A
    29. 29
      Richter, F.; Leer, K.; Martin, L.; Mapfumo, P.; Solomun, J. I.; Kuchenbrod, M. T.; Hoeppener, S.; Brendel, J. C.; Traeger, A. The impact of anionic polymers on gene delivery: how composition and assembly help evading the toxicity-efficiency dilemma. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2021, 19, 292,  DOI: 10.1186/s12951-021-00994-2
    30. 30
      Truong, N. P.; Gu, W.; Prasadam, I.; Jia, Z.; Crawford, R.; Xiao, Y.; Monteiro, M. J. An influenza virus-inspired polymer system for the timed release of siRNA. Nat. Commun. 2013, 4 (1), 1902,  DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2905
    31. 31
      Tran, N. T.; Truong, N. P.; Gu, W.; Jia, Z.; Cooper, M. A.; Monteiro, M. J. Timed-release polymer nanoparticles. Biomacromolecules 2013, 14 (2), 495502,  DOI: 10.1021/bm301721k
    32. 32
      Tran, N. T.; Jia, Z.; Truong, N. P.; Cooper, M. A.; Monteiro, M. J. Fine tuning the disassembly time of thermoresponsive polymer nanoparticles. Biomacromolecules 2013, 14 (10), 34633471,  DOI: 10.1021/bm4007858
    33. 33
      Solomun, J. I.; Cinar, G.; Mapfumo, P.; Richter, F.; Moek, E.; Hausig, F.; Martin, L.; Hoeppener, S.; Nischang, I.; Traeger, A. Solely aqueous formulation of hydrophobic cationic polymers for efficient gene delivery. Int. J. Pharm. 2021, 593, 120080,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.120080
    34. 34
      Adolph, E. J.; Nelson, C. E.; Werfel, T. A.; Guo, R.; Davidson, J. M.; Guelcher, S. A.; Duvall, C. L. Enhanced Performance of Plasmid DNA Polyplexes Stabilized by a Combination of Core Hydrophobicity and Surface PEGylation. J. Mater. Chem. B 2014, 2 (46), 81548164,  DOI: 10.1039/C4TB00352G
    35. 35
      Convertine, A. J.; Benoit, D. S.; Duvall, C. L.; Hoffman, A. S.; Stayton, P. S. Development of a novel endosomolytic diblock copolymer for siRNA delivery. J. Controlled Release 2009, 133 (3), 221229,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2008.10.004
    36. 36
      Liu, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Zhou, C.; Jiao, Y. Hydrophobic modifications of cationic polymers for gene delivery. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2010, 35 (9), 11441162,  DOI: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2010.04.007
    37. 37
      Eliyahu, H.; Makovitzki, A.; Azzam, T.; Zlotkin, A.; Joseph, A.; Gazit, D.; Barenholz, Y.; Domb, A. Novel dextran-spermine conjugates as transfecting agents: comparing water-soluble and micellar polymers. Gene Ther. 2005, 12 (6), 494503,  DOI: 10.1038/sj.gt.3302395
    38. 38
      Mapfumo, P. P.; Reichel, L. S.; Hoeppener, S.; Traeger, A. Improving Gene Delivery: Synergy Between Alkyl Chain Length And Lipoic Acid for Pdmaema Hydrophobic Copolymers. Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2024, 45, 2300649,  DOI: 10.1002/marc.202300649
    39. 39
      Mapfumo, P. P.; Solomun, J. I.; Becker, F.; Moek, E.; Leiske, M. N.; Rudolph, L. K.; Brendel, J. C.; Traeger, A. Vitamin B3 Containing Polymers for Nanodelivery. Macromol. Biosci. 2024, 2400002,  DOI: 10.1002/mabi.202400002
    40. 40
      Standard, I. 10993-5 Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices. Tests for in Vitro Cytotoxicity; Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2009; p 194.
    41. 41
      Leer, K.; Reichel, L. S.; Kimmig, J.; Richter, F.; Hoeppener, S.; Brendel, J. C.; Zechel, S.; Schubert, U. S.; Traeger, A. Optimization of Mixed Micelles Based on Oppositely Charged Block Copolymers by Machine Learning for Application in Gene Delivery. Small 2024, 20, 2306116,  DOI: 10.1002/smll.202306116
    42. 42
      Patel, P.; Ibrahim, N. M.; Cheng, K. The importance of apparent pKa in the development of nanoparticles encapsulating siRNA and mRNA. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2021, 42 (6), 448460,  DOI: 10.1016/j.tips.2021.03.002
    43. 43
      Alabi, C. A.; Love, K. T.; Sahay, G.; Yin, H.; Luly, K. M.; Langer, R.; Anderson, D. G. Multiparametric approach for the evaluation of lipid nanoparticles for siRNA delivery. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2013, 110 (32), 1288112886,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1306529110
    44. 44
      Appleby, C. A.; Wittenberg, B. A.; Wittenberg, J. B. Nicotinic acid as a ligand affecting leghemoglobin structure and oxygen reactivity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1973, 70 (2), 564568,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.70.2.564
    45. 45
      Ros, S.; Wang, J.; Burke, N. A.; Stöver, H. D. H. A Mechanistic Study of the Hydrolysis of Poly [N, N-(dimethylamino) ethyl acrylates] as Charge-Shifting Polycations. Macromolecules 2020, 53 (9), 35143523,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.macromol.9b02272
    46. 46
      LePecq, J.-B.; Paoletti, C. A fluorescent complex between ethidium bromide and nucleic acids: physical─chemical characterization. J. Mol. Biol. 1967, 27 (1), 87106,  DOI: 10.1016/0022-2836(67)90353-1
    47. 47
      Olmsted, J., III; Kearns, D. R. Mechanism of ethidium bromide fluorescence enhancement on binding to nucleic acids. Biochemistry 1977, 16 (16), 36473654,  DOI: 10.1021/bi00635a022
    48. 48
      Richter, F.; Mapfumo, P.; Martin, L.; Solomun, J. I.; Hausig, F.; Frietsch, J. J.; Ernst, T.; Hoeppener, S.; Brendel, J. C.; Traeger, A. Improved gene delivery to K-562 leukemia cells by lipoic acid modified block copolymer micelles. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2021, 19 (1), 70,  DOI: 10.1186/s12951-021-00801-y
    49. 49
      Prevette, L. E.; Kodger, T. E.; Reineke, T. M.; Lynch, M. L. Deciphering the role of hydrogen bonding in enhancing pDNA- polycation interactions. Langmuir 2007, 23 (19), 97739784,  DOI: 10.1021/la7009995
    50. 50
      Kong, D. C.; Yang, M. H.; Zhang, X. S.; Du, Z. C.; Fu, Q.; Gao, X. Q.; Gong, J. W. Control of polymer properties by entanglement: a review. Macromol. Mater. Eng. 2021, 306 (12), 2100536,  DOI: 10.1002/mame.202100536
    51. 51
      Koltzenburg, S.; Maskos, M.; Nuyken, O.; Mülhaupt, R. Polymere: Synthese, Eigenschaften und Anwendungen; Springer, 2014.
    52. 52
      Rejman, J.; Oberle, V.; Zuhorn, I. S.; Hoekstra, D. Size-dependent internalization of particles via the pathways of clathrin-and caveolae-mediated endocytosis. Biochem. J. 2004, 377 (1), 159169,  DOI: 10.1042/bj20031253
    53. 53
      Bus, T.; Traeger, A.; Schubert, U. S. The great escape: how cationic polyplexes overcome the endosomal barrier. J. Mater. Chem. B 2018, 6 (43), 69046918,  DOI: 10.1039/C8TB00967H
    54. 54
      Chen, J.; Wang, K.; Wu, J.; Tian, H.; Chen, X. Polycations for gene delivery: dilemmas and solutions. Bioconj. Chem. 2019, 30 (2), 338349,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.8b00688
    55. 55
      Chen, J.; Tian, H.; Dong, X.; Guo, Z.; Jiao, Z.; Li, F.; Kano, A.; Maruyama, A.; Chen, X. Effective Tumor Treatment by VEGF si RNA Complexed with Hydrophobic Poly (A mino Acid)-M odified Polyethylenimine. Macromol. Biosci. 2013, 13 (10), 14381446,  DOI: 10.1002/mabi.201300211
    56. 56
      Auwerx, J. The human leukemia cell line, THP-1: a multifacetted model for the study of monocyte-macrophage differentiation. Experientia 1991, 47 (1), 2231,  DOI: 10.1007/BF02041244
    57. 57
      Im, D. J.; Jeong, S. N. Transfection of Jurkat T cells by droplet electroporation. Biochem. Eng. J. 2017, 122, 133140,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bej.2017.03.010
    58. 58
      Abraham, R. T.; Weiss, A. Jurkat T cells and development of the T-cell receptor signalling paradigm. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2004, 4 (4), 301308,  DOI: 10.1038/nri1330
    59. 59
      Pepe, J.; Rincón, M.; Wu, J. Experimental comparison of sonoporation and electroporation in cell transfection applications. Acoust Res. Lett. Online 2004, 5 (2), 6267,  DOI: 10.1121/1.1652111
    60. 60
      Schnoor, M.; Buers, I.; Sietmann, A.; Brodde, M. F.; Hofnagel, O.; Robenek, H.; Lorkowski, S. Efficient non-viral transfection of THP-1 cells. J. Immunol. Methods 2009, 344 (2), 109115,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jim.2009.03.014
    61. 61
      Lipszyc, P. S.; Cremaschi, G. A.; Zubilete, M. Z.; Bertolino, M. L. A.; Capani, F.; Genaro, A. M.; Wald, M. R. Niacin modulates pro-inflammatory cytokine secretion. A potential mechanism involved in its anti-atherosclerotic effect. Open Cardiovasc. Med. J. 2013, 7, 9098,  DOI: 10.2174/1874192401307010090
    62. 62
      Digby, J. E.; Martinez, F.; Jefferson, A.; Ruparelia, N.; Chai, J.; Wamil, M.; Greaves, D. R.; Choudhury, R. P. Anti-inflammatory effects of nicotinic acid in human monocytes are mediated by GPR109A dependent mechanisms. Atertio. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 2012, 32 (3), 669676,  DOI: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.111.241836
    63. 63
      Salem, H. A.; Wadie, W. Effect of niacin on inflammation and angiogenesis in a murine model of ulcerative colitis. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7 (1), 7139,  DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-07280-y
    64. 64
      Si, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, J.; Guo, S.; Zhai, L.; Yao, S.; Sang, H.; Yang, N.; Song, G.; Gu, J. Niacin inhibits vascular inflammation via downregulating nuclear transcription factor-κB signaling pathway. Mediators Inflamm. 2014, 2014, 112,  DOI: 10.1155/2014/263786
    65. 65
      Fitzgerald, K.; O’Neill, L.; Gearing, A.; Callard, R. E. The Cytokine Factsbook and Webfacts; Elsevier, 2001.
    66. 66
      Aggarwal, B. B.; Gupta, S. C.; Sung, B. Curcumin: an orally bioavailable blocker of TNF and other pro-inflammatory biomarkers. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2013, 169 (8), 16721692,  DOI: 10.1111/bph.12131
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.biomac.4c00007.

    • Instruments and materials, monomer and polymer synthesis and characterization, polymerization kinetics procedures, titrations, degradation of DMAEA, N*/P ratio calculations, EBA and HRA, cytocompatibility (PrestoBlue and CytoTox-One assay), particle uptake study, transfection efficiency, endosomal escape, antibody mix for murine monocyte staining, and statistics (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.