4.7 Article

Kinetically Controlled Cellular Interactions of Polymer-Polymer and Polymer-Liposome Nanohybrid Systems

期刊

BIOCONJUGATE CHEMISTRY
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 466-474

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/bc100484t

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CBET-0931472]
  2. University of Illinois College of Pharmacy
  3. National Research Foundation (NRF) of Republic of Korea [NRF-2009-352-E00066]
  4. NCRR NIH [C06RR15482]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although bioactive polymers such as cationic polymers have demonstrated potential as drug carriers and nonviral gene delivery vectors, high toxicity and uncontrolled, instantaneous cellular interactions of those vectors have hindered the successful implementation In Vivo. Fine control over the cellular interactions of a potential drug/gene delivery vector would be thus desirable. Herein, we have designed nanohybrid systems (100-150 nm in diameter) that combine the polycations with protective outer layers consisting of biodegradable polymeric nanoparticles (NPs) or liposomes. A commonly used polycation polyethylenimine (PEI) was employed after conjugation with rhodamine (RITC). The PEI RITC conjugates were then encapsulated into (i) polymeric NPs made of either poly(lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) or poly(ethylene glycol)-b-poly(lactide-co-glycolide) (PEG-PLGA); or (ii) PEGylated liposomes, resulting in three nanohybrid systems. Through the nanohybridization, both cellular uptake and cytotoxicity of the nanohybrids were kinetically controlled. The cytotoxicity assay using MCF-7 cells revealed that liposome-based nanohybrids exhibited the least toxicity, followed by PEG-PLGA- and PLGA-based NPs after 24 h incubation. The different kinetics of cellular uptake was also observed, the liposome-based systems being the fastest and PLGA-based systems being the slowest. The results present a potential delivery platform with enhanced control over its biological interaction kinetics and passive targeting capability through size control.

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