4.7 Article

Design and Synthesis of New Cell Penetrating Peptides: Diffusion and Distribution Inside the Cornea

期刊

MOLECULAR PHARMACEUTICS
卷 13, 期 11, 页码 3876-3883

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.6b00658

关键词

penetratin; pep-1; cell penetrating peptides; trans-corneal delivery; confocal microscopy; ocular drug delivery

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research [PRIN2010H834LS]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of cell penetrating peptides (CPPs) has been challenged in recent years for drug delivery to ocular tissues for the targeting of both anterior and posterior segments. The enhancement of trans-corneal transport for anterior segment targeting is a very important issue possibly leading to important outcomes on efficacy and to the opportunity of topical administration of molecules with unfavorable penetration properties. The aim of the present work was the design and synthesis of new CPPs, deriving from the structure of PEP-1 peptide. Synthesized peptides were labeled with 5-carboxyfluorescein (5-FAM), and their diffusion behavior and distribution inside the cornea were evaluated by a validated ex vivo model and a confocal microscopy approach. Newly synthesized peptides showed similar corneal permeation profiles as PEP-1 (P-app = 0.75 +/- 0.56 X 10(-6) cm/s), about 2.6-fold higher than 5-FAM (P-app = 0.29 +/- 0.08 X 10(-6) cm/s) despite the higher molecular weight. Confocal microscopy experiments highlighted the tendency of PEP-1 and its derived peptides to localize in the intercellular space and/or in the plasma membrane. Noteworthy, using penetratin as positive control, a higher trans-corneal permeation (P-app = 6.18 +/- 1.46 X 10(-6) cm/s) was evidenced together with a diffusion by intracellular route and a different accumulation between wings and basal epithelial cells, probably depending on the stage of cell development. Finally, PEP-1 and pep-7 proved to be safe and well tolerated when tested on human conjuctival 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

4.7
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