Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26471392›Full record

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

A critical evaluation of drug delivery from ligand modified nanoparticles: Confounding small molecule distribution and efficacy in the central nervous system.

Rebecca L Cook, Kyle T Householder, Eugene P Chung, Alesia V Prakapenka, Danielle M DiPerna, Rachael W Sirianni

Abstract read
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 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Intrathecal drug delivery in the era of nanomedicine.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Single-particle imaging of nanomedicine entering the brain.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Nanoparticles for Targeted Brain Drug Delivery: What Do We Know?International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rebecca L CookBarrow Brain Tumor Research Center, Barrow Neurological Institute, 350 West Thomas Road, Phoenix, AZ 85013, USA; School of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 879709, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA. Electronic address: rebeccalmccall@gmail.com.
Kyle T HouseholderBarrow Brain Tumor Research Center, Barrow Neurological Institute, 350 West Thomas Road, Phoenix, AZ 85013, USA; School of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 879709, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA. Electronic address: kth19@case.edu.
Eugene P ChungBarrow Brain Tumor Research Center, Barrow Neurological Institute, 350 West Thomas Road, Phoenix, AZ 85013, USA; School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 874701, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA. Electronic address: epchung@asu.edu.
Alesia V PrakapenkaBarrow Brain Tumor Research Center, Barrow Neurological Institute, 350 West Thomas Road, Phoenix, AZ 85013, USA; Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Neuroscience, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 874701, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA. Electronic address: aprakapenka@gmail.com.
Danielle M DiPernaBarrow Brain Tumor Research Center, Barrow Neurological Institute, 350 West Thomas Road, Phoenix, AZ 85013, USA. Electronic address: dannidiperna@gmail.com.
Rachael W SirianniBarrow Brain Tumor Research Center, Barrow Neurological Institute, 350 West Thomas Road, Phoenix, AZ 85013, USA; School of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 879709, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA; Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Neuroscience, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 874701, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA. Electronic address: rachael.sirianni@dignityhealth.org.
Barrow Neurological Institute · US

Funding

Neuroimaging Sciences Training ProgramT32DA022975 · NIDA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Graeme F Mason, Rajita Sinha · 2007 to 2026
$5.7M
CED of Nanoparticles Loading with Novel Agents for Improved Treatment of GliomasR01CA149128 · NCI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI SALTZMAN, W. MARK · 2011 to 2020
$3.5M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA149128NCI NIH HHS R01-CA149128NIDA NIH HHS T32 DA022975NIDA NIH HHS T32-DA022975
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this work, we sought to test how surface modification of poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) nanoparticles with peptide ligand alters the brain specific delivery of encapsulated molecules. For biodistribution studies, nanoparticles modified with rabies virus glycoprotein (RVG29) were loaded with small molecule drug surrogates and administered to healthy mice by lateral tail vein injection. Mice were perfused 2h after injection and major anatomical regions of the CNS were dissected (striatum, midbrain, cerebellum, hippocampus, cortex, olfactory bulb, brainstem, and cervical, thoracic, lumbar and sacral spinal cord). For functional studies, surface modified nanoparticles were loaded with the chemotherapeutic camptothecin (CPT) and administered to mice bearing intracranial GL261-Luc2 gliomas. Outcome measures included tumor growth, as measured by bioluminescent imaging, and median survival time. We observed that small molecule delivery from PLGA nanoparticles varied by as much as 150% for different tissue regions within the CNS. These differences were directly correlated to regional differences in cerebral blood volume. Although the presence of RVG29 enhanced apparent brain delivery for multiple small molecule payloads, we observed minimal evidence for targeting to muscle or spinal cord, which are the known sites for rabies virus entry into the CNS, and enhancements in brain delivery were not prolonged due to an apparent aqueous instability of the RVG29 ligand. Furthermore, we have identified concerning differences in apparent delivery kinetics as measured by different payloads: nanoparticle encapsulated DiR was observed to accumulate in the brain, whereas encapsulated Nile red was rapidly cleared. Although systemically administered CPT loaded nanoparticles slowed the growth of orthotopic brain tumors to prolong survival, the presence of RVG29 did not enhance therapeutic efficacy compared to control nanoparticles. These data are consistent with a model of delivery of hydrophobic small molecules to the brain that does not rely on internalization of polymer nanoparticles in target tissue. We discuss an important risk for discordance between biodistribution, as typically measured by drug surrogate, and therapeutic outcome, as determined by clinically relevant measurement of drug function in a disease model. These results pose critical considerations for the methods used to design and evaluate targeted drug delivery systems in vivo.

Indexed as

Drug Delivery SystemsAnimalsBlood-Brain BarrierCamptothecinCell Line, TumorCentral Nervous SystemFemaleGlycoproteinsLigandsMiceMice, Inbred BALB CMice, Inbred C57BLNanoparticlesPeptide FragmentsTissue DistributionViral ProteinsCamptothecinGlycoproteinsLigandsPeptide Fragmentsrabies virus glycoprotein peptideViral ProteinsBrainChemotherapyDrug deliveryNanoparticlePeptideSpinal cord

Identifiers

PMID26471392
PMCPMC4688251
OpenAlexW2180059229

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.