4.6 Article

Long-circulatory nanoparticles for gemcitabine delivery: Development and investigation of pharmacokinetics and in-vivo anticancer efficacy

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 92, 期 -, 页码 183-193

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejps.2016.07.007

关键词

Gemcitabine; Nanoparticle; Long-circulation; Pharmacokinetics; Anti-cancer

资金

  1. Science & Engineering Research Board (SERB), Department of Science and Technology (DST), New Delhi, India [SR/FT/LS-107/2012]
  2. INSPIRE Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The anticancer potential of gemcitabine, a nucleoside analog, is compromised due to the enzymatic degradation into inactive form leading to the short half-life in systemic circulation. Novel delivery strategies are required to improve therapeutic efficacy of this potential drug. Monomethoxy polyethylene glycol amine-polylactide-co-glycolide (mPEG-PLGA) co-polymer was synthesized and characterized by FTIR and H-1 NMR. Gemcitabine loaded mPEG-PLGA nanoparticles (NPs) were developed and investigated for pharmacokinetic profile and in vivo anticancer activity. The mPEG-PLGA NPs (size: 267 +/- 10 nm, zeta potential: -17.5 +/- 0.2 mV) exhibited sustained drug release profile and were found to be compatible with blood. The mPEG-PLGA NPs were able to evade the uptake by macrophages (i.e. THP-1 and J774A) by reducing the adsorption of proteins on the surface of NPs. The enhanced cellular uptake and cell cytotoxicity was observed by mPEG-PLGA NPs in MiaPaCa-2 and MCF-7 cells. The half-life of gemcitabine in mPEG-PLGA NPs was remarkably enhanced (19 folds) than native gemcitabine. Further, the pharmacokinetic modulation of gemcitabine using mPEG-PLGA-NPs was translated in improved anticancer efficacy as compared to native gemcitabine in Ehrlich ascites bearing Balb-c mice. The results demonstrated the potential of long-circulatory nanoparticles in improving the pharmacokinetic profile and in-turn the anticancer efficacy of gemcitabine. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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