2017
DOI: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.7b00706
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Self-Assembling Peptide Nanofiber Hydrogels for Controlled Ocular Delivery of Timolol Maleate

Abstract: The self-assembling peptides Ac-(RADA) 4-CONH 2 and Ac-(IEIK) 3 I-CONH 2 which form hydrogels in physiological conditions were evaluated as carriers for ocular delivery of the βblocker timolol maleate. Electron microscopy studies revealed that hydrogels contain nanofibers, whereas rheological studies showed that the Ac-(IEIK) 3 I-CONH 2 self-assembles in a stiffer hydrogel compared with the Ac-(RADA) 4-CONH 2 peptide. The in vitro release and ex vivo permeation studies demonstrated controlled release and trans… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

3
22
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
3
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The in vitro release profiles of TM and BR from the peptide hydrogel were recorded in STF pH 7.4 at 37 °C. Both drugs demonstrated similar release profiles ( Figure 3 ) with a burst release of approximately 60% occurring within the first hour, achieving total release over a period of 8 h, in accordance to previous studies [ 11 , 21 ]. TM release from the peptide hydrogel was slightly slower, possibly due to the minor difference in its lipophilicity compared to BR (logP TM = 1.83; logP BR = 1.37), however this difference was not statistically significant.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…The in vitro release profiles of TM and BR from the peptide hydrogel were recorded in STF pH 7.4 at 37 °C. Both drugs demonstrated similar release profiles ( Figure 3 ) with a burst release of approximately 60% occurring within the first hour, achieving total release over a period of 8 h, in accordance to previous studies [ 11 , 21 ]. TM release from the peptide hydrogel was slightly slower, possibly due to the minor difference in its lipophilicity compared to BR (logP TM = 1.83; logP BR = 1.37), however this difference was not statistically significant.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…The P app of TM in the peptide hydrogel and in solution were calculated to be 2.3 × 10 −6 ± 0.3 cm/s and 0.75 × 10 −6 ± 0.053 cm/s, respectively. Both values were found to be similar compared to the respective values reported in the literature for TM in the peptide hydrogel (1.91 × 10 −6 ± 0.11 cm/s) [ 11 ] and in solution form (0.9 × 10 −6 cm/s) [ 24 ]. The P app of BR in the peptide hydrogel was calculated to be 3.3 × 10 −6 ± 0.3 cm/s, which was almost five times higher than the P app value calculated for BR in solution (0.63 × 10 −6 ± 0.055 cm/s).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 86%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The viscosity of the MXH decreased greatly as it was sheared, which is typical of an assembled hydrogel and similar to a self‐assembled graphene hydrogel . The storage and loss modulus of these materials are better those of conventional self‐assembled hydrogels and are comparable to those of various chemically crosslinked polymer hydrogels and some biological tissues, both in a small‐deformation oscillatory measurement and in a thermal stability test.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 69%