ArticleInternational journal of nanomedicine2024
Biodynamer Nano-Complexes and -Emulsions for Peptide and Protein Drug Delivery.
Article in International journal of nanomedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Therapeutic proteins and peptides offer great advantages compared to traditional synthetic molecular drugs. However, stable protein loading and precise control of protein release pose significant challenges due to the extensive range of physicochemical properties inherent to proteins. The development of a comprehensive protein delivery strategy becomes imperative accounting for the diverse nature of therapeutic proteins. Methods: Biodynamers are amphiphilic proteoid dynamic polymers consisting of amino acid derivatives connected through pH-responsive dynamic covalent chemistry. Taking advantage of the amphiphilic nature of the biodynamers, PNCs and DEs were possible to be prepared and investigated to compare the delivery efficiency in drug loading, stability, and cell uptake. Results: As a result, the optimized PNCs showed 3-fold encapsulation (<90%) and 5-fold loading capacity (30%) compared to DE-NPs. PNCs enhanced the delivery efficiency into the cells but aggregated easily on the cell membrane due to the limited stability. Although DE-NPs were limited in loading capacity compared to PNCs, they exhibit superior adaptability in stability and capacity for delivering a wider range of proteins compared to PNCs. Conclusion: Our study highlights the potential of formulating both PNCs and DE-NPs using the same biodynamers, providing a comparative view on protein delivery efficacy using formulation methods.
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.