4.6 Article

Translocating the blood-brain barrier using electrostatics

期刊

出版社

FRONTIERS RESEARCH FOUNDATION
DOI: 10.3389/fncel.2012.00044

关键词

blood-brain barrier; drug targeting; blood cells; cell surface charge; zeta-potential

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia-Ministerio da Educacao e Ciencia (FCT-MEC, Portugal) [SFRH/BD/42158/2007, SFRH/BD/41750/2007, SFRH/BD/70423/2010, PTDC/QUI-BIQ/119509/2010]
  2. Marie Curie Industry-Academia Partnerships and Pathways (European Commission) [FP7-PEOPLE-2007-3-1-IAPP, 230654]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/42158/2007, SFRH/BD/70423/2010, SFRH/BD/41750/2007, PTDC/QUI-BIQ/119509/2010] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mammalian cell membranes regulate homeostasis, protein activity, and cell signaling. The charge at the membrane surface has been correlated with these key events. Although mammalian cells are known to be slightly anionic, quantitative information on the membrane charge and the importance of electrostatic interactions in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics remain elusive. Recently, we reported for the first time that brain endothelial cells (EC) are more negatively charged than human umbilical cord cells, using zeta-potential measurements by dynamic light scattering. Here, we hypothesize that anionicity is a key feature of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and contributes to select which compounds cross into the brain. For the sake of comparison, we also studied the membrane surface charge of blood components-red blood cells (RBC), platelets, and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). To further quantitatively correlate the negative zeta-potential values with membrane charge density, model membranes with different percentages of anionic lipids were also evaluated. From all the cells tested, brain cell membranes are the most anionic and those having their lipids mostly exposed, which explains why lipophilic cationic compounds are more prone to cross the blood-brain barrier.

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

4.6
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