4.5 Article

Identification of cell adhesion molecules in the human follicle-associated epithelium that improve nanoparticle uptake into the Peyer's patches

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC PHARMACOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
DOI: 10.1124/jpet.106.107847

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to identify cell adhesion molecules that could serve as targets of the human follicle-associated epithelium (FAE) overlying Peyer's patches and to assess nanoparticle uptake levels across this epithelium. We first studied the expression of the mouse M-cell marker beta(1)-integrin and used a model of human FAE derived from intestinal epithelial Caco-2 cells and Raji B-cells to identify additional potential targets by cDNA array. The protein expression of potential targets in the model FAE and in human ileal FAE tissues was quantified by immunofluorescence. Integrin targeting was studied by investigating the transport of Arg-Gly-Asp (RGD)-coated (integrin- binding), Arg-Gly-Glu (RGE)-coated (nonintegrin-binding), and uncoated nanoparticles across ileal specimens mounted in Ussing chambers. Both beta(1)-integrin and the cell adhesion molecule CD9 were more abundantly expressed in the model and human FAE compared with the Caco-2 control cells or villus epithelium (VE). Uncoated nanoparticles were not taken up across either FAE or VE. General integrin targeting with RGD improved the nanoparticle transport dramatically across the FAE and to a lower extent across the VE. Compared with RGE, RGD improved transport 4-fold across the FAE. There was no difference in the transport of RGD- and RGE-coated nanoparticles across the VE. In conclusion, beta(1)-integrin and CD9 were identified as targets in human FAE. The difference in RGD- and RGE-mediated transport across the FAE, but not the VE, suggests that a specific integrin interaction was the dominating mechanism for improved nanoparticle uptake across the FAE., whereas charge interaction contributed substantially to the improved VE uptake.

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