ArticlePharmaceutical research2018
Hollow Microparticles as a Superior Delivery System over Solid Microparticles for the Encapsulation of Peptides.
Article in Pharmaceutical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Zero-Order Kinetics Release of Lamivudine from Layer-by-Layer Coated Macromolecular Prodrug Particles.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Peptide Acylation in Aliphatic Polyesters: a Review of Mechanisms and Inhibition Strategies.Pharmaceutical research · 2024Review
- A Simple Non-Embedded Single Capillary Device for On-Demand Complex Emulsion Formation.Micromachines · 2024Article
- Fighting type 2 diabetes: Formulation strategies for peptide-based therapeutics.Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2022Review
- PLGA/PLA-Based Long-Acting Injectable Depot Microspheres in Clinical Use: Production and Characterization Overview for Protein/Peptide Delivery.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Unusual Structures of Interpolyelectrolyte Complexes: Vesicles and Perforated Vesicles.Polymers · 2020Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
purposePeptides are gaining significant interests as therapeutic agents due to their high targeting specificity and potency. However, their low bioavailability and short half-lives limit their massive potential as therapeutics. The use of dense, solid particles of biodegradable polymer as a universal carrier for peptides also has its challenges, such as inefficient peptide release and low bioactivity. In this paper, it was established that hollow microparticles (h-MPs) instead of solid microparticles (s-MPs), as peptide carriers, could improve the release efficiency, while better preserving their bioactivity.
methodsGlucagon like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) was encapsulated as a model peptide. Mass loss, average molecular weight changes, intraparticle pH, polymer-peptide interaction and release studies, together with bioactivity assessment of the peptide for s-MPs and h-MPs were systematically analyzed and evaluated for efficacy.
resultsThe intraparticle pH of s-MPs was as low as 2.64 whereas the pH of h-MPs was 4.99 by day 7. Consequently, 93% of the peptide extracted from h-MPs was still bioactive while only 58% of the peptide extracted from s-MPs was bioactive. Likewise, the cumulative release of GLP-1 by day 14 from h-MPs showed a cumulative amount of 88 ± 8% as compared to 33 ± 6% for s-MPs.
conclusionsThe cumulative release of peptide can be significantly improved, and the bioactivity can be better preserved by simply using h-MPs instead of s-MPs as carriers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30073514What 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.