| Title |
Evaluating the potential of cubosomal nanoparticles for oral delivery of amphotericin B in treating fungal infection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s54967 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhiwen Yang, Meiwan Chen, Muhua Yang, Jian Chen, Weijun Fang, Ping Xu |
| Abstract |
The oral administration of amphotericin B (AmB) has a major drawback of poor bioavailability. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential of glyceryl monoolein (GMO) cubosomes as lipid nanocarriers to improve the oral efficacy of AmB. Antifungal efficacy was determined in vivo in rats after oral administration, to investigate its therapeutic use. The human colon adenocarcinoma cell line (Caco-2) was used in vitro to evaluate transport across a model of the intestinal barrier. In vivo antifungal results showed that AmB, loaded in GMO cubosomes, could significantly enhance oral efficacy, compared against Fungizone, and that during a 2 day course of dosage 10 mg/kg the drug reached effective therapeutic concentrations in renal tissue for treating fungal infections. In the Caco-2 transport studies, GMO cubosomes resulted in a significantly larger amount of AmB being transported into Caco-2 cells, via both clathrin- and caveolae-mediated endocytosis, but not macropinocytosis. These results suggest that GMO cubosomes, as lipid nanovectors, could facilitate the oral delivery of AmB. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 81 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 17% |
| Researcher | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 14% |
| Unknown | 19 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 22 | 27% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 5 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 28 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 January 2014.
All research outputs
#15,879,822
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,779
of 4,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,513
of 320,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#39
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,077 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,237 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.