4.6 Article

Lactoferrin modified doxorubicin-loaded procationic liposomes for the treatment of gliomas

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 44, 期 1-2, 页码 164-173

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejps.2011.07.007

关键词

Lactoferrin; Procationic liposome; Doxorubicin; Glioma

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2007CB935801]
  2. National S&T Major Project of China [2009ZX09310-002]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30873166]
  4. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a brain-targeted chemotherapeutical delivery system, doxorubicin-loaded lactoferrin-modified procationic liposome (DOX-Lf-PCL) was developed, and its therapeutic effect for glioma was evaluated. The uptake profile of various DOX formulations in vitro by primary brain capillary endothelial cells (BCECs) and glioma cell C6 were studied by laser scanning confocal microscope and flow cytometry. An intracranial tumor model of rats was employed to evaluate the therapeutic effect of DOX-Lf-PCLs for glioma. Five groups of glioma-bearing rats (total n = 50) were subjected to three cycles of 2.5 mg/kg body weight of doxorubicin in different formulations or normal saline (N.S.) and analyzed for survival (median survival time, Kaplan-Meier). The results indicated that compared with the DOX solution or DOX-loaded conventional liposomes (DOX-Lips). DOX-PCLs and DOX-Lf-PCLs showed an improved performance in the uptake efficiency in BCECs and C6 cells. The DOX-Lf-PCLs can inhibit the growth of C6 more efficiently in vitro than other DOX formulations. The endocytosis involved in the DOX-Lf-PCLs uptake of C6 was mediated by both receptor- and absorption-mediated transcytosis. DOX-Lf-PCLs could significantly extend the survival time compared with the N.S. control and other DOX formulations. This study showed that the therapy with DOX-Lf-PCLs offers an effective therapeutic potential for gliomas. (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