Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23349939›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

The non-peptidic part determines the internalization mechanism and intracellular trafficking of peptide amphiphiles.

Dimitris Missirlis, Tambet Teesalu, Matthew Black, Matthew Tirrell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. BH3-mimetics: recent developments in cancer therapy.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2021
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

4 authors.

Dimitris MissirlisDepartment of Bioengineering, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA. missirlis@uni-heidelberg.de
Tambet Teesalu
Matthew Black
Matthew Tirrell

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeptide amphiphiles (PAs) are a class of amphiphilic molecules able to self-assemble into nanomaterials that have shown efficient in vivo targeted delivery. Understanding the interactions of PAs with cells and the mechanisms of their internalization and intracellular trafficking is critical in their further development for therapeutic delivery applications. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsPAs of a novel, cell- and tissue-penetrating peptide were synthesized possessing two different lipophilic tail architectures and their interactions with prostate cancer cells were studied in vitro. Cell uptake of peptides was greatly enhanced post-modification. Internalization occurred via lipid-raft mediated endocytosis and was common for the two analogs studied. On the contrary, we identified the non-peptidic part as the determining factor of differences between intracellular trafficking and retention of PAs. PAs composed of di-stearyl lipid tails linked through poly(ethylene glycol) to the peptide exhibited higher exocytosis rates and employed different recycling pathways compared to ones consisting of di-palmitic-coupled peptides. As a result, cell association of the former PAs decreased with time. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Control over peptide intracellular localization and retention is possible by appropriate modification with synthetic hydrophobic tails. We propose this as a strategy to design improved peptide-based delivery systems.

Indexed as

Drug Delivery SystemsProtein TransportCell Line, TumorExocytosisHumansMaleMembrane MicrodomainsNanostructuresPeptidesPolyethylene GlycolsProstatic NeoplasmsPeptidesPolyethylene Glycols

Identifiers

PMID23349939
PMCPMC3547919

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.