Anticancer efficacy of a novel propofol–linoleic acid-loaded escheriosomal formulation against murine hepatocellular carcinoma
Authors: Aijaz Ahmed Khan
Mohammad Owais
Azmat Ali Khan
Mumtaz Jabeen
Journal: Nanomedicine (2013)
Discipline: CLINICAL MEDICINE
Keywords: novel escheriosomal nanoparticle formulation; 2,6-diisopropylphenol-linoleic acid (2,6P-LA); anticancer efficacy; hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); BALB/c mice

Abstract:  Aim: The preparation and characterization of a novel escheriosomal nanoparticle formulation of a potent anticancer conjugate, 2,6-diisopropylphenol-linoleic acid (2,6P-LA), and evaluation of its anticancer efficacy against diethyl nitrosamine-induced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in BALB/c mice. Materials &amp; methods: Escheriosomized 2,6P-LA nanoparticles were characterized for size, zeta-potential, entrapment efficiency, release kinetics and in vivo toxicity. Their anticancer potential was evaluated on the basis of survival, DNA fragmentation, caspase-3 activation, western blot analysis of apoptotic factors and histopathological changes in hepatocytes of treated animals. Results: The escheriosomized 2,6P-LA nanoparticles exhibited low toxicity, biocompatibility and bioavailability. As revealed by apoptosis induction, survival rate, expression profiles of Bax, Bcl-2 and caspase-9, escheriosomized 2,6P-LA nanoparticles were more effective in the treatment of HCC than the free form of 2,6P-LA in experimental animals. Conclusion: 2,6P-LA-bearing escheriosome nanoparticles are effective in suppressing HCC in mice. Original submitted 17 January 2012; Revised submitted 27 August 2012; Published online 14 January 2013. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 Figure 4A. * Red boxes: the b-actin blot shown here looks very similar to the actin blot in Figure 7A of an older paper by the same group, i.e. Khan AA et al. Lipids (2012), doi: 10.1007 s11745-012-3707-9 Despite the similarities of the blots, they represent very different samples (e.g. human cells vs mice lysates). Could the authors please check? ![file] , 
 We did not do any manipulation in the original picture. Initially, u03b2-actin blot in Bax protein gel was developed not clearly. There was haziness and some smudging (file attached). So we used the old image of u03b2-actin in Figure 4a. Since, u03b2-actin is a housekeeping gene which is present in all the samples and is used as the reference protein to show equal loading. Its presence does not interfere with the expression of other protein. It does not affect the results of the study as well. Moreover, if you want we will ask the Editor in Chief of the journal to replace that image with the actual one. ![file] , 
 Thank you, Dr. Khan, for explaining what happened. So if I understand correctly, you are saying that you deliberately took the loading control from another experiment, with completely different samples, to represent that of this experiment. You replaced a blot with mouse samples to represent that of human samples. You cannot replace the loading control of one experiment with that of a completely different experiment. If I understand you correctly, that would be falsification of the results.  Its presence does not interfere with the expression of other protein. Yes, I would agree with that. It seems likely that the expression of proteins in a human cell line does not affect the expression of proteins in mouse samples from a different experiment. Yes, I would appreciate it if you could ask the Editor in Chief how to proceed. Thank you. ,