4.8 Article

Crosslinked multilamellar liposomes for controlled delivery of anticancer drugs

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 34, 期 12, 页码 3098-3109

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.01.039

关键词

Crosslinked multilamellar liposome; Cancer therapy; Doxorubicin; Intracellular trafficking; Nanomedicine; Positron emission tomography (PET)

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01AI068978, P01CA132681]
  2. Joint Center for Translational Medicine
  3. USC Department of Radiology
  4. National Cancer Institute [P30CA014089]
  5. Ming Hsieh Institute for Research on Engineering Medicine for Cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Liposomes constitute one of the most popular nanocarriers for the delivery of cancer therapeutics. However, since their potency is limited by incomplete drug release and inherent instability in the presence of serum components, their poor delivery occurs in certain circumstances. In this study, we address these shortcomings and demonstrate an alternative liposomal formulation, termed crosslinked multilamellar liposome (CML). With its properties of improved sustainable drug release kinetics and enhanced vesicle stability, CML can achieve controlled delivery of cancer therapeutics. CML stably encapsulated the anticancer drug doxorubicin (Dox) in the vesicle and exhibited a remarkably controlled rate of release compared to that of the unilamellar liposome (UL) with the same lipid composition or Doxil-like liposome (DLL). Our imaging study demonstrated that the CMLs were mainly internalized through a caveolin-dependent pathway and were further trafficked through the endosome-lysosome compartments. Furthermore, in vivo experiments showed that the CML-Dox formulation reduced systemic toxicity and significantly improved therapeutic activity in inhibiting tumor growth compared to that of UL-Dox or DLL-Dox. This drug packaging technology may therefore provide a new treatment option to better manage cancer and other diseases. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. 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