Nanoparticle Surface Charges Alter Blood–Brain Barrier Integrity and Permeability
By P. Lockman, J. Koziara, R. Mumper, D. D. Allen. Journal of drug targeting (Print), 2004
705 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Biomaterials, Neurology, Pharmaceutical Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5475ca74d1742fc18f1a1cb9296ce316fbfe9655
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Biomaterials
In Neurology
In Pharmaceutical Science
Citations in the corpus
- Nanotoxicology and in vitro studies: the need of the hour. (2012, background): “…or Table 1 (continued) Physicochemical property Toxicokinetic findings Biological effects References Toxic effect at the blood brain barrier in rats Lockman et al. (2004) Anionic NPs at lower concentrations Superior uptake rates as compared to neutral or cationic NPs at the same concentrations in…”
- Categorization framework to aid hazard identification of nanomaterials (2007, background): “After an initial literature review, and when considering the information needed in order to describe a nanomaterial from a physical and chemical perspective when estimating the hazard of nanomaterials, we propose the following properties as being important: (1) Chemical composition, (2) Size, (3) Sh”
- NanoGenotoxicology: the DNA damaging potential of engineered nanomaterials. (2009, neutral): “Although this has been observed in practice using PEGylated polylactide and hydrogel nanoparticles of similar sizes but different charges [156,182], this is not always the rule and it does not preclude the uptake of negatively charged nanoparticles [183].”
- Cancer nanomedicine: a review of recent success in drug delivery (2017, background): “Neutral and anionic nanoparticles were found to result in less neurotoxicity than cationic nanoparticles for an in situ perfusion study of rat brains [43].”
- Drug delivery and nanoparticles: Applications and hazards (2008, background): “So, nanoparticle surface charges must be considered for toxicity and brain distribution profi les (Lockman et al 2004).”
- Approaches to transport therapeutic drugs across the blood-brain barrier to treat brain diseases. (2010, neutral): “This process is not efficient and may disrupt the BBB as has been shown using nanoparticles (Lockman et al., 2004).”
- Nanomaterials and nanoparticles: Sources and toxicity (2007, background): “It allows a larger number of cationic nanoparticles to pass compared to neutral or anionic particles, due to the disruption of its integrity [249].”
- Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: elements of a screening strategy (2005, background): “This work suggests that neutral nanoparticles and low concentration anionic nanoparticles can serve as carrier molecules providing chemicals direct access to the brain and that cationic nanoparticles have an immediate toxic effect at the blood-brain barrier [55,56].”
- The relationship between pH and zeta potential of ∼ 30 nm metal oxide nanoparticle suspensions relevant to in vitro toxicological evaluations (2009, background): “This in turn may induce a systemic and/or chronic effect (Lockman et al. 2004; Oberdörster 2007; Semmler-Behnke et al. 2007; Panessa-Warren et al. 2008; Santhanam et al. 2008).”
- Nanoparticle-mediated brain drug delivery: Overcoming blood-brain barrier to treat neurodegenerative diseases. (2016, background): “It has been shown that NPs with high zeta potential (high positive charge) cause immediate toxicity to the BBB [57].”
- Current Challenges and Opportunities in Treating Glioblastoma (2018, background): “FDCSP expression has also been implicated as a marker of follicular dendritic cell sarcoma (Lorenzi et al., 2017).”