4.6 Article

Neuroprotective effect of erythropoietin-loaded composite microspheres on retinal ganglion cells in rats

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 43, 期 4, 页码 334-342

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejps.2011.05.011

关键词

Neuroprotection; Retinal ganglion cells; Erythropoietin (EPO); Sustained-release

资金

  1. Shanghai Rising-Star Program [10QH1400400, 2006QA14011]
  2. New Century training Program Foundation for Talent by the State Eduation Commission [NCET-05-0370]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [NSFC81070764]
  4. Shanghai Science and Technology Commission [10JC1402302]
  5. National Basic Research Program of China [2007CB512204, 2007CB512205]
  6. Shanghai Committee of Science and Technology, China [1052nm03900]
  7. National Science Foundation of China Committee [30873180]
  8. National Grand New Drug Program [2009ZX09310-007, 2009ZX09301-007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explored a sustained neuroprotective erythropoietin (EPO) loaded composite microspheres system on injured retinal ganglion cells (RGC). The EPO was first loaded into dextran microparticles to keep its bioactivity using a novel aqueous-aqueous emulsion technique. The microspheres were finally formed by encapsulating the microparticles into Poly (DL-lactide-co-glycolide)/Poly (DL-lactide) (PLGA/PLA). A single dose of microspheres was intraperitoneally administrated on the optic nerve crush of rats and compared with multiple doses of EPO solution to investigate the long acting effect of microspheres on RGC. The results demonstrated that the release of microspheres could last for at least 60 days in an in vitro study. The animal experiments showed a similar neuroprotective effect between the single dose microspheres and the multiple doses of EPO solution. So we can draw a conclusion that the EPO-loaded PLGA/PLA microspheres were feasible for neurodegeneration diseases in the retina and central nervous system (CNS). (C) 2011 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

4.6
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