Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:50:40.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Polyethyleneimine and Poly(ethylene glycol) Functionalized Oligoester Based Polycationic Particles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2018

Magdalena Mazurek-Budzynska
Affiliation:
Institute of Biomaterial Science, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Kantstraße 55, Teltow, Germany.
Maria Balk
Affiliation:
Institute of Biomaterial Science, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Kantstraße 55, Teltow, Germany.
Marc Behl
Affiliation:
Institute of Biomaterial Science, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Kantstraße 55, Teltow, Germany.
Andreas Lendlein*
Affiliation:
Institute of Biomaterial Science, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Kantstraße 55, Teltow, Germany.
*
*Correspondence to: Prof. Dr. Andreas Lendlein Institute of Biomaterial Science, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Kantstr. 55, 14513, Teltow, Germany Email: [email protected] Phone: +49 (0)3328 352-450 Fax: +49 (0)3328 352-452
Get access

Abstract

Polycationic particles based on a degradable oligoester core are interesting candidate materials for the transfection of polyanionic macromolecules like DNA, which would enable the degradation after delivery of condensed molecules. Good transfection efficiencies can be obtained when the size of the polyplex (containing both polycationic nanoparticles and polyanionic macromolecules) does not exceed 120 nm. Therefore, here we explored how size, but also dispersity, and surface charge of these carrier systems can be adjusted by variation of the block copolymer composition or the presence and ratio of a co-assembly agent. Polycationic particles were obtained based on an amphiphilic triblock copolymer from oligo[(ε-caprolactone)-co-glycolide] (CG) functionalized with polyethyleneimine (PEI) and diblock copolymer based on poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) modified with CG. A second series of particles was created, in which the oligoester blocks contained only ε-caprolactone units, therefore the effect of the presence of glycolide units was also studied. In both series, the ratio between di- and triblock copolymers was systematically varied. Nano-sized particles ranging from 34.5 ± 0.2 nm to 97.9 ± 0.3 nm with controllable positive surface charges between 2.9 ± 0.2 mV and 18.1 ± 0.5 mV were obtained by self-assembly in PBS solution under intensive stirring. The incorporation of PEG-C diblock copolymers resulted in an increase of particle size, however no specific relation between composition, size, and polydispersity was observed. In case of PEG-CG diblock copolymers a rather systematic increase of the particles’ size with increasing content of diblock copolymer was shown. Furthermore, with a decrease of content of diblock copolymer in the particle structure zeta potential strongly increased. Additionally, the content of glycolide units in triblock copolymer increased the zeta potential of PEI-CG-PEI-based particles in comparison to PEI-C-PEI-based ones. Therefore, obtained particles could be used as potential target-oriented polycationic macromolecules for carrier systems.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ginn, S. L., Alexander, I. E., Edelstein, M. L., Abedi, M. R. and Wixon, J., J. Gene Med. 15 (2), 65-77 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, J. C., Rossi, J. J. and Tiemann, K., Biotechnol. J. 6 (9), 1130-1146 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godbey, W. T., Wu, K. K. and Mikos, A. G., J. Controlled Release 60 (2-3), 149-160 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boussif, O., Lezoualc’h, F., Zanta, M. A., Mergny, M. D., Scherman, D., Demeneix, B. and Behr, J. P., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 92 (16), 7297-7301 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moghimi, S. M., Symonds, P., Murray, J. C., Hunter, A. C., Debska, G. and Szewczyk, A., Mol. Ther. 11 (6), 990-995 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kafil, V. and Omidi, Y., Bioimpacts 1 (1), 23-30 (2011).Google Scholar
Navarro, G., Pan, J. and Torchilin, V. P., Mol. Pharmaceutics 12 (2), 301-313 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Z. K., Ma, R. J. and Shi, L. Q., Acc. Chem. Res. 47 (4), 1426-1437 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhong, Y., Yang, W., Sun, H., Cheng, R., Meng, F., Deng, C. and Zhong, Z., Biomacromolecules 14 (10), 3723-3730 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gu, F., Zhang, L., Teply, B. A., Mann, N., Wang, A., Radovic-Moreno, A. F., Langer, R. and Farokhzad, O. C., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 105 (7), 2586-2591 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lendlein, A., Colussi, M., Neuenschwander, P. and Suter, U. W., Macromol. Chem. Phys. 202 (13), 2702-2711 (2001).3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balk, M., Behl, M., Yang, J., Li, Q., Wischke, C., Feng, Y. and Lendlein, A., Polym. Adv. Technol. 28 (10), 1278-1284 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, W., Balk, M., Deng, Z., Wischke, C., Gossen, M., Behl, M., Ma, N. and Lendlein, A., J. Controlled Release 242 (Supplement C), 71-79 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar