4.4 Article

Biodistribution, pharmacokinetics, and blood compatibility of native and PEGylated tobacco mosaic virus nano-rods and -spheres in mice

期刊

VIROLOGY
卷 449, 期 -, 页码 163-173

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.virol.2013.10.035

关键词

Viral nanoparticle; Tobacco mosaic virus; PEGylation; Nanoparticle shape; Biodistribution; Blood compatibility; Pharmacokinetics

类别

资金

  1. NIH [P30 EB011317, T32 HL105338]
  2. Mt. Sinai Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the pharmacokinetics, blood compatibility, biodistribution and clearance properties of nanoparticles is of great importance to their translation to clinical application. In this paper we report the biodistribution and pharmacokinetic properties of tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) in the forms of 300 x 18 nm(2) rods and 54 nm-sized spheres. The availability of rods and spheres made of the same protein provides a unique scaffold to study the effect of nanoparticle shape on in vivo fate. For enhanced biocompatibility, we also considered a PEGylated formulation. Overall, the versions of nanoparticles exhibited comparable in vivo profiles; a few differences were noted: data indicate that rods circulate longer than spheres, illustrating the effect that shape plays on circulation. Also, PEGylation increased circulation times. We found that macrophages in the liver and spleen cleared the TMV rods and spheres from circulation. In the spleen, the viral nanoparticles trafficked through the marginal zone before eventually co-localizing in B-cell follicles. TMV rods and spheres were cleared from the liver and spleen within days with no apparent changes in histology, it was noted that spheres are more rapidly cleared from tissues compared to rods. Further, blood biocompatibility was supported, as none of the formulations induced clotting or hemolysis. This work lays the foundation for further application and tailoring of TMV for biomedical applications. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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