Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25449804›Full record

ArticleJournal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society2015

Effect of surface chemistry on nanoparticle interaction with gastrointestinal mucus and distribution in the gastrointestinal tract following oral and rectal administration in the mouse.

Katharina Maisel, Laura Ensign, Mihika Reddy, Richard Cone, Justin Hanes

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

88 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Novel Drug Delivery Systems for CombatingArchives of Razi Institute · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Katharina MaiselCenter for Nanomedicine at the Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 400 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21231, United States; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 720 Rutland Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.
Laura EnsignCenter for Nanomedicine at the Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 400 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21231, United States; Department of Ophthalmology, The Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 400 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21231, United States. Electronic address: lensign@jhmi.edu.
Mihika ReddyCenter for Nanomedicine at the Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 400 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21231, United States; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 720 Rutland Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.
Richard ConeCenter for Nanomedicine at the Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 400 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21231, United States; Department of Biophysics, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218, United States.
Justin HanesCenter for Nanomedicine at the Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 400 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21231, United States; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 720 Rutland Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States; Department of Ophthalmology, The Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 400 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21231, United States; Center for Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence, Institute for NanoBioTechnology, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218, United States. Electronic address: hanes@jhmi.edu.

Funding

Vaccine Response and Immunotherapeutics SWGP30AI094189 · NIAID · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Richard E. Chaisson · 2012 to 2026
$67.0M
Wilmer Core Grant for Vision ResearchP30EY001765 · NEI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Ji Yi · 1985 to 2026
$22.1M
Tissue pharmacology imaging and modelingU19AI113127 · NIAID · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI MCGOWAN, IAN MICHAEL · 2014 to 2018
$20.7M
Mucus-penetrating nanoparticles for sustained microbicide deliveryR33AI079740 · NIAID · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI HANES, JUSTIN S. · 2010 to 2012
$1.4M
Mucus Penetrating Particles for Rectal MicrobicidesR33AI094519 · NIAID · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI CONE, RICHARD, HANES, JUSTIN S. · 2013 to 2015
$1.4M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY001765NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI094189NIAID NIH HHS P30AI094189NIAID NIH HHS R33 AI079740NIAID NIH HHS R33AI079740NIAID NIH HHS R33 AI094519NIAID NIH HHS R33AI094519NIAID NIH HHS U19 AI113127NIAID NIH HHS U19AI133127
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is believed that mucoadhesive surface properties on particles delivered to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract improve oral absorption or local targeting of various difficult-to-deliver drug classes. To test the effect of nanoparticle mucoadhesion on distribution of nanoparticles in the GI tract, we orally and rectally administered nano- and microparticles that we confirmed possessed surfaces that were either strongly mucoadhesive or non-mucoadhesive. We found that mucoadhesive particles (MAP) aggregated in mucus in the center of the GI lumen, far away from the absorptive epithelium, both in healthy mice and in a mouse model of ulcerative colitis (UC). In striking contrast, water absorption by the GI tract rapidly and uniformly transported non-mucoadhesive mucus-penetrating particles (MPP) to epithelial surfaces, including reaching the surfaces between villi in the small intestine. When using high gavage fluid volumes or injection into ligated intestinal loops, common methods for assessing oral drug and nanoparticle absorption, we found that both MAP and MPP became well-distributed throughout the intestine, indicating that the barrier properties of GI mucus were compromised. In the mouse colorectum, MPP penetrated into mucus in the deeply in-folded surfaces to evenly coat the entire epithelial surface. Moreover, in a mouse model of UC, MPP were transported preferentially into the disrupted, ulcerated tissue. Our results suggest that delivering drugs in non-mucoadhesive MPP is likely to provide enhanced particle distribution, and thus drug delivery, in the GI tract, including to ulcerated tissues.

Indexed as

AdhesivenessAdministration, OralAdministration, RectalAnimalsCarboxylic AcidsColitis, UlcerativeDextran SulfateFemaleGastrointestinal TractMiceMucusNanoparticlesPolyethylene GlycolsPolystyrenesSurface PropertiesTrinitrobenzenesulfonic AcidCarboxylic AcidsDextran SulfatePolyethylene GlycolsPolystyrenesTrinitrobenzenesulfonic AcidColonDrug deliveryInflammatory bowel disease (IBD)Mucus penetrating particlesNanoparticlesUlcerative colitis

Identifiers

PMID25449804
PMCPMC4272879

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.