Nanostructured lipid carriers, solid lipid nanoparticles, and polymeric nanoparticles: which kind of drug delivery system is better for glioblastoma chemotherapy?

Figures & data

Figure 1. Surface morphology of T-PNPs, T-SLNs, and T-NLCs, bars mean 100 nm.

Table 1. Characterization of different vectors.

Formulations	Particle size (nm)	Size distribution (PDI)	Zeta potential (mV)	EE (%)	DL (%)
PNPs	108.2 ± 3.6	0.13 ± 0.03	–31.2 ± 3.6	N/A	N/A
SLNs	93.8 ± 2.7	0.11 ± 0.02	+37.6 ± 4.8	N/A	N/A
NLCs	123.6 ± 4.7	0.19 ± 0.05	+28.5 ± 2.9	N/A	N/A
T-PNPs	109.1 ± 4.3	0.17 ± 0.04	–28.2 ± 3.1	83.6 ± 3.2	10.8 ± 1.1
T-SLNs	94.6 ± 3.1	0.12 ± 0.03	+41.2 ± 4.1	82.3 ± 2.8	9.6 ± 0.9
T-NLCs	121.4 ± 5.6	0.21 ± 0.06	+29.1 ± 2.4	81.4 ± 3.7	5.2 ± 0.6

Figure 2. Changes in size of T-PNPs, T-SLNs, and T-NLCs in the presence of serum.

Figure 3. Changes in EE of T-PNPs, T-SLNs, and T-NLCs in the presence of serum.

Figure 4. In vitro release profile of TMZ from T-PNPs, T-SLNs, T-NLCs, and T-SOL.

Figure 5. In vitro cytotoxicity of T-PNPs, T-SLNs, T-NLCs, and T-SOL in U87 MG cells. Statistical significance is shown by *p < 0.05, compared with relevant controls.

Figure 6. In vivo anti-tumor efficiency of T-PNPs, T-SLNs, T-NLCs, and T-SOL in U87 MG-bearing mice. Statistical significance is shown by *p < 0.05, compared with relevant controls.