PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10837629

Protein release from alginate matrices.

Abstract

There are a variety of both natural and synthetic polymeric systems that have been investigated for the controlled release of proteins. Many of the procedures employed to incorporate proteins into a polymeric matrix can be harsh and often cause denaturation of the active agent. Alginate, a naturally occurring biopolymer extracted from brown algae (kelp), has several unique properties that have enabled it to be used as a matrix for the entrapment and/or delivery of a variety of biological agents. Alginate polymers are a family of linear unbranched polysaccharides which contain varying amounts of 1,4'-linked beta-D-mannuronic acid and alpha-L-guluronic acid residues. The residues may vary widely in composition and sequence and are arranged in a pattern of blocks along the chain. Alginate can be ionically crosslinked by the addition of divalent cations in aqueous solution. The relatively mild gelation process has enabled not only proteins, but cells and DNA to be incorporated into alginate matrices with retention of full biological activity. Furthermore, by selection of the type of alginate and coating agent, the pore size, degradation rate, and ultimately release kinetics can be controlled. Gels of different morphologies can be prepared including large block matrices, large beads (>1 mm in diameter) and microbeads (<0.2 mm in diameter). In situ gelling systems have also been made by the application of alginate to the cornea, or on the surfaces of wounds. Alginate is a bioadhesive polymer which can be advantageous for the site specific delivery to mucosal tissues. All of these properties, in addition to the nonimmunogenicity of alginate, have led to an increased use of this polymer as a protein delivery system. This review will discuss the chemistry of alginate, its gelation mechanisms, and the physical properties of alginate gels. Emphasis will be placed on applications in which biomolecules have been incorporated into and released from alginate systems.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S Wee, WR Gombotz. 1998-05-04. Protein release from alginate matrices.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-409x(97)00124-5

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗