In Vitro Assessment of Cellular and Genetic Safety for a DSPCar-Based Amphotericin B Nanoformulation Using MTT and Ames Assays
Archives of Advances in Biosciences,
Vol. 17 No. 1 (2026),
28 April 2026
,
Page 1-12
https://doi.org/10.22037/aab.v17i1.52478
Abstract
Background: Despite the potent antifungal properties of amphotericin B (AmB), its clinical deployment remains restricted by adverse effects whose severity rises proportionally with administered dose. Our laboratory had previously engineered a DSPCar-containing nanoliposomal carrier for AmB that demonstrated superior antifungal action. The current investigation sought to characterize the cellular and genetic harmlessness profile of this DSPCar-AmB nanosystem.
Methods: The fabricated nanocarrier underwent physicochemical profiling to establish its mean diameter, surface charge, and medication entrapment percentage. We evaluated cytotoxicity via the MTT method using HEK293 cells (concentration range: 0.01–100 µM; duration: 24 hours). Mutagenicity screening employed the bacterial reverse mutation (Ames) procedure on Salmonella typhimurium TA98 alongside TA100 strains, both with and without S9 metabolic supplementation, using three dosage levels (50, 500, and 5000 µg/plate).
Results: The DSPCar-AmB preparation exhibited a hydrodynamic size of 89.4 ± 6.2 nm, a polydispersity index of 0.18, and a zeta potential measuring -32.5 mV. Relative to a reference liposomal AmB product, the DSPCar-AmB carrier induced significantly less cellular death, with viability percentages remaining above 85% for each examined concentration (p < 0.05). The half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀) for DSPCar-AmB exceeded 100 µM, whereas the reference formulation gave an IC₅₀ of 8.2 ± 1.4 µM. Within the Ames assay, no condition produced a significant rise in revertant colony numbers (fold increase consistently below 1.5 relative to negative controls), confirming a lack of mutation-inducing potential.
Conclusion: The DSPCar-AmB nanocarrier presents a beneficial in vitro safety profile featuring substantially diminished cytotoxicity alongside undetectable genotoxicity. When integrated with previously documented antifungal effectiveness, this formulation implies a potentially enhanced safety-efficacy equilibrium and merits continued preclinical advancement.
- Nanoliposome
- DSPCar AmB
- MTT assay
- Bacterial reverse mutation test
- Cytotoxicity
- Genotoxicity
- Amphotericin B
How to Cite
References
1. Cavassin FB, Baói-Carneiro JL, Vilas-Boas RR, Queiroz-Telles F. Sixty years of Amphotericin B: an overview of the main antifungal agent used to treat most fungal infections. Infect Dis Ther. 2021;10(1):115-47. (DOI: 10.1007/s40121-020-00382-7)
2. Laniado-Laborín R, Cabrales-Vargas MN. Amphotericin B: side effects and toxicity. Rev Iberoam Micol. 2009;26(4):223-7. (DOI: 10.1016/j.riam.2009.06.003)
3. Hamill RJ. Amphotericin B formulations: a comparative review of efficacy and toxicity. Drugs. 2013;73(9):919-34. (DOI: 10.1007/s40265-013-0069-4)
4. World Health Organization. 2023 Antibacterial agents in clinical and preclinical development: an overview and analysis. Geneva: WHO; 2024. Link
5. Botero Aguirre JP, Restrepo Hamid AM. Amphotericin B deoxycholate versus liposomal amphotericin B: effects on kidney function. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;10(10):CD010481. (DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010481.pub2)
6. Mesa-Arango AC, Scorzoni L, Zaragoza O. It only takes one to do many jobs: Amphotericin B as antifungal and immunomodulatory drug. Front Microbiol. 2012;3:286. (DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2012.00286)
7. Dash SK, Benival D, Jindal AB. Formulation strategies to overcome amphotericin B-induced toxicity. Molecular Pharmaceutics. 2024 Oct 7;21(11):5392-412. (DOI: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.4c00485)
8. Arana L, Guridi A, Sevillano E, Tamayo E, Eraso E, Alkorta I, et al. Lipid-based drug delivery systems as emerging tools to overcome antifungal resistance. Int J Mol Sci. 2026;27(10):4487. (DOI: 10.3390/ijms27104487)
9. e Silva DM, de Souza Lacerda L, de Souza Andrioli A, Braz WR, Campos LM, de Paiva MR, et al. Statins as antifungal agents: a review on drug repurposing and nanotechnology-driven delivery strategies. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2025;39(5):e70046. (DOI: 10.1111/fcp.70046)
10. Stone NR, Bicanic T, Salim R, Hope W. Liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome®): a review of the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, clinical experience and future directions. Drugs. 2016;76(5):485-500. (DOI: 10.1007/s40265-016-0538-7)
11. Adler-Moore JP, Gangneux JP, Pappas PG. Comparison between liposomal formulations of amphotericin B. Med Mycol. 2020;58(6):725-33. (DOI: 10.1093/mmy/myv111)
12. Seify R, Zahednezhad F, Zakeri-Milani P, Valizadeh H. Amphotericin B liposomal formulation: applicable preparation methods, challenges, and tips. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2023;49(5):367-76. (DOI: 10.1080/03639045.2023.2215006)
13. Soares S, Sousa J, Pais A, Vitorino C. Nanomedicine: principles, properties, and regulatory issues. Front Chem. 2018;6:360. (DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2018.00360)
14. Foulkes R, Man E, Thind J, Yeung S, Joy A, Hoskins C. The regulation of nanomaterials and nanomedicines for clinical application: current and future perspectives. Biomater Sci. 2020;8(17):4653-64. (DOI: 10.1039/D0bm00558d)
15. Mortelmans K, Zeiger E. The Ames Salmonella/microsome mutagenicity assay. Mutat Res. 2000;455(1-2):29-60. (DOI: 10.1016/s0027-5107(00)00064-6)
16. International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Guidance on genotoxicity testing and data interpretation for pharmaceuticals intended for human use. ICH Harmonised Guideline S2(R1). Geneva: ICH; 2011. Link
17. Thomas DN, Wills JW, Tracey H, Baldwin SJ, Burman M, Williams AN, et al. Ames test study designs for nitrosamine mutagenicity testing: qualitative and quantitative analysis of key assay parameters. Mutagenesis. 2024;39(2):78-95. (DOI: 10.1093/mutage/gead033)
18. Ghasemi M, Liang S, Luu QM, Kempson I. The MTT assay: a method for error minimization and interpretation in measuring cytotoxicity and estimating cell viability. Methods Mol Biol. 2023;2644:15-33. (DOI: 10.1007/978-1-0716-3052-5_2)
19. Egito LC, Batistuzzo de
20. Medeiros SR, Medeiros MG, Price JC, Egito ES. Evaluation of the relationship of the molecular aggregation state of amphotericin B in medium to its genotoxic potential. J Pharm Sci. 2004;93(6):1557-65. (DOI: 10.1002/jps.20038)
21. Alpizar-Sosa EA, Ithnin NR, Wei W, Pountain AW, Weidt SK, Donachie AM, et al. Amphotericin B resistance in Leishmania mexicana: alterations to sterol metabolism and oxidative stress response. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2022;16(9):e0010779.(DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010779)
22. Elmorsy EM, Al Doghaither HA, Al-Ghafari AB, Hifni BA, Jawad NM, Hakim NA, et al. Hyperoside mitigates amphotericin B-induced nephrotoxicity in HK-2 cells via bioenergetic and oxidative stress modulation. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2025;26(1):149. (DOI: 10.1186/s40360-025-00985-1)
23. Orzalli MH, Prochera A, Payne L, Smith A, Garlick JA, Kagan JC. Virus-mediated inactivation of anti-apoptotic Bcl-2 family members promotes Gasdermin-E-dependent pyroptosis in barrier epithelial cells. Immunity. 2021;54(7):1447-1462(DOI: 10.1016/j.immuni.2021.04.012)
24. Guirao-Abad JP, Sánchez-Fresneda R, Alburquerque B, Hernández JA, Argüelles JC. ROS formation is a differential contributory factor to the fungicidal action of amphotericin B and micafungin in Candida albicans. Int J Med Microbiol. 2017;307(4-5):241-248. (DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmm.2017.03.005)
25. Faustino C, Pinheiro L. Lipid systems for the delivery of amphotericin B in antifungal therapy. Pharmaceutics. 2020;12(1):29. (DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12010029)
26. Gray KC, Palacios DS, Dailey I, Endo MM, Uno BE, Wilcock BC, et al. Amphotericin primarily kills yeast by simply binding ergosterol. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109(7):2234-9. (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1117280109)
27. Jain VK, Jain K, Popli H. Conjugates of amphotericin B to resolve challenges associated with its delivery. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2024;21(2):187-210. (DOI: 10.1080/17425247.2024.2308073)
28. Reuter SE, Evans AM. Carnitine and acylcarnitines: pharmacokinetic, pharmacological and clinical aspects. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2012;51(9):553-72. (DOI: 10.1007/BF03261931)
29. Pekala J, Patkowska-Sokoła B, Bodkowski R, Jamroz D, Nowakowski P, Lochynski S, et al. L-carnitine--metabolic functions and meaning in humans life. Curr Drug Metab. 2011;12(7):667-78. (DOI: 10.2174/138920011796504536)
30. Hoshyar N, Gray S, Han H, Bao G. The effect of nanoparticle size on in vivo pharmacokinetics and cellular interaction. Nanomedicine. 2016;11(6):673-92. (DOI: 10.2217/nnm.16.5)
31. Mortelmans K, Zeiger E. The Ames Salmonella/microsome mutagenicity assay. Mutat Res. 2000;455(1-2):29-60. (DOI: 10.1016/s0027-5107(00)00064-6)
32. Kumar A, Dhawan A. Genotoxic and carcinogenic potential of engineered nanoparticles: an update. Arch Toxicol. 2013;87(11):1883-900. (DOI: 10.1007/s00204-013-1128-z)
33. Magdolenova Z, Collins A, Kumar A, Dhawan A, Stone V, Dusinska M. Mechanisms of genotoxicity. Review of recent in vitro and in vivo studies with engineered nanoparticles. Nanotoxicology. 2014;8(3):233-78. (DOI: 10.3109/17435390.2013.773464)
34. Manke A, Wang L, Rojanasakul Y. Mechanisms of nanoparticle-induced oxidative stress and toxicity. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:942916. (DOI: 10.1155/2013/942916)
35. Lorscheidt S, Lamprecht A. Safety assessment of nanoparticles for drug delivery by means of classic in vitro assays and beyond. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2016;13(11):1545-58 (DOI: 10.1080/17425247.2016.1198773)
36. Tereshkina YA, Torkhovskaya TI, Tikhonova EG, Kostryukova LV, Sanzhakov MA, Korotkevich EI, et al. Nanoliposomes as drug delivery systems: safety concerns. J Drug Target. 2022;30(3):313-25. (DOI: 10.1080/1061186X.2021.1992630)
37. Sainz V, Conniot J, Matos AI, Peres C, Zupančič E, Moura L, Silva LC, Florindo HF, Gaspar RS. Regulatory aspects of nanomedicines. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2015;468(3):504-510. (DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.08.023)
38. Anderson TM, Clay MC, Cioffi AG, Diaz KA, Hiser GS, Smith PE, et al. Amphotericin B forms extramembranous aggregates that disrupt membrane integrity. Nat Chem Biol. 2014;10(5):400-6. (DOI: 10.1038/nchembio.1496)
39. Kirkland D, Kasper P, Müller L, Hayashi M. Recommendations for the performance of the in vitro micronucleus assay. Mutat Res. 2013;753(1):1-15. (DOI: 10.1016/0165-1161(93)90024-t)
40. Collins AR, El Yamani N, Lorenzo Y, Shaposhnikov S, Brunborg G, Azqueta A. The comet assay as a tool for human biomonitoring studies: the ComNet project. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res. 2014;759:27-39. (DOI: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2013.10.001)
41. Pfuhler S, Fellows M, van Benthem J, Corvi R, Curren R, Dearfield K, et al. In vitro genotoxicity test approaches for nanomaterials. Mutat Res. 2017;773:259-71. (DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2011.03.013)
42. Baginski M, Czub J. Amphotericin B and its new derivatives—mode of action. Curr Drug Metab. 2009;10(5):459-469. (DOI: 10.2174/138920009788898019)
43. Neumann A, Baginski M, Czub J. How do sterols determine the antifungal activity of amphotericin B? Free energy of binding between the drug and its membrane targets. J Am Chem Soc. 2010;132(51):18266-72. (DOI: 10.1021/ja1074344)
44. Fanos V, Cataldi L. Amphotericin B-induced nephrotoxicity: a review. J Chemother. 2000;12(6):463-70. (DOI: 10.1179/joc.2000.12.6.463)
45. Cooper DL, Conder CM, Harirforoosh S. Nanoparticles in drug delivery: mechanism of action, formulation and clinical application towards reduction in drug-associated nephrotoxicity. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2014;11(10):1661-80. (DOI: 10.1517/17425247.2014.938046)
46. Nett JE, Andes DR. Antifungal agents: spectrum of activity, pharmacology, and clinical indications. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2016;30(1):51-83. (DOI: 10.1016/j.idc.2015.10.012)
47. Boudier A, Mammari N, Lamouroux E, Duval RE. Inorganic nanoparticles: tools to emphasize the Janus face of amphotericin B. Antibiotics. 2023;12(10):1543. (DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12101543)
48. Kamiloglu S, Sari G, Ozdal T, Capanoglu E. Guidelines for cell viability assays. Food Front. 2020;1(3):332-49. (DOI: 10.1002/fft2.44)
49. Kumar P, Nagarajan A, Uchil PD. Analysis of cell viability by the lactate dehydrogenase assay. Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2018;2018(6). (DOI: 10.1101/pdb.prot095497)
50. Kim H, Xue X. Detection of total reactive oxygen species in adherent cells by 2′,7′-dichlorodihydrofluorescein diacetate staining. J Vis Exp. 2020;(160):e60682. (DOI: 10.3791/60682)
51. Elespuru R, Pfuhler S, Aardema MJ, Chen T, Doak SH, Doherty A, et al. Genotoxicity assessment of nanomaterials: recommendations on best practices, assays, and methods. Toxicol Sci. 2018;164(2):391-416. (DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfy100)
52. Parasuraman S. Toxicological screening. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2011;2(2):74-9. (DOI: 10.4103/0976-500X.81895)
53. Soares S, Sousa J, Pais A, Vitorino C. Nanomedicine: principles, properties, and regulatory issues. Front Chem. 2018;6:360. (DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2018.00360)
- Abstract Viewed: 45 times
- PDF Downloaded: 38 times