TABLE I.
Liposome formulations Used in this Study
Matrix Lipid | Formulation* | Matrix Lipid (%) | Other Phospholipids |
Calcein Encapsulation Efficiency# | Liposome Stability% | Photo Polymerize effect$ | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C22:1 PC | C23:0 PC | DC8,9PC | ||||||
Egg PC (1) | 1a | 96 | none | none | none | high | good | No |
1b | 86 | none | none | 10 (mol %) | high | good | No | |
DNPC (2) | 2a | 86 | 10 (mol %) | none | none | no entrapment | n.a. | No |
2c | 46 | none | none | 50 (mol %) | no entrapment | n.a. | Yes | |
2b | 86 | none | 10 (mol %) | none | no entrapment | n.a. | No | |
DMPC (3) | 3a | 86 | none | none | 10 (mol %) | high | poor | Yes |
3b | 66 | none | none | 30 (mol %) | high | poor | Yes | |
3c | 46 | none | none | 50 (mol %) | high | poor | Yes | |
3d | 96 | none | none | none | no entrapment | n.a. | No | |
DPPC (4) | 4a | 96 | none | none | none | high | good | No |
4b | 91 | none | none | 5 (mol %) | high | good | Yes | |
4c | 86 | none | none | 10 (mol %) | high | good | Yes | |
4d | 81 | none | none | 15 (mol %) | high | good | Yes | |
4e | 76 | none | none | 20 (mol %) | high | good | Yes | |
4f | 71 | none | none | 25 (mol %) | high | moderate | Yes | |
4g | 66 | none | none | 30 (mol %) | low | Poor | Yes | |
4h | 61 | none | none | 40 (mol %) | low | poor | Yes | |
4i | 56 | none | none | 50 (mol %) | low | poor | Yes | |
4j ^^ | 72 | none | none | 10 (mol %) | no entrapment | n.a. | N.A. | |
4k ^^ | 62 | none | none | 20 (mol %) | no entrapment | n.a. | N.A. |
All preparations contained 4 mol% DSPE-PEG2000 for future in vivo applications.
Calcein encapsulation efficiency was compared with Egg PC liposomes (1a/1b).
Formulations that retained more than 75% entrapped calcein upon storage at 4°C up to 10 days were classified as stable and were used for further studies.
Photo polymerizable effect was measured be Appearance of red color after UV treatment
16 mol% DNPC was added to the liposome formulation