Back to all available

Mannose-engineered nanoparticles for site-specific delivery of fluconazole to treat cutaneous leishmaniasis

biochemistry
parasitology
zoology
drugs-and-devices
pharmacology

Abstract

Background. Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is a skin disease that affects people living in arid and semi-arid regions. The main problem associated with this disease is that the skin symptoms are treated rather than the systemic effects. Fluconazole (FCZ) has been used for treating CL before.
Methods. In the present study, FCZ was entrapped in a chitosan (CS) nanopolymer and conjugated with mannose (MNS) to target macrophages in CL-infected Balb/c male 31mice. Parasites were detected using Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) and Polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
Results. The resulting nanoparticles exhibited good stability, release over an extended period, and long-term bioavailability. The FCZ CS MNS nanoparticle-treated mice showed negative PCR results and low IgG levels. This indicated potent targeting of infected macrophages that affects the parasite before it replicates and exits into the bloodstream. This study provides evidence for the effect of an antileishmanial formulation. Additional toxicity studies should be performed on this formulation before it undergoes clinical trials.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].