4.8 Article

Odd-Even Effect of Repeating Aminoethylene Units in the Side Chain of N-Substituted Polyaspartamides on Gene Transfection Profiles

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 133, 期 39, 页码 15524-15532

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ja204466y

关键词

-

资金

  1. Center for Medical System Innovation (CMSI)
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)
  3. Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST)
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21659299, 23350049, 22700489, 23390009, 09F09358] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A series of the N-substituted polyaspartamides possessing repeating aminoethylene units in the side chain was prepared in this study to identify polyplexes with effective endosomal escape and low cytotoxicity. All cationic N-substituted polyaspartamides showed appreciably lower cytotoxicity than that of commercial transfection reagents. Interestingly, a distinctive odd even effect of the repeating aminoethylene units in the polymer side chain on the efficiencies of endosomal escape and transfection to several cell lines was observed. The polyplexes from the polymers with an even number of repeating aminoethylene units (PA-Es) achieved an order of magnitude higher transfection efficiency, without marked cytotoxicity, than those of the polymers with an odd number of repeating aminoethylene units (PA-Os). This odd even effect agreed well with the buffering capacity of these polymers as well as their capability to disrupt membrane integrity selectively at endosomal pH, leading to highly effective endosomal escape of the PA-E polyplexes. Furthermore, the formation of a polyvalent charged array with precise spacing between protonated amino groups in the polymer side chain was shown to be essential for effective disruption of the endosomal membrane, thus facilitating transport of the polyplex into the cytoplasm. These data provide useful knowledge for designing polycations to construct safe and efficient nonviral gene carriers.

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

4.8
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