Nanoformulated Bioactive Compounds Derived from Different Natural Products Combat Pancreatic Cancer Cell Proliferation

Deena S Mousa,¹ Ali H El-Far,² Amna A Saddiq,³ Thangirala Sudha,⁴ Shaker A Mousa<sup>4

1</sup>Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; ²Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Damanhour University, Damanhour 22511, Egypt; ³Faculty of Science, Department of Biology, University of Jeddah, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia; ⁴Pharmaceutical Research Institute, Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Rensselaer, NY 12144, USA

Correspondence: Shaker A Mousa
Professor of Pharmacology, Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Chairman and Executive Vice President, The Pharmaceutical Research Institute, One Discovery Drive, Rensselaer, New York 12144, USA
Email shaker.mousa@acphs.edu

Purpose: This study was designed to determine the potential effect of nanoencapsulated bioactive compounds from different natural sources on human pancreatic cancer.
Background: Pancreatic cancer carries the highest fatality rate among all human cancers because of its high metastatic potential and late presentation at the time of diagnosis. Hence there is a need for improved methods to prevent and treat it. Natural products, such as 3, 3′-diindolylmethane (DIM) and ellagic acid (EA) demonstrated anticancer efficacy against various cancer types. However, DIM is insoluble. Hence, using nanotechnology to encapsulate these compounds in combination with EA might improve their physical and chemical properties and their delivery to the cancer cells.
Methods: Human pancreatic cancer cells, namely SUIT2-luciferase transfected, were used to examine the effects of DIM or EA and their nanoformulation in poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) and poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) [PLGA-PEG] nanoparticles (NPs) on SUIT2-luciferase cell viability/proliferation over 24 hrs. Additionally, effects on tumor weight and angiogenesis were determined using the chick chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) tumor implant model.
Results: Both DIM and EA PLGA-PEG NPs resulted in rapid suppression of pancreatic cancer cell viability/proliferation within 24 hrs (P < 0.01), while the non-encapsulated DIM and EA did not show any significant effect on SUIT2 cancer cell viability or cell proliferation (MTT assay). In the CAM pancreatic cancer cell (SUIT2) implant model, results showed a greater suppression of tumor weight (P < 0.01), tumor cell viability, and tumor angiogenesis (P < 0.01) for DIM NPs and EA NPs and their combinations versus DIM or EA alone.
Conclusion: Nanoformulation of DIM and EA resulted in a more effective suppression of pancreatic cancer cell viability, pancreatic tumor weight, implanted cancer cell viability, and tumor angiogenesis as compared with these bioactive compounds alone.

Keywords: pancreatic cancer, 3, 3′-diindolylmethane, ellagic acid, PLGA-PEG nanoparticles, anti-angiogenesis, chick chorioallantoic membrane model