Elena Eva Julianne Marxer

Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg an der Lahn, Hesse, Germany

Are you Elena Eva Julianne Marxer?

Claim your profile

Publications (3)15.39 Total impact

  • Article: Atomic force microscopy and analytical ultracentrifugation for probing nanomaterial protein interactions.
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Upon contact with the human body, nanomaterials are known to interact with the physiological surroundings, especially with proteins. In this context, we explored analytical methods to provide biologically relevant information, in particular for manufactured nanomaterials as produced by the chemical industry. For this purpose, we selected two batches of SiO(2) nanoparticles as well as four batches of CeO(2) nanoparticles, each of comparably high chemical purity and similar physicochemical properties. Adsorption of serum proteins and bovine serum albumin (BSA) was quantified by SDS-PAGE in combination with densitometry and further investigated by atomic force microscopy (AFM) and analytical ultracentrifugation (AUC). The protein adsorption to SiO(2) nanoparticles was below the limit of detection, regardless of adjusting pH or osmolality to physiological conditions. In contrast, the four CeO(2) nanomaterials could be classified in two groups according to half-maximal protein adsorption. Measuring the work of adhesion and indention by AFM for the BSA-binding CeO(2) nanomaterials revealed the same classification, pointing to alterations in shape of the adsorbed protein. The same trend was also reflected in the agglomeration behavior/dispersibility of the four CeO(2) nanomaterials as revealed by AUC. We conclude that even small differences in physicochemical particle properties may nevertheless lead to differences in protein adsorption, possibly implicating a different disposition and other biological responses in the human body. Advanced analytical methods such as AFM and AUC may provide valuable additional information in this context.
    ACS Nano 05/2012; 6(6):4603-14. · 10.77 Impact Factor
  • Article: Force spectroscopy with BSA functionalized cantilevers on TiO2 nanoparticles
    Jens Schäfer, Elena Eva Julianne Marxer, Udo Bakowsky
    Physica Status Solidi (A) Applications and Materials 05/2011; 208(6):1320 - 1326. · 1.46 Impact Factor
  • Article: Development and characterization of new nanoscaled ultrasound active lipid dispersions as contrast agents.
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ultrasound contrast agents are widely used in clinical diagnosis. In recent years, the use of ultrasound contrast agents as therapeutic agents has gained a lot of attention. Of special interest are ultrasound-enhanced gene delivery in various tissues (e.g. cardiac, vascular, skeletal muscle and tumor tissue), ultrasound-enhanced protein delivery (e.g. insulin delivery) and ultrasound-enhanced delivery of small chemicals (e.g. doxorubicin, vancomycin). Commercially available ultrasound contrast agents such as SonoVue® or Optison® are ranged in a size of 2-8 μm. These micronscaled agents show a good ultrasound contrast enhancement and thus they are used for diagnostic imaging. But they are not suitable for targeted drug delivery to tumor tissues or blood clots because for these applications particles smaller than 700 nm are needed. In the present study, we developed new nanoscaled ultrasound contrast agents with a size between 70 and 300 nm. The lipid formulations show excellent contrast intensities using diagnostic ultrasound of about 1.4 MHz. The negatively charged colloidal dispersions are long-time stable under physiological conditions without loss of ultrasound reflectivity. The adjustable supramolecular organization of the carriers depends on the composition and varies from micellar to liposomal structures. The small size and the circulation stability of these systems make them promising for novel diagnostics and controlled drug release applications.
    European journal of pharmaceutics and biopharmaceutics: official journal of Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Pharmazeutische Verfahrenstechnik e.V 12/2010; 77(3):430-7. · 3.15 Impact Factor