4.5 Article

In Vitro Investigations of the Efficacy of Cyclodextrin-siRNA Complexes Modified with Lipid-PEG-Octaarginine: Towards a Formulation Strategy for Non-viral Neuronal siRNA Delivery

期刊

PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 1086-1098

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s11095-012-0945-8

关键词

cyclodextrins; neuronal delivery; octa-arginine; siRNA

资金

  1. Science Foundation Ireland [07/SRC/B1154]
  2. Irish Drug Delivery Network
  3. Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Development of RNA interference based therapeutics for neurological and neurodegenerative diseases is hindered by a lack of non-viral vectors with suitable properties for systemic administration. Amphiphilic and cationic cyclodextrins (CD) offer potential for neuronal siRNA delivery. We aimed to improve our CD-based siRNA formulation through incorporation of a polyethyleneglycol (PEG) shielding layer and a cell penetrating peptide, octaarginine (R8). CD.siRNA complexes were modified by addition of an R8-PEG-lipid conjugate. Physical properties including size, charge and stability were assessed. Flow cytometry was used to determine uptake levels in a neuronal cell model. Knockdown of an exogenous gene and an endogenous housekeeping gene were used to assess gene silencing abilities. CD.siRNA complexes modified with R8-PEG-lipid exhibited a lower surface charge and greater stability to a salt-containing environment. Neuronal uptake was increased and significant reductions in the levels of two target genes were achieved with the new formulation. However, the PEG layer was not sufficient to protect against serum-induced aggregation. The R8-PEG-lipid-CD.siRNA formulation displayed enhanced salt-stability due to the PEG component, while the R8 component facilitated transfection of neuronal cells and efficient gene silencing. Further improvements will be investigated in the future in order to optimise stability in serum and enhance neuronal specificity.

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

4.5
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