| Literature DB >> 36232486 |
Esther Miralles1, Christina S Kamma-Lorger2, Òscar Domènech3,4, Lilian Sosa5, Isidre Casals1, Ana Cristina Calpena3,4, Marcelle Silva-Abreu3,4.
Abstract
Drug-loaded nanocarriers (NCs) are new systems that can greatly improve the delivery and targeting of drugs to specific tissues and organs. In our work, a PPAR-γ agonist loaded into polymeric NCs was prepared, stabilized by spray-drying, and tested in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo (animal models) to provide a safe formulation for optical anti-inflammatory treatments. The NCs were shown to be well tolerated, and no signs of irritancy or alterations of the eye properties were detected by the in vitro HET-CAM test and in vivo Draize test. Furthermore, no signs of cytotoxicity were found in the NC formulations on retinoblastoma cells (Y-79) analyzed using the alamarBlue assay, and the transmittance experiments evidenced good corneal transparency with the formulations tested. The ocular anti-inflammatory study confirmed the significant prevention efficacy using the NCs, and these systems did not affect the corneal tissue structure. Moreover, the animal corneal structure treated with the NCs was analyzed using X-ray diffraction using synchrotron light. Small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) analysis did not show a significant difference in corneal collagen interfibrillar spacing after the treatment with freshly prepared NCs or NCs after the drying process compared to the corresponding negative control when inflammation was induced. Considering these results, the PPAR-γ agonist NCs could be a safe and effective alternative for the treatment of inflammatory ocular processes.Entities:
Keywords: PPAR-γ agonist; corneal tissue; eye inflammation; ocular efficacy; polymeric nanocarriers
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36232486 PMCID: PMC9570464 DOI: 10.3390/ijms231911184
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 6.208
Figure 1Comparison of prevention anti-inflammatory efficacy after sodium arachidonate (SA)-induced inflammation in the rabbit’s eye. Values are expressed as the average ± SD (n = 3); * p < 0.05 comparison of PZ-NCs vs. positive control (SA); # p < 0.05 comparison of PZ-NCs dryer vs. positive control (SA).
Figure 2Anti-inflammatory efficacy of different formulations containing PZ in the ocular edema induced by instillation of sodium arachidonate (SA). Time 0 = negative control (without treatment).
Figure 3Corneal histological structure: (A) negative control (cornea without treatment); (B) cornea treated with PZ-NCs; (C) cornea treated with PZ-NCs dryer. 1: Stratified flat keratinized epithelium; 2: Bowman’s membrane; 3: own laminate. All images were observed at 400×.
Figure 4Evaluation of in vitro toxicity using the resazurin assay (alamarBlue™ assay). Variation of cell viability (%) with PZ concentration (µg/mL). Data are expressed as the mean ± SD (n = 6).
Fibrillar diameter (nm). Data are expressed as the mean ± SD (n = 4).
| Position * | No Treatment | Positive Control | PZ-NCs | PZ-NCs Dryer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 34.3 ± 0.5 | 35.3 ± 2.1 | 35.5 ± 1.8 | 33.5 ± 0.3 |
| 2 | 35.3 ± 0.3 | 35.0 ± 1.9 | 35.0 ± 1.3 | 33.4 ± 0.3 |
| 3 | 35.3 ± 0.3 | 35.2 ± 1.6 | 34.6 ± 0.8 | 33.6 ± 0.3 |
| 4 | 34.9 ± 0.1 | 34.7 ± 0.8 | 34.0 ± 0.3 | 33.6 ± 0.3 |
| 5 | 34.5 ± 0.3 | 34.2 ± 0.7 | 33.9 ± 0.7 | 33.8 ± 0.6 |
| 6 | 34.4 ± 1.2 | 32.7 ± 0.6 | 33.7 ± 1.0 | 33.5 ± 0.4 |
* Position: from 1 (epithelium) to 6 (endothelium).
Interfibrillar spacing (nm). Data are expressed as the mean ± SD (n = 4).
| Position * | No Treatment | Positive Control | PZ-NCs | PZ-NCs Dryer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 59.8 ± 0.8 | 45.6 ± 9.9 | 53.5 ± 4.0 | 40.9 ± 9.8 |
| 2 | 52.3 ± 4.7 | 44.4 ± 8.1 | 55.6 ± 3.4 | 45.6 ± 10.4 |
| 3 | 51.0 ± 3.3 | 44.0 ± 7.9 | 54.6 ± 4.2 | 42.8 ± 10.9 |
| 4 | 49.4 ± 3.2 | 42.9 ± 6.1 | 51.5 ± 3.0 | 47.4 ± 11.1 |
| 5 | 50.0 ± 1.9 | 41.9 ± 5.5 | 51.0 ± 3.6 | 51.2 ± 19.1 |
| 6 | 51.3 ± 1.8 | 42.2 ± 5.7 | 48.5 ± 4.0 | 51.5 ± 16.3 |
* Position: from 1 (epithelium) to 6 (endothelium).
Figure 5Series of data obtained from epithelium to endothelium in the center of the cornea (animal group, n = 4). Fibrillar diameter and interfibrillar spacing results using a box plot graph. Box: median, quartiles, and extreme values. Error bars: 95% confidence interval of the mean. (A) Fibrillar diameter; * p < 0.05 negative control vs. PZ-NCs dryer. (B) Interfibrillar spacing; * p < 0.05 positive control vs. PZ-NCs, # p < 0.05 positive control vs. negative control. (C) Image of the cornea positioned in the sample holder; the circle indicates the position of the beam.
Figure 6Height of the background-subtracted peak divided by peak width at half height (HHW) (arbitrary units, a.u.) versus the irradiation time (s).
Figure 7Transmittance values (%) as a function of wavelength in the visible region for the different studied pig corneas.
Figure 8Example of a small-angle diffraction pattern from pig corneal stroma produced by collagen obtained in the Pilatus detector.