You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
  • Review
  • Open Access

21 February 2022

Bioadhesive Nanoparticles for Local Drug Delivery

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
School of Pharmaceutical Sciences (Shenzhen), Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors equally contributed to this work.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Biomolecules for Nanodelivery

Abstract

Local drug delivery is an effective strategy for achieving direct and instant therapeutic effects. Current clinical treatments have fallen short and are limited by traditional technologies. Bioadhesive nanoparticles (NPs), however, may be a promising carrier for optimized local drug delivery, offering prolonged drug retention time and steadily maintained therapeutic concentrations. In addition, the possibility of clinical applications of this platform are abundant, as most polymers used for bioadhesion are both biodegradable and biocompatible. This review highlights the major advances in the investigations of polymer-based bioadhesive nanoparticles and their innumerable applications in local drug delivery.

1. Introduction

Although systemic drug delivery is an advantageous delivery route due to its accelerated onset of action, it is often difficult to maintain the required local drug concentration. Simply administering higher dosages is often not a feasible solution coupled with the restriction of limited extravasation from the bloodstream into the target sites. These factors can lead to higher toxic effect and adverse side effects. Local drug delivery, however, aims to provide an optimal therapeutic effect directly to the disease sites with minimal or no systemic toxicity [1]. An excellent local drug delivery platform should be able to release the active pharmaceutical ingredient at a suitable and continuous rate, maintain efficacy, and reduce or eliminate potential adverse reactions. In order for the above functions to be achieved, various formulations have been developed for local drug delivery such as patch, spray, or micro- or nano-carriers [2]. All strategies aforementioned can be directly applied to target sites like the oral cavity or skin [3,4]. Some limitations are apparent before progression into clinical applications, including the stability and maintenance of drug concentrations following application.
The concept of bioadhesion refers to the interactive forces between the biological or synthetic material and a mucosal surface [5]. Specifically, bioadhesion is the interaction and/or chemical bonds between the polymer and a biological substrate, such as oral mucus, nasal mucus, or skin [6]. Bioadhesive nanoparticles have been explored for local drug delivery action and can be divided into natural biopolymer-based and synthetic or semi-synthetic polymer-based [7,8]. Generally speaking, natural biopolymers such as chitosan, gelatin, and lectin are biocompatible and can provide bioadhesive interactions. Synthetic or semi-synthetic polymer-based systems, however, deliver optimal adhesion in comparison to natural biopolymers but may induce increased chronic inflammation or higher cytotoxicity from potentially toxic degradation products (Figure 1) [7,8]. However, bioadhesion is not free of drawbacks, mainly due to possible cell toxicity, as well as weak tissue adhesive strength [7]. The nanotechnology approach through nanoparticles (NPs), however, may overcome limitations in bioadhesion.
Figure 1. Bioadhesive nanoparticles (NPs) based on different materials. HPG: hyperbranched polyglycerol; PAA: poly (acrylic acid).
Bioadhesive NPs can not only prolong drug retention time but can also encourage particle uptake and enhance local drug delivery with the combination of their small size and high specific surface area [9,10]. This review highlights the essential characteristics and applications of bioadhesive NPs in local drug delivery. In particular, this work focuses on the key polymers that exhibit bioadhesive properties, its related applications, and the prospects of bioadhesive NPs for local drug delivery.

2. Mechanism of Bioadhesion

“Bioadhesion” is the binding between natural or synthetic biopolymers and mucosa or cell surfaces [11]. When biopolymers adhere to a cell surface, the term “cytoadhesion” is typically used, whilst “mucoadhesion” is the bioadhesion to the mucus membrane [12,13]. Cytoadhesion is the direct covalent or non-covalent binding between bioadhesive polymers and cell surface components such as receptors or proteins [14,15]. In comparison, the process of mucoadhesion is more complex and can be described in three stages: (I) contact stage, (II) interpenetration stage, and (III) consolidation stage, as shown in Figure 2 [16]. The contact stage is initiated by the wetting of the mucoadhesive polymers to form close interaction between the polymers and mucosal surface [17]. The hydration state of the adhesive material affects the contact process, and the spreading of polymer solvents will increase the interaction region [18]. Afterwards, the chains of bioadhesive polymers penetrate the mucin glycoproteins, which results in chain entanglement during the interpenetration stage [16]. The consolidation stage involves chemical (covalent bonding, hydrogen bonding) and mechanical interactions (physical entanglement between polymers and mucin chains) between the polymer and mucosal surface, further strengthening the mucoadhesive binding force started in the interpenetration stage [16,19].
Figure 2. Illustration of mucoadhesive interaction(s) between polymers and mucin glycoproteins. I) Contact stage, II) Interpenetration stage and III) Consolidation stage. Adapted from Ahmady et al. [16].

4. Test Models

There are a series of test models established for the characterization of bioadhesive properties. In in vitro models, Deng et al. utilized poly(L-lysine)-coated slides to stimulate the protein-rich tumor microenvironment and tested the performance of bioadhesive nanoparticles. They immobilized the surface of slides with unloaded NPs, EB-loaded NPs (EB/NNPs and EB/BNPs), free EB, or PBS and evaluated the in vitro efficacy in order to suppress the growth of USC cells. They observed that only slide regions pretreated with EB/BNPs significantly suppressed the growth of tumor cells [42]. In addition, Deng et al. smeared DID/NNPs and DID/BNPs on porcine skin, which is a compatible model for mimicking human skin. This was cultivated for 6 h in a humidity chamber at 32 °C, followed by washing with PBS. The study found that BNPs showed a significantly higher skin retention than NNPs [14]. In terms of ex vivo models, the bioadhesion of materials are mostly reflected by fluorescence intensity with respect to time. For example, Han et al. showed that the active material, Cy5.5-labeled nCUR, possessed a longer colonic retention time in colitis mice models than in healthy colonic mice tissue by ex vivo NIR imaging at 6 h and 24 h [23]. In in vivo models, researchers can monitor bioadhesion through live imaging. Deng et al. observed that orally administered IR-780/BNPs were retained for 5–10 d in comparison to intraperitoneal administration of IR-780/NNPs in mice through live imaging [42].

5. Current Application Directions

One of the primary purposes of designing and applying bioadhesive materials is to achieve slow and sustainable drug release at the target site by enhancing cargo retention [34]. It is known that there are various complex physiological barriers in the different segments of gastrointestinal tract that greatly restrict the absorption of drugs. Carriers with bioadhesive properties play important roles in local treatment of the gastrointestinal diseases and oral drug delivery systems by improving their cargo’s interaction with biological systems such as mucus barriers. Studies have shown that lectins can specifically target cells or tissues by binding to specific sugar groups. Hence, lectin-modified drug delivery systems may achieve further precise targeted delivery as second-generation bioadhesive materials. On the other hand, the skin and mucous membranes are the first barriers for human body protection. Combining bioadhesive materials with other delivery materials can achieve local drug delivery and sustain drug release on skin or mucous membranes. In the present, research on the applications of bioadhesive materials for skin diseases such as skin cancer, psoriasis, wound management, peritoneal metastatic cancer, eye diseases, nasal cavity administration, and vaginal administration are being widely conducted, showing superior drug delivery effect as opposed to single systems.

6. Discussions and Conclusions

This review summarizes the recent advances of bioadhesive NPs for local drug delivery, mainly introducing a variety of polymers exerting bioadhesive properties as well as their related local applications. In conclusion, the bioadhesive NPs possess dual advantages of being nanocarriers and bioadhesives, making this platform more suitable for local therapies. Meanwhile, novel and multifunctional delivery systems based on bioadhesion are rapidly being developed in combination with nanotechnologies. For instance, tissue adhesives show excellent antibacterial and hemostatic properties when combined with the metal NPs, among which silver and gold are the most studied. Nano-compounds encapsulating growth factors or genes, or those combined with stem cells, have attracted great attention and interest from researchers, potentially providing novel therapeutic strategies in the near future [10]. In addition, bioadhesive NPs may be further improved when combined with advanced therapies such as intelligent response or photothermal/photodynamic therapy. However, besides serving as delivery vehicles themselves, some of these bioadhesive materials can also be used as coatings to render adhesive properties to other carriers and improve their biocompatibility. Halloysite nanotubes (HNT), for example, are naturally occurring aluminosilicates with a hollow tubular structure, similar to carbon nanotubes [54]. This cavity structure and high adsorption properties endow it with the advantages of high drug loading and sustained drug release. In addition, HNT can adsorb or graft functional molecules on the inner and outer walls such as in DNA [55]. If bioadhesive materials such as chitosan or dopamine are modified on the surface of HNT, the advantages of their adhesion and nanotubes can be combined to obtain a multifunctional delivery system. This combination approach can increase prospects in the application of local disease treatments for the superiority of slower release of drugs and longer drug retention [55,56,57]. Although significant developments have been made for bioadhesive NPs, significant barriers still exist concerning the nanomaterials’ long-term safety, anticipated behavior, and toxicity to the human body, among other factors, yet there are still many challenges and barriers existing. For example, they generally cannot exhibit the properties of long-term adhesion and lack more accurate delivery after local adhesion, limiting future applications [9]. Therefore, comprehensive research and clinical trials are expected to further optimize the understanding of bioadhesive NPs. Overall, the rapid advancements in bioadhesive NPs in pre-clinical research has illustrated the enormous potential for local drug delivery and will further promote the clinical application for disease treatments locally and specifically.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.D., L.Y., Z.L. and T.C.; writing—first draft, L.Y., Z.L. and T.C.; revision of manuscript content, L.Y., Z.L., T.C., Y.O., L.X., S.L., Z.P., Y.L. and Y.D.; approval of the final version of the manuscript, Y.L. and Y.D.; supervision, Y.D.; funding acquisition, Y.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the financial support from the Shenzhen Science and Technology Program (Grant No. KQTD 20190929173853397).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Banerjee, A.; Pathak, S.; Subramanium, V.D.; Dharanivasan, G.; Murugesan, R.; Verma, R.S. Strategies for targeted drug delivery in treatment of colon cancer: Current trends and future perspectives. Drug Discov. Today 2017, 22, 1224–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ren, B.; Chen, X.; Du, S.; Ma, Y.; Chen, H.; Yuan, G.; Li, J.; Xiong, D.; Tan, H.; Ling, Z.; et al. Injectable polysaccharide hydrogel embedded with hydroxyapatite and calcium carbonate for drug delivery and bone tissue engineering. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018, 118, 1257–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kotla, N.G.; Rana, S.; Sivaraman, G.; Sunnapu, O.; Vemula, P.K.; Pandit, A.; Rochev, Y. Bioresponsive drug delivery systems in intestinal inflammation: State-of-the-art and future perspectives. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2018, 146, 248–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ooi, H.W.; Hafeez, S.; Van Blitterswijk, C.A.; Moroni, L.; Baker, M.B. Hydrogels that listen to cells: A review of cell-responsive strategies in biomaterial design for tissue regeneration. Mater. Horiz. 2017, 4, 1020–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Park, K.; Robinson, J.R. Bioadhesive polymers as platforms for oral-controlled drug delivery: Method to study bioadhesion. Int. J. Pharm. 1984, 19, 107–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vincent, H.L.; Release, L. Encyclopedia of Controlled Drug Delivery, Volume 1 and 2; Mathiowitz, E., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1999; p. 1057. [Google Scholar]
  7. Taboada, G.M.; Yang, K.; Pereira, M.J.N.; Liu, S.S.; Hu, Y.; Karp, J.M.; Artzi, N.; Lee, Y. Overcoming the translational barriers of tissue adhesives. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2020, 5, 310–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ge, L.; Chen, S. Recent Advances in Tissue Adhesives for Clinical Medicine. Polymers 2020, 12, 939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Nethi, S.K.; Das, S.; Patra, C.R.; Mukherjee, S. Recent advances in inorganic nanomaterials for wound-healing applications. Biomater. Sci. 2019, 7, 2652–2674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Coulthard, P.; Worthington, H.; Esposito, M.; Elst, M.; Waes, O.J. Tissue adhesives for closure of surgical incisions. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2004, 11, CD004287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Henriksen, I. Bioadhesion of hydrated chitosans: An in vitro and in vivo study. Int. J. Pharm. 1996, 145, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Vasir, J.K.; Tambwekar, K.; Garg, S. Bioadhesive microspheres as a controlled drug delivery system. Int. J. Pharm. 2003, 255, 13–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Edsman, K.; Hägerström, H. Pharmaceutical applications of mucoadhesion for the non-oral routes. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2005, 57, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Deng, Y.; Ediriwickrema, A.; Yang, F.; Lewis, J.M.; Girardi, M.; Saltzman, W.M. A sunblock based on bioadhesive nanoparticles. Nat. Mater. 2015, 14, 1278–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Kim, B.-Y.; Jeong, J.H.; Park, K.; Kim, J.-D. Bioadhesive interaction and hypoglycemic effect of insulin-loaded lectin–microparticle conjugates in oral insulin delivery system. J. Control. Release 2005, 102, 525–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ahmady, A.; Abu Samah, N.H. A review: Gelatine as a bioadhesive material for medical and pharmaceutical applications. Int. J. Pharm. 2021, 608, 121037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Roy, S.; Pal, K.; Anis, A.; Pramanik, K.; Prabhakar, B. Polymers in Mucoadhesive Drug-Delivery Systems: A Brief Note. Des. Monomers Polym. 2009, 12, 483–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Chatterjee, B.; Amalina, N.; Sengupta, P.; Mandal, U.K. Mucoadhesive Polymers and Their Mode of Action: A Recent Update. J. Appl. Pharm. Sci. 2017, 7, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Barua, S.; Kim, H.; Jo, K.; Seo, C.W.; Park, T.J.; Bin Lee, K.; Yun, G.; Oh, K.; Lee, J. Drug delivery techniques for buccal route: Formulation strategies and recent advances in dosage form design. J. Pharm. Investig. 2016, 46, 593–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Razali, M.; Yunus, R.; Jemaat, Z.; Alias, S. Monoethanolamine Wastewater Treatment via Adsorption Method: A Study on Comparison of Chitosan, Activated Carbon, Alum and Zeolite. J. Appl. Sci. 2010, 10, 2544–2550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Des Rieux, A.; Fievez, V.; Garinot, M.; Schneider, Y.-J.; Préat, V. Nanoparticles as potential oral delivery systems of proteins and vaccines: A mechanistic approach. J. Control. Release 2006, 116, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Viswanadh, M.K.; Muthu, M.S. Targeted bioadhesive nanomedicine: An effective approach for synergistic drug delivery to cancers. Nanomedicine 2018, 13, 1401–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Han, W.; Xie, B.; Li, Y.; Shi, L.; Wan, J.; Chen, X.; Wang, H. Orally Deliverable Nanotherapeutics for the Synergistic Treatment of Colitis-Associated Colorectal Cancer. Theranostics 2019, 9, 7458–7473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Cordenonsi, L.M.; Faccendini, A.; Catanzaro, M.; Bonferoni, M.C.; Rossi, S.; Malavasi, L.; Raffin, R.P.; Schapoval, E.E.S.; Lanni, C.; Sandri, G.; et al. The role of chitosan as coating material for nanostructured lipid carriers for skin delivery of fucoxanthin. Int. J. Pharm. 2019, 567, 118487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wang, J.; Tabata, Y.; Bi, D.; Morimoto, K. Evaluation of gastric mucoadhesive properties of aminated gelatin microspheres. J. Control. Release 2001, 73, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Montazerian, H.; Baidya, A.; Haghniaz, R.; Davoodi, E.; Ahadian, S.; Annabi, N.; Khademhosseini, A.; Weiss, P.S. Stretchable and Bioadhesive Gelatin Methacryloyl-Based Hydrogels Enabled by in Situ Dopamine Polymerization. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021, 13, 40290–40301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Ramirez-Barron, S.N.; Sanchez-Valdes, S.; Betancourt, R.; Gallardo, C.A.; Puente-Urbina, B.; Rodriguez-Fernández, O.S.; Cunha, M.G.C.-D.; Correia, M.T.D.S.; Sanchez-Martinez, Z.V. Preparation and characterization of gelatin-gallic acid/ZnO nanocomposite with antibacterial properties as a promising multi-functional bioadhesive for wound dressing applications. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2020, 104, 102749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Charlot, A.; Sciannaméa, V.; Lenoir, S.; Faure, E.; Jérôme, R.; Jérôme, C.; Van De Weerdt, C.; Martial, J.; Archambeau, C.; Willet, N.; et al. All-in-one strategy for the fabrication of antimicrobial biomimetic films on stainless steel. J. Mater. Chem. 2009, 19, 4117–4125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Carvalho, A.L.; Vale, A.C.; Sousa, M.P.; Barbosa, A.M.; Torrado, E.; Mano, J.F.; Alves, N.M. Antibacterial bioadhesive layer-by-layer coatings for orthopedic applications. J. Mater. Chem. B 2016, 4, 5385–5393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Zhou, Y.; Qian, Y.; Wang, J.; Qiu, X.; Zeng, H. Bioinspired Lignin-Polydopamine Nanocapsules with Strong Bioadhesion for Long-Acting and High-Performance Natural Sunscreens. Biomacromolecules 2020, 21, 3231–3241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lee, Y.; Lee, H.; Kim, Y.B.; Kim, J.; Hyeon, T.; Park, H.; Messersmith, P.; Park, T.G. Bioinspired Surface Immobilization of Hyaluronic Acid on Monodisperse Magnetite Nanocrystals for Targeted Cancer Imaging. Adv. Mater. 2008, 20, 4154–4157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Albu, A.M.; Draghicescu, W.; Munteanu, T.; Ion, R.; Mitran, V.; Cimpean, A.; Popescu, S.; Pirvu, C. Nitrodopamine vs dopamine as an intermediate layer for bone regeneration applications. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2019, 98, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Costa-Fernandez, S.; Matos, J.K.; Scheunemann, G.S.; Salata, G.C.; Chorilli, M.; Watanabe, I.-S.; de Araujo, G.L.; Santos, M.F.; Ishida, K.; Lopes, L.B. Nanostructured lipid carriers containing chitosan or sodium alginate for co-encapsulation of antioxidants and an antimicrobial agent for potential application in wound healing. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 183, 668–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Ahadian, S.; Finbloom, J.A.; Mofidfar, M.; Diltemiz, S.E.; Nasrollahi, F.; Davoodi, E.; Hosseini, V.; Mylonaki, I.; Sangabathuni, S.; Montazerian, H.; et al. Micro and nanoscale technologies in oral drug delivery. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2020, 157, 37–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Moulari, B.; Béduneau, A.; Pellequer, Y.; Lamprecht, A. Lectin-decorated nanoparticles enhance binding to the inflamed tissue in experimental colitis. J. Control. Release 2014, 188, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Mostaghaci, B.; Yasa, O.; Zhuang, J.; Sitti, M. Bioadhesive Bacterial Microswimmers for Targeted Drug Delivery in the Urinary and Gastrointestinal Tracts. Adv. Sci. 2017, 4, 1700058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Cheng, J.; Teply, B.A.; Sherifi, I.; Sung, J.; Luther, G.; Gu, F.; Levy-Nissenbaum, E.; Radovic-Moreno, A.F.; Langer, R.; Farokhzad, O.C. Formulation of functionalized PLGA–PEG nanoparticles for in vivo targeted drug delivery. Biomaterials 2007, 28, 869–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Hrkach, J.; Von Hoff, D.; Ali, M.M.; Andrianova, E.; Auer, J.; Campbell, T.; De Witt, D.; Figa, M.; Figueiredo, M.; Horhota, A.; et al. Preclinical Development and Clinical Translation of a PSMA-Targeted Docetaxel Nanoparticle with a Differentiated Pharmacological Profile. Sci. Transl. Med. 2012, 4, 128ra39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Deng, Y.; Saucier-Sawyer, J.K.; Hoimes, C.; Zhang, J.; Seo, Y.-E.; Andrejecsk, J.W.; Saltzman, W.M. The effect of hyperbranched polyglycerol coatings on drug delivery using degradable polymer nanoparticles. Biomaterials 2014, 35, 6595–6602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Suh, H.-W.; Lewis, J.; Fong, L.; Ramseier, J.Y.; Carlson, K.; Peng, Z.-H.; Yin, E.S.; Saltzman, W.M.; Girardi, M. Biodegradable bioadhesive nanoparticle incorporation of broad-spectrum organic sunscreen agents. Bioeng. Transl. Med. 2018, 4, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hu, J.K.; Suh, H.-W.; Qureshi, M.; Lewis, J.M.; Yaqoob, S.; Moscato, Z.M.; Griff, S.; Lee, A.K.; Yin, E.S.; Saltzman, W.M.; et al. Nonsurgical treatment of skin cancer with local delivery of bioadhesive nanoparticles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Deng, Y.; Yang, F.; Cocco, E.; Song, E.; Zhang, J.; Cui, J.; Mohideen, M.; Bellone, S.; Santin, A.D.; Saltzman, W.M. Improved i.p. drug delivery with bioadhesive nanoparticles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 11453–11458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Mohideen, M.; Quijano, E.; Song, E.; Deng, Y.; Panse, G.; Zhang, W.; Clark, M.R.; Saltzman, W.M. Degradable bioadhesive nanoparticles for prolonged intravaginal delivery and retention of elvitegravir. Biomaterials 2017, 144, 144–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ugwoke, M.I.; Sam, E.; Mooter, G.V.D.; Verbeke, N.; Kinget, R. Nasal mucoadhesive delivery systems of the anti-parkinsonian drug, apomorphine: Influence of drug-loading on in vitro and in vivo release in rabbits. Int. J. Pharm. 1999, 181, 125–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tobyn, M.J.; Johnson, J.R.; Dettmar, P.W. Factors Affecting in Vitro Gastric Mucoadhesion. II: Physical Properties of Polymers. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 1996, 42, 56–61. [Google Scholar]
  46. Zou, W.; Liu, C.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, N. Studies on bioadhesive PLGA nanoparticles: A promising gene delivery system for efficient gene therapy to lung cancer. Int. J. Pharm. 2009, 370, 187–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Vakili, M.R.; Mohammed-Saeid, W.; Aljasser, A.; Hopwood-Raja, J.; Ahvazi, B.; Hrynets, Y.; Betti, M.; Lavasanifar, A. Development of mucoadhesive hydrogels based on polyacrylic acid grafted cellulose nanocrystals for local cisplatin delivery. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020, 255, 117332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Khutoryanskaya, O.V.; Morrison, P.W.J.; Seilkhanov, S.K.; Mussin, M.N.; Ozhmukhametova, E.K.; Rakhypbekov, T.K.; Khutoryanskiy, V.V. Hydrogen-Bonded Complexes and Blends of Poly(acrylic acid) and Methylcellulose: Nanoparticles and Mucoadhesive Films for Ocular Delivery of Riboflavin. Macromol. Biosci. 2013, 14, 225–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Oprea, M.; Voicu, S.I. Recent advances in composites based on cellulose derivatives for biomedical applications. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020, 247, 116683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Mašková, E.; Kubova, K.; Raimi-Abraham, B.T.; Vllasaliu, D.; Vohlídalová, E.; Turánek, J.; Mašek, J. Hypromellose—A traditional pharmaceutical excipient with modern applications in oral and oromucosal drug delivery. J. Control. Release 2020, 324, 695–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Da Silva, J.B.; dos Santos, R.S.; da Silva, M.B.; Braga, G.; Cook, M.T.; Bruschi, M.L. Interaction between mucoadhesive cellulose derivatives and Pluronic F127: Investigation on the micelle structure and mucoadhesive performance. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2020, 119, 111643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kovtun, A.; Kozlova, D.; Ganesan, K.; Biewald, C.; Seipold, N.; Gaengler, P.; Arnold, W.H.; Epple, M. Chlorhexidine-loaded calcium phosphatenanoparticles for dental maintenance treatment: Combination of mineralising and antibacterial effects. RSC Adv. 2011, 2, 870–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pan-In, P.; Banlunara, W.; Chaichanawongsaroj, N.; Wanichwecharungruang, S. Ethyl cellulose nanoparticles: Clarithomycin encapsulation and eradication of H. pylori. Carbohydr. Polym. 2014, 109, 22–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Chow, W.; Tham, W.; Seow, P. Effects of maleated-PLA compatibilizer on the properties of poly(lactic acid)/halloysite clay composites. J. Thermoplast. Compos. Mater. 2012, 26, 1349–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kryuchkova, M.; Batasheva, S.; Naumenko, E.; Rozhina, E.; Akhatova, F.; Panchal, A.; Lvov, Y.; Fakhrullin, R. Self-assembly of concentric microrings of tubule and platy nanoclays for cell patterning and capturing. Appl. Clay Sci. 2020, 195, 105707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Batasheva, S.; Kryuchkova, M.; Fakhrullin, R.; Cavallaro, G.; Lazzara, G.; Akhatova, F.; Nigamatzyanova, L.; Evtugyn, V.; Rozhina, E.; Fakhrullin, R. Facile Fabrication of Natural Polyelectrolyte-Nanoclay Composites: Halloysite Nanotubes, Nucleotides and DNA Study. Molecules 2020, 25, 3557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Rozhina, E.; Batasheva, S.; Miftakhova, R.; Yan, X.; Vikulina, A.; Volodkin, D.; Fakhrullin, R. Comparative cytotoxicity of kaolinite, halloysite, multiwalled carbon nanotubes and graphene oxide. Appl. Clay Sci. 2021, 205, 106041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.