| Title |
Enhanced therapeutic efficacy of budesonide in experimental colitis with enzyme/pH dual-sensitive polymeric nanoparticles
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s87816 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Muhammad Naeem, Jiafu Cao, Moonjeong Choi, Woo Seong Kim, Hyung Ryong Moon, Bok Luel Lee, Min-Soo Kim, Yunjin Jung, Jin-Wook Yoo |
| Abstract |
Current colon-targeted drug-delivery approaches for colitis therapy often utilize single pH-triggered systems, which are less reliable due to the variation of gut pH in individuals and in disease conditions. Herein, we prepared budesonide-loaded dual-sensitive nanoparticles using enzyme-sensitive azo-polyurethane and pH-sensitive methacrylate copolymer for the treatment of colitis. The therapeutic potential of the enzyme/pH dual-sensitive nanoparticles was evaluated using a rat colitis model and compared to single pH-triggered nanoparticles. Clinical activity scores, colon/body weight ratios, myeloperoxidase activity, and proinflammatory cytokine levels were markedly decreased by dual-sensitive nanoparticles compared to single pH-triggered nanoparticles and budesonide solution. Moreover, dual-sensitive nanoparticles accumulated selectively in inflamed segments of the colon. In addition, dual-sensitive nanoparticle plasma concentrations were lower than single pH-triggered nanoparticles, and no noticeable in vitro or in vivo toxicity was observed. Our results demonstrate that enzyme/pH dual-sensitive nanoparticles are an effective and safe colon-targeted delivery system for colitis therapy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 32% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 6% |
| Materials Science | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 26% |
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 17 July 2015.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,088
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,960
of 277,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#64
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 277,610 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.