Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 198

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Systemic in vivo distribution of activatable cell penetrating peptides is superior to that of cell penetrating peptides

Open access
Aguilera, Todd A., Olson, Emilia S., Timmers, Margaret M., Jiang, Tao, Tsien, Roger Y.·2009·Integrative Biology

Abstract

Cell penetrating peptides (CPPs) have been developed as vehicles for payload delivery into cells in culture and in animals. However several biologic features limit their usefulness in living animals. Activatable cell penetrating peptides (ACPPs) are polycationic CPPs whose adsorption and cellular uptake are minimized by a covalently attached polyanionic inhibitory domain. Cleavage of the linker connecting the polyanionic and polycationic domains by specific proteases (tumor associated matrix metalloproteases discussed herein) dissociates the polyanion and enables the cleaved ACPP to enter cells. In contrast to their CPP counterpart, ACPPs are relatively nonadherent and distributed uniformly to normal tissues. While nonaarginine (r(9)) CPP administered intravenously into mice initially bind to the local vasculature and redistribute to the liver, where >90% of the injected dose accumulates 30 min after injection. Regardless of the presence of the polyanionic inhibitory domain, confocal imaging of live tissues reveals that the majority of the ACPP and CPP remain in punctate organelles, presumably endosomes. Therefore further improvements in the efficiency of delivery to the cytosol and nucleus are necessary. In addition to improved target specificity, a major advantage of ACPPs over CPPs for potential clinical applications is reduced toxicity. Systemically administered r(9) CPP causes acute toxicity in mice at a dose 4-fold lower than the MMP cleavable ACPP, a complication not observed with an uncleavable ACPP presumably because the polycationic charge remains masked systemically. These data suggest that ACPPs have greater potential than CPPs for systemic delivery of imaging and therapeutic agents.

Overview

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 · 10.1039/b904878b

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

See all 198

Metadata

Authors
Aguilera, T. A., Olson, E. S., Timmers, M. M., Jiang, T., & Tsien, R. Y.
Venue
Integrative Biology
Published
2009-05-11
Volume
1
Issue
5-6
Pages
371-381
ISSN
  • 1757-9694 (ISSN-L)
  • 1757-9708
OpenAlex
W2145057519
Cited by
198
References
0
FWCI
6.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systemic in vivo distribution of activatable cell penetrating peptides is superior to that of cell penetrating peptides. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1039/b904878b
The paper
Aguilera, T. A., Olson, E. S., Timmers, M. M., Jiang, T., & Tsien, R. Y. (2009). Systemic in vivo distribution of activatable cell penetrating peptides is superior to that of cell penetrating peptides. Integrative Biology. https://doi.org/10.1039/b904878b

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.