4.8 Article

Stability of insulin during the erosion of poly(lactic acid) and poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) microspheres

Journal

JOURNAL OF CONTROLLED RELEASE
Volume 106, Issue 3, Pages 241-252

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2005.02.025

Keywords

poly(lactic acid); poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid); microspheres; erosion; degradation; insulin stability; deamidation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In recent years, the acylation of peptides during the erosion of poly(lactic acid) and poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) microspheres has been described in the literature. To investigate whether insulin is prone to the covalent attachment of lactic or glycolic acid, insulin-loaded PLA and PLGA microspheres containing 5% bovine insulin were manufactured using a w/o/w multiple emulsion-solvent evaporation technique. Microspheres were characterized for their insulin encapsulation efficiency and release characteristics in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) at pH 7.4 and 37 degrees C. Moreover, the stability of the peptide during 18 days of release was evaluated using HPLC and HPLC-MS techniques. The results showed that the insulin loading efficiencies of PLA and PLGA microspheres were 75.18% and 79.63%, respectively. The microspheres were spherical with relatively porous surfaces with an average diameter of 40 and 53 mu m, respectively. Insulin release from the microspheres was characterized by an initial burst, which was attributed to the amount of protein located on or close to the microsphere surface. The total ion chromatogram (TIC) of insulin samples extracted after 18 days of erosion in phosphate buffer pH 7.4 at 37 degrees C revealed that deamidation was the major mechanism of instability. Surprisingly, no acylation products were found. Control experiments in concentrated lactic acid solutions confirmed a minimal reactivity of the peptide under these conditions. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. 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