| Title |
One-step self-assembled nanomicelles for improving the oral bioavailability of nimodipine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s97834 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jing-Wen Luo, Zhi-Rong Zhang, Tao Gong, Yao Fu |
| Abstract |
Our study aimed to develop a self-assembled nanomicelle for oral administration of nimodipine (NIM) with poor water solubility. Using Solutol(®) HS15, the NIM-loaded self-assembled nanomicelles displayed a near-spherical morphology with a narrow size distribution of 12.57±0.21 nm (polydispersity index =0.071±0.011). Compared with Nimotop(®) (NIM tablets), the intestinal absorption of NIM from NIM nanomicelle in rats was improved by 3.13- and 2.25-fold in duodenum and jejunum at 1 hour after oral administration. The cellular transport of NIM nanomicelle in Caco-2 cell monolayers was significantly enhanced compared to that of Nimotop(®). Regarding the transport pathways, clathrin, lipid raft/caveolae, and macropinocytosis mediated the cell uptake of NIM nanomicelles, while P-glycoprotein and endoplasmic reticulum/Golgi complex (ER/Golgi) pathways were involved in exocytosis. Pharmacokinetic studies in our research laboratory have showed that the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC0-∞) of NIM nanomicelles was 3.72-fold that of Nimotop(®) via oral administration in rats. Moreover, the NIM concentration in the brain from NIM nanomicelles was dramatically improved. Therefore, Solutol(®) HS15-based self-assembled nanomicelles represent a promising delivery system to enhance the oral bioavailability of NIM. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 15% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 8% |
| Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 15% |
| Unknown | 4 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 15% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#3,127
of 4,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,192
of 312,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#90
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 312,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.