Picture of virus under microscope

Research under the microscope...

The Strathprints institutional repository is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde research outputs.

Strathprints serves world leading Open Access research by the University of Strathclyde, including research by the Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences (SIPBS), where research centres such as the Industrial Biotechnology Innovation Centre (IBioIC), the Cancer Research UK Formulation Unit, SeaBioTech and the Centre for Biophotonics are based.

Explore SIPBS research

Controlled release of the fibronectin central cell binding domain from polymeric microspheres

Bouissou, C. and Potter, U. and Altroff, H. and Mardon, H.J. and Van Der Walle, C.F. (2004) Controlled release of the fibronectin central cell binding domain from polymeric microspheres. Journal of Controlled Release, 95. pp. 557-566. ISSN 0168-3659

Full text not available in this repository. (Request a copy from the Strathclyde author)

Abstract

Non-ionic surfactants have been employed as alternatives to PVA for the emulsification–encapsulation of a conformationally labile protein (FIII9′-10) into PLGA microspheres. FIII9′-10 was encapsulated using a w/o/w double emulsification–evaporation technique and the microspheres fabricated were characterized by SEM and CLSM. The peptide backbone integrity of FIII9′-10 was assayed by SDS-PAGE and the degree of unfolding of FIII9′-10 following emulsification–encapsulation was assessed using a fibroblast cell-attachment assay. The encapsulation efficiency for FIII9′-10 was 25% when using PVA, compared to 50–60% when using Igepal CA-630 or Triton-X100, with values below for the other surfactants. FIII9′-10 released from microspheres promoted cell attachment in a concentration-dependent manner, only Igepal CA-630 and Triton X-100 maintaining near-maximal cell attachment, indicating that the conformation of the relatively unstable FIII9′ domain was preserved. All non-ionic surfactants reduced microsphere surface porosity, compared to PVA, and an increasing surface rugosity (leading to minor ‘ridges’) could be correlated with decreasing surfactant HLB. Low surface porosities did not effect the diffusion of FIII9′-10 from the microspheres' internal pores in a ‘burst release’, as may have been imagined. In summary, non-ionic surfactants should be considered over PVA for the maintenance of biological activity of conformationally labile proteins during encapsulation.