A comparative study of graphene-hydrogel hybrid bionanocomposites for biosensing.

Hydrogels have become increasingly popular as immobilization materials for cells, enzymes and proteins for biosensing applications. Enzymatic biosensors that utilize hydrogel as an encapsulant have shown improvements over other immobilization techniques such as cross linking and covalent bonding. However, to date there are no studies which directly compare multiple hydrogel-graphene nanocomposites using the same enzyme and test conditions. This study compares the performance of four different hydrogels used as protein encapsulants in a mediator-free biosensor based on graphene-nanometal-enzyme composites. Alcohol oxidase (AOx) was encapsulated in chitosan poly-N-isopropylacrylamide (PNIPAAM), silk fibroin or cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) hydrogels, and then spin coated onto a nanoplatinum-graphene modified electrode. The transduction mechanism for the biosensor was based on AOx-catalyzed oxidation of methanol to produce hydrogen peroxide. To isolate the effect(s) of stimulus response on biosensor behavior, all experiments were conducted at 25 °C and pH 7.10. Electroactive surface area (ESA), electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), sensitivity to methanol, response time, limit of detection, and shelf life were measured for each bionanocomposite. Chitosan and PNIPAAM had the highest sensitivity (0.46 ± 0.2 and 0.3 ± 0.1 µA mM(-1), respectively) and electroactive surface area (0.2 ± 0.06 and 0.2 ± 0.02 cm(2), respectively), as well as the fastest response time (4.3 ± 0.8 and 4.8 ± 1.1 s, respectively). Silk and CNC demonstrated lower sensitivity (0.09 ± 0.02 and 0.15 ± 0.03 µA mM(-1), respectively), lower electroactive surface area (0.12 ± 0.02 and 0.09 ± 0.03 cm(2), respectively), and longer response time (8.9 ± 2.1 and 6.3 ± 0.8 s, respectively). The high porosity of chitosan, PNIPAAM, and silk gels led to excellent transport, which was significantly better than CNC bionanocomposites. Electrochemical performance of CNC bionanocomposites were relatively poor, which may be linked to poor gel stability. The differences between the Chitosan/PNIPAAM group and the Silk/CNC group were statistically significant (p < 0.05) based on ANOVA. Each of these composites was within the range of other published devices in the literature, while some attributes were significantly improved (namely response time and shelf life). The main advantages of these hydrogel composites over other devices is that only one enzyme is required, all materials are non-toxic, the sensor does not require mediators/cofactors, and the shelf life and response time are significantly improved over other devices.

Pharmacokinetics of reboxetine in healthy volunteers with different ethnic descents.

RATIONALE: Ethnicity can affect the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of psychopharmacologic drugs. OBJECTIVES: Reboxetine disposition differences among Asians, blacks, and Caucasians were examined. METHODS: Healthy subjects (12 Asians, 12 blacks, 12 Caucasians) received a single oral dose of one 4-mg reboxetine tablet in an open label, parallel study design. Plasma concentrations of reboxetine enantiomers [R,R(-) reboxetine and predominantly active S,S(+) reboxetine] were quantified using HPLC-MS-MS. Plasma unbound fractions of reboxetine enantiomers were evaluated by equilibrium dialysis. Ethnic group effects on pharmacokinetic parameters were assessed by ANOVA. RESULTS: Mean S,S(+) reboxetine CLPO for blacks was significantly greater, compared to Asians and Caucasians (154+/-82 ml/min, 101+/-19 ml/min and 101+/-18 ml/min, respectively). Mean S,S(+) reboxetine free fractions (fu) were significantly greater for Asians and blacks, compared to Caucasians (3.04+/-1.28%, 2.89+/-0.69%, and 1.99+/-0.58%, respectively). S,S(+) Reboxetine unbound clearance (CLu) was significantly less for Asians, compared to blacks and Caucasians (3742+/-1468 ml/min, 5187+/-2027 ml/min, and 5294+/-1163 ml/min, respectively). S,S(+) Reboxetine mean unbound AUC (AUCu) in these groups were 20.2+/-7.1 ng.h/ml, 14.6+/-5.1 ng.h/ml, and 13.2+/-3.2 ng.h/ml, respectively. AUCu was significantly greater for Asians. CLu and AUCu did not differ significantly between blacks and Caucasians. Ethnic effects of R,R(-) reboxetine were similar to those observed for S,S(+) reboxetine. CONCLUSIONS: The AUCu difference between Asian and black and Caucasian subjects was modest. Tolerability differences among groups were not observed. No dosage adjustment is necessary for Asians or blacks.

Linezolid, a novel oxazolidinone antibiotic: assessment of monoamine oxidase inhibition using pressor response to oral tyramine.

The primary objective of this study was to compare the effects of oral linezolid with moclobemide and placebo on the pressor response to oral tyramine. Secondary objectives were to determine possible mechanisms of the effect based on changes in the pharmacokinetics of tyramine and to evaluate alternative methods for quantifying the pressor effect. Subjects received linezolid (625 mg bid orally), moclobemide (150 mg tid orally), or placebo for up to 7 days. Using the oral tyramine dose producing a >30 mmHg increase in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (PD>30), a positive pressor response was defined as a PD>30 index (pretreatment/treatment ratio of PD>30) of > or = 2. There were 8/10, 11/11, and 1/10 responders with linezolid, moclobemide, and placebo, respectively. Responses returned to baseline within 2 days of drug discontinuation. The ratio of mean greatest SBP and heart rate at the time of greatest SBP (GSBP/HR) increased linearly with tyramine dose both pretreatment and during treatment with linezolid and moclobemide. During treatment, responses to tyramine when subjects took linezolid or moclobemide were significantly different from placebo. Both drugs significantly decreased tyramine oral clearance compared with placebo. Urinary excretion of catecholamines and metabolites was consistent with MAOI activity of the drugs, but results were variable. The MAOI activity of linezolid is similar to that of moclobemide, a drug used clinically without food restrictions. Restrictions to normal dietary intake of tyramine-containing foods are not warranted when taking linezolid.

Linezolid: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of coadministration with pseudoephedrine HCl, phenylpropanolamine HCl, and dextromethorpan HBr.

Linezolid is a novel oxazolidinone antibiotic with mild reversible monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) activity. The potential for interaction with over-the-counter (OTC) medications requires quantification. The authors present data evaluating the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic responses to coadministration of oral linezolid with sympathomimetics (pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine) and a serotonin reuptake inhibitor (dextromethorphan). Following coadministration with linezolid, minimal but statistically significant increases were observed in pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine plasma concentrations; a minimal but statistically significant decrease was observed in dextrorphan (the primary metabolite of dextromethorphan) plasma concentrations. Increased blood pressure (BP) was observed following the coadministration of linezolid with either pseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine; no significant effects were observed with dextromethorphan. None of these coadministered drugs had a significant effect on linezolid pharmacokinetics. Minimal numbers of adverse events were reported. Potentiation of sympathomimetic activity by linezolid was judged not to be clinically significant, but patients sensitive to the effects of increased BP due to predisposing factors should be treated cautiously. No restrictions are indicated for the coadministration of dextromethorphan and linezolid.