Comparative analysis of lipid-peptide nanoparticles prepared via microfluidics, reverse phase evaporation, and ouzo techniques for efficient plasmid DNA delivery

• Published in: European journal of pharmaceutics and biopharmaceutics 2024-08, Vol.201, p.114385, Article 114385
• Main Authors: Mashal, Mohamed, Attia, Noha, Maldonado, Iván, Enríquez Rodríguez, Lucía, Gallego, Idoia, Puras, Gustavo, Pedraz, José Luis
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Cell Line; Cell Survival - drug effects; DNA - administration & dosage; DNA - chemistry; Gene delivery; Gene Transfer Techniques; Humans; Lipid nanoparticles; Lipids - chemistry; Microfluidics; Microfluidics - methods; Nanoparticles - chemistry; Ouzo effect; Particle Size; Peptides - chemistry; Plasmids - administration & dosage; Protamine sulfate; Transfection - methods
• ISSN: 0939-6411; 1873-3441; 1873-3441
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2024.114385

[Display omitted] In the current “era of lipid carriers,” numerous strategies have been developed to manufacture lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). Nevertheless, the potential impact of various preparation methods on the characteristics, use, and/or stability of these LNPs remains unclear. In this work, we attempted to compare the effects of three different preparation methods: microfluidics (MF), reverse phase evaporation (RV), and ouzo (OZ) on lipid-peptide NPs (LPNPs) as plasmid DNA delivery carriers. These LPNPs had the same components, namely DOTMA cationic lipid, DSPC, cholesterol, and protamine. Subsequently, we compared the LPNPs in terms of their physicochemical features, functionality as gene delivery vehicles in two distinct cell lines (NT2 and D1-MSCs), and finally, their storage stability over a six-month period. It was clear that all three LPNP formulations worked to deliver EGFP-pDNA while keeping cells alive, and their physicochemical stability was high for 6 months. However, the preparation technique had a significant impact on their physicochemical characteristics. The MF produced LPNPs with a lesser size, polydispersity index, and zeta potential than the other synthesis methods. Additionally, their DNA entrapment efficiency, cell viability, and functional stability profiles were generally superior. These findings provide new insights for comparing different manufacturing methods to create LPNPs with the desired characteristics for effective and safe gene delivery.