| Title |
Anti-Toxoplasma activity and impact evaluation of lyophilization, hot molding process, and gamma-irradiation techniques on CLH-PLGA intravitreal implants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10856-015-5621-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gabriella M. Fernandes-Cunha, Cíntia M. F. Rezende, Wagner N. Mussel, Gisele R. da Silva, Elionai C. de L. Gomes, Maria I. Yoshida, Sílvia L. Fialho, Alfredo M. Goes, Dawison A. Gomes, Ricardo W. de Almeida Vitor, Armando Silva-Cunha |
| Abstract |
Intraocular delivery systems have been developed to treat many eye diseases, especially those affecting the posterior segment of the eye. However, ocular toxoplasmosis, the leading cause of infectious posterior uveitis in the world, still lacks an effective treatment. Therefore, our group developed an intravitreal polymeric implant to release clindamycin, a potent anti-Toxoplasma antibiotic. In this work, we used different techniques such as differential scanning calorimetry, thermogravimetry, X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy, and fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy to investigate drug/polymer properties while manufacturing the delivery system. We showed that the lyophilization, hot molding process, and sterilization by gamma irradiation did not change drug/polymer physical-chemistry properties. The drug was found to be homogeneously dispersed into the poly lactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA) chains and the profile release was characterized by an initial burst followed by prolonged release. The drug profile release was not modified after gamma irradiation and non-covalent interaction was found between the drug and the PLGA. We also observed the preservation of the drug activity by showing the potent anti-Toxoplasma effect of the implant, after 24-72 h in contact with cells infected by the parasite, which highlights this system as an alternative to treat toxoplasmic retinochoroiditis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Poland | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 32 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 21% |
| Professor | 4 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 21% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Materials Science | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2015.
All research outputs
#17,778,896
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine
#1,168
of 1,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#265,188
of 390,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine
#8
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,403 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 390,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.