| Literature DB >> 32344824 |
Eleonora Terreni1, Susi Burgalassi1, Patrizia Chetoni1, Silvia Tampucci1, Erica Zucchetti1, Roberta Fais2, Emilia Ghelardi2, Antonella Lupetti2, Daniela Monti1.
Abstract
Infectious ocular keratitis is the leading cause of blindness worldwide. Bacterial resistance to classical pharmacological treatments raised the interest of researchers towards antimicrobial peptide (AMP)-based therapy. hLF 1-11, a synthetic antimicrobial peptide derived from the N-terminus of human lactoferrin, proved effective against different bacteria and yeast but, like all proteinaceous materials, it is unstable from chemical, physical, and biological points of view. In this study, new freeze-dried solid matrices containing mucoadhesive polymers were prepared and characterized in terms of rheology, hydration time, bioadhesion, drug content, and in vitro release. The formulation HPMC/T2/HA/hLF 1-11fd was selected for the delivery of hLF 1-11, since it showed good drug recovery and no chemical degradation up to at least 6 months (long-term stability). Furthermore, the HPMC/T2/HA/hLF 1-11fd matrix allowed for the release of the drug in a simulated physiological environment, linked to an optimal hydration time, and the peptide antimicrobial activity was preserved for up to 15 months of storage, a very promising result considering the chemical liability of proteinaceous material. For its properties, the freeze-dried matrix developed in this study could be a good platform for the delivery of antimicrobial peptides in the precorneal area to treat infectious phenomena of the ocular surface.Entities:
Keywords: AMPs; antimicrobial activity; freeze-drying; hLF 1-11; mucoadhesive polymers; ocular infection; ocular insert; peptide
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32344824 PMCID: PMC7277359 DOI: 10.3390/biom10050664
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomolecules ISSN: 2218-273X
Composition (wt %) of the polymeric vancomycin hydrochloride (VA)-loaded matrices used in this study.
| Formulation | HPMC | HA | Mannitol | Trehalose | VA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HPMC/VAfd | 24.92 | - | 74.75 | - | 0.33 |
| HPMC/HA/VAfd | 22.43 | 2.49 | 74.75 | - | 0.33 |
| HPMC/T2/VAfd | 24.92 | - | 24.92 | 49.83 | 0.33 |
| HPMC/T2/HA/VAfd | 22.43 | 2.49 | 24.92 | 49.83 | 0.33 |
Analytical methods specifications.
| Drug | Detector | Column | Analysis | Mobile Phase | Flow Rate, mL/min | λ, nm | LOQ 1, μg/mL | RT, min |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VA | UV | Kinetex Phenomenex® C18 100 Å (5 μm; 150 × 4.6 mm) | Isocratic | NaH2PO4/Na2HPO4 (40:60, pH = 6.95, 50 mM) | 1.0 | 210 | 0.025 | 5.0 |
| hLF 1-11 | DAD | Phenomenex® Aeris widepore XB-C8 200Å (3.6 μm; 150 × 4.6 mm) | Linear gradientfrom 5% to 70% solvent A over 25 min | Solvent A (0.05% TFA in acetonitrile); Solvent B (0.05% of TFA in water) | 1.0 | 220 | 1.0 | 5.4 |
1 LOQ: limit of quantitation; RT: retention time.
Figure 1Freeze-dried matrix.
Freeze-dried matrices weight of two different batches, Mean ± SE, n = 6.
| Matrix | Theoretical Weight, mg | Batch 1, mg | Batch 2, mg | CV 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HPMC/VAfd | 6.00 | 5.77 ± 0.03 | 5.85 ± 0.02 | 1.37 |
| HPMC/HA/VAfd | 6.00 | 5.80 ± 0.02 | 5.77 ± 0.04 | 1.44 |
| HPMC/T2/VAfd | 6.00 | 5.65 ± 0.09 | 5.67 ± 0.02 | 2.04 |
| HPMC/T2/HA/VAfd | 6.00 | 5.63 ± 0.02 | 5.73 ± 0.04 | 1.65 |
1 CV, coefficient of variation.
Apparent viscosity values before and after the freeze-drying process, Mean ± SE; n = 3.
| Viscosityapp (mPa*s) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Polymeric Dispersion | Before | After |
| HPMC/VAdisp | 227.7 ± 11.82 | 212.9 ± 10.27 |
| HPMC/HA/VAdisp | 528.3 ± 2.00 | 351.7 ± 23.76 * |
| HPMC/T2/VAdisp | 265.2 ± 10.66 | 275.1 ± 4.42 |
| HPMC/T2/HA/VAdisp | 321.2 ± 5.53 | 274.8 ± 11.13 |
Significantly different value from initial dispersion, p < 0.05 (one-way ANOVA; Bonferroni test for multiple comparison).
VA recovery of the formulations under study (Mean ± SE, n = 3).
| Matrix | Recovery (%) ± SE |
|---|---|
| HPMC/VA | 92.46 ± 5.09 |
| HPMC/HA/VA | 91.39 ± 5.88 |
| HPMC/T2/VA | 96.02 ± 2.21 |
| HPMC/T2/HA/VA | 100.2 ± 0.16 |
Figure 2DSC thermograms of (a) mannitol, hydroxypropilcellulose (HPMC), hyaluronic acid (HA) powder (pow), physical mixture (pmix), and freeze-dried matrix (fd) of HPMC/HA (total polymer concentration 25 wt %; mannitol 75 wt %) and (b) trehalose, physical mixture (pmix), and freeze-dried matrix (fd) of HPMC/T2/HA (total polymer concentration 25 wt %; trehalose 50 wt %; mannitol 25 wt %).
Figure 3In vitro release profile of vancomicyn (VA) in phosphate buffer saline (PBS) from the freeze-dried matrices under study based on hydroxypropylcellulose (HPMC) alone or in mixture with hyaluronic acid (HA) without (HPMC/VA, HPMC/HA/VA) and with (HPMC/T2/VA, HPMC/T2/HA/VA) trehalose. Data represent mean ± standard error (n = 3).
hLF 1-11 recovery values from the selected formulations (Mean ± SE, n = 3).
| Matrix | Measured Concentration (μg/mL) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Before Freeze-Drying | After Freeze-Drying | Recovery (%) | |
| HPMC/HA/hLFfd | 6.96 ± 0.38 | 4.77 ± 0.31 | 68.38 ± 4.43 |
| HPMC/T2/HA/hLFfd | 13.24 ± 1.85 | 11.99 ± 0.93 | 86.74 ± 1.83 |
Figure 4Chemical stability data of HPMC/T2/HA/hLF 1-11fd. Data represent mean ± standard error (n = 3).
Figure 5Activity of hlF 1-11 against S. epidermidis: cell viability after 1 h of incubation at 37 °C. Activity of the peptide alone at different concentrations and of the peptide released by different volumes of matrices. Statistical significance in each group in comparison with the bars without peptide (Mean ± SE, n = 5); (*** p ≤ 0.001, * p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 6In vitro release profile of hLF 1-11 in phosphate buffer saline (PBS) from the freeze-dried matrix HPMC/T2/HA/hLF 1-11 containing a hydroxypropilcellulose (22.43 wt %) hyaluronic acid (2.49 wt %), trehalose (49.8 wt %), mannitol (24.92 wt %), and hLF 1-11 (0.33 wt %). Data represent mean ± standard error (n = 3).