Doxorubicin-chitin-poly(caprolactone) composite nanogel for drug delivery
Authors: N Ashwin Kumar
N Sanoj Rejinold
R Jayakumar
T R Arunraj
Journal: International Journal of Biological Macromolecules (2013)
Discipline: BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
Keywords: Cancer nanomedicine; Chitin; Composite nanogels; Drug delivery; Lung cancer
Affiliations: Amrita Centre for Nanosciences and Molecular Medicine, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University, Kochi 682041, India.

Abstract:  In this work, we developed a pH responsive chitin-poly(caprolactone) composite nanogels (chitin-PCL CNGs) system for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A hydrophilic drug, doxorubicin (Dox) was loaded in Chitin-PCL CNGs (Dox-chitin-PCL CNGs). Both control and drug loaded systems were analyzed by DLS, SEM, FTIR and TG/DTA. The size ranges of the control composite nanogels and their drug loaded counterparts were found to be 70 ± 20 and 240 ± 20 nm, respectively. The control chitin-PCL CNGs and Dox-chitin-PCL CNGs showed higher swelling and degradation in acidic pH. Drug entrapment efficiency and in-vitro drug release studies were carried out and showed a higher drug release at acidic pH compared to neutral pH. Cellular internalization of the nanogel systems was confirmed by fluorescent microscopy. Dox-Chitin-PCL CNGs showed dose dependent cytotoxicity toward A549 (adenocarcinomic human alveolar basal epithelial cells) cancer cells. Furthermore, the results of in-vitro hemolytic assay and coagulation assay substantiate the blood compatibility of the system. These results indicate that chitin-PCL CNGs is a novel carrier for delivery of anticancer drugs. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 Could the authors comment on the similarities I appear to see between Figure 6 of this paper, and Figure 5 of Arunraj et al. Colloids and Surfaces B Biointerfaces (2014), doi: 10.1016 j.colsurfb.2013.09.023 ? The hemolysis tubes in panels A and B, as well as the bar graphs in C and D appear to all look very similar to each other, despite the different color choices. In panels A, note for example a little smudge between the yellow and black areas at 24 ug ml. In panel C, note the slightly higher value in the right bar at 48 ug ml. In panel D, note the slightly lower value in the right bar at 96 ug ml. Panels A and B also appear to share some similarities in the 24 to 96 samples. The 2 figures appear to represent different experimental conditions (PCL in this paper, and PLA in the IJBM paper). ![file] , 
 Could the authors please comment on the similarities between Figure 4 of this paper and the above-mentioned other paper by this same group? Here, three of the four graphs look surprisingly similar, with same error bar sizes, but corresponding to different nanoparticles. Also note that panels B and C look very similar in both figures, albeit corrected for the other paper. Showing here the original, uncorrected figures. ![file] , 
 Corrigendum published [15 August 2019] . ------------------------------------ In the original manuscript, degradation data of Fig. 4B was inadvertently repeated as Fig. 4C. To rectify this mistake, we re-performed the experiment and the corrected Fig. 4 is provided below. ![] Further, in the original manuscript, the hemolysis data (Fig. 6A B) was provided incorrectly. To rectify the mistake hemolysis experiment, PT and aPTT experiments were re-performed and the corrected Fig. 6 is provided below. ![] The changes in these figures would not affect the overall conclusion of this manuscript. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. ,