1. Introduction
The quest for more safe and efficient drug delivery systems (DDS) is spurring the exploration of bioinspired approaches to surmount barriers hindering DDS access to target tissues. There is a growing interest in customized vectors derived from components of human tissues and cells, such as cell membranes derived from the patient’s own cells. This emerging field aims to create biocamouflaged vectors with extended circulation time, enhanced ability to traverse biological barriers, reduced immunogenicity, and intrinsic targeting capabilities [
1,
2]. However, current methodologies for engineering cell-derived products into versatile DDS remain limited, presenting a significant challenge. In contrast, synthetic nanocarriers like liposomes have long surpassed biogenic DDS in terms of versatility, production yield, drug loading efficiency, surface modification, and standardization [
3]. The fusion of liposomes’ ease of production and modification with the intrinsic functionalities of biogenic delivery systems—biocompatibility, targeting, and uptake properties—holds immense potential. This convergence would yield bioengineered DDS that combine the strengths of both synthetic and biological entities, promising enhanced therapeutic outcomes.
Exosomes, first coined by Johnstone et al. in 1987, are released through the fusion of multivesicular endosomal bodies (MVBs) with the plasma membrane [
4]. Typically ranging from 30 to 150 nm in diameter, exosomes exhibit a bilayer membrane structure akin to liposomes, resembling miniature versions of their parent cells in function and characteristics [
5]. Their natural sourcing, low immunogenicity, and ability to target homotypic sources, including passage through the blood–brain barrier (BBB), have sparked interest in their potential as drug delivery agents for therapeutic targets across diverse diseases [
6]. Research has demonstrated the promise of exosomes derived from various cell lines in drug delivery for different conditions. For instance, exosomes derived from the mouse macrophage cell line RAW264.7 have been investigated for treating Parkinson’s disease and pulmonary metastases [
7]. Similarly, exosomes encapsulating curcumin derived from the mouse lymphoma cell line EL-4 have shown enhanced anti-inflammatory effects [
8]. Additionally, exosomes derived from PANC-1 and U937 cells have been explored for delivering paclitaxel (PTX) to pancreatic cancer sites, while exosomes loaded with doxorubicin derived from mouse immature dendritic cells (imDCs) have been utilized for targeted delivery [
9]. The clinical trials of exosomes in drug delivery systems were mostly Phase 1 studies. One study supported by Codiak BioSciences company evaluated the exosomes loaded with CDK-004 (exoASO-STAT6)’s safety, tolerability, and initial antitumor activity in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and patients with liver metastases from either primary gastric cancer or colorectal cancer (NCT05375604). Additionally, MSC-derived exosomes were used to deliver AGLE-102 for burn wounds (NCT05078385). However, despite their potential benefits, there are concerns regarding tumor-derived exosomes promoting tumor growth and metastasis, posing safety risks. Therefore, identifying safe maternal source exosomes for tumor treatment remains a crucial exploration direction.
Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have emerged as pivotal regulators of innate and adaptive immunity, contributing to immune homeostasis in various diseases [
10]. Preclinical studies have shown that MSCs can suppress tumor growth and metastasis by suppressing tumor angiogenesis through the release of antiangiogenic factors in models of lung metastasis, melanoma, colon cancer, prostate cancer, and ovarian cancer, and MSC also mediated downregulation of the PDGF/PDGFR axis, suppressing glioma angiogenesis [
11,
12]. Nonetheless, their relatively large size raises challenges, such as potential entrapment in the lungs, hindering their clinical use. Despite this, MSCs are prolific producers of exosomes, making them an attractive option for drug delivery. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that MSC-derived Exosomes (Exo) play an important role in regulating the function of multiple immune-related cell types, such as natural killer T (NKT) cells, regulatory T cells, and macrophages [
13]. Exosomes can also encapsulate desired therapeutic cargoes, such as miRNAs, proteins, and drugs. However, traditional drug loading methods, such as electroporation, suffer from low drug loading efficiency and poor yield, limiting their clinical potential. To address these challenges, leveraging liposome engineering technologies to engineer exosomes has been proposed as a solution to overcome these limitations. Up to now, there are few reports on the hybridization of Exo with liposomes for carrying antitumor drugs.
The natural compound paclitaxel, derived from taxus, exerts its antimitotic effects by targeting tubulin and has been approved by the FDA as the first chemotherapeutic agent sourced from a plant [
14]. Since its initial discovery in 1967, research and development surrounding paclitaxel has remained ceaseless. At present, the clinical experimental studies of paclitaxel are mainly focused on the combination of paclitaxel and other chemotherapy drugs to control tumor recurrence and metastasis; clinical trials such as albumin-bound paclitaxel combined with gemcitabine first-line inoperable pancreatic cancer (NCT05035147) and combined with carboplatin versus epirubicin and docetaxel for triple-negative breast cancer (NCT04136782) are in Phase 4 study. Currently, a small number of paclitaxel and its derivatives are on the market, such as TAXOTERE
® (1996), Abraxane
® (2005), and Jevtana
® (2010). However, TAXOTERE
® was a paclitaxel injection which due to paclitaxel’s poor solubility, must use polyoxyethyl castor oil to increase the solubility, which may easily cause adverse reactions. Abraxane
® and Jevtana
® were paclitaxel liposomes but also may cause an allergic reaction to paclitaxel. Moreover, due to the lack of targeting, all types of paclitaxel have a strong systemic toxic effect. Therefore, it is important to develop a safer and more efficient drug delivery system.
Due to these previously stated concerns and considering the numerous similarities between liposomes and exosomes, in this research, we designed a tumor-target hybrid exosome vesicles, composed of Exo and folate-modified targeting liposomes, for antitumor drug PTX delivery (
Scheme 1). It was expected that the hybrid vectors had better drug loading capacity, stability, and tumor targeting capacity. The antitumor effect of the hybrid vector loaded with PTX and its regulation of the tumor immune microenvironment were investigated in a mouse model.
3. Discussion
Due to their regenerative capabilities, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and their derived exosomes were mostly used in wound healing and inflammation relief [
17,
18]. MSC-derived exosomes have shown potential in regulating tumors and serving as effective drug delivery vehicles for anticancer therapeutics. For instance, MSC-derived exosomes have been reported to decrease the mRNA levels of Aquaporin-5 and EGFR in colorectal cancer cells, both of which are important signaling molecules regulating tumor proliferation and metastasis [
19]. Moreover, MSC-derived exosomes or mimetics have been demonstrated to act as carriers for anticancer drugs such as doxorubicin and paclitaxel (PTX), exhibiting inhibitory effects on tumor cell proliferation in vitro [
20,
21]. However, traditional exosomes encounter challenges in drug loading capacity and stability, which limit their effectiveness as drug carriers. In this study, we addressed these limitations by fusing MSC-derived exosomes with liposomes, resulting in a hybrid delivery system with improved properties as a carrier for anticancer drugs. Our findings reveal that hybrid exosomes significantly enhanced the stability and drug-loading capacity of exosomes. The hybrid exosome–liposome complexes also demonstrate superior performance as PTX carriers.
Although various anticancer therapies or combination treatments have been developed in current oncology practice, the prognosis of cancer patients remains poor. One of the primary reasons for the poor response of most tumors to chemotherapy drugs is the relatively low level of intratumoral immune activity during treatment, often referred to as “cold tumors” [
22]. In the tumor microenvironment, the infiltration of various immune cells plays a pivotal role in tumor progression. While certain immune cell types such as neutrophils, macrophages, and CD4
+ regulatory T cells have been observed to facilitate tumor growth, others like CD8
+ cytotoxic T cells, natural killer cells, and gamma-delta T cells actively engage in tumor eradication. This intricate balance of immune cell dynamics underscores their clinical significance in colorectal cancer (CRC). The previous studies revealed a positive correlation between elevated levels of CD8
+ T or M1 macrophage cells and improved overall survival rates in CRC patients [
23,
24]. Moreover, recent investigations into metastatic gastrointestinal esophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA) uncovered diminished levels of CD8
+ T cells within metastatic lesions compared to primary tumor sites [
25]. These findings highlight the critical role of immune cell infiltration in shaping the tumor microenvironment and influencing disease progression. Recent studies have highlighted that tumor-derived exosomes play a crucial role in promoting tumor development through various processes, including facilitating tumor cell epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT), inducing angiogenesis, mediating immune evasion, and regulating macrophage polarization [
26]. Exosomes derived from immune-associated cells have the ability to enhance drug sensitivity and modulate the immune microenvironment. For instance, Lou et al. reported that intratumoral injection of ADMSC-derived miR-122-carrying exosomes significantly enhances the antitumor efficacy of sorafenib and inhibits tumor growth in hepatocellular carcinoma in vivo [
27]. In our study, in vivo evaluation further substantiated the enhanced antitumor efficacy of ELP, with significant tumor growth inhibition observed in ELP-treated mice compared to those treated with free PTX or EL alone. Importantly, ELP treatment prolonged the survival of tumor-bearing mice without causing significant adverse effects, underscoring its safety and therapeutic potential. Mechanistic insights revealed that ELP treatment modulated the tumor immune microenvironment, leading to increased activation of CD4
+ and CD8
+ T cells, as well as polarization of tumor-associated macrophages towards the M1 phenotype. Additionally, ELP treatment augmented the activation of dendritic cells while reducing the influence of regulatory T cells, indicating its ability to stimulate an intratumoral immune response conducive to tumor eradication (
Scheme 2). Our results demonstrated that the synthesized liposome–exosome drug delivery system not only inhibited the in vivo growth of CRC tumors but also activated the tumor’s immune microenvironment, reducing tumor immune evasion.
Thus, we have validated the advantages and feasibility of this platform for overcoming the limitations of exosomes in our research. By hybridizing exosomes with liposomes, we can enhance drug loading capacity and stability, as well as facilitate surface modifications on exosomes. However, there are also some limitations in our study. The selection of only the CT26-bearing mouse model for confirmation of CRC progression and immune response could have selection bias. Engineering exosomes for drug delivery still faces numerous challenges in clinical application. Our future research intends to construct an in-situ mouse tumor model to explore the function of the hybrid exosome drug delivery system in tumor progression and immune microenvironment regulation and aims to explore more efficient methods for exosome extraction and targeted modifications to enhance treatment efficacy.
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Materials
4.1.1. Cell Lines and Animals
The cell lines utilized in this study were purchased from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC, Manassas, VA, USA), including the adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cell line MSC, human embryonic kidney 293T cells, mouse Colon Carcinoma cell line CT26, the mouse melanoma cell line B16, and human ovarian cancer cell line A2780. B16, CT26, and A2780 were cultured in Roswell Park Memorial Institute 1640 medium (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) supplemented with 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), 100 U/mL penicillin, and 100 mg/mL streptomycin. Notably, the human mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) line was nurtured in MSC NutriStem® XF Medium (Biological Industries, Kibbutz Beit Haemek, Israel), complemented with 100 U/mL penicillin and 100 mg/mL streptomycin.
Female Balb/c mice aged 4 to 6 weeks, obtained from Liaoning Changsheng Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (Benxi, China), were utilized in the experimental procedures. The mice were housed under a 12 h light/dark cycle. Normal feed and water were supplied ad libitum. All animal handling protocols were adhered strictly to the Guidelines for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals as delineated by the National Institutes of Health and were approved by the University Committee on the Use and Care of Animals of Jilin University.
4.1.2. Reagents and Antibodies
The lipids 18: 1TAP (1, 2-dioleoyl-3-trimethylammonium-propane), DOPE (1, 2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine), EPC, 16:0 NBD PE, and 16:0 Liss Rhod PE were purchased from Avanti Polar Lipids, Inc. (Alabaster, AL, USA). DSPE-PEG2000-Folic acid was purchased from Nanocs (Boston, MA, USA). Chol (Cholesterol), Collagenase, and DNase I were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA).
The dye DiI was purchased from Beyotime Biotechnology. PTX was purchased from Meilunbio® (Dalian, China). Paclitaxel injection was purchased from HAPHARM Group Co., Ltd. (Harbin, China). The CD9, CD63, and TSG101 antibodies were purchased from Abcam (Cambridge, MA, USA).
The antibodies of flow cytometry (anti-mouse): PE-CD45, FITC-CD4, APC-CD8a, PerCP/Cyanine5.5-CD69, FITC-CD3ε, APC-CD49b (pan-NK cells), APC/Cyanine7-CD335 (NKp46), PE-CD107a (LAMP-1), APC-CD45R/B220, PE/Cyanine7-CD69, FITC-CD45, APC/Cyanine7-F4/80, PE-CD11c, PE/Cyanine7-CD86, APC anti-mouse/human CD11b, PerCP/Cyanine5.5-Ly-6G, FITC-Ly-6C, PE/Cyanine7-CD45, APC-CD25, PE-FOXP3, PE-CD86, and PerCP/Cyanine5.5-CD206 (MMR) were purchased from Biolegend (San Diego, CA, USA).
4.2. Preparation and Characterization of the ELP Hybrid Exosomes
4.2.1. Isolation of Exosomes
In this investigation, exosomes derived from mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) were extracted from conditioned media through ultracentrifugation. Briefly, MSCs were cultured in exosome-depleted MSC NutriStem® XF Medium, which had been centrifuged at 120,000× g before use. The supernatants were harvested and sequentially centrifuged at 300× g for 10 min, 2000× g for 20 min, and finally 10,000× g for 30 min to eliminate cells, cellular debris, and fragmented organelles. Exosomes were sedimented via ultracentrifugation at 120,000× g for 120 min at 4 °C. The resulting pellets were washed with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), subjected to additional ultracentrifugation, and resuspended in sterile PBS. Protein concentrations of the exosome suspensions were quantified using the BCA assay and adjusted to 1 mg/mL. Isolated exosomes were preserved at −80 °C. Exosome markers CD63, CD9, and TSG101 were detected via Western blot analysis. The size distribution and zeta potential of MSC exosomes were determined using a Malvern Nano ZS90 instrument (Malvern Instruments, Malvern, UK).
4.2.2. Preparation of the Folate-Modified Liposomes
The basic folate-modified liposomes were fabricated via the thin-film hydration method with a molar ratio of DOTAP/DOPE/CHOL/DSPE-PEG2000-Folic acid as 5/3/2/0.5. In the case of PTX-loaded liposomes, PTX was incorporated at a drug-to-lipid molar ratio of 1:30. Free PTX was removed through low-speed centrifugation at 3000 rpm for 10 min. For anionic liposomes, PC was substituted for DOTAP. DiI-labeled liposomes were introduced into liposomes at a concentration of 5 µM for cellular uptake experiment. Additionally, fluorescently labeled liposomes were formulated for FRET assays, wherein a 2% molar ratio of DOPE was replaced with 1 mol% 16:0 NBD PE serving as an electron donor and 1 mol% 16:0 Liss Rhod PE as an electron acceptor. All liposomal formulations underwent extrusion through polycarbonate membranes with pore sizes of 800 nm, 400 nm, and 200 nm. The size distribution and zeta potential of the liposomes were assessed using a Malvern Nano ZS instrument (Malvern Instruments).
4.2.3. Preparation of the Hybrid Exosomes
The hybrid exosomes were generated through repeated freeze–thaw cycles performed 10 times with a mixture of exosomes and liposomes, with or without paclitaxel (PTX), and subsequently extruded through polycarbonate membranes with pore sizes of 400 nm, 200 nm, and 100 nm. For the preparation of DiI-labeled hybrid exosomes, the dyes were added at a concentration of 5 µM and then incubated at 37 °C for 20 min in the dark. Unentrapped dyes were removed by ultracentrifugation at 120,000× g for 120 min at 4 °C.
4.3. Western Blotting
MSC exosome lysates were clarified via centrifugation and subsequently separated by SDS-PAGE. The resulting gels were then semi-dry transferred onto nitrocellulose membranes (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA). Following this, the membranes were subjected to blocking with 5% (v/v) nonfat milk in PBS at room temperature for 1 h. Subsequently, they were incubated with primary antibodies overnight, followed by three washes with PBST. Afterward, the membranes were exposed to secondary antibodies at room temperature for 2 h, followed by three additional washes with PBST. Protein bands were visualized using Tanon Highsig ECL Western blotting substrate within a chemiluminescent imaging system (Tanon 4600; Tanon, Shanghai, China) and analyzed with ImageJ 1.8.0 (NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA).
4.4. TEM
Five microliters of nanoparticles were individually subjected to negative staining using 1% phosphotungstic acid in dH2O (freshly prepared). Following staining, they were washed three times with dH2O, gently drained, and subsequently examined using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) at an accelerating voltage of 100,000 eV with a JEM-2100 instrument (Jeol, Tokyo, Japan)
4.5. Fusion Efficiency of the Hybrid Exosomes
The fusion efficiency of the Exo and Lip was verified by a fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) study [
28]. Samples were analyzed by fluorescence spectroscopy (LS55, PerkinElmer, Waltham, MA, USA) by exciting samples at 460 nm and measuring the emission spectra between 500 and 700 nm. Fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) assays were employed to assess the fusion efficiency between Exo and Lip. According to the principle of FRET, NBD served as the donor molecule, while Rhodamine (Rho) acted as the acceptor molecule. DOPE in liposomes was replaced by NBD and Rho labeled PE lipids. Briefly, membrane fusion can increase the fluorescence intensity at 530 nm and decrease the intensity at 588 nm. After 10 freeze–thaw cycles, the samples were tested by exciting at 460 nm, and the emissions were measured at 588 nm and calculated by Equation (1). Liposomes and exosomes were fused at volume ratios of 1:1, 1:2, 1:4, and 1:6. After 10 freeze–thaw cycles, the samples were tested by exciting at 460 nm and measuring the emissions at 588 nm and calculated using the following:
where F
t = emission fluorescence of test samples; F
max = emission fluorescence of max fusion by adding 0.2% volume of Triton; and F
0 = emission fluorescence of alone liposomes.
4.6. Stability of Different Nanoparticles
The stability of Exo, Lip, and EL over four weeks was assessed using Malvern Nano ZS (Malvern Instruments). Briefly, the particle size and zeta potential of various nanoparticles were measured and recorded weekly post-preparation. For stability in fetal bovine serum (FBS), samples were introduced into a solution comprising 10% FBS and 90% 1640 medium at 37 °C with agitation at 100 rpm. Samples were collected at predetermined intervals (0, 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 h), and the particle size and Polydispersity Index (PDI) values of the corresponding samples were promptly characterized via dynamic light scattering (DLS).
For the hemolysis assay, blood was drawn into anticoagulant tubes to prevent clotting and centrifuged at 10,000×
g for 10 min. The supernatant was discarded, and red blood cells (RBCs) were washed 3 times with PBS (pH 7.4). To evaluate the hemolytic effects, RBCs were incubated with varying concentrations of nanoparticles. The tubes were then incubated for 2 h at room temperature, followed by centrifugation for 5 min. Subsequently, 100 µL of supernatant was carefully transferred from each tube to a clean 96-well plate, and the absorbance of hemoglobin was measured at 540 nm. The positive control consisted of deionized water, while the negative control comprised PBS. The percentage of hemolysis was determined using the following equation [
29]:
4.7. Drug Loading and In Vitro Drug Release
The concentrations of PTX were determined via high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) utilizing a UV/VIS detector set at 227 nm. To ascertain the drug loading content (LC) of different nanoparticles, 100 µL of nanoparticles was combined with 1 mL of acetonitrile (J.T. Baker) and subjected to ultrasonic bath treatment for 10 min to demulsify before analysis. Quantification of the components was performed using a C18 precolumn (Agilent, Eclipse XBD-C18, 4.6 × 150 mm, 5 µm), and the mobile phase comprised a mixture of acetonitrile and water (60: 40). The chromatographic method was validated in accordance with the requirements of the Chinese Pharmacopoeia, including specificity, limit of quantitation, limit of detection, intra- and inter-day precision, and others. All R2 values exceeded 0.9990 in the standard curves. The mobile phase composition consisted of 60% acetonitrile and 40% deionized water, with a flow rate of 0.8 mL/min.
The formulas for calculating LC (%) were as follows:
For drug release assays, PBS containing 1 mM sodium salicylate was utilized as the release medium, and 3.5 kDa dialysis tubes were employed at pH 7.4. The release medium was stirred at 150 rpm, and 1 mL of samples was withdrawn at specified time intervals (0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, and 48 h). Volumes were replenished with fresh release medium after each sampling. The samples were filtered through a 0.22 μm syringe filter, and the concentration of PTX was determined by HPLC (Agilent) following appropriate dilution with acetonitrile followed by the mobile phase. In vitro release experiments were conducted in triplicate for all formulations, and results were reported as the cumulative amount of drug released at each time point.
4.8. Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy (CLSM)
A2780 cells, B16 cells, and CT26 cells were seeded onto glass coverslips in 24-well plates with 2% (v/v) serum medium. Each well contained 105 cells, and the cells were incubated for 24 h. Exo and EL were incubated with 5 μM DiI for 1 h at 37 °C and then centrifuged at 120,000× g for 1 h to remove free dye. DiI-labeled Exo or EL were added to the wells, with MSC exosomes at a concentration of 20 μg/mL, and the cells were further incubated for 4 h and cell nuclei were stained with DAPI. Finally, the coverslips were examined by CLSM.
4.9. Cell Viability Assay
Cell death was assessed via an MTT (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) assay. B16 cells, CT26 cells, and A2780 cells were seeded at a density of 1 × 104 cells per well in 96-well plates and cultured for 24 h. Subsequently, the culture medium was replaced with fresh medium containing PTX, Exo, EL, and ELP, and the cells were incubated for 24 h. Following incubation, 20 μL of MTT solution (5 mg/mL) was added to each well and incubated for an additional 4 h. Afterward, the supernatant was discarded, and the absorbance was measured at 490 nm using a microplate reader.
4.10. In Vivo Treatment
All animal procedures were conducted in adherence to the Guidelines for the Welfare of Animals in Experimental Neoplasia. Female BALB/c mice aged 6–8 weeks were subcutaneously injected with 106 CT26 cells and then randomly allocated to four groups, with a mean final tumor volume of 100 mm3. The mice received intratumoral injections of PBS, PTX, EL, or ELP every 3 days four times. Tumor diameters were measured every two days using a digital caliper, and tumor volume was calculated using the formula length × width2 × 0.5. Throughout the study, both tumor sizes and individual animal body weights were continually monitored. On day 16, five mice in each group were randomly collected for tumors and their organs were excised and fixed in 4% (v/v) formaldehyde. Specific tissue sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and then observed and photographed under a fluorescence microscope.
4.11. Flow Cytometry
For in vitro apoptosis assays, cells were added with different nanoparticles at 1 μM PTX concentration, collected at 24 h, and washed with PBS. Cells were resuspended in binding buffer, stained with Annexin V for 15 min and propidium iodide (PI) for 5 min in the dark at room temperature, and then analyzed by flow cytometry with an Accuri C6 flow cytometer (BD, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA).
For tumor immune microenvironment analysis, five mice from each group were randomly euthanized at day 16, and tumor tissues were collected and weighed. Subsequently, the tumor tissues were incubated in RPMI 1640 medium containing 1 mg/mL collagenase (#C5138; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) and 200 U DNase I (#D5025; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) at 37 °C for 1 h to obtain single cells. One million tumor cells were then incubated for 30 min on ice in a staining medium with relevant antibodies for surface expression analysis with antibodies from Biolegend (San Diego, CA, USA). For intracellular staining of Foxp3 and CD206, fixation concentrate and diluent (#00-5521-00; eBioscience, San Diego, CA, USA) along with permeabilization buffer (#00-8333-56; eBioscience, San Diego, CA, USA) were utilized. Samples were acquired using the Accuri C6 flow cytometer (BD, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) and analyzed.
For intracellular staining, cells were fixed and permeabilized with Cytofix/Cytoperm buffer (BD Biosciences, San Jose, CA, USA) and washed with a 1× perm/wash solution (BD Biosciences) before incubation with relevant primary antibodies for 30 min. After washing, the samples were analyzed using a FACS Calibur flow cytometer (BD Biosciences, San Jose, CA, USA) with the FlowJo software (Version 10.8.1).
4.12. Histological Analysis and Immunohistochemistry
The excised tissues were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde, dehydrated with ethanol, embedded in paraffin, and sectioned. Subsequently, the sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). Images were captured using an Olympus VS200 microscope.
4.13. Statistical Analysis
All data were processed in GraphPad Prism version 8.3 for Windows (GraphPad Prism 8 Software, La Jolla, CA, USA). Significant differences in the data were analyzed by t-test or ANOVA. The results were expressed as mean ± S.E.M. and are considered significant at p < 0.05.