4.8 Article

Comparison of PEG chain length and density on amphiphilic macromolecular nanocarriers: Self-assembled and unimolecular micelles

Journal

ACTA BIOMATERIALIA
Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 883-892

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2008.10.019

Keywords

Poly(ethylene glycol); Amphiphilic macromolecules; Drug loading and release; Resolubilization

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation
  2. American Heart Association

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two classes of amphiphilic macromolecules were evaluated for drug delivery applications: those that exist as unimolecular micelles and those that self-assemble in aqueous solution to form micelles. This study compares the poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) chain length and density that constitute the corona of both classes. In particular, the effect of PEG branching on micellar size, water-solubility, resolubilization rate, drug loading efficiency and drug release rate were analyzed. Pluronic P85 and Cremophor EL, commonly used in pharmaceutical applications, were used as controls. Indomethacin (IMC) was used as the drug for encapsulation, release and resolubilization experiments. Results indicated that smaller micellar sizes, higher water solubilities and faster resolubilization rates were achieved from higher PEG densities compared to linear PEG analog of similar mass. Further, micellar sizes of both higher density PEG and linear PEG macromolecules were constant over a wide temperature range (2-70 degrees C). In contrast, Cremophor EL formed aggregates at 15 degrees C and Pluronic P85 underwent a size transition at 45 degrees C. IMC loading efficiencies for all amphiphilic macromolecules were comparable to controls. However, faster resolubilization and slower drug release were observed for higher density PEG macromolecules compared to linear PEG analogs and controls. (c) 2008 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available