4.7 Article

N-Hydroxysulfosuccinimide Esters versus Thiomers: A Comparative Study Regarding Mucoadhesiveness

期刊

MOLECULAR PHARMACEUTICS
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 1211-1219

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.8b01183

关键词

polyacrylic acid; sulfo-NHS ester; thiomer; mucoadhesion; amino reactive ester

资金

  1. Austrian Research Promotion Agency FFG [West Austrian BioNMR 858017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of the study was to compare poly(acrylic acid)-N-hydroxysulfosuccinimide reactive esters (PAA-Sulfo-NHS) and poly(acrylic acid)-cysteine conjugates (PAA-Cys) regarding their mucoadhesiveness. Polymer conjugates were synthesized in a water free environment and characterized by UV-vis spectroscopy and FTIR. Water uptake studies were performed, and the polymers were further examined for their mucoadhesive properties and cohesiveness using the rotating cylinder method. Tensile force measurements were conducted to define the strength of adhesion to porcine intestinal mucosa. Additionally, polymer-mucus mixtures were assessed for rheological synergism by measuring the increase in dynamic viscosity. Both modifications led to a prolonged adhesion time compared to unmodified PAA. Fast dissolution of PAA-Sulfo-NHS derivatives was monitored, whereas PAA-Cys tended to extensively swell while exhibiting high cohesive properties. Measurements of tensile force revealed up to 2.7-fold (PAA-Sulfo-NHS) and 2.3-fold (PAA-Cys) enhancement of the maximum detachment force and 7.6-fold (PAA-Sulfo-NHS) and 3.6-fold (PAA-Cys) increase in the total work of adhesion. Formation of a gel network between polymer and mucus was confirmed by a 10.8-fold (PAA-Sulfo-NHS) and 20.8-fold (PAA-Cys) increase in viscosity. Both types of polymers show high mucoadhesive properties due to the formation of covalent bonds with the mucus. As thiolated polymers are capable of forming stabilizing disulfide bonds within their polymeric network, they are advantageous over PAA-Sulfo-NHS.

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

4.7
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