Preparation of CNPs and TNG-CNPs
CNPs are prepared using an ionic gelation method with sodium triphosphate (TPP, CAS-No 15091-98-2) as the polyanion. First, a uniform and homogeneous chitosan (low molecular weight, CAS-No 9012-76-4) solution is made by dissolving chitosan in 1% acetic acid solution at a weight-to-volume concentration of 0.06. The TPP solution is prepared by dissolving TPP in distilled water. The pH of the TPP solution is adjusted to 4 using hydrochloric acid. The TPP solution is then added dropwise to the chitosan solution under magnetic stirring at 1500 rpm and 28°C. The mixture is stirred for 2 minutes to allow NPS formation via ionic crosslinking between the chitosan and TPP. The CNP suspension is then centrifuged at 12,000g for 15 minutes. The supernatant is discarded, and the CNP pellet is resuspended in deionized water. Finally, the optimized amount of TNG drug is added to 10 ml of the 2.5% CNP solution. This mixture is magnetically stirred at 1000 rpm for 20 minutes to ensure the TNG (CAS-No 55-63-0) is well loaded within the CNP structure.
Physicochemical Characterization of CNPs and TNG-CNPs
Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR) (PerkinElmer, Spectrum RXI) is used to confirm the fabrication of the CNPs and TNG-CNPs. The dried samples are mixed with potassium bromide (KBr) powder and compressed to form a tablet. This tablet is then placed in the FT-IR machine and analyzed. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) (ZIESS, model EM10C, Germany) is employed to evaluate the size and morphology of the samples. For this, 20 microliters of the sample solution are placed on a 300-mesh copper grid (EMS) for 2 minutes. The excess liquid is removed using filter paper. Then, the sample is placed in contact with 20 microliters of 2% uranyl acetate solution for one minute. After drying, the sample is placed in the TEM for imaging and analysis. Dynamic light scattering using a Zetasizer instrument (SZ-100, Japanese) is also used to analyze the samples. This technique provides the size distribution, average hydrodynamic diameter, and polydispersity index (PDI) of the CNPs and TNG-CNPs in solution.
Animal study and ethics
In the current study, 40 adult Sprague–Dawley rats (7–8 weeks of age; average body mass 220- 250g) were obtained from the Center of Experimental and Comparative Medicine at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. The rats were maintained under standard situations (a 12 h light/12 h dark cycle and at a temperature of 23–25 ºC) at the Nephro-Urology animal lab and allowed free food and water intake ad libitum until the procedures started. All animal care and experimental protocols were approved by the ethics committee of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (Ethics code: IR.SUMS.AEC.1401.018) with an approval date of 2022/06/01. We confirmed that all methods were carried out under relevant guidelines and regulations. Moreover, we confirmed that all methods are reported following ARRIVE guidelines (https://arriveguidelines.org).
Surgical Preparation
The rat model of renal (I/R) injury was persuaded according to the procedure explained previously (R). Briefly, rats were anesthetized by intraperitoneal injection of Ketamine (100 mg/kg; Woerden, Netherlands) and xylazine (5 mg/kg; Alfazyne, Woerden, Netherlands) cocktail and kept on a heating table to sustained body temperature at 37°C through surgery. After shaving off the surgical zone, an abdominal midline incision was made, and the left and right kidney was exposed. Both renal pedicles were impeded by a microaneurysm vascular clip for 60 minutes. After the end of the ischemia period, the clamps were taken and confirmed for suitable reperfusion of the blood flow to the ischemic kidney. 3/0 stitches, then sutured the abdominal incision in 2 layers.
Experimental Design
Fourthly rats were randomized into five groups (n=8/group): Sham group, I/R group, TNG (50 mg/kg)+I/R, CNPs(60 mg/kg)+I/R, and TNG-CNPs+I/R groups. TNG and CNPs intraperitoneally were injected 30 minutes before renal ischemia. After recovery from surgery, the rats were immediately located in metabolic cages to collect the 24-hour urine sample. 24 h after reperfusion, the rats were anesthetized and sacrificed by taking blood samples from the cardiac cavity. Both kidneys were exposed and removed by mid-line abdominal incision. The left kidney was saved for oxidative stress analysis, and the right kidney was kept in 10% formalin for H&E staining.
Renal Function Assay
Blood urea nitrogen (BUN) levels and plasma and urine creatinine (Cr) concentrations were measured to evaluate renal function. BUN and Cr plasma levels were analyzed using a colorimetric assay based on the manufacturer's procedures (RA-1000 Technicon, USA). This formula, (µl/mi-1/Kg.Bw-1) = ([urine creatinine] * [urine volume rate])/plasma creatinine, was used for the calculation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR).
Oxidative Stress Assay
Whole kidney tissue (150 mg) was weighted and mechanically homogenized with potassium phosphate buffer (Ph=7.35). Tissue suspension was centrifuged at 10,000×g for 10 min at four °C, and the supernatants were separated and saved for oxidative stress assay. Total antioxidative capacity (TAC) and total oxidative stress (TOS) were assessed by a commercial kit (KTOS96 & KTAC96, KiaZist, Hamedan, Iran) through a microplate reader (Epoch 2 TM,
BioTek, Santa Clara, USA) at 490 and 560 nm wavelengths. Moreover, the oxidative stress index (OSI) was calculated as a ratio of TOS level to TAC level by the following formula:
OSI (arbitrary unit) = TOS (nmol H2O2 Equiv./mg of protein) / TAC (nmol Trolox Equiv./mg of protein) × 100
Histopathological Assay
The right kidney was fixed in 10% buffered formalin and embedded in paraffin. The kidney's histological sections (5 µm‑thick) were used for hematoxine and eosin staining (H&E). Tubular degeneration, Bowman’s space enlargement, vascular congestion, and intratubular cast were evaluated in the cortex and medulla area in the kidney. The amount of structural damage was scored based on calculated percentages as follows: no damage: grade 0, 10-20 % damage: grade 1, 21-40 % damage: grade 2, 41-60 % damage: grade 3, and 61-80 % damage: grade 4, and 81-100% damage: grade 5(19).
Statistical Analysis
All data were shown as the mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Comparisons between the experimental groups were made using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) by GraphPad Prism software (Version 9.0, La Jolla, CA, USA). Tukey's post-test was also used, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.