PURPOSE: To characterize temporal exposure and elimination of 5 gold/dendrimer composite nanodevices (CNDs) (5 nm positive, negative, and neutral, 11 nm negative, 22 nm positive) in mice using a physiologically based mathematical model. METHODS: 400 ug of CNDs is injected intravenously to mice bearing melanoma cell lines. Gold content is determined from plasma and tissue samples using neutron activation analysis. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model is developed for 5 nm positive, negative, and neutral and 11 nm negative nanoparticles and extrapolated to 22 nm positive particles. A global sensitivity analysis is performed for estimated model parameters. RESULTS: Negative and neutral particles exhibited similar distribution profiles. Unique model parameter estimates and distribution profiles explain similarities and differences relative to positive particles. The model also explains mechanisms of elimination by kidney and reticuloendothelial uptake in liver and spleen, which varies with particle size and charge. CONCLUSION: Since the PBPK model can capture the diverse temporal profiles of non-targeted nanoparticles, we propose that when specific binding ligands are lacking, size and charge of nanodevices govern most of their in vivo interactions.
PURPOSE: To characterize temporal exposure and elimination of 5 gold/dendrimer composite nanodevices (CNDs) (5 nm positive, negative, and neutral, 11 nm negative, 22 nm positive) in mice using a physiologically based mathematical model. METHODS: 400 ug of CNDs is injected intravenously to mice bearing melanoma cell lines. Gold content is determined from plasma and tissue samples using neutron activation analysis. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model is developed for 5 nm positive, negative, and neutral and 11 nm negative nanoparticles and extrapolated to 22 nm positive particles. A global sensitivity analysis is performed for estimated model parameters. RESULTS: Negative and neutral particles exhibited similar distribution profiles. Unique model parameter estimates and distribution profiles explain similarities and differences relative to positive particles. The model also explains mechanisms of elimination by kidney and reticuloendothelial uptake in liver and spleen, which varies with particle size and charge. CONCLUSION: Since the PBPK model can capture the diverse temporal profiles of non-targeted nanoparticles, we propose that when specific binding ligands are lacking, size and charge of nanodevices govern most of their in vivo interactions.
Authors: Shraddha S Nigavekar; Lok Yun Sung; Mikel Llanes; Areej El-Jawahri; Theodore S Lawrence; Christopher W Becker; Lajos Balogh; Mohamed K Khan Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Manthena V S Varma; Bo Feng; R Scott Obach; Matthew D Troutman; Jonathan Chupka; Howard R Miller; Ayman El-Kattan Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2009-08-13 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Byoungjin Kim; Gang Han; Bhushan J Toley; Chae-Kyu Kim; Vincent M Rotello; Neil S Forbes Journal: Nat Nanotechnol Date: 2010-04-11 Impact factor: 39.213
Authors: Xiangyang Shi; Suhe Wang; Sasha Meshinchi; Mary E Van Antwerp; Xiangdong Bi; Inhan Lee; James R Baker Journal: Small Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 13.281
Authors: Wojciech G Lesniak; Manoj K Mishra; Amar Jyoti; Bindu Balakrishnan; Fan Zhang; Elizabeth Nance; Roberto Romero; Sujatha Kannan; Rangaramanujam M Kannan Journal: Mol Pharm Date: 2013-10-30 Impact factor: 4.939