4.7 Article

Biocompatible ionic liquids assisted transdermal co-delivery of antigenic protein and adjuvant for cancer immunotherapy

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2021.120582

关键词

Biocompatibility ionic liquids; Vaccination; Cancer immunotherapy; Transdermal drug delivery system

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) (KAKENHI) [JP16H06369, JP20K20440]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study developed an ionic liquid-assisted delivery system for successful transdermal delivery of an antigenic protein, inducing a specific immune response. Both the ionic liquids and ILDS were biocompatible and showed potential for therapeutic purposes.
Human skin contains numerous antigen-presenting cells that are a potential target for several immune-based therapies, including vaccination and cancer immunotherapy. However, the outermost layer of the skin-the stratum corneum-acts as a major physical barrier against the permeation of antigens that have a molecular weight > 500 Da. In this study, an ionic liquid-assisted delivery system (ILDS) was developed, which enabled the successful transdermal delivery of an antigenic protein, ovalbumin (OVA), with a toll-like receptor agonist, imiquimod, as an adjuvant, to stimulate a specific immune response. Both the ionic liquids and ILDS were completely biocompatible for topical or transdermal application for therapeutic purposes. The skin permeation of the antigenic protein and adjuvant was found to be significantly enhanced because of the incorporation of a surface-active ionic liquid in the ILDS. An in vivo immunization study showed that there was a high level of OVAspecific IgG antibody production because of the enhanced permeation of the antigen and adjuvant across and into the skin. In a preclusive anticancer study, vaccination through ILDS showed stronger tumor-growth inhibition compared to control group. These results indicated that the ILDS could be a promising strategy for transdermal immunization as future therapeutics.

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