4.4 Article

Gelatin nanoparticles with tunable mechanical properties: effect of crosslinking time and loading

期刊

BEILSTEIN JOURNAL OF NANOTECHNOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 778-787

出版社

BEILSTEIN-INSTITUT
DOI: 10.3762/bjnano.13.68

关键词

atomic force microscopy; drug delivery; elasticity; gelatin nanoparticles; Young?s modulus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents a method for determining the elasticity of gelatin nanoparticles and explores the possibility of tuning their elastic properties through crosslinking. The results show that loading drugs significantly affects the mechanical properties of nanoparticles, while crosslinkable macromolecules do not. Furthermore, the study found that the nanoparticles exhibit good cell compatibility.
Tuning the elastic properties of nanoparticles intended to be used in drug delivery is of great interest. To this end, different poten-tial formulations are developed since the particle elasticity is affecting the in vitro and in vivo performance of the nanoparticles. Here we present a method to determine the elasticity of single gelatin nanoparticles (GNPs). Furthermore, we introduce the possi-bility of tuning the elastic properties of gelatin nanoparticles during their preparation through crosslinking time. Young's moduli from 5.48 to 14.26 MPa have been obtained. Additionally, the possibility to measure the elasticity of single nanoparticles revealed the influence of loading a macromolecular model drug (FITC-dextran) on the mechanical properties, which decreased with raising amounts of loaded drug. Loaded particles were significantly softer, with Young's moduli between 1.06 and 5.79 MPa for the same crosslinking time, than the blank GNPs. In contrast to this, lysozyme as a crosslinkable macromolecule did not influence the me-chanical properties. A good in vitro cell compatibility was found investigating blank GNPs and FITC-dextran-loaded GNPs in viability assays with the cancer cell line A549 and the human primary cell-derived hAELVi cell line.

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