ArticlePloS one2012
Biogenic and synthetic polyamines bind cationic dendrimers.
Article in PloS one, 2012. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- In vitro comparison of three rifampicin loading methods in a reinforced porous β-tricalcium phosphate scaffold.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2015Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biogenic polyamines are essential for cell growth and differentiation, while polyamine analogues exert antitumor activity in multiple experimental model systems, including breast and lung cancer. Dendrimers are widely used for drug delivery in vitro and in vivo. We report the bindings of biogenic polyamines, spermine (spm), and spermidine (spmd), and their synthetic analogues, 3,7,11,15-tetrazaheptadecane.4HCl (BE-333) and 3,7,11,15,19-pentazahenicosane.5HCl (BE-3333) to dendrimers of different compositions, mPEG-PAMAM (G3), mPEG-PAMAM (G4) and PAMAM (G4). FTIR and UV-visible spectroscopic methods as well as molecular modeling were used to analyze polyamine binding mode, the binding constant and the effects of polyamine complexation on dendrimer stability and conformation. Structural analysis showed that polyamines bound dendrimers through both hydrophobic and hydrophilic contacts with overall binding constants of K(spm-mPEG-G3) = 7.6 × 10(4) M(-1), K(spm-mPEG-PAMAM-G4) = 4.6 × 10(4) M(-1), K(spm-PAMAM-G4) = 6.6 × 10(4) M(-1), K(spmd-mPEG-G3) = 1.0 × 10(5) M(-1), K(spmd-mPEG-PAMAM-G4) = 5.5 × 10(4) M(-1), K(spmd-PAMAM-G4) = 9.2 × 10(4) M(-1), K(BE-333-mPEG-G3) = 4.2 × 10(4) M(-1), K(Be-333-mPEG-PAMAM-G4) = 3.2 × 10(4) M(-1), K(BE-333-PAMAM-G4) = 3.6 × 10(4) M(-1), K(BE-3333-mPEG-G3) = 2.2 × 10(4) M(-1), K(Be-3333-mPEG-PAMAM-G4) = 2.4 × 10(4) M(-1), K(BE-3333-PAMAM-G4) = 2.3 × 10(4) M(-1). Biogenic polyamines showed stronger affinity toward dendrimers than those of synthetic polyamines, while weaker interaction was observed as polyamine cationic charges increased. The free binding energies calculated from docking studies were: -3.2 (spermine), -3.5 (spermidine) and -3.03 (BE-3333) kcal/mol, with the following order of binding affinity: spermidine-PAMAM-G-4>spermine-PAMMAM-G4>BE-3333-PAMAM-G4 consistent with spectroscopic data. Our results suggest that dendrimers can act as carrier vehicles for delivering antitumor polyamine analogues to target tissues.
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.