Home › Research › Treatments
Multifunctional LUV liposomes decorated for BBB and amyloid targeting - B. In vivo brain targeting potential in wild-type and APP/PS1 mice
Papadia K, Giannou AD, Markoutsa E, Bigot C, Vanhoute G, Mourtas S, Van der Linded A, Stathopoulos GT et al.. European journal of pharmaceutical sciences : official journal of the European Federation for Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2017-03-08
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Multifunctional liposomes (mf-LIPs) having a curcumin-lipid ligand (to target amyloids) together with two ligands to target the transferrin, and the low-density apolipoprotein receptor of the blood-brain-barrier (BBB) on their surface, were previously studied (in vitro) as potential theranostic systems for Alzheimer's disease (AD) (Papadia et al., 2017, Eur. J. Pharm. Sciences; 101:140-148). Herein, the targeting potential of mf-LIPs was compared to that of BBB-LIPs (liposomes having only the two BBB-specific ligands) in FVB mice (normal), as well as in double transgenic mice (APP/PS1) and their corresponding littermates (WT), by live-animal (in vivo) and explanted organ (ex vivo) imaging. In FVB mice, the head-signals of mf-LIPs and BBB-LIPs are either similar, or signals from mf-LIP are higher, suggesting that the co-presence of the curcumin derivative on the liposome surface does not disturb the functionality of the BBB-specific ligands. Higher brain/liver+spleen ratios (ex vivo) were calculated post-injection of mf-LIP, compared to those found after BBB-LIP injection, due to the reduced distribution of mf-LIPs in the liver and spleen; showing that the curcumin ligand increases the stealth properties of liposomes by reducing their uptake by liver and spleen. The later effect is more pronounced when the density of the BBB-specific ligands on the mf-LIPs is 0.1mol%, compared to 0.2%, highlighting the importance of this parameter. When a high lipid dose (4mg/mouse) is injected in WT and APP/PS1 mice, the head-signals of mf-LIPs are significantly higher than those of BBB-LIPs, but no differences are observed between WT and APP/PS1 mice. However, after administration of a low liposome dose (0.05mg/mouse) of mf-LIPs, significant differences in the head-signals are found between WT and transgenic mice, highlighting the AD theranostic potential of the multifunctional liposomes, as well as the importance of the experimental parameters used in such in vivo screening studies.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Papadia, K., Giannou, A. D., Markoutsa, E., Bigot, C., Vanhoute, G., Mourtas, S., et al. (2017). Multifunctional LUV liposomes decorated for BBB and amyloid targeting - B. In vivo brain targeting potential in wild-type and APP/PS1 mice. European journal of pharmaceutical sciences : official journal of the European Federation for Pharmaceutical Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2017.03.010
Vancouver
Papadia K, Giannou AD, Markoutsa E, Bigot C, Vanhoute G, Mourtas S, et al. Multifunctional LUV liposomes decorated for BBB and amyloid targeting - B. In vivo brain targeting potential in wild-type and APP/PS1 mice. European journal of pharmaceutical sciences : official journal of the European Federation for Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.ejps.2017.03.010. PMID: 28285172.
BibTeX
@article{papadia2017-28285172,
author = {Papadia, K. and Giannou, A. D. and Markoutsa, E. and Bigot, C. and Vanhoute, G. and Mourtas, S. and Van der Linded, A. and Stathopoulos, G. T. and others},
title = {{Multifunctional LUV liposomes decorated for BBB and amyloid targeting - B. In vivo brain targeting potential in wild-type and APP/PS1 mice}},
journal = {European journal of pharmaceutical sciences : official journal of the European Federation for Pharmaceutical Sciences},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1016/j.ejps.2017.03.010},
pmid = {28285172},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2017.03.010}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Herein, the targeting potential of mf-LIPs was compared to that of BBB-LIPs (liposomes having only the two BBB-specific ligands) in FVB mice (normal), as well as in double transgenic mice (APP/PS1) and their corresponding littermates (WT), by live-animal (in vivo) and explanted organ (ex vivo) imaging.
- In FVB mice, the head-signals of mf-LIPs and BBB-LIPs are either similar, or signals from mf-LIP are higher, suggesting that the co-presence of the curcumin derivative on the liposome surface does not disturb the functionality of the BBB-specific ligands.
- Higher brain/liver+spleen ratios (ex vivo) were calculated post-injection of mf-LIP, compared to those found after BBB-LIP injection, due to the reduced distribution of mf-LIPs in the liver and spleen; showing that the curcumin ligand increases the stealth properties of liposomes by reducing their uptake by liver and spleen.
- The later effect is more pronounced when the density of the BBB-specific ligands on the mf-LIPs is 0.1mol%, compared to 0.2%, highlighting the importance of this parameter.
- When a high lipid dose (4mg/mouse) is injected in WT and APP/PS1 mice, the head-signals of mf-LIPs are significantly higher than those of BBB-LIPs, but no differences are observed between WT and APP/PS1 mice.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Effect size0.2%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (European journal of pharmaceutical sciences : official journal of the European Federation for Pharmaceutical Sciences) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Laboratory or animal study (title names “app/ps1”) — scores zero |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 28285172) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.