Cited by 51Nanoparticle-Based Drug DeliveryAdvanced Drug Delivery SystemsSurfactants and Colloidal Systems

Toward understanding polymer micelle stability: Density ultracentrifugation offers insight into polymer micelle stability in human fluids

Open access
Langridge, Timothy D., Gemeinhart, Richard A.·2020·Journal of Controlled Release

Abstract

Micelles, as a class of drug delivery systems, are underrepresented among United States Food and Drug Administration approved drugs. A lack of clinical translation of these systems may be due to, in part, to a lack of understanding of micelle interactions with biologic fluids following injection. Despite the limited clinical translation, micelles remain an active area of research focus and pre-clinical development. The goal of the present study was to examine the stability of amphiphilic block copolymer micelles in biologic fluids to identify the properties and components of biologic fluids that influence micelle stability. Micelle stability, measured via Förster resonance energy transfer-based fluorescent spectrometry, was complemented with density ultracentrifugation to reveal the colocalized, or dissociated, state of the dye cargo after exposure to human biologic fluids. Polymeric micelles composed of poly(ethylene glycol-block-caprolactone) (mPEG-CL) and poly(ethylene glycol-block-lactide) (mPEG-LA) were unstable in fetal bovine serum, human serum and synovial fluid, with varying levels of instability observed in ascites and pleural fluid. All polymeric micelles exhibited stability in cerebrospinal fluid, highlighting the potential for local cerebro-spinal administration of micelles. Interestingly, mPEG 2.2k-CL 3.1k and mPEG 2k-LA 2.7k micelles favored dissolution whereas mPEG 5.4k-LA 28.5k micelles favored stability. Taken together, our data offers both quantitative and qualitative evidence for micelle stability within human biologic fluids and offers evidence of polymer micelle instability in biologic fluids that is not explained by either total protein content or total unsaturated lipid content. The results help to identify potential sites for local delivery where stability is maintained.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jconrel.2019.12.038

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Data obtained with AF4 in terms of micelles integrity have been correlated with the pharmacokinetic profile, allowing prediction of the stability or instability of drug-loaded micelles after intravenous administration.

    “Very recently, the data obtained with AF4 in terms of micelles integrity have been correlated with the pharmacokinetic profile, allowing to predict the stability or instability of drug loaded micelles after i.v.administration [242].”

    From Polymeric micelles in drug delivery: An insight of the techniques for their characterization and assessment in biorelevant conditions (2021) · cites this paper as [242]

    The Abstract describes micelle-stability measurements using FRET spectrometry and density ultracentrifugation, not AF4. The Discussion says the results are expected to be predictive of in vivo stability but notes limits to extrapolating from the fluids studied. Searches for AF4 and a correlation with a pharmacokinetic profile found no passage establishing the claimed prediction after intravenous administration. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Langridge, T. D., & Gemeinhart, R. A.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Gemeinhart, Richard A.
Venue
Journal of Controlled Release
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-03
Volume
319
Pages
157-167
ISSN
0168-3659 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2996855738
Cited by
51
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Controlled Release (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Center for Research Resources
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmaceutical Science › Advanced Drug Delivery Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Surfactants and Colloidal Systems
Keywords
polymeric micelles, micelle stability, amphiphilic block copolymers, fetal bovine serum, synovial fluid, ascites, pleural fluid, cerebrospinal fluid, local drug delivery, fluorescence resonance energy transfer, micelle dissociation
MeSH terms
Drug Carriers, Humans, Micelles, Polyesters, Polyethylene Glycols, Polymers, Ultracentrifugation, Drug Delivery Systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review