4.7 Article

Comparison of four different particle sizing methods for siRNA polyplex characterization

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2012.08.014

Keywords

siRNA polyplex; Dynamic light scattering; Atomic force microscopy; Nanoparticle tracking analysis; Fluorescence correlations spectroscopy

Funding

  1. DFG Cluster Nanosystems Intitiative Munich
  2. Axolabs GmbH
  3. Biotech Cluster m4 [T12]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The ability to reliably determine the size of siRNA polyplexes is the key for the rational design of particles and their formulation, as well as, their safe application in vivo. At the moment, no standard technique for size measurements is available. Each method has different underlying principles and hence may give different results. Here, four different analytical methods were evaluated for their suitability to analyze the characteristics of homogeneous and heterogeneous siRNA polyplexes: dynamic light scattering (DLS), atomic force microscopy (AFM), nanoparticle trafficking analysis (NTA), and fluorescence correlation spectroscopy (FCS). Three different siRNA polyplex compositions generated with different, precise, and hydrophobically modified oligoaminoamides were used in this study. All of the evaluated methods were suitable for analysis of medium sized, homogeneous siRNA polyplexes (similar to 120 nm). Small particles (<40 nm) could not be tracked with NTA, but with the other three methods. Heterogeneous polyplexes were generally difficult to analyze. Only by visualization with AFM, the heterogeneity of those polyplexes was observable. FCS was the only method suitable for measuring polyplex stability in 90% fetal bovine serum. Physico-chemical characteristics of polyplexes are important quality criterions for successful in vivo Application and future formulation development. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis by more than one method is of particular importance. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available