Drug delivery systems (DDS) are defined as methods by which drugs are delivered to desired tissues, organs, cells and subcellular organs for drug release and absorption through a variety of drug carriers. Its usual purpose to improve the pharmacological activities of therapeutic drugs and to overcome problems such as limited solubility, drug aggregation, low bioavailability, poor biodistribution, lack of selectivity, or to reduce the side effects of therapeutic drugs. During 2015–2018, significant progress in the research on drug delivery systems has been achieved along with advances in related fields, such as pharmaceutical sciences, material sciences and biomedical sciences. This review provides a concise overview of current progress in this research area through its focus on the delivery strategies, construction techniques and specific examples. It is a valuable reference for pharmaceutical scientists who want to learn more about the design of drug delivery systems.

No abstract

Inhibition of the interaction between the tumor suppressor protein p53 and its negative regulators MDM2 and MDMX is of great interest in cancer biology and drug design. We previously reported a potent duodecimal peptide inhibitor, termed PMI (TSFAEYWNLLSP), of the p53-MDM2 and -MDMX interactions. PMI competes with p53 for MDM2 and MDMX binding at an affinity roughly two orders of magnitude higher than that of 17–28p53 (ETFSDLWKLLPE) of the same length; both peptides adopt nearly identical α-helical conformations in the complexes, where the three highlighted hydrophobic residues Phe, Trp and Leu dominate PMI or 17–28p53 binding to MDM2 and MDMX. To elucidate the molecular determinants for PMI activity and specificity, we performed a systematic Ala scanning mutational analysis of PMI and 17–28p53. The binding affinities for MDM2 and MDMX of a total of 35 peptides including 10 truncation analogs were quantified, affording a complete dissection of energetic contributions of individual residues of PMI and 17–28p53 to MDM2 and MDMX association. Importantly, the N8A mutation turned PMI into the most potent dual specific antagonist of MDM2 and MDMX reported to date, registering respective Kd values of 490 pM and 2.4 nM. The co-crystal structure of N8A-PMI-25–109MDM2 was determined at 1.95 Å, affirming that high-affinity peptide binding to MDM2/MDMX necessitates, in addition to optimized inter-molecular interactions, enhanced helix stability or propensity contributed by non-contact residues. The powerful empirical binding data and crystal structures present a unique opportunity for computational studies of peptide inhibition of the p53-MDM2/MDMX interactions.

Despite the small size and conserved tertiary structure of defensins, little is known at a molecular level about the basis of their functional versatility. For insight into the mechanism(s) of defensin function, we prepared enantiomeric pairs of four human defensins, HNP1, HNP4, HD5, and HBD2, and studied their killing of bacteria, inhibition of anthrax lethal factor, and binding to HIV-1 gp120. Unstructured HNP1, HD5, and HBD3 and several other human ␣-and ␤-defensins were also examined. Crystallographic analysis showed a plane of symmetry that related L HNP1 and D HNP1 to each other. Either D-enantiomerization or linearization significantly impaired the ability of HNP1 and HD5 to kill Staphylococcus aureus but not Escherichia coli. In contrast, L HNP4 and D HNP4 were equally bactericidal against both bacteria. D-Enantiomers were generally weaker inhibitors or binders of lethal factor and gp120 than their respective native, all-L forms, although activity differences were modest, particularly for HNP4. A strong correlation existed among these different functions. Our data indicate: (a) that HNP1 and HD5 kill E. coli by a process that is mechanistically distinct from their actions that kill S. aureus and (b) that chiral molecular recognition is not a stringent prerequisite for other functions of these defensins, including their ability to inhibit lethal factor and bind gp120 of HIV-1.