Bioelastic Materials as Chemomechanically Transducing (“Smart”) Matrices for Drug Delivery
For biodegradable drug delivery systems, control of hydration can be a key to rate of degradation. When beginning with drug-doped condensed matrices, controlling the rate of hydration (swelling) can then become the key to drug release. One approach is to use responsive polymers coupled to chemical clocks with selectable half-lives. Polymers that exhibit chemically modulable inverse temperature transitions are an ideal material for such drug delivery matrices and elastometric polypeptides form such matrices. The chemical clocks can be peptide sequences containing Asn or Gln residues (or other suitably unstable chemical groupings) which, depending on the hydrophobicity of adjacent residues, can exhibit half-lives from days (or less) to decades. The half-lives of the [CONH2→COO-] reaction can be further shifted by hydrophobic tertiary structure. It is the rate of carboxylate anion or other the polar species formation which would then control the extent of swelling and rate of degradation.
KeywordsDrug Release Drug Delivery System Polymethacrylic Acid Prosthetic Group Carboxylate Anion
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.D. W. Urry, American Association for the Advancement of Science Publications, Protein Folding Symposium, 1989. “An Hydration Mediated Free Energy Driving Force for Protein Folding and Assembly.”Google Scholar
- 7.J. Monod, “Selected Papers in Molecular Biology by Jacques Monod,” York, 1978, pp. 593–623, 675–697.Google Scholar
- 9.“McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Science and Technology,” Second Edition, McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., NY, 1989, p. 711.Google Scholar
- 10.A. Katchalsky, S. Lifson, I. Michaeli, & M. Zwick, in: “Size & Shape of Contractile Polymers: Conversion of Chemical & Mechanical Energy,” A. Wasserman, Ed., Pergamon Press, New York, 1960, p. 1–40.Google Scholar
- 14.R. E. Christoffersen, Federal Drug Administration/State of Maryland, “International Biotechnology Conference,”, Bethesda, MD, March 27–28, 1990. “Biotechnology and Applications in Biomedicine: State of the Art and Future Developments.”Google Scholar
- 15.D. W. Urry, Proc. Polymeric Mater. Sci. Eng., 63, 329–336, 1990. “Preprogrammed Drug Delivery Systems Using Chemical Triggers for Drug Release by Mechanochemical Coupling.”Google Scholar
- 16.D. W. Urry, Federal Drug Administration/State of Maryland, International Biotechnology Conference, 1990 (in press). “Elastic-ProteinBased Materials as Biomedical Devices: Players in Biomaterials Revolution.”Google Scholar
- 17.R. C. Oppenheim, in: “Polymeric Nanoparticles and Nicrospheres, ” P. Guiot and P. Couvreur, Eds., CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, Chapter 1, pp. 1–26, 1986. “Nanoparticle Drug Delivery Systems Based on Gelatin and Albumin.”Google Scholar
- 18.J. E. Lemons, M. A. Igbal, and D. W. Urry, “Biocompatibility Comparisons of DacronR, DexonR, and Radiation crosslinked Poly(Vall-Pro2Gly3-Val4-Gly5)”, Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
- 19.R. Langer, Pharmaceutical Technology, 13, 23–30, 1990. “Biomaterials in Controlled Drug Delivery: New Perspectives from Biotechological Advances.”Google Scholar
- 20.R. Langer, Chemistry in Britain, 26, 232–238, 1990. “Novel Drug Delivery Systems.”Google Scholar
- 23.S. S. Davis and L. Illum, in: “Site Specific Drug Delivery, ” E. Tomlinson and S. S. Davis, Eds., John Wiley & Sons. Ltd., 1986, Chapter 6, pp. 93–110. “Colloidal Delivery Systems-Opportunities and Challenges.”Google Scholar