Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
10.5 Conclusion and Perspectives
Zwitterionic materials are very well positioned to play a role in the
development of nanomedicine. Zwitterionic polymers have shown excellent
stealth and functionalization properties to meet the challenge of long-term
stable performance in more complex conditions in vivo. They are potential
alternatives to PEG for a broad range of applications due to the instability of
PEG, especially for CB-based polymers. Their properties, such as excellent
stability and the abundant carboxylate anions of CB-based polymers for the
attachment of targeting ligands, therapeutic drugs, and diagnostic labels
through conventional NHS/EDC chemistry, make pCBs an ideal candidate for
''theranostics''.
Moreover, since the origin of the repulsive force of zwitterionic materials from
ionic hydration is clearly larger than PEG from hydrogen bonding, the thickness
of zwitterionic materials to reach ''nonfouling'' capability on drug carriers could
be thinner than a single PEG chain, which might increase the drug loading
capability of the drug carrier. It is also possible for the zwitterionic material-
protected drug carrier to have a long circulation time and thus enhance both
passive and active targeting. The protein surface-like structure of CB
zwitterionic materials reminds us that the conventional protein conjugation
chemistry could be applicable to them. The possibility of newly designed
zwitterionic materials, such as ''nonfouling'' peptides, might provide a
metabolism friendly way to overcome the unnatural degradation of widely
used ''nonfouling'' materials, such as PEG. However, zwitterionic materials are
still in the early stage in both proof of conception and practical applications. All
these advantages need to be realized through more detailed investigations.
d n 4 y 3 n g | 7
Reference
1. G. Pasut and F. M. Veronese, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev., 2009, 61, 1177-1188.
2. M.
Talelli,
C.
J.
F.
Rijcken,
C.
F.
van
Nostrum,
G.
Storm
and
W. E. Hennink, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev., 2010, 62, 231-239.
3. S. Kim, Y. Z. Shi, J. Y. Kim, K. Park and J. X. Cheng, Expert Opin. Drug
Delivery, 2010, 7, 49-62.
4. J. K. Oh, D. J. Siegwart, H. I. Lee, G. Sherwood, L. Peteanu,
J. O. Hollinger, K. Kataoka and K. Matyjaszewski, J. Am. Chem. Soc.,
2007, 129, 5939-5945.
5. Y. Q. Shen, E. L. Jin, B. Zhang, C. J. Murphy, M. H. Sui, J. Zhao,
J. Q. Wang, J. B. Tang, M. H. Fan, E. Van Kirk and W. J. Murdoch,
J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2010, 132, 4259-4265.
6. P. Harder, M. Grunze, R. Dahint, G. M. Whitesides and P. E. Laibinis,
J. Phys. Chem. B, 1998, 102, 426-436.
7. T. L. Cheng, P. Y. Wu, M. F. Wu, J. W. Chern and S. R. Roffler,
Bioconjugate Chem., 1999, 10, 520-528.
8. J. Xia, P. L. Dubin and E. Kokufuta, Macromolecules, 1993, 26, 6688-6690.
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search