[Dependence of neuropeptide physiological effects on a route of administration].
Kamenskiĭ. A A AA; Voskresenskaia. O G OG; Dubynin. V A VA; Levitskaia. N G NG
Key Findings
- Intranasal delivery can maintain or enhance peptide effects versus invasive administration
- Peptide stability can be improved by protecting against protease degradation
- Proline‑rich sequence addition is more effective than D‑amino‑acid substitution for protection
Practical Outcomes
- For self‑experimenters, using intranasal sprays for semax may give similar or better results than injections, and formulations that include proline‑rich motifs could provide longer‑lasting effects, reducing how often you need to dose.
Summary
The study shows that giving peptides through the nose can keep or boost their effects compared to injections, and that adding proline‑rich parts to the peptide makes it last longer by protecting it from breakdown.
Abstract
Following intranasal administration, the peptides' effects could remain either the same as following an invasive administration (ACTH4-10) which is important for clinical application, or enhanced and prolonged (demorphin and argynilvasopressin analogue), or modified (beta-casomorphin-7). Techniques of improvement of the peptides' regulatory efficacy through protection against the protease action, are discussed. Peptide protection by introducing D-aminoacid's isomers into its molecule or addition of proline-rich sequences were compared. The latter technique seems to be more effective.
Study Information
pubmed
2001