Mucus-penetrating nanoparticles for drug and gene delivery to mucosal tissues

Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 61 (2009) 158–171

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a d d r

Mucus-penetrating nanoparticles for drug and gene delivery to mucosal tissues☆ Samuel K. Lai a,b,⁎, Ying-Ying Wang c, Justin Hanes a,b,c,d,⁎ a

Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering (JH Primary Appointment), Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218, USA Institute for NanoBioTechnology, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218, USA c Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA d Department of Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 14 November 2008 Accepted 21 November 2008 Available online 13 December 2008 Keywords: Mucus Mucus barrier properties Mucus-penetrating particles Therapeutic particles

a b s t r a c t Mucus is a viscoelastic and adhesive gel that protects the lung airways, gastrointestinal (GI) tract, vagina, eye and other mucosal surfaces. Most foreign particulates, including conventional particle-based drug delivery systems, are efficiently trapped in human mucus layers by steric obstruction and/or adhesion. Trapped particles are typically removed from the mucosal tissue within seconds to a few hours depending on anatomical location, thereby strongly limiting the duration of sustained drug delivery locally. A number of debilitating diseases could be treated more effectively and with fewer side effects if drugs and genes could be more efficiently delivered to the underlying mucosal tissues in a controlled manner. This review first describes the tenacious mucus barrier properties that have precluded the efficient penetration of therapeutic particles. It then reviews the design and development of new mucus-penetrating particles that may avoid rapid mucus clearance mechanisms, and thereby provide targeted or sustained drug delivery for localized therapies in mucosal tissues. © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents 1. 2.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mucus as a critical barrier to nanoparticle therapies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Composition of mucus, mucus thickness, and mucus clearance times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Mechanism of particulate transport in mucus: Channeling through low viscosity pores. . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Mucus as a “sticky” net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Conventional nanoparticles are trapped in mucus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Typical fate of nanoparticles in mucus-covered tissues and conventional strategies for enhancing residence 3.2. Ex vivo studies of conventional particle transport in mucus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. In vivo studies of conventional particles in mucus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Shortcomings of mucoadhesive nanoparticles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Lessons from nature: Transport of viruses in mucus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Engineering particles to cross mucus barriers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. Role of surface chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2. Coating particles with low molecular weight poly(ethylene glycol) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3. Implications of large “mucus-penetrating” particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4. Disrupting the mucus barrier to enhance particle transport. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

158 159 159 160 160 161 161 161 162 164 164 165 165 165 167 167 168 168 168

1. Introduction ☆ This review is part of the Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews theme issue on “Drug and Gene Delivery to Mucosal Tissues: The Mucus Barrier”. ⁎ Corresponding authors. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.K. Lai), [email protected] (J. Hanes). 0169-409X/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2008.11.002

Delivery technologies that improve drug pharmacokinetics and facilitate localized delivery to target tissues strongly improve the efficacy of various therapies [1,2]. In particular, an increasing number

S.K. Lai et al. / Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 61 (2009) 158–171

of nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems have been approved for human use or are currently being evaluated in clinical trials [3,4]. Nanoparticle systems can be engineered to possess a number of desirable features for therapy, including: (i) sustained and controlled release of drugs locally [5,6], (ii) deep tissue penetration due to their nano-metric size [7–9], (iii) cellular uptake and sub-cellular trafficking [10,11], and (iv) protection of cargo therapeutics at both the extracellular and intracellular levels [12,13]. The development of controlled release systems for drug and gene delivery to mucosal surfaces, such as those of the lung airways, GI tract, female reproductive tract, nose and eye, is of widespread interest. However, the viscous, elastic and sticky mucus layer that lines all mucosal tissues has evolved to protect the body by rapidly trapping and removing foreign particles and hydrophobic molecules [14,15]. The limited permeability of drug delivery particles and many hydrophobic drugs through the mucus barrier leads to their rapid clearance from the delivery site, often precluding effective drug therapies at non-toxic dosages. In order to avoid rapid mucus clearance and/or reach the underlying epithelia, nanoparticles must quickly traverse at least the outermost layers of the mucus barrier (which are cleared most rapidly) [15,16]. Until recently, nanoparticles were thought incapable of efficiently penetrating mucus layers [17]. The need for new strategies to increase particle transport rates is underscored by: (i) observations of the immobilization of conventional nanoparticles in mucus ex vivo [18,19]; (ii) the very slow transport rate of herpes simplex virus (diameter ∼ 180 nm) in mucus ex vivo [19]; and (iii) animal studies showing that mucus immobilizes a range of particle types [20–23]. In order to penetrate mucus, synthetic nanoparticles must avoid adhesion to mucin fibers and be small enough to avoid significant steric inhibition by the dense fiber mesh. Recently, we demonstrated that nanoparticles as large as 500 nm, if sufficiently coated with a muco-inert polymer, can rapidly traverse physiological human mucus with diffusivities as high as only 4-fold reduced compared to their rates in pure water [17]. This finding suggests that it is possible to engineer nanoparticles that overcome the mucus barrier. Combined with a suitably tailored drug release profile, these “mucus-penetrating particle” (MPP) systems offer the prospect of sustained drug delivery at mucosal surfaces and, thus, provide hope for improved efficacy and reduced side effects for a wide range of therapeutics. The generation of MPP loaded with nucleic acids may also greatly enhance the efficacy of this critical family of therapeutic agents [24,25]. This article reviews the mechanisms by which mucus hinders or prevents particle penetration, including a discussion of previous work on nanoparticle transport in mucus both ex vivo and in vivo. Subsequently, the recent development of mucus penetrating nanoparticles is described. 2. Mucus as a critical barrier to nanoparticle therapies 2.1. Composition of mucus, mucus thickness, and mucus clearance times Mucus is a viscoelastic gel layer that protects tissues that would otherwise be exposed to the external environment. Mucus is composed primarily of crosslinked and entangled mucin fibers secreted by goblet cells and submucosal glands [26–28]. Mucins are large molecules, typically 0.5–40 MDa in size [15,16] formed by the linking of numerous mucin monomers, each about 0.3–0.5 MDa [29,30], and are coated with a complex and highly diverse array of proteoglycans [15,31]. At least twenty mucin glycoproteins have been assigned to the MUC gene family [31,32], with several mucin types expressed at each mucosal surface [32–35]. Mucins can be generally separated into two families: cell-associated mucins ranging between 100 and 500 nm in length that contain a transmembrane domain, and secreted mucins that are up to several microns long [31,36,37].

159

Individual mucin fibers are roughly 3–10 nm in diameter, as determined by biochemical and electron microscopy studies [38,39]. They are highly flexible molecules, with a persistence length of roughly 15 nm [15]. With the exception of specific disease states, such as chronic obstruction pulmonary disease (COPD) and cystic fibrosis (CF), the mucin content ranges between 2 and 5% by weight for cervical, nasal, and lung mucus [40–44], with glycosylated oligosaccharides representing 40–80% of the mucin mass [15]. The water content in most mucus types (i.e., lung, gastric, cervicovaginal) commonly falls within the 90–98% range [35,43–46]. In addition to mucins, mucus gels are loaded with cells, bacteria, lipids, salts, proteins, macromolecules, and cellular debris [15,17]. The various components work together to form a nanoscopically heterogeneous environment for particle transport [47], with a sheardependent bulk viscosity that is typically 1,000–10,000 times higher than the viscosity of water at low shear rates [15,17,47]. Mucus viscoelasticity is tightly regulated in healthy subjects by controlling the mucin to water secretion ratio [48], as well as by varying lipid [49], protein [50], and ion content [51]. Readers are referred to a review on mucus rheology in this issue for further details [47]. Mucus pH can vary greatly depending on the mucosal surface, with highly acidic environments capable of aggregating mucin fibers and greatly increasing the mucus viscoelasticity [52,53]. Lung and nasal mucus are in general pH neutral [54,55], and eye mucus is slightly basic with pH ∼7.8 [56]. In contrast, gastric mucus is exposed to a wide range of pH: a large pH gradient exists within the same mucus layer cross-section, with pH rising from the luminal pH of ∼ 1–2 to ∼7 at the epithelial surface [57]. Vaginal secretions typically exhibit a pH in the range of 3.5 to 4.5 due to acidification from lactic acid produced by lactobacilli under anaerobic conditions [15,58,59]. Beyond biochemical differences, the thickness of the mucus blanket also varies for different mucosal surfaces. Estimates of human mucus layer thickness in different tissues are given in Table 1. In the lung, the thickness of the luminal mucus gel is generally thought to be ∼5–10 µm [60,61]. The underlying, less viscoelastic sol layer, also known as the periciliary liquid (PCL), is occupied by cilia and constitutes an additional 5–10 µm in thickness [60,62,63]. However, more recent studies based on

Table 1 Thickness of various types of normal human mucus Type of mucus

Average thickness (μm)

Reported thicknesses (μm)

Respiratory Airway Bronchial

15 55

7 [64,66]; 30 [65] 55 ± 5 [67]

Gastrointestinala Gastric 170 Ileal 10 Cecal 37 100 Colonicb

Rectal Ocular Mucus layer (only) Tear film

125

144 ± 52 [208]; 192 ± 7 [209] 10 [74] 36.7 ± 7.2 [72] 39.1 ±9.9 (A), 57.5± 14.5 (T), and 69.6± 32.1 (D) [72]; 79 ± 40 [74]; 100–150 [68]; 107 ± 48 (A–T) and 134± 68 (T–D) [73]; 110–160 [69] 101.5 ± 80.3 [72]; 155 ± 54 [73]

0.035

0.02–0.05 [77]

5 40

3 [77]; 6–7 [76] 34–45 [78]

a Gastrointestinal mucus generally exists as two layers, a basal “unstirred” or “firmly adherent” layer and a luminal “stirred” or “sloppy” layer [210–212]; however, most of the cited references report only one value for mucus layer thickness. Matsuo et al. [72] report the thickness of both an “inner layer” and “outer layer” of mucus; in the cecum, the inner layer was measured to be 5.6 +/− 0.2 µm; in the colon, 4.7 +/− 1.4 µm for the ascending colon, 7.0 +/− 3.7 µm for the transverse colon, and 7.6 +/− 3.4 µm for the descending colon; and in the rectum, 12.7 +/− 6.0 µm. b A = ascending colon; T = transverse colon; D = descending colon.

160

S.K. Lai et al. / Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 61 (2009) 158–171

confocal fluorescence microscopy suggest that airway mucus may range in thickness from 5 to 55 µm [64–67]. Under particular disease conditions, such as CF, the average thickness of airway mucus can markedly increase, likely reflecting accumulation of the mucus resulting from impaired mucociliary clearance [67]. The nasal tract, which has a mucus layer of limited thickness, is readily accessible and considered highly permeable compared to other mucosal surfaces [1]. In the human GI tract, the mucus layer is thickest in the stomach and the colon, but exhibits significant variation [68–74]. The relative thickness of the luminal mucus gel and the cell-associated mucus layer in the human GI tract remains under-characterized. The thickness of GI mucus may also vary greatly depending on digestive activity. For instance, dietary fiber deficiency can lead to a significantly lower mucus thickness in rats [75]. In the female reproductive tract, the mucus layer is expected to be at least tens of microns thick in humans, although precise estimates are unavailable. In the eye, the precorneal tear film covering the conjunctiva was previously thought to be ∼5 µm [76,77], but more recently suggested to be as thick as 30–40 µm [56,78]. Mucus is continuously secreted, then shed and discarded or digested and recycled. Its lifetime is short, often measured in minutes to hours (Table 2). The fastest turnover is typically observed at surfaces with the thinnest mucus layer, perhaps as an evolutionary response to improve the protective features of the mucosa. In the nasal tract, the ciliary motion transports mucus from the anterior towards the posterior region of the nasal cavity, moving entrapped particles and potentially toxic materials toward the nasopharynx. The mucus flow rate is about 5 mm per min, and the mucus layer is renewed approximately every 20 min [32,79,80]. Likewise, the luminal gel layer of respiratory tract mucus is replaced every 10 to 20 min, leading to efficient clearance of inhaled particulates [32]. In contrast, the sol phase of respiratory mucus is thought to be cleared much less rapidly than the more solid-like luminal gel layer [55–58]. Continuous secretion and clearance by peristaltic forces leads to quick turnover times, on the order of 4–6 h, in the rat gastrointestinal tract [12,81,82] and likely similar values in humans. In the vagina, mucus is cleared (expelled through the introitus) by intra-abdominal pressure as well as abdominal motions, which squeeze the walls of the vagina together [83,84]. The typical clearance time in the human CV tract remains unclear, but is likely on the order of a few hours. In the eye, the tear turnover rate under normal physiological conditions is in the range of 13–20% per minute, leading to nearly complete clearance of most molecules and particulates from the eye within minutes [56]. The understanding of mucus layer thickness and clearance times at various mucosal surfaces is important to the development of particles designed to overcome mucosal clearance mechanisms, since they

Table 2 Clearance time and rate for various types of normal human mucus Type of mucus

Clearance time (min)

Clearance rate (mm/min)

Ref.

Respiratory General Maxillary sinus Nasal

10–20 20–30 8.8

a

a

5–11 5 4.1 ± 1.9 4.7 (range: 3.5–6) 15.5 (range: 4.5–30)b 2.4 ± 0.5 1

[32] [32] [213] [80] [79,214,215] [216] [216–222] [223–230] [217] [231] [56]

20 Tracheal

a a a

Bronchial Small airways Ocular

a a

5–7.7c

a a

a

Fig. 1. Transmission electron micrograph of human cervicovaginal mucus. The interfiber spacing ranges from 10 nm to 200 nm. Individual fibers can be observed with fiber diameters ∼10 nm. Scale bar = 200 nm. Figure obtained from [19].

must penetrate mucus at rates markedly faster than mucus renewal and clearance in order to overcome the barrier. 2.2. Mechanism of particulate transport in mucus: Channeling through low viscosity pores The bulk viscosity of healthy human mucus is typically 1000– 10,000 times higher than the viscosity of water (at low shear rates). The Stokes–Einstein equation for diffusion in homogeneous fluids predicts that neither viruses nor many hydrophilic macromolecules would be capable of penetrating a fluid layer of this viscosity. Indeed, the diffusion of many macromolecules over extended distances in mucus, or at rates faster than mucociliary clearance, was long assumed to be an improbable event [85]. That view began to change with increasing evidence that a number of macromolecules rapidly diffuse through mucus. Important work by the Saltzman and Cone groups showed that the diffusion of various proteins, including antibodies, in human midcycle cervical mucus was largely unhindered relative to their rates in water [86]. The study also suggested that viruses as large as 30 nm should diffuse nearly unhindered in cervical mucus, which was subsequently proven by Olmsted et al. [19]. In particular, they found that Norwalk (38 nm) and human papilloma virus (HPV; 55 nm) penetrated mucus at rates roughly equivalent to those in water. These results firmly establish that particulates are capable of diffusing through low viscosity pores within the highly elastic mucin fiber matrix. In general, if the viscosity of the fluid that fills the pores in mucus is equivalent to that of water, the diffusion rates of particulates significantly smaller than the average mucus mesh pore size, assuming they do not adhere to mucus, are expected to be similar to their rates in water. Olmsted et al. also showed that the diffusion of herpes simplex virus (HSV), a virus with a diameter of ∼ 180 nm, was nearly completely inhibited [19]. Even the very small fraction of virus that was mobile moved at rates 100- to 1000-fold slower than their expected rates in water. The slow transport of HSV agrees well with an obstruction scaling model [87,88] that assumes the average pore size to be ∼ 100 nm (Fig. 1). This pore size estimate agreed well with the size of viruses capable of efficient infection of mucosal tissues, including polio (28 nm), hepatitis B (43 nm), adenoviruses (60– 90 nm), and rotavirus (75 nm) [15]. Based on these lines of evidence, the development of mucus-penetrating particles appeared to be limited to the dimensions of small viruses, raising significant formulation and practical concerns. 2.3. Mucus as a “sticky” net

a

Not available. b Clearance rates were measured using a bronchoscopic or roentgenographic method, which generally results in higher measured rates of clearance, most likely due to the invasiveness of the procedure [229,230]. c Clearance time was estimated based on the clearance of various molecules from the ocular surface.

Airborne particles typically adhere to respiratory mucus before reaching the alveoli. Filtered particles are removed from the airways by mucociliary clearance and become sterilized by gastric acid [14,89]. Similarly, intestinal mucus prevents the transport of toxic contents

S.K. Lai et al. / Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 61 (2009) 158–171

from the lumen of the GI tract to the underlying interstitial and vascular fluids [15]. The primary mechanism by which mucus gels efficiently trap foreign particulates is the formation of polyvalent adhesive interactions [15,90]. In addition to the negative charges imparted by the presence of carboxyl or sulfate groups on the mucin proteoglycans, there exist periodic hydrophobic “naked” globular regions along mucin strands, stabilized by multiple internal disulfide bonds [91]. The high density of hydrophobic domains, coupled with the flexible nature of mucin fibers, allows efficient formation of multiple low-affinity adhesive interactions with hydrophobic regions on the surfaces of foreign particulates. Although each low-affinity hydrophobic interaction can be readily disrupted by thermal energy, a large number of low-affinity adhesive interactions with the mucus mesh effectively immobilizes particles with permanent high viscidity [15]. The formation of polyvalent low-affinity interactions is critical for the removal of foreign particles smaller than the average mucus mesh pore size. An excellent example of this phenomenon is the strong immobilization of virus-sized carboxyl-modified polystyrene nanoparticles, including those as small as 59 nm, in human cervical mucus [18,19]. Despite possessing a negative surface charge that might be expected to repel negatively charged mucins, polystyrene nanoparticles form multiple hydrophobic adhesive interactions with mucin fibers that are strong enough to bundle mucin strands into thick cables (Fig. 2). Similar immobilization of albumin- or casein-coated particles underscores the efficiency of the hydrophobic adhesive interactions [15]. Hydrophobic interactions also represent an important mechanism by which mucus limits the transport of large entities such as bacteria. Potentially harmful pathogens, including Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Yersinia enterocolitica, are all immobilized by mucus via hydrophobic interactions [92–94].

161

Polyvalent adhesive interactions with mucus can be achieved via electrostatic interactions as well. Since the glycosylated regions of mucin fibers are densely coated with negative charges, mucus can also bind positively charged particles with high avidity. The dual capacity to form polyvalent adhesive interactions via both hydrophobic and anionic forces represents a particularly challenging problem for polymeric nanoparticles designed to deliver drugs and genes, since many commonly used biomaterials are either hydrophobic, such as poly (lactide–co-glycolide) and polyanhydrides [95,96], or cationic, such as polyethylenimine, chitosan and polylysine [59,97,98]. However, despite the great avidity of these polyvalent adhesive interactions, the capacity for mucus to immobilize foreign particles may become saturated. This was demonstrated by the work of Durrer and coworkers, who found that small particles can be adsorbed to mucin fibers only until the internal area available for adsorption is saturated [99–101]. The ubiquitous presence of hydrophobic domains in the mucus mesh also helps to explain why many therapeutic molecules diffuse more slowly through mucus than other molecules of similar or larger size. The diffusion of hydrophobic molecules is often significantly hindered in mucus compared to in water [102–104]. Diffusivity is typically reduced as the nonpolar/polar partition coefficient increases, an expected consequence of adhesive interactions between hydrophobic molecules and the hydrophobic domains of mucus. Several investigators have also shown that mucus significantly decreases the diffusion of a number of both small and large molecules, including tertiary amines [105], bovine serum albumin [106], lysozyme [106], and others [104,106–108], presumably due to hydrophobic interactions. Nonetheless, some hydrophobic molecules are capable of diffusing through mucus gels, perhaps because small molecules are not capable of forming polyvalent adhesive bonds with the mucus gel. 3. Conventional nanoparticles are trapped in mucus 3.1. Typical fate of nanoparticles in mucus-covered tissues and conventional strategies for enhancing residence time When administered to various mucosal tissues, conventional nanoparticles are likely to be trapped by mucus via steric or adhesive forces and rapidly eliminated via mucociliary clearance. In the GI tract, for example, nanoparticles delivered orally may undergo: (1) association with chyme, causing direct transit through the GI tract and fecal elimination; (2) adhesion to mucin fibers, followed by mucus clearance and fecal elimination; or (3) transport across the mucus mesh for possible entry to the underlying epithelia or prolonged residence time in the unstirred layer of mucus gel [81,109]. Typically, the majority of administered particles do not adhere or transport through the GI mucus layer, but rather undergo direct transit through the GI tract [81,110]. The consequent short transit time in the GI tract can be inadequate for particles to release a significant fraction of encapsulated drugs, thereby precluding in many cases the realization of a high local drug concentration over extended periods of time, hence leading to low bioavailability and poor efficacy. To overcome the short transit time, research has largely centered on minimizing the fraction of therapeutics undergoing direct transit and fecal elimination by improving their association to mucus. This phenomenon, known as mucoadhesion, is widely defined as the ability of polymeric systems to adhere to the mucus layer [81,109,111]. Mucoadhesion slows the particle transit time through the GI tract to the time scale of mucus renewal, thereby enhancing drug absorption. The design of mucoadhesive drug delivery systems is currently the predominant approach to improving mucosal delivery of therapeutics. 3.2. Ex vivo studies of conventional particle transport in mucus

Fig. 2. Fluorescently labeled 59 nm polystyrene particles formed thick cables with mucin fibers in human cervicovaginal mucus. (A) Fluorescent image. (B) Phase image. Scale bar = 500 µm. Figure obtained from [19].

That mucus slows the diffusion of macromolecules has long been inferred using indirect techniques, or by measuring rates of

162

S.K. Lai et al. / Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 61 (2009) 158–171

permeation through a thin layer of mucus in a diffusion chamber [104,108]. The same experimental approach has been used extensively to study the diffusion of polymeric particles in mucus. Among the first to quantitatively measure the 1D diffusivity of particles in mucus, Norris and Sinko studied the diffusion of variously sized polystyrene particles in a reconstituted porcine gastric mucin gel, sandwiched between the two chambers of a Transwell–Snapwell diffusion chamber (Fig. 3), and observed a sharp decrease in translocation permeability when particle sizes approached 300 nm [90]. Sanders et al. reported that an extremely low percentage of carboxylated polystyrene nanospheres moved through a 220 µm-thick CF sputum layer after 150 min, with the largest nanospheres studied (560 nm) almost completely blocked by the sputum [112]. Interestingly, nanospheres diffused more efficiently through more viscoelastic sputum samples, which the authors attributed to a more macroporous structure as viscoelasticity increased. More recently, a similar diffusion-chamber method was used to investigate actin's role in limiting the degree to which common mucolytics enhance the diffusion of particles in mucus [113]. Although the diffusion-chamber method is conceptually straightforward, it may be sensitive to parameters that are difficult to control, such as the precise thickness of the mucus layer, the uniformity of the mucus distribution across the face of the filters, blockage of the filter pores by mucus, and alterations in mucus properties during preparation [86]. As an example of the latter, a significant amount of mucin was found to have diffused through the membrane when the pore size of the diffusion chamber filter was greater than 5 µm, thereby reducing the barrier properties of mucus [90]. To circumvent potential artifacts stemming from diffusion chamber studies, a number of studies measured the dynamic transport of nanoparticles using fluorescent microscopy techniques, including fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP), and more recently, high resolution multiple particle tracking (MPT). For example, pioneering work on protein and virus diffusion in human midcycle cervical mucus in two laboratories (Saltzman and Cone) relied on FRAP to elucidate rapid local diffusion in the low viscosity pores present in the mucus mesh [19,86]. More recently, Shen et al. applied FRAP to investigate the diffusion of plasmid DNA, with and without association to liposomes, in reconstituted bovine cervical mucus [114]. They showed that bovine mucus hinders the diffusion of linear DNA, especially when the plasmid size exceeds 5 kb, compared to supercoiled DNA. Fluorescence recovery in 3D, via standard confocal scanning laser microscopes, was developed to test the diffusion of macromolecules in CF sputum by Braeckmans et al. in 2003 [18]. Although FRAP has contributed valuable insight into the diffusion of macromolecules and particulates in mucus, FRAP provides only ensemble-averaged diffusion rates and cannot be used to quantify the transport rates of individual particles. A lack of information at the

Fig. 3. Schematic drawing of a Transwell–Snapwell diffusion chamber (A). The donor and acceptor chambers are indicated by I and II, respectively. Mucus or mucin gel is sandwiched in between polycarbonate filters attached to the Snapwell ring (E) located between the two chambers. Figure obtained from [112].

Fig. 4. Ensemble-averaged mean square displacement (MSD) as a function of time scale for PLGA-DDAB/DNA and COOH-modified polystyrene nanoparticles in reconstituted pig gastric mucus. Figure obtained from [119].

individual particle level may limit insight into the complex phenomena that control nanoparticle transport in the heterogeneous mucus network, where the transport rates of identical particles can vary by several orders of magnitude in the same sample [115]. To this end, Hanes and coworkers have pioneered the use of MPT for drug and gene delivery applications [10,115–117], including the transport of nanoparticles in mucus [17,118,119]. MPT allows for unparalleled insight into the fractions of particles that are adherent to mucus at any given time, and yields quantitative measures of the extent of particle hindrance to free diffusion at the individual particle or ensembleaverage level, important feedback in the development of nonmucoadhesive particle surfaces. Coupled with Monte Carlo simulations of Brownian behavior, MPT can also be used to determine in a quantitative and high-throughput manner the transport mechanism (immobile, hindered-diffusion, diffusive, or active/convective transport) governing particle dynamics in mucus and in other complex biological fluids [17,117,120]. Dawson et al. first applied MPT to measure the transport rates of nanoparticles in mucus. Using a set up that achieved 5 nm and 33 ms spatiotemporal resolution, they studied the movements of carboxylate- and amine-modified polystyrene nanoparticles sized 100– 500 nm in fresh human sputum obtained from patients with CF [118]. The diffusion of nanoparticles was more than an order of magnitude faster than the diffusivity predicted from the macrorheology of the mucus, but at least 300-fold slower than the same particles in water. Neutrally charged hydrophobic particles ∼ 200 nm in diameter appeared to undergo more rapid transport in CF sputum than anionic but otherwise similar particles, suggesting surface charge may be an important parameter in governing transport rates of nanoparticles in mucus. In a separate work, Dawson et al. used MPT to study the diffusion of biodegradable hydrophobic PLGA nanoparticles surface coated with anionic DNA via the cationic surfactant dimethyl dioctadecyl ammonium bromide (DDAB). Coating with hydrophilic DNA improved the average nanoparticle transport rates by 10-fold in reconstituted pig gastric mucus compared to slightly smaller, hydrophobic polystyrene particles (Fig. 4) [119]. In addition, a significant fraction of PLGA-DDAB/DNA particles appeared to undergo unrestricted diffusive transport, supported indirectly by the finding that a considerably higher percentage of PLGA-DDAB/DNA nanoparticles (8.5%) exhibited a MSD N5-fold higher than the ensemble average MSD, compared to corresponding polystyrene particles. More recently, Lai et al. applied MPT to quantify the transport of various sized particles in fresh undiluted human cervicovaginal mucus [17]. 3.3. In vivo studies of conventional particles in mucus The fate of particulates in mucosal tissues of living systems has been studied for over a century, with much of the early work focusing

S.K. Lai et al. / Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 61 (2009) 158–171

on particle uptake into the intestinal epithelia following oral administration. As early as 1907, Basset and Carné suggested that the intestinal epithelium is impermeable to particles [121]. The lack of particle entry into mucosal epithelia has long been attributed to inefficient penetration through the mucus layer. Florey noted that intestinal mucus in cats surrounds particles of India Ink so that they do not come in direct contact with epithelial cells [122]. Arbos et al. observed that poly(methylvinylether-co-maleic anhydride) nanoparticles were not able to reach the enterocytes lining the small intestine and colon in rats and were largely localized within the mucus layer [20]. Gruber concluded that, irrespective of the size, density, or composition of particles, GI mucus in dogs formed them into mucuscovered ‘slugs’ [21]; such particle agglomeration is more recently highlighted by Tirosh and Rubinstein in their studies of particles in rat intestines (Fig. 5) [123]. Lamprecht et al., in an investigation of particles targeting inflamed colonic mucosa in rats, noted that a large number of the particles were associated with the thick mucus layer rather than attached to or internalized by intestinal cells [22]. O'Mullane et al. stated that “the transport of intact carriers across the gastro-intestinal tract is restricted to exceptional and unusual circumstances” [23]. Even the unusually thin mucus secreted in the tear film wraps particles in a mucus coat, as can be noticed on removing an irritating particle from the eyelid [15]. Many researchers have sought to enhance the mucoadhesion of particles in order to improve their retention at mucosal surfaces. To maximize association with mucus, a variety of mucoadhesive drug delivery systems have been engineered, driven by various interaction forces between mucus and nanoparticles, including hydrogen bonding, van der Waals interactions, polymer chain interpenetration, hydrophobic forces, and electrostatic/ionic interactions [109,111]. Electrostatic interaction is one of the most exploited forms of mucoadhesion, as exemplified by chitosan, a cationic polymer obtained from deacetylation of chitin, for a variety of oral and nasal drug delivery applications [124,125]. Jubeh et al. similarly concluded that cationic liposomes adhered to healthy colonic rat mucosa at rates 3-fold greater than neutral or anionic liposomes [126]. Particles synthesized from common biomaterials, such as poly(ethylene glycol) [127–129], polycarbophil and carbopol (derivatives of poly(acrylic acid)) [111,130], polymethacrylates [131,132], and poly(sebacic acid) [133,134] may achieve mucoadhesion via hydrogen bonding, polymer

Fig. 5. Agglomerated non-adhesive particles coated with a mucus plug collected immediately following discharge from the proximal jejunum of the perfused rat (magnification: ×60). Figure obtained from [123].

163

entanglements with mucins, hydrophobic interactions, or a combination of these mechanisms. The association of the aforementioned biomaterials with mucus is typically considered non-specific, as they lack biological molecules that afford recognition and binding to specific target chemical structures on mucus or the surfaces of mucosal epithelia [81,109]. Alternatively, mucoadhesion can also be achieved via ligands that recognize particular mucin glycoproteins. For example, tomato lectins, which specifically recognize and bind to N-acetyl glucosaminecontaining complexes on cell surfaces, were initially tested for specific interactions with intestinal tissues [111]. However, there was little improvement in intestinal transit time of tomato lectin compared to other mucoadhesive systems [135], an observation later justified by the strong association of lectins to the mucus gel instead of the epithelia [136–138]. Lectins with different sugar specificities have also been investigated, including those derived from Canavalia ensiformis [139] and Lotus tetragonolobus [140]. Readers are referred to excellent reviews for further information on non-specific and specific mucoadhesive materials [109,111]. Mucoadhesive particles usually improve the pharmacokinetics of therapeutics in the GI tract compared to free drug alone. For example, mucoadhesive polyanhydride copolymers of fumaric and sebacic acids were used to encapsulate insulin and dicumarol (an anticoagulant drug with poor water solubility and erratic intestinal adsorption) and, in both cases, improved the bioavailability of both loaded drugs compared to their native form [133,134]. Chitosan-based or chitosancoated nanoparticles represent another common group of mucoadhesive systems [124,125,141], and several groups have studied nanoparticles made of these polymers to deliver proteins [142,143], peptides [144], and DNA [145] to mucosal tissues. In addition to prolonged residence times, improved oral bioavailability of drugs observed in vivo may be partially attributed to improved drug stability in encapsulated form in the GI tract, which is rich in proteolytic enzymes such as pepsin, trypsin, and chymotrypsin [81]. For example, the stability of insulin and calcitonin exposed to protease degradation is significantly improved when loaded in polymeric nanoparticles [12,146–148]. A range of reports have suggested that nanoparticles are capable of entry into intestinal epithelia via M cells on the domes of the Peyer's patches in small animals. Not surprisingly, the Peyer's patches are the intestinal surfaces least protected by mucus and most exposed to chyme [15]. Since no mucus is secreted in the region surrounding these cells, which protrude relatively unprotected into the lumen, the mucus barrier is minimal [149]. Indeed, M cells are positioned as sensory outposts for cellular immune functions, transcytosing particles that impinge on their surface into the interior of the patch. The dominant opinion is that particulate uptake in GI tract of mammals is principally via the M cells of Peyer's patches, and that uptake by enterocytes plays a minor role [81,150]. Polystyrene nanopsheres and microspheres were found in the Peyer's patches of the rat colon 12 h following oral administration [151]. Similarly, Jani et al. found microspheres up to a diameter of 3 µm in Peyer's patches and in the gut associated lymphoid tissue 12 h after oral administration [152]. An ex vivo model using a diffusion chamber with pig intestinal tissue show that radiolabeled poly(isobutyl cyanoacrylate) nanoparticles (211 nm) cross pig Peyer's patches, whereas tissue deprived of Peyer's patches was impermeable to particles [153]. The extent of nanoparticle uptake in rabbits appeared at least an order of magnitude greater than that in mice, a finding attributed to the significantly greater abundance of M cells in rabbit Peyer's patches [150,154]. Although the above reports widely support the notion that M cells account for the bulk of particles crossing the intestinal epithelium, M cells occupy a relatively small portion of the total surface area of the GI tract. The potential of drug delivery to the systemic circulation via M cells instead of enterocytes has thus remained debatable. Furthermore, the prospects for using Peyer's patches as a means of delivering

164

S.K. Lai et al. / Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 61 (2009) 158–171

peptides and proteins has been said to be “severely compromised” by: (a) the limited efficiency and capacity of the absorption pathway, (b) the time to onset of pharmacological response, due to both the kinetics of processing the particles and the flow rate of the lymph; and (c) the potential loss of drug to local lymphocytes and macrophages [155]. A number of studies have suggested that uptake of nanoparticles may occur through enterocytes as well as M cells [156–158]; however, as recently pointed out, no satisfying explanation has been advanced to elucidate conflicting reports [159]. A direct consequence of greater uptake into intestinal Peyer's patches is the application of nanoparticles to enhance oral immunization [160], because the low intestinal permeability and high presystemic clearance of vaccines from the gastrointestinal tract requires the use of prohibitively large and repetitive doses to elicit even a modest immune response [161]. In general, antigens incorporated into particles are more effective for oral immunization than soluble antigens [81,162]. For example, ovalbumin incorporated into PLGA particles induced potent serum and mucosal immune response, including both IgA and IgG antibodies [163,164]. Similar results have been achieved with a variety of toxins, including staphylococcal enterotoxin B toxoid [165], tetanus toxoid [166], as well as DNA vaccines [134,145]. For further details, readers are referred to several excellent reviews on the topic of nanoparticle-mediated oral vaccination [81,156,167]. 3.4. Shortcomings of mucoadhesive nanoparticles Although mucoadhesion is a promising approach to increase the bioavailability of drugs delivered via mucosal tissues, important fundamental limitations of this approach exist. Since mucoadhesive systems are bound to the mucus layer through interactions with mucin fibers, the transit time of these systems is determined by the physiological turnover time of the mucus layer [81,168]. For oral

delivery, considering the intestinal mucin turnover time is between 50 and 270 min [82], mucoadhesive particles are not expected to adhere to mucus for more than 4–5 h. Furthermore, as mucoadhesive systems efficiently adhere to mucus, they are largely incapable of penetrating across the mucus layer and entering the underlying epithelia. Thus, mucoadhesive systems are especially unsuitable for delivery of drug and gene molecules that require intracellular delivery. To overcome these issues, various attempts have been made to engineer particles that adhere specifically to intestinal cells, as exemplified by the conjugation of tomato lectins to nanoparticles. However, these ligandbound particles appear to have a limited capacity to diffuse through the mucus layer and, instead, undergo premature adsorption to mucus [136–138]. Thus, these systems reach the enterocyte surface inefficiently at best, and are instead bound to mucus, transported through the GI tract, and eliminated in the feces in a similar fashion to other mucoadhesive systems. To overcome this problem and achieve longer residence time of particles at mucosal surfaces, the foremost requirement is to engineer particles that can efficiently cross the mucus barrier (Fig. 6). 4. Lessons from nature: Transport of viruses in mucus To gain mechanistic insight and rationally engineer particles to cross mucus, we took an alternative approach and looked to nature for guidance. Specifically, we focused on understanding the physicochemical properties (i.e. size and surface chemistry) that govern the rapid transport of specific viruses, which have evolved over thousands of years to infect mucosal tissues. An indirect implication of the highly immobilized nature of virussized polystyrene beads in mucus is that viral particles possess a sufficiently large surface area to undergo polyvalent adhesive interactions with mucus [15]. Nevertheless, many viruses are capable of diffusing in mucus as fast as in water (Fig. 7) [19]. This finding by

Fig. 6. Summary schematic illustrating the fate of mucus-penetrating particles (MPP) and conventional mucoadhesive particles (CP) administered to a mucosal surface. MPP readily penetrate the luminal mucus layer (LML) and enter the underlying adherent mucus layer (AML). In contrast, CP are largely immobilized in the LML. Because MPP can enter the AML and thus are in closer proximity to the cells, cells will be exposed to a greater dose of drug released from MPP compared to drug released from CP. As the LML layer is cleared, CP are removed along with the LML whereas MPP in the AML are retained, leading to prolonged residence time for MPP at the mucosal surface. Thus, at long times, there is almost no drug dosing to cells with CP, whereas MPP, because they are retained longer, will continue to release drugs to cells. Since MPP can penetrate both the LML and AML, a fraction may reach and bind to the underlying epithelia and further improve drug delivery. While this schematic reflects the mucosal physiology of the gastrointestinal and cervicovaginal tracts, the same behavior is expected for the respiratory airways. In the respiratory airways, CP are mostly immobilized in the luminal stirred mucus gel layer, whereas MPP penetrate the mucus gel and enter the underlying periciliary layer. Upon mucociliary clearance, a significant fraction of MPP remains in the periciliary layer, resulting in prolonged retention. This schematic does not depict the glycocalyx adjacent to the epithelial surface, which may contribute an additional steric barrier to cellular entry of MPP.

S.K. Lai et al. / Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 61 (2009) 158–171

165

no clear correlation existed between the surface chemistry of synthetic nanoparticles and their transport rates in mucus. 5.2. Coating particles with low molecular weight poly(ethylene glycol)

Fig. 7. Normalized diffusion coefficients for proteins and viruses in mucus. If a particle diffuses in mucus as fast as it diffuses in saline, Dmuc / Dpbs = 1. The lines drawn on the graph are the ratios predicted by Amsden's obstruction-scaling model using a mucin fiber radius of 3.5 nm and mesh fiber spacing of 100 nm (solid line) or 110 nm (dotted line), which accounts for a 10% increase in the mesh fiber spacing due to 20% dilution of the mucus sample. Figure obtained from [19].

Cone and coworkers motivated us to attempt to develop mucuspenetrating particles (MPP) by mimicking the essential surface properties of viruses that allow them to avoid mucoadhesion. A hypothesis first proposed by Cone and coworkers noted that many viruses, including poliovirus, Norwalk virus and human papilloma virus (HPV), are densely coated with both positively and negatively charged groups, leading to a densely charged yet net neutral surface [15]. Indeed, the average distance between charge groups on the surface of poliovirus is only 5 Å. This feature is also found in many soluble proteins [169], including antibodies, such as IgG and IgA, which experience minimal hindrance to diffusion by mucus [19,86]. We rationalized that the high density of surface charge creates a hydrophilic surface that minimizes hydrophobic entrapment to mucus. Furthermore, an equal density of positive and negative charges may facilitate efficient mucus transport by allowing the viruses to avoid electrostatic adhesive interactions. Some viruses thus appear well designed to penetrate mucus by simultaneously possessing a muco-inert surface to avoid mucoadhesion and a sufficiently small geometry to diffuse through the low viscosity pores in mucus without significant steric obstruction. 5. Engineering particles to cross mucus barriers 5.1. Role of surface chemistry Polystyrene nanoparticles as small as 59 nm, covalently modified with carboxyl groups on the surface, were found to be completely immobilized in human cervical mucus [19]. By reducing the concentrations, Dawson et al. found that some particles with surfaces modified with either carboxyl or amine groups were mobile in CF sputum, but the ensemble-averaged transport rates were still slowed at least 300-fold compared to the same particles in water [118]. Norris et al. similarly observed slow transport of nanoparticles surfacemodified with carboxyl, sulfate, or amidine groups, although the fastest transport was found with the most hydrophilic (amidine) surface [90]. In contrast, Sakuma et al. studied the in vivo behavior of nanoparticles having surface poly(N-isopropyl acrylamide), poly(Nvinyl acetamide), poly(vinyl amine), or poly(methacrylic acid) chains, and observed increased mucoadhesion for all chains except for poly (N-vinyl acetamide) [170,171]. The increased mucoadhesion by the various hydrophilic chains was attributed to the presence of tertiary amines which may interact with anionic components of mucus. Thus,

A faithful mimic of muco-inert viruses would involve developing synthetic particles with a similarly high density of both cationic and anionic surface charge groups. However, although techniques have been advanced to generate multiple alternating layers of oppositely charged coatings with thicknesses on the order of angstroms [172,173], the engineering of such densely charged yet neutral coatings onto the surfaces of synthetic particles remains exceedingly difficult. Furthermore, even if such chemistry is possible and scalable, densely charged synthetic particles may exhibit immunogenicity similar to viruses. To circumvent the difficult chemistry and immunological concerns, we abstracted the features of the highly charged yet net neutral surfaces of viruses to encompass high hydrophilicity and neutral charge. In particular, instead of a high density of charge groups, we hypothesized an uncharged surface may be as muco-inert as viral capsids, provided the surface is sufficiently hydrophilic and low hydrogen bonding. We thus screened through GRAS (generally regarded as safe) polymers that may satisfy these dual requirements: (i) strong hydrophilicity and (ii) neutral charge. Poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) is an uncharged hydrophilic polymer routinely used in pharmaceutics to improve systemic circulation and minimize opsonization [4,174]. However, it was not obvious, a priori, that PEG may reduce the association of particles with mucus, since PEG was widely used as a mucoadhesive agent [175,176]. Some authors have reported that PEG chains may establish adhesive interactions due to their ability to inter-diffuse with the mucus network [128,175–178] and undergo hydrogen bonding [127]. It should be noted that a large fraction of the early work depicting PEG as mucoadhesive was based on PEG coating of hydrogel systems [179], where the characteristic size of the gel is far greater than the average mucus pore spacing. A number of reports over the past decade have further suggested PEG to enhance the mucoadhesive properties of nanoparticles [177,180–182], although the density of the PEG coating was typically undercharacterized. In light of these findings, we hypothesized that coating particles with a high density of PEG may reduce particle–mucus adhesive interactions, provided: (i) the M.W. of PEG was too low to support adhesion via polymer interpenetration (Fig. 8) and (ii) the PEG density is sufficient to effectively shield the hydrophobic core common to many biodegradable polymers. To test our hypothesis, we covalently modified the surfaces of polystyrene nanoparticles with a high density of low M.W. (2 kDa) PEG, and studied their diffusion in fresh undiluted human mucus [17]. Contrary to reports of PEG being mucoadhesive, a dense PEG coating, as characterized by a near-neutral surface charge and negligible protein adsorption, improved the transport of nanoparticles by up to 3 orders of magnitude for particles in the range of 100–500 nm in size (Fig. 9). Large nanoparticles (200 and 500 nm in diameter) densely coated with PEG diffused through mucus with an effective diffusion coefficient (Deff) only 6- and 4-fold lower than that for the same particles in water. The greatly improved nanoparticle transport rates upon PEGylation correlated with a sharp decrease in the fraction of immobile particles for all sizes tested; less than 0.5% of 200 and 500 nm PEGylated particles were immobilized by mucus compared to 32 and 45% for uncoated 200 and 500 nm particles, respectively. To our knowledge, this is the first report to demonstrate that synthetically engineered nanoparticles can rapidly penetrate fresh undiluted human mucus barriers. Despite the marked improvement of nanoparticle transport upon PEG modification, a significant fraction of 100 nm PEG-modified particles was found to be immobile or strongly hindered in mucus [17]. One possible explanation for the slower transport of 100 nm (vs. 200 and 500 nm) particles may be inadequate PEGylation of

166

S.K. Lai et al. / Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 61 (2009) 158–171

Fig. 8. Schematic representation of (A) the interdiffusion of polymers upon contact and (B) the interpenetration between tethered chains on a particle surface and mucin fibers of the mucus gel layer. Figure obtained from [175].

100 nm particles. To better understand how the density of surface PEG coverage may affect particle transport, and to resolve the paradox between the mucoadhesive properties of PEG widely observed prior to our work and the muco-inert properties of PEG we observed, we recently tested the effect of coating density and PEG M.W. on the transport of PEG-coated particles in mucus [183]. We found that a 40% lower surface coverage of 2 kDa PEG, compared to particles wellcoated with 2 kDa PEG, caused a 700-fold decrease in the average transport rate. Particles similarly well-coated with 5 kDa PEG diffused as rapidly through mucus as those with 2 kDa PEG, but a further

increase of PEG M.W. to 10 kDa resulted in 1000-fold slower transport. These results suggest that both dense surface coverage and low M.W. PEG are required for PEG-coated particles to rapidly penetrate mucus. Using this design principle, we were able to engineer 100 nm particles that can rapidly penetrate mucus (unpublished observations). By comparing our results to previously published studies of the interaction of PEG-coated particles with mucus, we estimated the range of PEG M.W. and particle surface charge (an indirect measure of PEG surface coverage on non-neutral core particles) that likely provides muco-inert PEG coatings (Fig. 10) [183].

Fig. 9. Transport of COOH- and PEG-modified polystyrene particles in fresh, human cervicovaginal mucus (CVM). Ensemble-averaged geometric mean square displacements (bMSDN) as a function of time scale for (A) COOH- and (B) PEG-modified polystyrene particles in human CVM. Comparison of average Deff at a time scale of 1 s in water (W) vs. CVM of subfractions of (C) COOH- and (D) PEG-modified particles, from fastest to slowest. Theoretical Deff for same-sized particles in water is shown as W. The dashed black line at bDeffN = 1 × 10− 4 signifies the microscope's resolution. Data represent ensemble average of three experiments, with n ≥ 120 particles for each experiment. Figure obtained from [17].

S.K. Lai et al. / Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 61 (2009) 158–171

Fig. 10. Phase diagram correlating muco-inert versus mucoadhesive particle behavior to surface charge and PEG MW for various PEG-coated nanoparticles (∼200–500 nm in size) reported in literature. PEG-coated nanoparticles reported to be non-mucoadhesive compared to control (uncoated) particles are indicated by open symbols, and those reported to be mucoadhesive compared to control particles are indicated by filled symbols. The shaded region represents the confirmed range of PEG MW and particle ξpotential (i.e., PEG surface coverage), and the hatched region an additional predicted range, that provides a muco-inert coating. Letters represent published results from various studies [17,183,232–235]. ⁎Mucoadhesion was not observed based on adhesion to an in vitro mucin-secreting cell line, which is unlikely to produce mucus gels with the complex mesh structure and adhesivity of physiological mucus [234]. Figure obtained from [183].

In addition to improving transport, PEGylation of nanoparticles may also enhance their stability in mucus. Stability is particularly important when particles must diffuse through a thick mucus layer in order to reach underlying cells. Various studies have demonstrated that liposomes are not stable in the GI tract, particularly in the presence of bile salts [184,185]. Low gene transfer to lung epithelia by lipoplexes administered via intratracheal or intranasal instillation has been attributed to the low stability and substantial aggregation of liposomes in mucus [186]. Upon PEGylation, Sanders et al. found that mucus components did not interact significantly with PEG-GL67 lipoplexes, and prior exposure to the mucus components did not reduce their gene transfer [187,188]. Similarly, in vitro incubation of PEG-coated polylactide nanoparticles in simulated gastric fluid demonstrated 9-fold higher chemical stability than polylactide particles alone [129]. 5.3. Implications of large “mucus-penetrating” particles Much to our surprise, we were able to engineer 200 and 500 nm particles to rapidly traverse fresh human cervicovaginal mucus. This directly implies that the average effective mesh spacing in human cervicovaginal secretions must be significantly larger than earlier reports [17] and must include a large number of pores with effective spacings substantially larger than 500 nm. It is unlikely that the rapid transport of PEGylated particles is due to alterations of the mucus structure, because they do not interact significantly with mucus. Instead, particles likely move in low-viscosity channels or pores within the mucus, as suggested in our earlier work on particle transport in cystic fibrosis mucus [118]. Furthermore, since our results are obtained with fresh, undiluted cervicovaginal mucus that is rheologically and compositionally comparable to mucus found in the airways of the lungs and gastrointestinal tract [15,17], it is possible that large PEGylated nanoparticles may also transport quickly in mucus coating other entry sites into the body. Small changes in the mucus hydration may not markedly alter the diffusion

167

rates of nanoparticles from their rates in fresh cervicovaginal mucus, since the interfiber spacing may not strongly depend on hydration [86]. The rapid mucosal transport of large (200 and 500 nm) PEGmodified particles has important implications for the development of therapeutic and imaging applications in vivo. Larger nanoparticles afford substantially higher drug encapsulation as well as reduced aggregation upon freeze drying. In addition, as the size of drug-loaded particles increases, the drug-release kinetics are usually greatly improved as well, allowing sustained release of therapeutics over days and even months along with enhanced therapeutic efficacy [5,189,190]. In contrast, smaller nanoparticles suffer from large burst release typically within hours upon in vitro or in vivo application [191,192]. These findings should strongly encourage the commercial development of new nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems for applications at mucosal surfaces. Although large nanoparticles are preferred for improved drug loading and release kinetics, an optimal size likely exists for mucosal applications. Nanoparticles that are too large, even if they are wellcoated so as to avoid mucoadhesion, may not diffuse at rates sufficient for overcoming mucociliary clearance due to the elevated friction forces predicted by the Stokes–Einstein equation. Since mucus layer thickness and mucus clearance time differ among the mucosal tissues, different nanoparticle diffusion rates may be required in order to overcome different mucus barriers. Furthermore, for cellular uptake into underlying epithelia, an increase in particle diameter is expected to reduce the rate of endocytosis [10,193]. The size of MPP must be optimized with all of these considerations in mind, and will likely vary based on the requirements of different mucosal applications. 5.4. Disrupting the mucus barrier to enhance particle transport Treatment of mucus with mucolytics agents [47] may improve the penetration rates of drug and gene carrier particles. The use of mucolytics as an adjuvant to particle transport may be particularly important for diseases where mucus is abnormally viscoelastic, such as CF and COPD. For example, in CF sputum, water content is reduced and cellular debris is increased, leading to an increase in physical entanglements, a decrease in the average mesh pore spacing, and a pronounced increase in the viscoelastic nature of the sputum [194,195]. Consequently, CF mucus is suggested to be a confounding barrier even to viruses [196], as well as a major cause for low gene transfer efficiencies in vivo [89,197]. Pulmozyme®, a recombinant human DNase (rhDNase) also known as Dornase alfa, is the most commonly used mucolytic in CF and a potential candidate as an adjuvant to particle transport. Pulmozyme hydrolyzes the DNA that forms dense entanglements with mucin glycoproteins and other mucus constituents, thus reducing the number of crosslinks and the viscoelasticity of mucus [198,199]. However, in a diffusion chamber study, Sanders et al. found only a moderate improvement in the transport of uncoated polystyrene nanospheres through CF sputum treated with rhDNase [112]. Dawson et al. observed that, while rhDNase treatment of undiluted CF sputum reduced its macroviscoelastic properties by up to 50%, it did not improve particle diffusion rates [118]. Multiple particle tracking analysis revealed that rhDNase treatment dramatically narrowed the distribution of individual particle diffusion rates in CF sputum, effectively removing the fast-moving “outlier” particle population. Dawson et al. suggested that soluble DNA fragments created by DNase treatment may increase the microviscosity within mucus pores, thereby eliminating fast-moving particles. This finding suggests that rhDNase may reduce, rather than enhance, the efficacy of nanoparticle therapeutics such as non-viral polymeric gene vectors, since the treatment eliminates the fast-moving fraction that may be critical for effective CF gene therapy [118].

168

S.K. Lai et al. / Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 61 (2009) 158–171

Mucinex® (N-acetyl-L-cysteine; NAC) is another common mucolytic previously tested for its ability to improve the penetration of nanoparticles across CF sputum. NAC reduces the cross-linking of mucin fibers by cleaving disulfide bonds and thus reduces the bulk mucus rheology [200,201]. Alton et al. showed that the mucus barrier to non-viral gene vectors may be at least partially overcome by treatment with NAC in an ex vivo model of sheep tracheal epithelium [202]. NAC treatment has also been shown to increase reporter gene expression in the mouse lung; however, no correction of the nasal transepithelial potential difference was observed in CFnull mice, suggesting NAC alone may be inadequate to induce clinically relevant gene therapy via mucoadhesive cationic liposomes and polymers. Although not widely investigated, other promising mucolytic agents are well established for reducing the bulk rheological properties of mucus and may potentially improve nanoparticle transport through mucus. These include Nacystelyn [203,204], as well as Gelsolin [205] and thymosin β4 [206], agents that depolymerize Factin. The varying effects of mucolytics, as in the cases of NAC and rhDNase, suggest that any potential adjuvant use of mucolytics must be carefully investigated for each agent. Furthermore, patients may respond differently to various mucolytics. A more thorough understanding of failures in mucolytic response in different patients may alleviate these concerns [207]. 6. Conclusions The possibility of using polymer nanoparticles for controlled drug or gene delivery at mucosal sites over many hours to days is expected to lead to effective new therapeutics. However, no such product currently exists since conventional therapeutic particles cannot penetrate the human mucosal barrier, which rapidly clears trapped pathogens and particulates. The development of mucus-penetrating particles (MPP), by rendering the surfaces of particles non-mucoadhesive via lessons learned from viruses, provides a powerful strategy for overcoming the mucus barrier. In particular, the efficient transport of large MPP (200 to 500 nm) through human mucus should strongly encourage the commercial development of new nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems for use in various mucosal surfaces, since drug delivery kinetics and loading efficiency are vastly improved as particle diameter increases. As such, MPP offer the prospect of sustained delivery of a variety of potentially important drugs to treat diseases at mucosal tissues. Acknowledgments This work was funded in part by the NIH (R01EB003558, R21HL089816, and R21EB008515), the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (HANES08G0) and fellowships from the NSF (Y.-Y.W.) and the Croucher Foundation (S.K.L.). References [1] H. Rosen, T. Abribat, The rise and rise of drug delivery, Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 4 (2005) 381–385. [2] A. Shmulewitz, R. Langer, J. Patton, Convergence in biomedical technology, Nat. Biotechnol. 24 (2006) 277–280. [3] R. Duncan, The dawning era of polymer therapeutics, Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2 (2003) 347–360. [4] T.M. Allen, P.R. Cullis, Drug delivery systems: entering the mainstream, Science 303 (2004) 1818–1822. [5] R. Langer, Drug delivery and targeting, Nature 392 (1998) 5–10. [6] O.C. Farokhzad, R. Langer, Nanomedicine: Developing smarter therapeutic and diagnostic modalities, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 58 (2006) 1456–1459. [7] C. Prego, M. Garcia, D. Torres, M.J. Alonso, Transmucosal macromolecular drug delivery, J. Control. Release 101 (2005) 151–162. [8] F. Yuan, M. Leunig, S.K. Huang, D.A. Berk, D. Papahadjopoulos, R.K. Jain, Mirovascular permeability and interstitial penetration of sterically stabilized (Stealth) liposomes in a human tumor xenograft, Cancer Res. 54 (1994) 3352–3356.

[9] J.A. MacKay, D.F. Deen, J.F.C. Szoka, Distribution in brain of liposomes after convection enhanced delivery; modulation by particle charge, particle diameter, and presence of steric coating, Brain Res. 1035 (2005) 139–153. [10] S.K. Lai, K. Hida, S.T. Man, C. Chen, C. Machamer, T.A. Schroer, J. Hanes, Privileged delivery of polymer nanoparticles to the perinuclear region of live cells via a nonclathrin, non-degradative pathway, Biomaterials (2007). [11] L.K. Medina-Kauwe, J. Xie, S. Hamm-Alvarez, Intracellular trafficking of nonviral vectors, Gene Ther. 12 (2005) 1734–1751. [12] E. Allemann, J.-C. Leroux, R. Gurny, Polymeric nano- and microparticles for the oral delivery of peptides and peptidomimetics, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 34 (1998) 171–189. [13] J. Panyam, V. Labhasetwar, Biodegradable nanoparticles for drug and gene delivery to cells and tissue, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 55 (2003) 329–347. [14] M.R. Knowles, R.C. Boucher, Mucus clearance as a primary innate defense mechanism for mammalian airways, J. Clin. Invest. 109 (2002) 571–577. [15] R. Cone, Mucus, in: W.S. Michael, E. Lamm, Jerry R. McGhee, Lloyd Mayer, Jiri Mestecky, John Bienenstock (Eds.), Mucosal Immunlogy, Academic Press, San Diego, 1999, pp. 43–64. [16] R. Cone, Barrier properties of mucus, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 61 (2009) 75–85, doi:10.1016/j.addr.2008.09.008. [17] S.K. Lai, D.E. O'Hanlon, S. Harrold, S.T. Man, Y.Y. Wang, R. Cone, J. Hanes, Rapid transport of large polymeric nanoparticles in fresh undiluted human mucus, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104 (2007) 1482–1487. [18] K. Braeckmans, L. Peeters, N.N. Sanders, S.C. De Smedt, J. Demeester, Threedimensional fluorescence recovery after photobleaching with the confocal scanning laser microscope, Biophys. J. 85 (2003) 2240–2252. [19] S.S. Olmsted, J.L. Padgett, A.I. Yudin, K.J. Whaley, T.R. Moench, R.A. Cone, Diffusion of macromolecules and virus-like particles in human cervical mucus, Biophys. J. 81 (2001) 1930–1937. [20] P. Arbos, M.A. Campanero, M.A. Arangoa, M.J. Renedo, J.M. Irache, Influence of the surface characteristics of PVM/MA nanoparticles on their bioadhesive properties, J. Control. Release 89 (2003) 19–30. [21] P. Gruber, M.A. Longer, J.R. Robinson, Some biological issues in oral, controlled drug delivery, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 1 (1987) 1–18. [22] A. Lamprecht, U. Schafer, C.M. Lehr, Size-dependent bioadhesion of micro- and nanoparticulate carriers to the inflamed colonic mucosa, Pharm. Res. 18 (2001) 788–793. [23] J.E. O'Mullane, P. Artursson, E. Tomlinson, Biopharmaceutics of microparticulate drug carriers, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 507 (1987) 120–140. [24] U. Griesenbach, E. Alton, Gene transfer to the lung: lessons learned from more than two decades of CF gene therapy, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 61 (2009) 128–139, doi:10.1016/j.addr.2008.09.010. [25] N. Sanders, C. Rudolph, K. Braeckmans, S. De Smedt, J. Demeester, Extracellular barriers in respiratory gene therapy, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 61 (2009) 115–127, doi:10.1016/j.addr.2008.09.011. [26] I. Carlstedt, J.K. Sheehan, Structure and macromolecular properties of cervical mucus glycoproteins, Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. 43 (1989) 289–316. [27] D.J. Thornton, J.K. Sheehan, From mucins to mucus: toward a more coherent understanding of this essential barrier, Proc. Am. Thorac. Soc. 1 (2004) 54–61. [28] C. Wickstrom, J.R. Davies, G.V. Eriksen, E.C. Veerman, I. Carlstedt, MUC5B is a major gel-forming, oligomeric mucin from human salivary gland, respiratory tract and endocervix: identification of glycoforms and C-terminal cleavage, Biochem. J. 334 (Pt 3) (1998) 685–693. [29] J.K. Sheehan, I. Carlstedt, Hydrodynamic properties of human cervical-mucus glycoproteins in 6M-guanidinium chloride, Biochem. J. 217 (1984) 93–101. [30] D.J. Thornton, D.F. Holmes, J.K. Sheehan, I. Carlstedt, Quantitation of mucus glycoproteins blotted onto nitrocellulose membranes, Anal. Biochem. 182 (1989) 160–164. [31] J. Dekker, J.W.A. Rossen, H.A. Buller, A.W.C. Einerhand, The MUC family: an obituary, Trends Biochem. Sci. 27 (2002) 126–131. [32] M.S. Ali, J.P. Pearson, Upper airway mucin gene expression: a review, Laryngoscope 117 (2007) 932–938. [33] B.K. Rubin, Physiology of airway mucus clearance, Respir. Care 47 (2002) 761–768. [34] A.P. Corfield, D. Carroll, N. Myerscough, C.S. Probert, Mucins in the gastrointestinal tract in health and disease, Front. Biosci. 6 (2001) D1321–1357. [35] I.K. Gipson, Mucins of the human endocervix, Front. Biosci. 6 (2001) D1245–1255. [36] D.J. Thornton, I. Carlstedt, M. Howard, P.L. Devine, M.R. Price, J.K. Sheehan, Respiratory mucins: identification of core proteins and glycoforms, Biochem. J. 316 (Pt 3) (1996) 967–975. [37] B.J. Van Klinken, J. Dekker, H.A. Buller, A.W. Einerhand, Mucin gene structure and expression: protection vs. adhesion, Am. J. Physiol. 269 (1995) G613–G627. [38] H.S. Slayter, J.K. Wold, T. Midtvedt, Intestinal mucin of germ-free rats. Biochemical and electron-microscopic characterization, Carbohydr. Res. 222 (1991) 1–9. [39] E.C. Yurewicz, F. Matsuura, K.S. Moghissi, Structural studies of sialylated oligosaccharides of human midcycle cervical mucin, J. Biol. Chem. 262 (1987) 4733–4739. [40] A. Allen, G. Flemstrom, A. Garner, E. Kivilaakso, Gastroduodenal mucosal protection, Physiol. Rev. 73 (1993) 823–857. [41] I. Carlstedt, H. Lindgren, J.K. Sheehan, U. Ulmsten, L. Wingerup, Isolation and characterization of human cervical-mucus glycoproteins, Biochem. J. 211 (1983) 13–22. [42] C.-C.W. Chao, S.M. Butala, A. Herp, Studies on the isolation and composition of human ocular mucin, Exp. Eye Res. 47 (1988) 185–196. [43] M.S. Quraishi, N.S. Jones, J. Mason, The rheology of nasal mucus: a review, Clin. Otolaryngol. 23 (1998) 403–413. [44] J.M. Samet, P.W. Cheng, The role of airway mucus in pulmonary toxicology, Environ. Health Perspect. 102 (1994) 89–103.

S.K. Lai et al. / Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 61 (2009) 158–171 [45] C.-C.W. Chao, J.-P. Vergnes, S.I. Brown, Fractionation and partial characterization of macromolecular components from human ocular mucus, Exp. Eye Res. 36 (1983) 139–150. [46] E. Engel, P.H. Guth, Y. Nishizaki, J.D. Kaunitz, Barrier function of the gastric mucus gel, Am. J. Physiol.: Gasterointest. Liver Physiol. 269 (1995) G994–999. [47] S.K. Lai, Y.Y. Wang, D. Wirtz, J. Hanes, Micro- and macrorheology of mucus: implications for drug and gene delivery to mucosal tissues, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 61 (2009) 86–100, doi:10.1016/j.addr.2008.09.012. [48] D.P. Wolf, L. Blasco, M.A. Khan, M. Litt, Human cervical mucus. I. Rheologic characteristics. Fertil. Steril. 28 (1977) 41–46. [49] C. Galabert, J. Jacquot, J.M. Zahm, E. Puchelle, Relationships between the lipid content and the rheological properties of airway secretions in cystic fibrosis, Clin. Chim. Acta 164 (1987) 139–149. [50] S. Girod, J.M. Zahm, C. Plotkowski, G. Beck, E. Puchelle, Role of the physiochemical properties of mucus in the protection of the respiratory epithelium, Eur. Respir. J. 5 (1992) 477–487. [51] B.D. Raynal, T.E. Hardingham, J.K. Sheehan, D.J. Thornton, Calcium-dependent protein interactions in MUC5B provide reversible cross-links in salivary mucus. J. Biol. Chem. 278 (2003) 28703–28710. [52] K.R. Bhaskar, P. Garik, B.S. Turner, J.D. Bradley, R. Bansil, H.E. Stanley, J.T. LaMont, Viscous fingering of HCI through gastric mucin, Nature 360 (1992) 458–461. [53] J.P. Celli, B.S. Turner, N.H. Afdhal, R.H. Ewoldt, G.H. McKinley, R. Bansil, S. Erramilli, Rheology of gastric mucin exhibits a pH-dependent sol–gel transition, Biomacromolecules 8 (2007) 1580–1586. [54] S.S. Hehar, J.D. Mason, A.B. Stephen, N. Washington, N.S. Jones, S.J. Jackson, D. Bush, Twenty-four hour ambulatory nasal pH monitoring, Clin. Otolaryngol. Allied Sci. 24 (1999) 24–25. [55] S. Jayaraman, N.S. Joo, B. Reitz, J.J. Wine, A.S. Verkman, Submucosal gland secretions in airways from cystic fibrosis patients have normal [Na(+)] and pH but elevated viscosity, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98 (2001) 8119–8123. [56] J.L. Greaves, C.G. Wilson, Treatment of diseases of the eye with mucoadhesive delivery systems, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 11 (1993) 349–383. [57] S. Schreiber, P. Scheid, Gastric mucus of the guinea pig: proton carrier and diffusion barrier, Am. J. Physiol. 272 (1997) G63–70. [58] E.R. Boskey, R.A. Cone, K.J. Whaley, T.R. Moench, Origins of vaginal acidity: high D/L lactate ratio is consistent with bacteria being the primary source, Hum. Reprod. 16 (2001) 1809–1813. [59] C. Valenta, The use of mucoadhesive polymers in vaginal delivery, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 57 (2005) 1692–1712. [60] M.A. Sleigh, J.R. Blake, N. Liron, The propulsion of mucus by cilia, Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 137 (1988) 726–741. [61] J. Widdicombe, Airway surface liquid: concepts and measurements, in: D.R.a.M. Lethem (Ed.), Airway Mucus: Basic Mechanisms and Clinical Perspectives, Birkhauser, 1997, pp. 1–18. [62] J. Ally, J. Ally, A. Amirfazli, W. Roa, Model studies of magnetic particle retention in the conducting airways, Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on MEMS, NANO and Smart Systems, 2005. [63] J. Overton, F. Miller, Dosimetry modeling of inhaled toxic reactive gases, in: R.B.A. Watson, D. Kennedy (Eds.), Air Pollution, the Automobile, and Public Health, The National Academies Press, 1988. [64] M.T. Clunes, R.C. Boucher, Cystic fibrosis: the mechanisms of pathogenesis of an inherited lung disorder, Drug Discov. Today Dis. Mech. 4 (2007) 63–72. [65] H. Matsui, B.R. Grubb, R. Tarran, S.H. Randell, J.T. Gatzy, C.W. Davis, R.C. Boucher, Evidence for periciliary liquid layer depletion, not abnormal ion composition, in the pathogenesis of cystic fibrosis airways disease, Cell 95 (1998) 1005–1015. [66] R. Tarran, B.R. Grubb, J.T. Gatzy, C.W. Davis, R.C. Boucher, The relative roles of passive surface forces and active ion transport in the modulation of airway surface liquid volume and composition, J. Gen. Physiol. 118 (2001) 223–236. [67] A.S. Verkman, Y. Song, J.R. Thiagarajah, Role of airway surface liquid and submucosal glands in cystic fibrosis lung disease, Am. J. Physiol., Cell Physiol. 284 (2003) C2-C15. [68] I. Behrens, P. Stenberg, P. Artursson, T. Kissel, Transport of lipophilic drug molecules in a new mucus-secreting cell culture model based on HT29-MTX cells, Pharm. Res. 18 (2001) 1138–1145. [69] M. Copeman, J. Matuz, A.J. Leonard, J.P. Pearson, P.W. Dettmar, A. Allen, The gastroduodenal mucus barrier and its role in protection against luminal pepsins: the effect of 16,16 dimethyl prostaglandin E2, carbopol-polyacrylate, sucralfate and bismuth subsalicylate, J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 9 (Suppl 1) (1994) S55–59. [70] N. Jordan, J. Newton, J. Pearson, A. Allen, A novel method for the visualization of the in situ mucus layer in rat and man, Clin. Sci. 95 (1998) 97–106. [71] S. Kerss, A. Allen, A. Garner, A simple method for measuring thickness of the mucus gel layer adherent to rat, frog and human gastric mucosa: influence of feeding, prostaglandin, N-acetylcysteine and other agents, Clin. Sci. 63 (1982) 187–195. [72] K. Matsuo, H. Ota, T. Akamatsu, A. Sugiyama, T. Katsuyama, Histochemistry of the surface mucous gel layer of the human colon, Gut 40 (1997) 782–789. [73] R.D. Pullan, G.A. Thomas, M. Rhodes, R.G. Newcombe, G.T. Williams, A. Allen, J. Rhodes, Thickness of adherent mucus gel on colonic mucosa in humans and its relevance to colitis, Gut 35 (1994) 353–359. [74] L.A. van der Waaij, H.J. Harmsen, M. Madjipour, F.G. Kroese, M. Zwiers, H.M. van Dullemen, N.K. de Boer, G.W. Welling, P.L. Jansen, Bacterial population analysis of human colon and terminal ileum biopsies with 16S rRNA-based fluorescent probes: commensal bacteria live in suspension and have no direct contact with epithelial cells, Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 11 (2005) 865–871. [75] I.A. Brownlee, M.E. Havler, P.W. Dettmar, A. Allen, J.P. Pearson, Colonic mucus: secretion and turnover in relation to dietary fibre intake, Proc. Nutr. Soc. 62 (2003) 245–249.

169

[76] F.J. Holly, M.A. Lemp, Tear physiology and dry eyes, Surv. Ophthalmol. 22 (1977) 69–87. [77] P.E. King-Smith, B.A. Fink, R.M. Hill, K.W. Koelling, J.M. Tiffany, The thickness of the tear film, Curr. Eye Res. 29 (2004) 357–368. [78] J.I. Prydal, P. Artal, H. Woon, F.W. Campbell, Study of human precorneal tear film thickness and structure using laser interferometry, Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 33 (1992) 2006–2011. [79] R.M. Mainardes, M.C. Urban, P.O. Cinto, M.V. Chaud, R.C. Evangelista, M.P. Gremiao, Liposomes and micro/nanoparticles as colloidal carriers for nasal drug delivery, Curr. Drug Deliv. 3 (2006) 275–285. [80] K. Saketkhoo, A. Januszkiewicz, M.A. Sackner, Effects of drinking hot water, cold water, and chicken soup on nasal mucus velocity and nasal airflow resistance, Chest 74 (1978) 408–410. [81] S.A. Galindo-Rodriguez, E. Allemann, H. Fessi, E. Doelker, Polymeric nanoparticles for oral delivery of drugs and vaccines: a critical evaluation of in vivo studies, Crit. Rev. Ther. Drug Carr. Syst. 22 (2005) 419–464. [82] C.M. Lehr, F.G.J. Poelma, H.E. Junginger, J.J. Tukker, An estimate of turnover time of intestinal mucus gel layer in the rat in situ loop, Int. J. Pharm. 70 (1991) 235–240. [83] S.L. Kieweg, A.R. Geonnotti, D.F. Katz, Gravity-induced coating flows of vaginal gel formulations: in vitro experimental analysis, J. Pharm. Sci. 93 (2004) 2941–2952. [84] S.L. Kieweg, D.F. Katz, Squeezing flows of vaginal gel formulations relevant to microbicide drug delivery, J. Biomech. Eng. 128 (2006) 540–553. [85] J.T. Lamont, Mucus: the front line of intestinal mucosal defense, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 664 (1992) 190–201. [86] W.M. Saltzman, M.L. Radomsky, K.J. Whaley, R.A. Cone, Antibody diffusion in human cervical-mucus, Biophys. J. 66 (1994) 508–515. [87] B. Amsden, Solute diffusion within hydrogels. Mechanisms and models, Macromolecules 31 (1998) 8382–8395. [88] B. Amsden, An obstruction-scaling model for diffusion in homogeneous hydrogels, Macromolecules 32 (1999) 874–879. [89] J. Hanes, M. Dawson, Y. Har-el, J. Suh, J. Fiegel, Gene delivery to the lung, in: A.J. Hickey (Ed.), Pharmaceutical Inhalation Aerosol Technology, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, 2003, pp. 489–539. [90] D.A. Norris, P.J. Sinko, Effect of size, surface charge, and hydrophobicity on the translocation of polystyrene microspheres through gastrointestinal mucin, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 63 (1997) 1481–1492. [91] J.K. Sheehan, K. Oates, I. Carlstedt, Electron microscopy of cervical, gastric and bronchial mucus glycoproteins, Biochem. J. 239 (1986) 147–153. [92] B. Drumm, A.W. Neumann, Z. Policova, P.M. Sherman, Bacterial cell surface hydrophobicity properties in the mediation of in vitro adhesion by the rabbit enteric pathogen Escherichia coli strain RDEC-1, J. Clin. Invest. 84 (1989) 1588–1594. [93] U. Sajjan, J. Reisman, P. Doig, R.T. Irvin, G. Forstner, J. Forstner, Binding of nonmucoid Pseudomonas aeruginosa to normal human intestinal mucin and respiratory mucin from patients with cystic fibrosis, J. Clin. Invest. 89 (1992) 657–665. [94] M. Mantle, L. Basaraba, S.C. Peacock, D.G. Gall, Binding of Yersinia enterocolitica to rabbit intestinal brush border membranes, mucus, and mucin, Infect. Immun. 57 (1989) 3292–3299. [95] I. Bala, S. Hariharan, M.N. Kumar, PLGA nanoparticles in drug delivery: the state of the art, Crit. Rev. Ther. Drug Carr. Syst. 21 (2004) 387–422. [96] N. Kumar, R.S. Langer, A.J. Domb, Polyanhydrides: an overview, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 54 (2002) 889–910. [97] D.W. Pack, A.S. Hoffman, S. Pun, P.S. Stayton, Design and development of polymers for gene delivery, Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 4 (2005) 581–593. [98] R.L.W. Kircheis, E. Wagner, Design and gene delivery activity of modified polyethylenimines, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 53 (2001) 341–358. [99] C. Durrer, J.M. Irache, F. Puisieux, D. Duchene, G. Ponchel, Mucoadhesion of latexes. II. Adsorption isotherms and desorption studies, Pharm. Res. 11 (1994) 680–683. [100] C. Durrer, J.M. Irache, F. Puisieux, D. Duchene, G. Ponchel, Mucoadhesion of latexes. I. Analytical methods and kinetic studies, Pharm. Res. 11 (1994) 674–679. [101] G. Ponchel, M.-J. Montisci, A. Dembri, C. Durrer, D. Duchene, Mucoadhesion of colloidal particulate systems in the gastro-intestinal tract, Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 44 (1997) 25–31. [102] A.W. Larhed, P. Artursson, J. Grasjo, E. Bjork, Diffusion of drugs in native and purified gastrointestinal mucus, J. Pharm. Sci. 86 (1997) 660–665. [103] I. Matthes, F. Nimmerfall, J. Vonderscher, H. Sucker, [Mucus models for investigation of intestinal absorption mechanisms. 4. Comparison of mucus models with absorption models in vivo and in situ for prediction of intestinal drug absorption], Pharmazie 47 (1992) 787–791. [104] K. Khanvilkar, M.D. Donovan, D.R. Flanagan, Drug transfer through mucus, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 48 (2001) 173–193. [105] H. Saitoh, N. Hasegawa, S. Kawai, K. Miyazaki, T. Arita, Interaction of tertiary amines and quaternary ammonium compounds with gastrointestinal mucin, J. Pharm. 9 (1986) 1008–1014. [106] M.A. Desai, M. Mutlu, P. Vadgama, A study of macromolecular diffusion through native porcine mucus, Experientia 48 (1992) 22–26. [107] P.G. Bhat, D.R. Flanagan, M.D. Donovan, The limiting role of mucus in drug absorption: Drug permeation through mucus solution, Int. J. Pharm. 126 (1995) 179–187. [108] P.G. Bhat, D.R. Flanagan, M.D. Donovan, Drug diffusion through cystic fibrotic mucus: steady-state permeation, rheologic properties, and glycoprotein morphology, J. Pharm. Sci. 85 (1996) 624–630. [109] G. Ponchel, J. Irache, Specific and non-specific bioadhesive particulate systems for oral delivery to the gastrointestinal tract, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 34 (1998) 191–219.

170

S.K. Lai et al. / Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 61 (2009) 158–171

[110] J. Kreuter, U. Muller, K. Munz, Quantitative and microautoradiographic study on mouse intestinal distribution of polycyanoacrylate nanoparticles, Int. J. Pharm. 55 (1989) 39–45. [111] J. Woodley, Bioadhesion: new possibilities for drug administration? Clin. Pharmacokinet. 40 (2001) 77–84. [112] N.N. Sanders, S.C. De Smedt, E. Van Rompaey, P. Simoens, F. De Baets, J. Demeester, Cystic fibrosis sputum: a barrier to the transport of nanospheres, Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 162 (2000) 1905–1911. [113] V.J. Broughton-Head, J.R. Smith, J. Shur, J.K. Shute, Actin limits enhancement of nanoparticle diffusion through cystic fibrosis sputum by mucolytics, Pulm. Pharmacol. Ther. (2006). [114] H. Shen, Y. Hu, W.M. Saltzman, DNA diffusion in mucus: effect of size, topology of DNAs, and transfection reagents, Biophys. J. 91 (2006) 639–644. [115] J. Suh, M. Dawson, J. Hanes, Real-time multiple-particle tracking: applications to drug and gene delivery, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 57 (2005) 63–78. [116] J. Suh, D. Wirtz, J. Hanes, Efficient active transport of gene nanocarriers to the cell nucleus, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100 (2003) 3878–3882. [117] J.S. Suk, J. Suh, S.K. Lai, J. Hanes, Quantifying the intracellular transport of viral and nonviral gene vectors in primary neurons, Exp. Biol. Med. 232 (2007) 461–469. [118] M. Dawson, D. Wirtz, J. Hanes, Enhanced viscoelasticity of human cystic fibrotic sputum correlates with increasing microheterogeneity in particle transport, J. Biol. Chem. 278 (2003) 50393–50401. [119] M. Dawson, E. Krauland, D. Wirtz, J. Hanes, Transport of polymeric nanoparticle gene carriers in gastric mucus, Biotechnol. Prog. 20 (2004) 851–857. [120] S.K. Lai, K. Hida, C. Chen, J. Hanes, Characterization of the intracellular dynamics of a non-degradative pathway accessed by polymer nanoparticles, J. Control. Release 125 (2008) 107–111. [121] A.T. Florence, The oral absorption of micro- and nanoparticulates: neither exceptional nor unusual, Pharm. Res. 14 (1997) 259–266. [122] H.W. Florey, The secretion and function of intestinal mucus, Gastroenterology 43 (1962) 326–329. [123] B. Tirosh, A. Rubinstein, Migration of adhesive and nonadhesive particles in the rat intestine under altered mucus secretion conditions, J. Pharm. Sci. 87 (1998) 453–456. [124] A. Bernkop-Schnurch, Thiomers: a new generation of mucoadhesive polymers, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 57 (2005) 1569–1582. [125] C. Prego, D. Torres, M.J. Alonso, The potential of chitosan for the oral administration of peptides, Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2 (2005) 843–854. [126] T.T. Jubeh, Y. Barenholz, A. Rubinstein, Differential adhesion of normal and inflamed rat colonic mucosa by charged liposomes, Pharm. Res. 21 (2004) 447–453. [127] B.S. Lele, A.S. Hoffman, Mucoadhesive drug carriers based on complexes of poly (acrylic acid) and PEGylated drugs having hydrolysable PEG-anhydride-drug linkages, J. Control. Release 69 (2000) 237–248. [128] N.A. Peppas, K.B. Keys, M. Torres-Lugo, A.M. Lowman, Poly(ethylene glycol)containing hydrogels in drug delivery, J. Control. Release 62 (1999) 81–87. [129] K. Yoncheva, S. Gomez, M.A. Campanero, C. Gamazo, J.M. Irache, Bioadhesive properties of pegylated nanoparticles, Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2 (2005) 205–218. [130] H. Takeuchi, H. Yamamoto, Y. Kawashima, Mucoadhesive nanoparticulate systems for peptide drug delivery, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 47 (2001) 39–54. [131] S. Keely, A. Rullay, C. Wilson, A. Carmichael, S. Carrington, A. Corfield, D.M. Haddleton, D.J. Brayden, In vitro and ex vivo intestinal tissue models to measure mucoadhesion of poly (methacrylate) and N-trimethylated chitosan polymers, Pharm. Res. 22 (2005) 38–49. [132] D. Quintanar-Guerrero, R. Villalobos-Garcia, E. Alvarez-Colin, J.M. Cornejo-Bravo, In vitro evaluation of the bioadhesive properties of hydrophobic polybasic gels containing N,N-dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate–co-methyl methacrylate, Biomaterials 22 (2001) 957–961. [133] D. Chickering, J. Jacob, E. Mathiowitz, Poly(fumaric-co-sebacic) microspheres as oral drug delivery systems, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 52 (1996) 96–101. [134] E. Mathiowitz, J.S. Jacob, Y.S. Jong, G.P. Carino, D.E. Chickering, P. Chaturvedi, C.A. Santos, K. Vijayaraghavan, S. Montgomery, M. Bassett, C. Morrell, Biologically erodable microsphere as potential oral drug delivery system, Nature 386 (1997) 410–414. [135] B. Naisbett, J. Woodley, The potential use of tomato lectin for oral-drug delivery .3. Bioadhesion in-vivo, Int. J. Pharm. 114 (1995) 227–236. [136] C.M. Lehr, J.A. Bouwstra, W. Kok, A.B. Noach, A.G. de Boer, H.E. Junginger, Bioadhesion by means of specific binding of tomato lectin, Pharm. Res. 9 (1992) 547–553. [137] J.M. Irache, C. Durrer, D. Duchene, G. Ponchel, Bioadhesion of lectin–latex conjugates to rat intestinal mucosa, Pharm. Res. 13 (1996) 1716–1719. [138] M.J. Montisci, A. Dembri, G. Giovannuci, H. Chacun, D. Duchene, G. Ponchel, Gastrointestinal transit and mucoadhesion of colloidal suspensions of Lycopersicon esculentum L. and Lotus tetragonolobus lectin-PLA microsphere conjugates in rats, Pharm. Res. 18 (2001) 829–837. [139] E. Haltner, J.H. Easson, G. Russel-Jones, C.M. Lehr, A rapid assay for bioadhesion of lectin-functionalized nano-particles to Caco-2 cell monolayers, J. Control. Release 41 (1996) S3. [140] J.M. Irache, C. Durrer, D. Duchene, G. Ponchel, Preparation and characterization of lectin–latex conjugates for specific bioadhesion, Biomaterials 15 (1994) 899–904. [141] K.A. Janes, P. Calvo, M.J. Alonso, Polysaccharide colloidal particles as delivery systems for macromolecules, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 47 (2001) 83–97. [142] R. Fernandez-Urrusuno, P. Calvo, C. Remunan-Lopez, J.L. Vila-Jato, M.J. Alonso, Enhancement of nasal absorption of insulin using chitosan nanoparticles, Pharm. Res. 16 (1999) 1576–1581. [143] Y. Pan, Y.J. Li, H.Y. Zhao, J.M. Zheng, H. Xu, G. Wei, J.S. Hao, F.D. Cui, Bioadhesive polysaccharide in protein delivery system: chitosan nanoparticles improve the intestinal absorption of insulin in vivo, Int. J. Pharm. 249 (2002) 139–147.

[144] C. Prego, D. Torres, M.J. Alonso, Chitosan nanocapsules as carriers for oral peptide delivery: effect of chitosan molecular weight and type of salt on the in vitro behaviour and in vivo effectiveness, J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 6 (2006) 2921–2928. [145] K. Roy, H.Q. Mao, S.K. Huang, K.W. Leong, Oral gene delivery with chitosan–DNA nanoparticles generates immunologic protection in a murine model of peanut allergy, Nat. Med. 5 (1999) 387–391. [146] C. Damge, H. Vranckx, P. Balschmidt, P. Couvreur, Poly(alkyl cyanoacrylate) nanospheres for oral administration of insulin, J. Pharm. Sci. 86 (1997) 1403–1409. [147] P.J. Lowe, C.S. Temple, Calcitonin and insulin in isobutylcyanoacrylate nanocapsules: protection against proteases and effect on intestinal absorption in rats, J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 46 (1994) 547–552. [148] B. Sarmento, A. Ribeiro, F. Veiga, P. Sampaio, R. Neufeld, D. Ferreira, Alginate/ chitosan nanoparticles are effective for oral insulin delivery, Pharm. Res. 24 (2007) 2198–2206. [149] M.R. Neutra, J.F. Forstner, Gastrointestinal mucus: synthesis, secretion and function, in: L.R. Johnson (Ed.), Physiology of the Gastrointestinal Tract, Raven, New York, 1987, pp. 975–1009. [150] E.C. Lavelle, S. Sharif, N.W. Thomas, J. Holland, S.S. Davis, The importance of gastrointestinal uptake of particles in the design of oral delivery systems, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 18 (1995) 5–22. [151] P.U. Jani, D.E. Mccarthy, A.T. Florence, Nanosphere and microsphere uptake via Peyer patches — observation of the rate of uptake in the rat after a single oral dose, Int. J. Pharm. 86 (1992) 239–246. [152] P.U. Jani, G.W. Halbert, J. Langridge, A.T. Florence, The uptake and translocation of latex nanospheres and microspheres after oral administration to rats, J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 41 (1989) 809–812. [153] D. Scherer, F.C. Mooren, R.K. Kinne, J. Kreuter, In vitro permeability of PBCA nanoparticles through porcine small intestine, J. Drug Target. 1 (1993) 21–27. [154] D.T. O'Hagan, The intestinal uptake of particles and the implications for drug and antigen delivery, J. Anat. 189 (Pt 3) (1996) 477–482. [155] L.A. Sternson, Obstacles to polypeptide delivery, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 507 (1987) 19–21. [156] A. des Rieux, V. Fievez, M. Garinot, Y.-J. Schneider, V. Preat, Nanoparticles as potential oral delivery systems of proteins and vaccines: a mechanistic approach, J. Control. Release 116 (2006) 1–27. [157] A.T. Florence, T. Sakthivel, I. Toth, Oral uptake and translocation of a polylysine dendrimer with a lipid surface, J. Control. Release 65 (2000) 253–259. [158] J.F. Hillyer, R.M. Albrecht, Gastrointestinal persorption and tissue distribution of differently sized colloidal gold nanoparticles, J. Pharm. Sci. 90 (2001) 1927–1936. [159] F. Delie, Evaluation of nano- and microparticle uptake by the gastrointestinal tract, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 34 (1998) 221–233. [160] M.A. Clark, M.A. Jepson, B.H. Hirst, Exploiting M cells for drug and vaccine delivery, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 50 (2001) 81–106. [161] C. Czerkinsky, A.M. Svennerholm, J. Holmgren, Induction and assessment of immunity at enteromucosal surfaces in humans: implications for vaccine development, Clin. Infect. Dis. 16 (Suppl. 2) (1993) S106–S116. [162] R. Langer, J.L. Cleland, J. Hanes, New advances in microsphere-based single-dose vaccines, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 28 (1997) 97–119. [163] S.J. Challacombe, D. Rahman, H. Jeffery, S.S. Davis, D.T. O'Hagan, Enhanced secretory IgA and systemic IgG antibody responses after oral immunization with biodegradable microparticles containing antigen, Immunology 76 (1992) 164–168. [164] D.T. O'Hagan, J.P. McGee, J. Holmgren, A.M. Mowat, A.M. Donachie, K.H. Mills, W. Gaisford, D. Rahman, S.J. Challacombe, Biodegradable microparticles for oral immunization, Vaccine 11 (1993) 149–154. [165] J.H. Eldridge, C.J. Hammond, J.A. Meulbroek, J.K. Staas, R.M. Gilley, T.R. Tice, Controlled vaccine release in the gut-associated lymphoid-tissues .1. Orallyadministered biodegradable microspheres target the Peyers patches, J. Control. Release 11 (1990) 205–214. [166] T. Jung, W. Kamm, A. Breitenbach, K.D. Hungerer, E. Hundt, T. Kissel, Tetanus toxoid loaded nanoparticles from sulfobutylated poly(vinyl alcohol)-graft-poly (lactide–co-glycolide): evaluation of antibody response after oral and nasal application in mice, Pharm. Res. 18 (2001) 352–360. [167] M.D. Bhavsar, M.M. Amiji, Polymeric nano- and microparticle technologies for oral gene delivery, Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 4 (2007) 197–213. [168] A. Bernkop-Schnurch, Mucoadhesive systems in oral drug delivery, Drug Discov. Today: Technol. 2 (2005) 83–87. [169] A. Wada, H. Nakamura, Nature of the charge distribution in proteins, Nature 293 (1981) 757–758. [170] S. Sakuma, R. Sudo, N. Suzuki, H. Kikuchi, M. Akashi, M. Hayashi, Mucoadhesion of polystyrene nanoparticles having surface hydrophilic polymeric chains in the gastrointestinal tract, Int. J. Pharm. 177 (1999) 161–172. [171] S. Sakuma, R. Sudo, N. Suzuki, H. Kikuchi, M. Akashi, Y. Ishida, M. Hayashi, Behavior of mucoadhesive nanoparticles having hydrophilic polymeric chains in the intestine, J. Control. Release 81 (2002) 281–290. [172] H. Ai, S.A. Jones, Y.M. Lvov, Biomedical applications of electrostatic layer-by-layer nano-assembly of polymers, enzymes, and nanoparticles, Cell Biochem. Biophys. 39 (2003) 23–43. [173] P. Bertrand, A. Jonas, A. Laschewsky, R. Legras, Ultrathin polymer coatings by complexation of polyelectrolytes at interfaces: suitable materials, structure and properties, Macromol. Rapid Commun. 21 (2000) 319–348. [174] J.M. Harris, R.B. Chess, Effect of pegylation on pharmaceuticals, Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2 (2003) 214–221. [175] Y. Huang, W. Leobandung, A. Foss, N.A. Peppas, Molecular aspects of muco- and bioadhesion: tethered structures and site-specific surfaces, J. Control. Release 65 (2000) 63–71.

S.K. Lai et al. / Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 61 (2009) 158–171 [176] P. Bures, Y. Huang, E. Oral, N.A. Peppas, Surface modifications and molecular imprinting of polymers in medical and pharmaceutical applications, J. Control. Release 72 (2001) 25–33. [177] M. Fresta, G. Fontana, C. Bucolo, G. Cavallaro, G. Giammona, G. Puglisi, Ocular tolerability and in vivo bioavailability of poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG)-coated polyethyl-2-cyanoacrylate nanosphere-encapsulated acyclovir, J. Pharm. Sci. 90 (2001) 288–297. [178] L. Serra, J. Domenech, N.A. Peppas, Design of poly(ethylene glycol)-tethered copolymers as novel mucoadhesive drug delivery systems, Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 63 (2006) 11–18. [179] J.J. Sahlin, N.A. Peppas, Enhanced hydrogel adhesion by polymer interdiffusion: use of linear poly(ethylene glycol) as an adhesion promoter, J. Biomater. Sci., Polym. Ed. 8 (1997) 421–436. [180] C. Giannavola, C. Bucolo, A. Maltese, D. Paolino, M.A. Vandelli, G. Puglisi, V.H. Lee, M. Fresta, Influence of preparation conditions on acyclovir-loaded poly-d,l-lactic acid nanospheres and effect of PEG coating on ocular drug bioavailability, Pharm. Res. 20 (2003) 584–590. [181] Z. Sezgin, N. Yuksel, T. Baykara, Investigation of pluronic and PEG-PE micelles as carriers of meso-tetraphenyl porphine for oral administration, Int. J. Pharm. 332 (2007) 161–167. [182] K. Yoncheva, L. Guembe, M.A. Campanero, J.M. Irache, Evaluation of bioadhesive potential and intestinal transport of pegylated poly(anhydride) nanoparticles, Int. J. Pharm. 334 (2007) 156–165. [183] Y.Y. Wang, S.K. Lai, J.S. Suk, A. Pace, R. Cone, J. Hanes, Addressing the PEG mucoadhesivity paradox to engineer nanoparticles that “slip” through the human mucus barrier, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. (2008) 9726–9729. [184] C. Chia-Ming, N. Weiner, Gastrointestinal uptake of liposomes. I. In vitro and in situ studies, Int. J. Pharm. 37 (1987) 75–85. [185] R.N. Rowland, J.F. Woodley, The stability of liposomes in vitro to pH, bile salts and pancreatic lipase, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 620 (1980) 400–409. [186] N.N. Sanders, E. Van Rompaey, S.C. De Smedt, J. Demeester, Structural alterations of gene complexes by cystic fibrosis sputum, Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 164 (2001) 486–493. [187] N.N. Sanders, S.C. De Smedt, J. Demeester, Mobility and stability of gene complexes in biogels, J. Control. Release 87 (2003) 117–129. [188] N.N. Sanders, S.C. De Smedt, S.H. Cheng, J. Demeester, Pegylated GL67 lipoplexes retain their gene transfection activity after exposure to components of CF mucus, Gene Ther. 9 (2002) 363–371. [189] D.H. Kim, D.C. Martin, Sustained release of dexamethasone from hydrophilic matrices using PLGA nanoparticles for neural drug delivery, Biomaterials 27 (2006) 3031–3037. [190] H.S. Yoo, J.E. Oh, K.H. Lee, T.G. Park, Biodegradable nanoparticles containing doxorubicin–PLGA conjugate for sustained release, Pharm. Res. 16 (1999) 1114–1118. [191] K. Fu, R. Harrell, K. Zinski, C. Um, A. Jaklenec, J. Frazier, N. Lotan, P. Burke, A.M. Klibanov, R. Langer, A potential approach for decreasing the burst effect of protein from PLGA microspheres, J. Pharm. Sci. 92 (2003) 1582–1591. [192] R. Gref, Y. Minamitake, M.T. Peracchia, V. Trubetskoy, V. Torchilin, R. Langer, Biodegradable long-circulating polymeric nanospheres, Science 263 (1994) 1600–1603. [193] J. Rejman, V. Oberle, I.S. Zuhorn, D. Hoekstra, Size-dependent internalization of particles via the pathways of clathrin- and caveolae-mediated endocytosis, Biochem. J. 377 (2004) 159–169. [194] B.K. Rubin, Mucus structure and properties in cystic fibrosis, Paediatr. Respir. Rev. 8 (2007) 4–7. [195] R.C. Boucher, An overview of the pathogenesis of cystic fibrosis lung disease, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 54 (2002) 1359–1371. [196] Summary Conclusion of the 17th Annual North American Cystic Fibrosis Conference. Anaheim, California, USA. October 16–19, 2003, Pediatr Pulmonol Suppl, vol. 25, 2003, pp. 92–394. [197] C. Kitson, B. Angel, D. Judd, S. Rothery, N.J. Severs, A. Dewar, L. Huang, S.C. Wadsworth, S.H. Cheng, D.M. Geddes, E.W. Alton, The extra- and intracellular barriers to lipid and adenovirus-mediated pulmonary gene transfer in native sheep airway epithelium, Gene Ther. 6 (1999) 534–546. [198] S. Shak, D.J. Capon, R. Hellmiss, S.A. Marsters, C.L. Baker, Recombinant human DNase I reduces the viscosity of cystic fibrosis sputum, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 87 (1990) 9188–9192. [199] P.L. Shah, S.F. Scott, R.A. Knight, C. Marriott, C. Ranasinha, M.E. Hodson, In vivo effects of recombinant human DNase I on sputum in patients with cystic fibrosis, Thorax 51 (1996) 119–125. [200] A.L. Sheffner, E.M. Medler, L.W. Jacobs, H.P. Sarett, The in vitro reduction in viscosity of human tracheobronchial secretions by acetylcysteine, Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 90 (1964) 721–729. [201] M.O. Henke, F. Ratjen, Mucolytics in cystic fibrosis, Paediatr. Respir. Rev. 8 (2007) 24–29. [202] S. Ferrari, C. Kitson, R. Farley, R. Steel, C. Marriott, D.A. Parkins, M. Scarpa, B. Wainwright, M.J. Evans, W.H. Colledge, D.M. Geddes, E.W. Alton, Mucus altering agents as adjuncts for nonviral gene transfer to airway epithelium, Gene Ther. 8 (2001) 1380–1386. [203] E.M. App, D. Baran, I. Dab, A. Malfroot, M. Coffiner, F. Vanderbist, M. King, Dosefinding and 24-h monitoring for efficacy and safety of aerosolized Nacystelyn in cystic fibrosis, Eur. Respir. J. 19 (2002) 294–302. [204] R.P. Tomkiewicz, E.M. App, G.T. De Sanctis, M. Coffiner, P. Maes, B.K. Rubin, M. King, A comparison of a new mucolytic N-acetylcysteine L-lysinate with N-acetylcysteine: airway epithelial function and mucus changes in dog, Pulm. Pharmacol. 8 (1995) 259–265.

171

[205] C.A. Vasconcellos, P.G. Allen, M.E. Wohl, J.M. Drazen, P.A. Janmey, T.P. Stossel, Reduction in viscosity of cystic fibrosis sputum in vitro by gelsolin, Science 263 (1994) 969–971. [206] B.K. Rubin, A.P. Kater, A.L. Goldstein, Thymosin beta4 sequesters actin in cystic fibrosis sputum and decreases sputum cohesivity in vitro, Chest 130 (2006) 1433–1440. [207] N.N. Sanders, H. Franckx, K. De Boeck, J. Haustraete, S.C. De Smedt, J. Demeester, Role of magnesium in the failure of rhDNase therapy in patients with cystic fibrosis, Thorax 61 (2006) 962–968. [208] N. Jordan, J. Newton, J. Pearson, A. Allen, A novel method for the visualization of the in situ mucus layer in rat and man, Clin. Sci. (Lond) 95 (1998) 97–106. [209] S. Kerss, A. Allen, A. Garner, A simple method for measuring thickness of the mucus gel layer adherent to rat, frog and human gastric mucosa: influence of feeding, prostaglandin, N-acetylcysteine and other agents, Clin. Sci. (Lond) 63 (1982) 187–195. [210] C. Atuma, V. Strugala, A. Allen, L. Holm, The adherent gastrointestinal mucus gel layer: thickness and physical state in vivo, Am. J. Physiol.: Gasterointest. Liver Physiol. 280 (2001) G922–929. [211] V. Strugala, A. Allen, P.W. Dettmar, J.P. Pearson, Colonic mucin: methods of measuring mucus thickness, Proc. Nutr. Soc. 62 (2003) 237–243. [212] L. Szentkuti, K. Lorenz, The thickness of the mucus layer in different segments of the rat intestine, Histochem. J. 27 (1995) 466–472. [213] J.F. Schuhl, Nasal mucociliary clearance in perennial rhinitis, J. Investig. Allergol. Clin. Immunol. 5 (1995) 333–336. [214] L. Illum, Nasal drug delivery—possibilities, problems and solutions, J. Control. Release 87 (2003) 187–198. [215] A.K. Mitra, R. Krishnamoorthy, Prodrugs for nasal drug delivery, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 29 (1998) 135–146. [216] J.W. Wong, T.G. Keens, E.M. Wannamaker, D.N. Crozier, H. Levison, N. Aspin, Effects of gravity on tracheal mucus transport rates in normal subjects and in patients with cystic fibrosis, Pediatrics 60 (1977) 146–152. [217] W.M. Foster, E. Langenback, E.H. Bergofsky, Measurement of tracheal and bronchial mucus velocities in man: relation to lung clearance, J. Appl. Physiol. 48 (1980) 965–971. [218] W. Hofmann, B. Asgharian, The effect of lung structure on mucociliary clearance and particle retention in human and rat lungs, Toxicol. Sci. 73 (2003) 448–456. [219] G. Leikauf, D.B. Yeates, K.A. Wales, D. Spektor, R.E. Albert, M. Lippmann, Effects of sulfuric acid aerosol on respiratory mechanics and mucociliary particle clearance in healthy nonsmoking adults, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 42 (1981) 273–282. [220] D.B. Yeates, N. Aspin, H. Levison, M.T. Jones, A.C. Bryan, Mucociliary tracheal transport rates in man, J. Appl. Physiol. 39 (1975) 487–495. [221] D.B. Yeates, T.R. Gerrity, C.S. Garrard, Characteristics of tracheobronchial deposition and clearance in man, Ann. Occup. Hyg. 26 (1982) 245–257. [222] D.B. Yeates, B.R. Pitt, D.M. Spektor, G.A. Karron, R.E. Albert, Coordination of mucociliary transport in human trachea and intrapulmonary airways, J. Appl. Physiol. 51 (1981) 1057–1064. [223] R. Denton, The rheology of human lung mucus, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 106 (1963) 746–754. [224] M. Friedman, R. Dougherty, S.R. Nelson, R.P. White, M.A. Sackner, A. Wanner, Acute effects of an aerosol hair spray on tracheal mucociliary transport, Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 116 (1977) 281–286. [225] R.M. Goodman, B.M. Yergin, J.F. Landa, M.H. Golivanux, M.A. Sackner, Relationship of smoking history and pulmonary function tests to tracheal mucous velocity in nonsmokers, young smokers, ex-smokers, and patients with chronic bronchitis, Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 117 (1978) 205–214. [226] M.A. Sackner, J. Landa, J. Hirsch, A. Zapata, Pulmonary effects of oxygen breathing. A 6-hour study in normal men, Ann. Intern. Med. 82 (1975) 40–43. [227] R. Santa Cruz, J. Landa, J. Hirsch, M.A. Sackner, Tracheal mucous velocity in normal man and patients with obstructive lung disease: effects of terbutaline, Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 109 (1974) 458–463. [228] H. Toomes, I. Vogt-Moykopf, W.D. Heller, H. Ostertag, Measurement of mucociliary clearance in smokers and nonsmokers using a bronchoscopic video-technical method, Lung 159 (1981) 27–34. [229] A. Wanner, M. Salathe, T.G. O'Riordan, Mucociliary clearance in the airways, Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 154 (1996) 1868–1902. [230] D.B. Yeates, T.R. Gerrity, C.S. Garrard, Particle deposition and clearance in the bronchial tree, Ann. Biomed. Eng. 9 (1981) 577–592. [231] S.H. Donaldson, T.E. Corcoran, B.L. Laube, W.D. Bennett, Mucociliary clearance as an outcome measure for cystic fibrosis clinical research, Proc. Am. Thorac. Soc. 4 (2007) 399–405. [232] K. Yoncheva, L. Guembe, M.A. Campanero, J.M. Irache, Evaluation of bioadhesive potential and intestinal transport of pegylated poly(anhydride) nanoparticles, Int. J. Pharm. 334 (2007) 156–165. [233] K. Yoncheva, E. Lizarraga, J.M. Irache, Pegylated nanoparticles based on poly (methyl vinyl ether-co-maleic anhydride): preparation and evaluation of their bioadhesive properties, Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 24 (2005) 411–419. [234] I. Behrens, A.I. Pena, M.J. Alonso, T. Kissel, Comparative uptake studies of bioadhesive and non-bioadhesive nanoparticles in human intestinal cell lines and rats: the effect of mucus on particle adsorption and transport, Pharm. Res. 19 (2002) 1185–1193. [235] M. Fresta, G. Fontana, C. Bucolo, G. Cavallaro, G. Giammona, G. Puglisi, Ocular tolerability and in vivo bioavailability of poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG)-coated polyethyl-2-cyanoacrylate nanosphere-encapsulated acyclovir, J. Pharm. Sci. 90 (2001) 288–297.