4.8 Article

Influence of serum protein on polycarbonate-based copolymer micelles as a delivery system for a hydrophobic anti-cancer agent

期刊

JOURNAL OF CONTROLLED RELEASE
卷 103, 期 2, 页码 481-497

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2004.12.013

关键词

micelle; drug delivery; block copolymer; partition coefficient; hydrophobic drug

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new micelle system formed from methoxy (polyethylene glycol)-b-poly (5-benzyloxy-trimethylene carbonate; MePEG-b-PBTMC 5000-b-4800) was investigated as a delivery system for the hydrophobic anti-cancer agent, ellipticine. The ellipticine was loaded into the MePEG-b-PBTMC micelles with a loading efficiency of 95% using a high-pressure extrusion technique. The ellipticine-loaded micelles have a spherical morphology and an average diameter of 96 nm. The anti-cancer activity of ellipticine was confirmed to be retained following formulation in the MePEG-b-PBTMC micelles. The extent of protein adsorption to the MePEG-b-PBTMC micelles was investigated by transmission electron microscopy, dynamic light scattering and gel filtration chromatography. Overall, the amount of protein both loosely and tightly associated with the micelles was found to be minimal and insignificant. The partitioning properties of ellipticine between an aqueous medium containing protein and the MePEG-b-PBTMC micelles were examined over a range of protein concentrations. Under physiologically relevant conditions, it was found that 61% of the drug remained within the micelle fraction while 39% was in the protein-containing aqueous phase. In addition, the in vitro drug release profile of ellipticine from the micelles was fit using a modified Higuchi model and found to be accelerated in the presence of protein. These studies demonstrate that although there are no significant interactions between micelle and protein, the properties of the micelle as a delivery vehicle may be strongly influenced by protein-drug interactions. (c) 2004 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.8
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