Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22326811›Full record

ArticleJournal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society2012

Comparative study of nanoparticle-mediated transfection in different GI epithelium co-culture models.

Yihua Loo, Christopher L Grigsby, Yvonne J Yamanaka, Malathi K Chellappan, Xuan Jiang, Hai-Quan Mao, Kam W Leong

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Identifying human and murine M cells in vitro.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2019
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Role of nanoparticle size, shape and surface chemistry in oral drug delivery.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2016
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yihua LooDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, United States.
Christopher L Grigsby
Yvonne J Yamanaka
Malathi K Chellappan
Xuan Jiang
Hai-Quan Mao
Kam W Leong
Duke University · USJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

Oral Therapy for Hemophilia AR01HL109442 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI DANIELL, HENRY, HERZOG, ROLAND W. · 2011 to 2015
$3.5M
Oral Nonviral Gene Delivery for Hemophilla AR01HL089764 · NHLBI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI LEONG, KAM W · 2008 to 2011
$1.7M
NHLBI NIH HHS HL89764NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL089764NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL109442
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oral nonviral gene delivery is the most attractive and arguably the most challenging route of administration. To identify a suitable carrier, we studied the transport of different classes (natural polymer, synthetic polymer and synthetic lipid-polymer) of DNA nanoparticles through three well-characterized cellular models of intestinal epithelium (Caco2, Caco2-HT29MTX and Caco2-Raji). Poly(phosphoramidate-dipropylamine) (PPA) and Lipid-Protamine-DNA (LPD) nanoparticles consistently showed the highest level of human insulin mRNA expression and luciferase protein expression in these models, typically at least three orders of magnitude above background. All of the nanoparticles increased tight junction permeability, with PPA and PEI having the most dramatic transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) decreases of (35.3±8.5%) and (37.5±1.5%) respectively in the first hour. The magnitude of TEER decrease correlated with nanoparticle surface charge, implicating electrostatic interactions with the tight junction proteins. However, confocal microscopy revealed that the nanoparticles were mostly uptaken by the enterocytes. Quantitative uptake and transport experiments showed that the endocytosed, quantum dot (QD)-labeled PPA-DNA nanoparticles remained in the intestinal cells even after 24h. Negligible amount of quantum dot labeled DNA was detected in the basolateral chamber, with the exception of the Caco2-Raji co-cultures, which internalized nanoparticles 2 to 3 times more readily compared to Caco2 and Caco2-HT29MTX cultures. PEGylation decreased the transfection efficacy by at least an order of magnitude, lowered the magnitude of TEER decrease and halved the uptake of PPA-DNA nanoparticles. A key finding was insulin mRNA being detected in the underlying HepG2 cells, signifying that some of the plasmid was transported across the intestinal epithelial layer while retaining at least partial bioactivity. However, the inefficient transport suggests that transcytosis alone would not engender a significant therapeutic effect, and this transport modality must be augmented by other means in vivo to render nonviral oral gene delivery practical.

Indexed as

Biological TransportCaco-2 CellsCoculture TechniquesDNADrug CarriersEndocytosisHep G2 CellsHT29 CellsHumansInsulinIntestinal MucosaModels, BiologicalNanoparticlesPlasmidsRNA, MessengerTransfectionDNADrug CarriersInsulinRNA, Messenger

Identifiers

PMID22326811
PMCPMC3473091
OpenAlexW2045062137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.