Stimuli-responsive nanoparticles, nanogels and capsules for integrated multifunctional intelligent systems (Review, 2010)

In this review we provide an analysis of recent literature reports on the synthesis and applications of stimuli-responsive polymeric and hybrid nanostructured particles in a range of sizes from nanometers to a few micrometers: nano- and microgels, core–shell structures, polymerosomes, block-copolymer micelles, and more complex architectures. The review consists of two major parts: synthesis and applications of nanoparticles in colloidal dispersions, thin films, delivery devices and sensors. We also broadly discuss potential directions for further developments of this research area.

Motornov, M., Roiter, Y., Tokarev, I., & Minko, S.. (2010). Stimuli-responsive nanoparticles, nanogels and capsules for integrated multifunctional intelligent systems. Progress in Polymer Science, 35(1–2), 174–211.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2009.10.004
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Buwalda, S. J., Boere, K. W. M., Dijkstra, P. J., Feijen, J., Vermonden, T., & Hennink, W. E.. (2014). Hydrogels in a historical perspective: From simple networks to smart materials. Journal of Controlled Release, 190, 254–273.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.03.052
DOI URL
directSciHub download

See also:
Fluorescent probe-encapsulated smart nanohydrogel to enhance sensitivity toward hydrogen peroxide in living cells (Publication Date, Feb. 2023)
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0143720822008609

  • Advances in the development of cyclodextrin-based nanogels/microgels for biomedical applications: Drug delivery and beyond 2022, Carbohydrate Polymers
  • Formation of ultrathin scarf-like micelles, ultrathin disk-like micelles and spherical micelles by self-assembly of polyurethane diblock copolymers 2022, Journal of Molecular Liquids
  • Inorganic/organic hybrid nanoparticles synthesized in a two-step radiation-driven process 2022, Radiation Physics and Chemistry
  • The influence of the functional end groups on the properties of polylactide-based materials 2022, Progress in Polymer Science
  • How molecular interactions tune the characteristic time of nanocomposite colloidal sensors 2022, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science

Psychoneuroimmunology

Psychoneuroimmunology (PNI), also referred to as psychoendoneuroimmunology (PENI) or psychoneuroendocrinoimmunology (PNEI), is the study of the interaction between psychological processes and the nervous and immune systems of the human body. It is a subfield of psychosomatic medicine. PNI takes an interdisciplinary approach, incorporating psychology, neuroscience, immunology, physiology, genetics, pharmacology, molecular biology, psychiatry, behavioral medicine, infectious diseases, endocrinology, and rheumatology.

The main interests of PNI are the interactions between the nervous and immune systems and the relationships between mental processes and health. PNI studies, among other things, the physiological functioning of the neuroimmune system in health and disease; disorders of the neuroimmune system (autoimmune diseases; hypersensitivities; immune deficiency); and the physical, chemical and physiological characteristics of the components of the neuroimmune system in vitro, in situ, and in vivo.

It is now clear that the cellular and molecular processes that make up our ‘immune system’ are also crucial to normal brain development and play a role in the pathoaetiology of many mental and physical disorders.


Troyer, E. A., Kohn, J. N., & Hong, S.. (2020). Are we facing a crashing wave of neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19? Neuropsychiatric symptoms and potential immunologic mechanisms. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 87, 34–39.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.027
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Hamilton-West, K.. (2011). Psychobiological Processes in Health and Illness. Psychobiological Processes in Health and Illness. 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd

Plain numerical DOI: 10.4135/9781446251324
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Mravec, B., Tibensky, M., & Horvathova, L.. (2020). Stress and cancer. Part II: Therapeutic implications for oncology. Journal of Neuroimmunology, 346, 577312.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2020.577312
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Pahlevi, R., Putra, S. T., & Sriyono, S.. (2017). Psychoneuroimmunology Approach to Improve Recovery Motivation, Decrease Cortisol and Blood Glucose of DM Type 2 Patients with Dhikr Therapy. Jurnal Ners, 12(1), 60–65.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.20473/jn.v12i1.2315
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Mathews, H. L., & Janusek, L. W.. (2011). Epigenetics and psychoneuroimmunology: Mechanisms and models. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 25(1), 25–39.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.bbi.2010.08.009
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Labanski, A., Langhorst, J., Engler, H., & Elsenbruch, S.. (2020). Stress and the brain-gut axis in functional and chronic-inflammatory gastrointestinal diseases: A transdisciplinary challenge. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 111, 104501.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.104501
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Leckman, J. F.. (2014). Commentary: What does immunology have to do with brain development and psychopathology? – A commentary on O’Connor et al. (2014). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12259
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Segerstrom, S. C., Glover, D. A., Craske, M. G., & Fahey, J. L.. (1999). Worry Affects the Immune Response to Phobic Fear. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 13(2), 80–92.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1006/brbi.1998.0544
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Aziez Chettoum, Kamilia Guedri, Zouhir Djerrou, Rachid Mosbah, Latifa Khattabi, Abir Boumaaza, & Wissam Benferdi. (2020). Distribution of leukocyte subpopulation among students threatened by failure. International Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences, 11(3), 3807–3812.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.26452/ijrps.v11i3.2553
DOI URL
directSciHub download

The germ theory of disease: Experiments to determine mode of spread of influenza (Dr. Milton J. Rosenau, 1919)

ROSENAU, M. J.. (1919). EXPERIMENTS TO DETERMINE MODE OF SPREAD OF INFLUENZA. Journal of the American Medical Association, 73(5), 311.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1001/jama.1919.02610310005002
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Fulltext: sci-hub.ru/10.1001/jama.1919.02610310005002

Abstract:
The experiments here described were performed on an island in Boston Harbor, on volunteers obtained from the Navy. The work was conducted by a group of officers detailed for that purpose, from the U. S. Navy and the U. S. Public Health Service, consisting of Dr. G. W. McCoy, director of the Hygienic Library, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, Dr. Leake, and Dr. Lake, all on the part of the U. S. Public Health Service; and cooperating with those medical officers, was a group also detailed for this purpose on the part of the U. S. Navy, consisting of Dr. J. J. Keegan, Dr. De Wayne Richey and myself.

The work itself was conducted at Gallops Island, which is the quarantine station of the Port of Boston, and peculiarly well fitted for operations of this kind, serving adequately for the purposes of isolation, observations, and maintenance of the large group of volunteers

Excerpt:
“The volunteers were all of the most susceptible age, mostly between 18 and 25, only a few of them around 30 years old ; and all were in good physical condition. None of these volunteers, 100 all told in number, had “influenza ;” that is, from the most care¬ ful histories that we could elicit, they gave no account of a febrile attack of any kind during the winter, except a few who were purposely selected, as having shown a typical attack of influenza, in order to test questions of immunity, and for the purpose of control. Now, we proceeded rather cautiously at first by administering a pure culture of bacillus of influenza, Pfeiffer’s bacillus, in a rather moderate amount, into the nostrils of a few of these volunteers. These early experiments I will not stop to relate, but I will go at once to what I may call our Experiment 1.”

***

As the preliminary trials proved negative, we became bolder, and selecting nineteen of our volunteers, gave each one of them a very large quantity of a mixture of thirteen different strains of the Pfeiffer bacillus, some of them obtained recently from the lungs at necropsy; others were subcultures of varying age, and each of the thirteen had, of course, a different history. Suspensions of these organisms were sprayed with an atomi¬ zer into the nose and into the eyes, and back into the throat, while the volunteers were breathing in. We used some billions of these organisms, according to our estimated counts, on each one of the volunteers, but none of them took sick. Then we proceeded to transfer the virus obtained from cases of the disease ; that is, we collected the material and mucous secretions of the mouth and nose and throat and bronchi from cases of the disease and transferred this to our volunteers. We always obtained this material in the same way : The patient with fever, in bed, has a large, shallow, traylike arrangement before him or her, and we washed out one nostril with some sterile salt solution, using perhaps 5 ce., which is allowed to run into this tray ; and that nostril is blown vigorously into the tray. This is repeated with the other nostril. The patient then gargles with some of the solution. Next we obtain some bronchial mucus through coughing, and then we swab the mucous surface of each nares and also the mucous membrane of the throat. We place these swabs with the material in a bottle with glass beads, and add all the material obtained in the tray. This is the stuff we transfer to our volunteers. In this par¬ ticular experiment, in which we used ten volunteers, each of them received a comparatively small quantity of this, about 1 c.c. sprayed into each nostril and into the throat, while inspiring, and on the eye. None of these took sick. Some of the same material was fil¬ tered and instilled into other volunteers but produced no results.

***

Our next experiment consisted in injections of blood. We took five donors, five cases of influenza in the febrile stage, some of them again quite early in the disease. We drew 20 ‘c.c. from the arm vein of each, making a total of 100 c.c, which was mixed and treated with 1 per cent, of sodium citrate. Ten c.c. of the citrated whole blood were injected into each of the ten volunteers. None of them took sick in any way. Then we collected a lot of mucous material from the upper respiratory tract, and filtered ‘ it through Man- dler filters. While these filters will hold back the bacteria of ordinary size, they will allow “ultramicro- scopic” organisms to pass. This filtrate was injected into ten volunteers, each one receiving 3.5 c.c. sub- cutaneously, and none of these took sick in any way.

***

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_J._Rosenau

Eyler, J. M.. (2010). The state of science, microbiology, and vaccines circa 1918. Public Health Reports

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1177/00333549101250s306
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Excerpt:

“Perhaps the most interesting epidemiological studies conducted during the 1918–1919 pandemic were the human experiments conducted by the Public Health Service and the U.S. Navy under the supervision of Milton Rosenau on Gallops Island, the quarantine station in Boston Harbor, and on Angel Island, its counterpart in San Francisco. The experiment began with 100 volunteers from the Navy who had no history of influenza. Rosenau was the first to report on the experiments conducted at Gallops Island in November and December 1918.69 His first volunteers received first one strain and then several strains of Pfeiffer’s bacillus by spray and swab into their noses and throats and then into their eyes. When that procedure failed to produce disease, others were inoculated with mixtures of other organisms isolated from the throats and noses of influenza patients. Next, some volunteers received injections of blood from influenza patients. Finally, 13 of the volunteers were taken into an influenza ward and exposed to 10 influenza patients each. Each volunteer was to shake hands with each patient, to talk with him at close range, and to permit him to cough directly into his face. None of the volunteers in these experiments developed influenza. Rosenau was clearly puzzled, and he cautioned against drawing conclusions from negative results. He ended his article in JAMA with a telling acknowledgement: “We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.”69 (p. 313)

The research conducted at Angel Island and that continued in early 1919 in Boston broadened this research by inoculating with the Mathers streptococcus and by including a search for filter-passing agents, but it produced similar negative results.70–72 It seemed that what was acknowledged to be one of the most contagious of communicable diseases could not be transferred under experimental conditions.”
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862332/

Murderous medicine: Nazi doctors, human experimentation, and Typhus

Jews were labeled disease carriers and a public health risk to justify the creation of ghettos.

Berkman, N. D.. (2006). Murderous Medicine: Nazi Doctors, Human Experimentation, and Typhus. Annals of Internal Medicine, 144(12), 944.

Plain numerical DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-144-12-200606200-00020
DOI URL
directSciHub download