Premium
DISTRIBUTION OF DI‐SULFONATED ALUMINUM PHTHALOCYANINE AND PHOTOFRIN II IN LIVING CELLS: A COMPARATIVE FLUOROMETRIC STUDY
Author(s) -
Bottiroli G.,
Croce A. C.,
Ramponi R.,
Vaghi P.
Publication year - 1992
Publication title -
photochemistry and photobiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.818
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1751-1097
pISSN - 0031-8655
DOI - 10.1111/j.1751-1097.1992.tb04280.x
Subject(s) - photosensitizer , intracellular , lipophilicity , internalization , phthalocyanine , chemistry , biophysics , fluorescence , photodynamic therapy , drug , monomer , distribution (mathematics) , cell , photochemistry , biochemistry , pharmacology , polymer , biology , organic chemistry , optics , mathematical analysis , physics , mathematics
— Microspectrofluoromeric and fluorescence imaging techniques have been employed to study the internalization and intracellular distribution of both Photofrin II, an experimental drug used in photodynamic therapy, and di‐sulfonated aluminum phthalocyanine, a very promising photosensitizer. The results obtained by microscopic techniques in living cells have been compared with those obtained in solution on cell extracts. Experimental results indicated that the complexity of the drug‐cell interaction can be explained according to the chemico‐physical nature of the drugs. In particular, the presence of both monomeric and aggregated fractions, which are supposed to be internalized through different mechanisms, accounts for the intracellular distributions observed for both drugs, depending on the treatment conditions. Equilibria among the drug fractions take place within the cells, resulting in the persistence of the intracellular fluorescence. On the whole, the behavior of the two drugs appears very similar, except for some aspects related to the intracellular distribution, which can be explained in terms of different degree of lipophilicity of the drugs.