ArticleInternational journal of nanomedicine2008
New methodologies to characterize the effectiveness of the gene transfer mediated by DNA-chitosan nanoparticles.
Article in International journal of nanomedicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An effective mannosylated chitosan nanoparticle DNA vaccine for FMD virus.Virologica Sinica · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this work three DNA-chitosan nanoparticle formulations (Np), differing in the molecular weight (MW; 150 kDa, 400 kDa, and 600 kDa) of the polysaccharide, were prepared and administered by two different administration routes: the hydrodynamics-based procedure and the intraduodenal injection. After the hydrodynamic injection, DNA-chitosan nanoparticles were predominantly accumulated in the liver, where the transgene was expressed during at least 105 days. No significant influence of MW was observed on the levels of luciferase expression. The curves of bioluminescence versus time obtained using the charge-coupled device (CCD) camera were described and divided in three phases: (i) the initial phase, (ii) the sustained release step and (iii) the decline phase (promotor inactivation, immunological and physiological processes). From these curves, which describe the transgene expression profile, the behavior of the different formulations as gene delivery systems was characterized. Therefore, the following parameters such as C(max) (maximum level of detected bioluminescence), AUC (area under the bioluminescence-time curve) and MET (mean time of the transgene expression) were calculated. This approach offers the possibility of studying and comparing transgene expression kinetics among a wide variety of gene delivery systems. Finally, the intraduodenal administration of naked DNA permitted the gene transfer in a dose dependent manner quantifiable with the CCD camera within 3 days. Nevertheless, the same administration procedure of the three formulations did not improve the levels of transgene expression obtained with naked DNA. This fact could be explained by the rapid physiological turn-over of enterocytes and by the ability of chitosan nanoparticles to control the DNA release.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.