4.5 Article

Novel Antitransferrin Receptor Antibodies Improve the Blood-Brain Barrier Crossing Efficacy of Immunoliposomes

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 105, 期 1, 页码 276-283

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.xphs.2015.11.009

关键词

blood-brain barrier; cancer; drug delivery systems; liposomes; mAb

资金

  1. FAR (Fondo per le Agevolazioni alla Ricerca)
  2. Fondo per gli investimenti della ricerca di base (FIRB, Rome, Italy) [RBAP11FXBC_005]
  3. Fondazione Ricerca Molinette (Torino, Italy)
  4. Fondazione CRT (Torino, Italy) [2013.2428]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Surface functionalization with antitransferrin receptor (TfR) mAbs has been suggested as the strategy to enhance the transfer of nanoparticles (NPs) across the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and to carry non-permeant drugs from the blood into the brain. However, the efficiency of BBB crossing is currently too poor to be used in vivo. In the present investigation, we compared 6 different murine mAbs specific for different epitopes of the human TfR to identify the best performing one for the functionalization of NPs. For this purpose, we compared the ability of mAbs to cross an in vitro BBB model made of human brain capillary endothelial cells (hCMEC/D3). Liposomes functionalized with the best performing mAb (MYBE/4C1) were uptaken, crossed the BBB in vitro, and facilitated the BBB in vitro passage of doxorubicin, an anticancer drug, 3.9 folds more than liposomes functionalized with a nonspecific IgG, as assessed by confocal microscopy, radiochemical techniques, and fluorescence, and did not modify the cell monolayer structural or functional properties. These results show that MYBE/4C1 antihuman TfR mAb is a powerful resource for the enhancement of BBB crossing of NPs and is therefore potentially useful in the treatment of neurologic diseases and disorders including brain carcinomas. (C) 2016 American Pharmacists Association (R). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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