| Literature DB >> 23507897 |
Pedro Fonte1, Sandra Soares, Ana Costa, José Carlos Andrade, Vítor Seabra, Salette Reis, Bruno Sarmento.
Abstract
PLGA nanoparticles are useful to protect and deliver proteins in a localized or targeted manner, with a long-term systemic delivery pattern intended to last for a period of time, depending on polymer bioerosion and biodegradability. However, the principal concern regarding these carriers is the hydrolytic instability of polymer in aqueous suspension. Freeze-drying is a commonly used method to stabilize nanoparticles, and cryoprotectants may be also used, to even increase its physical stability. The aim of the present work was to analyze the influence of cryoprotectants on nanoparticle stability and porosity after freeze-drying, which may influence protein release and stability. It was verified that freeze-drying significantly increased the number of pores on PLGA-NP surface, being more evident when cryoprotectants are added. The presence of pores is important in a lyophilizate to facilitate its reconstitution in water, although this may have consequences to protein release and stability. The release profile of insulin encapsulated into PLGA-NP showed an initial burst in the first 2 h and a sustained release up to 48 h. After nanoparticles freeze-drying the insulin release increased about 18% in the first 2 h due to the formation of pores, maintaining a sustained release during time. After freeze-drying with cryoprotectants, the amount of insulin released was higher for trehalose and lower for sucrose, glucose, fructose and sorbitol comparatively to freeze-dried PLGA-NP with no cryoprotectant added. Besides the porosity, the ability of cryoprotectants to be adsorbed on the nanoparticles surface may also play an important role on insulin release and stability.Entities:
Keywords: PLGA; cryoprotectants; freeze-drying; insulin; nanoparticles; porosity; release profile; surface
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23507897 PMCID: PMC3568117 DOI: 10.4161/biom.23246
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomatter ISSN: 2159-2527
Table 1. Physical-chemical properties of developed insulin-loaded PLGA-NP (n = 3, mean ± SD)
| Polymer | Surfactant | Particle size (nm) | PdI | Zeta potential (mV) | Insulin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PVA 1% | 437 ± 4 | 0.37 ± 0.03 | 10.1 ± 2.4 | 61.1 ± 11.4 | |
| PVA 2% | 256 ± 17 | 0.20 ± 0.07 | -13.2 ± 1.8 | 78.9 ± 4.1 | |
| Pluronic 1% | 1289 ± 232 | 0.57 ± 0.06 | 10.8 ± 2.9 | 21.7 ± 15.9 | |
| Pluronic 2% | 426 ± 13 | 0.22 ± 0.04 | -9.6 ± 3.4 | 31.4 ± 7.8 | |
| Tween 1% | 455 ± 23 | 0.21 ± 0.05 | -8.3 ± 0.5 | 0 | |
| Tween 2% | 565 ± 34 | 0.35 ± 0.01 | -8.3 ± 1.8 | 0 | |
| Pluronic 1% | 419 ± 28 | 0.31 ± 0.05 | -12.3 ± 1.5 | 12.9 ± 7.1 | |
| Pluronic 2% | 357 ± 22 | 0.21 ± 0.03 | 13.4 ± 2.3 | 8.7 ± 5.4 | |
| Tween 1% | 374 ± 61 | 0.25 ± 0.15 | 14.7 ± 1.6 | 6.6 ± 2.3 | |
| Tween 2% | 121 ± 12 | 0.49 ± 0.04 | -9.4 ± 2.3 | 7.2 ± 1.1 |
If the formulations were significantly different between them (a ≠ b; c ≠ d; e ≠ f, p < 0,05), differences between formulations were compared within a Tukey post hoc test.
Table 2. Physical-chemical properties of PLGA 50:50/PVA 2% nanoparticles after production (n = 3, mean ± SD)
| Formulation | Particle size (nm) | PdI | Zeta potential (mV) | Insulin AE (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Insulin-loaded nanoparticles | 446 ± 30 | 0.26 ± 0.03 | -24.2 ± 3.4 | 87.4 ± 0.2 |
| Unloaded nanoparticles | 247 ± 21 | 0.20 ± 0.06 | -7.5 ± 2.3 | - |
Table 3. Physical-chemical properties of insulin-loaded PLGA-NP after freeze-drying with and without cryoprotectants (n = 3, mean ± SD)
| Formulation | Particle size (nm) | PdI | Zeta potential (mV) |
|---|---|---|---|
| PLGA-NP | 422 ± 60 | 0.37 ± 0.02 | -28.2 ± 5.8 |
| PLGA-NP + 10% (w/w) trehalose | 396 ± 16 | 0.32 ± 0.05 | -42.9 ± 1.7 |
| PLGA-NP + 10% (w/w) sucrose | 559 ± 16 | 0.35 ± 0.03 | -39.5 ± 2.9 |
| PLGA-NP+ 10% (w/w) glucose | 365 ± 28 | 0.39 ± 0.01 | -36.7 ± 6.0 |
| PLGA-NP+ 10% (w/w) fructose | 712 ± 55 | 0.39 ± 0.01 | -38.2 ± 1.7 |
| PLGA-NP+ 10% (w/w) sorbitol | 469 ± 23 | 0.37 ± 0.03 | -36.3 ± 1.9 |

Figure 1. TEM microphotographs of insulin-loaded PLGA-NP after production (A) and after freeze-drying with no cryoprotectant added (B). (A) bar shows 200 nm and (B) bar shows 100 nm.

Figure 2. SEM microphotographs of insulin-loaded PLGA-NP after production (A) and after freeze-drying with no cryoprotectant added (B) (bar shows 5 µm).

Figure 3. TEM microphotographs of insulin-loaded PLGA-NP after freeze-drying with: 10% (w/w) trehalose (A); 10% (w/w) sucrose (B); 10% (w/w) glucose (C); 10% (w/w) fructose (D) and 10% (w/w) sorbitol (E). (A and B) bar shows 100 nm, (C) bar shows 50 nm and (D and E) bar shows 100 nm.

Figure 4. SEM microphotographs of insulin-loaded PLGA-NP after freeze-drying with: 10% (w/w) trehalose (A); 10% (w/w) sucrose (B); 10% (w/w) glucose (C); 10% (w/w) fructose (D) and 10% (w/w) sorbitol (E) (bar shows 30 µm).

Figure 5. Cumulative release profile of insulin from PLGA-NP after formulation (solid line) and after freeze-drying with no cryoprotectant added (dotted line). (n = 3, bars represent SD).

Figure 6. Cumulative release profile of insulin from PLGA-NP after freeze-drying with: no cryoprotectant (dotted line), 10% (w/w) trehalose (circle); 10% (w/w) sucrose (square); 10% (w/w) glucose (triangle); 10% (w/w) fructose (diamond) and 10% (w/w) sorbitol (dash) added. (n = 3, bars represent SD).