4.3 Review

Polymersomes: nature inspired nanometer sized compartments

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY
卷 19, 期 22, 页码 3576-3590

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/b818869f

关键词

-

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/E03103X/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. EPSRC [EP/E03103X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Provided the right hydrophilic/hydrophobic balance can be achieved, amphiphilic block copolymers are able to assemble in water into membranes. These membranes can enclose forming spheres with an aqueous core. Such structures, known as polymer vesicles or polymersomes (from the Greek -some'' = body of''), have sizes that vary from tens to thousands of nanometers. The wholly synthetic nature of block copolymers affords control over parameters such as the molar mass and composition which ultimately determine the structure and properties of the species in solution. By varying the copolymer molecular mass it is possible to adjust the mechanical properties and permeability of the polymersomes, while the synthetic nature of copolymers allows the design of interfaces containing various biochemically-active functional groups. In particular, non-fouling and non-antigenic polymers have been combined with hydrophobic polymers in the design of biocompatible nano-carriers that are expected to exhibit very long circulation times. Stimulus-responsive block copolymers have also been used to exploit the possibility to trigger the disassembly of polymersomes in response to specific external stimuli such as pH, oxidative species, and enzyme degradation. Such bio-inspired 'bottom-up' supramolecular design principles offer outstanding advantages in engineering structures at a molecular level, using the same long-studied principles of biological molecules. Thanks to their unique properties, polymersomes have already been reported and studied as delivery systems for both drugs, genes, and image contrast agents as well as nanometer-sized reactors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据