Back

Predicting nanocarrier permeation across the human intestine in vitro: Model matters

Jung, N.; Schreiner, J.; Baur, F.; Vogel-Kindgen, S.; Windbergs, M.

2024-03-12 pharmacology and toxicology
10.1101/2024.03.08.584089 bioRxiv
Show abstract

For clinical translation of oral nanocarriers, simulation of the complex intestinal microenvironment is crucial to evaluate interactions and transport across the intestinal mucosa for predicting the drugs bioavailability. However, permeation studies are often conducted using simplistic cell culture models, overlooking key physiological factors such as tissue composition, morphology, and additional diffusion barriers as constituted by mucus. This oversight may potentially lead to an incomplete evaluation of the nanocarrier-tissue interactions and an overestimation of permeation. In this study, we systematically investigated different 3D tissue models of the human intestine under static cultivation and dynamic flow conditions with respect to tissue morphology, mucus production, and their impact on nanocarrier permeation. Our results revealed that the cell ratio between the different cell types (enterocytes and goblet cells), as well as the choice of culture conditions, had a notable impact on tissue layer thickness, mucus secretion, and barrier impairment, all of which were increased under dynamic flow conditions. Permeation studies with polymeric nanocarriers (PLGA and PEG-PLGA) elucidated that the amount of mucus present in the respective model was the limiting factor for the permeation of PLGA nanocarriers, while tissue topography represented the key factor influencing PEG-PLGA nanocarrier permeation. Furthermore, both nanocarriers exhibited diametrically opposite permeation kinetics in a direct comparison to soluble compounds. In summary, these findings reveal the critical role of the implemented test systems on permeation assessment and emphasize that, in the context of preclinical nanocarrier testing, the choice of in vitro model matters.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Pharmaceutics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.4%
2
Journal of Controlled Release
39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.7%
3
Molecular Pharmaceutics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
4
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.4%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 35%
3.7%
8
Fluids and Barriers of the CNS
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
9
Biomaterials
78 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.9%
10
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
11
Acta Biomaterialia
85 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
12
Journal of Extracellular Biology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.4%
13
Bioengineering & Translational Medicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
14
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules
65 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
15
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
16
ACS Applied Bio Materials
21 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
17
Communications Chemistry
39 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
18
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.9%
19
Advanced Materials
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
20
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.8%
21
Biofabrication
32 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
22
ACS Omega
90 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
23
Advanced Healthcare Materials
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.5%
25
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%