| Literature DB >> 30682799 |
Huichao Xie1, Lingjun Li2, Yue Sun3, Yuzhen Wang4, Shuang Gao5, Yuan Tian6, Xuemei Ma7, Chengcheng Guo8, Fumin Bo9, Li Zhang10.
Abstract
Entities:
Keywords: PAMAM dendrimer; gellan gum; in situ gel; nanocomposite; nasal brain transport
Year: 2019 PMID: 30682799 PMCID: PMC6409925 DOI: 10.3390/nano9020147
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Scheme 1Synthesis schematics for the PAMAM dendrimer nanocomposites. (a) Synthesis of pegylated PAMAM dendrimer (mPEG-PAMAM G5.NH2); (b) synthesis of mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc by the addition reaction between anhydride and the amino group; (c) paeonol (PAE) loading in the cavities of mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc; (d) the FITC tracer was used to label PAMAM to observe the nasal brain transport of PAMAM dendrimer nanocomposite in vivo.
Factor and levels in the optimization of in situ gel.
| Factor | Minimum | Coded Low | Mean | Coded High | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A: DGG | 0.2 | 0.2732 | 0.45 | 0.6278 | 0.7 |
| B: HPMC | 0.1 | 0.1586 | 0.3 | 0.4414 | 0.5 |
Scheme 2An improved physical balance method measuring in vitro mucoadsorption strength.
Scheme 3In vitro release devices of PAE from PAE/mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc nanocomposite (a) and PAE/mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc/DGG in situ gel (b). (a) PAE was released from PAE/mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc nanocomposite and spread evenly in the release medium (PBS, pH7.4); (b) PAE/mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc nanocomposite was released from in situ gel, then PAE/mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc nanocomposite released PAE.
Figure 1FTIR spectra of mPEG-PAMAM G5.NH2, mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc, PAE/mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc, and mPEG-PAMAM G5.NH2-FITC.
Figure 21H-NMR spectra of PAMAM dendrimer nanocomposites were obtained at 1 mg/mL concentration in D2O on a 600 MHz NMR spectrometer. (a) PAMAM G5.NH2; (b) mPEG-PAMAM G5.NH2; (c) mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc; (d) PAE/mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc; (e) mPEG-PAMAM G5.NH2-FITC.
Particle size and zeta potential of PAMAM dendrimer nanocomposites.
| Compound | Particle Size (nm) | Zeta Potential (mv) |
|---|---|---|
| PAMAM G5.NH2 | 5.41 ± 0.24 | +8.23 ± 0.55 |
| mPEG-PAMAM G5.NH2 | 11.55 ± 0.14 | +4.81 ± 0.17 |
| mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc | 70.91 ± 11.59 | +2.60 ± 0.02 |
| PAE/mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc | 72.41 ± 11.58 | +0.57 ± 0.11 |
| mPEG-PAMAM G5.NH2-FITC | 96.51 ± 7.77 | +9.60 ± 0.41 |
Figure 3Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of nanocomposites. (a) PAMAM G5.NH2; (b) PAE/mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc; (c) high resolution image of a single PAE/mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc; (d) the image of PAE/mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc based DGG (deacetylated gellan gum) in situ gel.
Figure 4Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of the lyophilized PAE/mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc (a,b) and in situ gel (c,d).
Central composite design experiments and experimental results.
| Runs | Factor1 | Factor2 | Factor1 | Factor2 | Reponse 1 | Reponse 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −1 | −1 | 0.2732 | 0.1586 | 22.83 ± 0.17 | 639.35 ± 3.89 |
| 2 | −1 | −1 | 0.6278 | 0.1586 | 254.21 ± 0.52 | 1955.02 ± 11.56 |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | 0.2732 | 0.4414 | 200.92 ± 0.58 | 1029.63 ± 10.35 |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 0.6278 | 0.4414 | 316.43 ± 0.88 | 2066.50 ± 22.59 |
| 5 | −1.414 | 0 | 0.2000 | 0.3000 | 45.67 ± 0.04 | 550.75 ± 8.67 |
| 6 | 1.414 | 0 | 0.7000 | 0.3000 | 294.50 ± 0.94 | 1945.54 ± 19.36 |
| 7 | 0 | −1.414 | 0.4500 | 0.1000 | 18.27 ± 0.08 | 1167.21 ± 9.83 |
| 8 | 0 | 1.414 | 0.4500 | 0.5000 | 286.24 ± 0.77 | 1554.32 ± 9.93 |
| 9 | 0 | 0 | 0.4500 | 0.3000 | 100.50 ± 0.67 | 1243.51 ± 9.30 |
| 10 | 0 | 0 | 0.4500 | 0.3000 | 95.96 ± 0.82 | 1214.59 ± 7.82 |
| 11 | 0 | 0 | 0.4500 | 0.3000 | 97.92 ± 0.31 | 1240.45 ± 11.05 |
| 12 | 0 | 0 | 0.4500 | 0.3000 | 91.34 ± 0.53 | 1233.56 ± 9.39 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | 0.4500 | 0.3000 | 96.01 ± 0.66 | 1250.27 ± 12.83 |
Figure 5Three-dimensional surfaces and contours showing the influence of DGG and HPMC. (a) 3D surface plot of DGG and HPMC on solution viscosity; (b) contour of DGG and HPMC on solution viscosity; (c) 3D surface plot of DGG and HPMC on gel viscosity; (d) contour of DGG and HPMC on gel viscosity; (e) target value ranges of solution viscosity and gel viscosity; (f) graphical optimization highlighting an area of operability.
Regression equations of the fitted models.
| Reponse Y | Model | Regression Equation | F-Value | P-Value | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Y1:Solution Viscosity | Quadratic | Y1 = +96.33 + 87.35 × A + 77.40 × B − 28.97 × A × B + 46.23 × A2 + 37.31 × B2 | 35.75 | <0.0001 | 0.9623 |
| Y2:Gel Viscosity | Quadratic | Y2 = +1235.90 + 540.63 × A + 131.13 × B − 69.69 × A × B + 35.69 × A2 + 91.87 × B2 | 76.38 | <0.0001 | 0.9820 |
Compositions of in situ gel.
| Ingredients | Formulation Compositions (% |
|---|---|
| PAE/mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc | 1 |
| DGG | 0.45 |
| HPMC | 0.3 |
| Mannitol | 1 |
| Chlorine acetate | 0.01 |
| Vitamin E | 0.01 |
| Distilled water | 100 |
Figure 6Rheological evaluation of the DGG in situ gel with PAE/mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc at 34 °C. (a) Rheology characterisitics of the DGG solution and the DGG in situ gel; (b) stress strain of the DGG solution and the DGG in situ gel; (c) frequency sweep of DGG solution and the DGG in situ gel.
Figure 7In vitro release profiles of PAE from PAE/mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc nanocomposites and PAE/mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc/DGG in situ gel in PBS (pH 7.4) at 37 °C. (Error shown as one standard deviation of the mean, n = 3).
Release mechanism of PAE.
| Compound | Model | Regression Equation | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| PAE/mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc | Higuchi | Qt = 0.43459t1/2 − 0.16452 | 0.98 |
| PAE/mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc/DGG | Korsmeyer-Peppas | Qt = 0.18095t0.68301 | 0.95 |
Figure 8Cell viabilitiy of HepG2 cells following treatment with PAMAM G5.NH2 (0.0001–100 μM), mPEG-PAMAM G5.NH2 (0.0001–100 μM), mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc (0.0001–100 μM), PAE/mPEG-PAMAM G5.NHAc (0.0001–100 μM) for 12 h. (Error shown as one standard deviation of the mean, n = 3, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001, *** p < 0.0001).
Figure 9The uptake and localization of mPEG-PAMAM G5.NH2-FITC in HepG2 cells. The cellular uptake of dendrimer nanocomposites exhibited strong fluorescence in the cytoplasm and nucleus.
Figure 10Fluorescence imaging of an isolated brain by the in vivo imaging system. The brain of 0 h is a blank control. The blank brain of rats has a matrix fluorescence response at 492 nm, and the fluorescence images at each time are the fluorescence response after eliminating the blank interference. (a) Fluorescence response in isolated brains; (b)The trends of fluorescence response of the solution group and the in situ gel group; (c)The difference of fluorescence response between the solution group and the in situ gel group. (Error shown as one standard deviation of the mean, n = 5, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001, *** P < 0.0001).