↓ Skip to main content

Polymeric nanocapsules prevent oxidation of core-loaded molecules: evidence based on the effects of docosahexaenoic acid and neuroprostane on breast cancer cells proliferation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Polymeric nanocapsules prevent oxidation of core-loaded molecules: evidence based on the effects of docosahexaenoic acid and neuroprostane on breast cancer cells proliferation
Published in
Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13046-015-0273-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jérôme Roy, Liliam Teixeira Oliveira, Camille Oger, Jean-Marie Galano, Valerie Bultel-Poncé, Sylvain Richard, Andrea Grabe Guimaraes, José Mário Carneiro Vilela, Margareth Spangler Andrade, Thierry Durand, Pierre Besson, Vanessa Carla Furtado Mosqueira, Jean-Yves Le Guennec

Abstract

Nanocapsules, as a delivery system, are able to target drugs and other biologically sensitive molecules to specific cells or organs. This system has been intensively investigated as a way to protect bioactives drugs from inactivation upon interaction with the body and to ensure the release to the target. However, the mechanism of improved activity of the nanoencapsulated molecules is far from being understood at the cellular and subcellular levels. Epidemiological studies suggest that dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) can reduce the morbidity and mortality from breast cancer. This influence could be modulated by the oxidative status of the diet and it has been suggested that the anti-proliferative properties of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are enhanced by pro-oxidant agents. The effect of encapsulation of PUFA on breast cancer cell proliferation in different oxidative medium was evaluated in vitro. We compared the proliferation of the human breast cancer cell line MDA-MB-231 and of the non-cancer human mammary epithelial cell line MCF-10A in different experimental conditions. DHA possessed anti-proliferative properties that were prevented by alpha-tocopherol (an antioxidant) and enhanced by the pro-oxidant hydrogen peroxide that confirms that DHA has to be oxidized to exert its anti-proliferative properties. We also evaluated the anti-proliferative effects of the 4(RS)-4-F4t-neuroprostane, a bioactive, non-enzymatic oxygenated metabolite of DHA known to play a major role in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases. DHA-loaded nanocapsules was less potent than non-encapsulated DHA while co-encapsulation of DHA with H2O2 maintained the inhibition of proliferation. The nanocapsules slightly improves the anti-proliferative effect in the case of 4(RS)-4-F4t-neuroprostane that is more hydrophilic than DHA. Overall, our findings suggest that the sensitivity of tumor cell lines to DHA involves oxidized metabolites. They also indicate that neuroprostane is a metabolite participating in the growth reducing effect of DHA, but it is not the sole. These results also suggest that NC seek to enhance the stability against degradation, enhance cellular availability, and control the release of bioactive fatty acids following their lipophilicities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 20%
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Other 13 24%
Unknown 12 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research
#1,635
of 2,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#292,045
of 396,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research
#13
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,378 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 396,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.