Home Development of resistant corn starch for use as an oral colon-specific nanoparticulate drug carrier
Article Publicly Available

Development of resistant corn starch for use as an oral colon-specific nanoparticulate drug carrier

  • Norul Nazilah Ab’lah , Nagarjun Konduru Venkata and Tin Wui Wong EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: April 19, 2018
Download Article (PDF)
Pure and Applied Chemistry
From the journal Pure and Applied Chemistry Volume 90 Issue 6

Abstract

Starch is constituted of amylose and amylopectin. Debranching of amylopectin converts it into amylose thereby producing resistant starch which is known to be less digestible by the amylase. This study designed resistant starch using acid hydrolysis and heat-moisture treatment methods with native corn starch as the starting material. Both native and processed starches were subjected to Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, X-ray diffractometry, differential scanning calorimetry and molecular weight analysis. They were nanospray-dried into nanoparticles with 5-fluorouracil as the drug of interest for colon cancer treatment. These nanoparticles were subjected to size, zeta potential, morphology, drug content and in vitro drug release analysis. Heat-moisture treatment of native corn starch enabled the formation of resistant starch through amylopectin debranching and molecular weight reduction thereby enhancing hydrogen bonding between the starch molecules at the amorphous phase and gelatinization capacity. The nanoparticles prepared from resistant starch demonstrated similar drug release as those of native starch in spite of the resistant starch had a lower molecular weight. The resistant starch is envisaged to be resistant to the digestive action of amylase in intestinal tract without the formed nanoparticles exhibiting excessively fast drug release in comparison to native starch. With reduced branching, it represents an ideal precursor for targeting ligand conjugation in design of oral colon-specific nanoparticulate drug carrier.

Keywords: acid treatment; corn starch; heat-moisture treatment; nanoparticles; POLYCHAR-25; resistant starch

1 Introduction

Starch is constituted of amylose and amylopectin (Fig. 1). It receives a widespread application in drug delivery system design due to its biocompatible, biodegradable, safe, low cost and abundant availability attributes [1], [2], [3], [4]. The starch can be used as core and coat materials of pharmaceutical oral dosage forms such as tablets, pellets, hydrogels, microparticles and nanoparticles [5], [6], [7]. Specifically, it is employed with the aim to sustain or delay drug release. Starch is a hydrophilic excipient. Its use in development of controlled-release drug delivery system requires further chemical or physical treatment via conjugate synthesis or composite formation. Over the years, the starch has been blended with polymers such as chitosan, alginate, dextran and cyclodextrin to construct swellable and minimally erodible matrix to retard drug release [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. With reference to oral colon-specific drug delivery, the starch has been used as the matrix material of drug carrier [4], [14], [15], [16].

Fig. 1: Chemical structures of amylose and amylopectin.
Fig. 1:

Chemical structures of amylose and amylopectin.

Resistant starch is a variant of starch that is possibly not hydrolyzed to D-glucose in the small intestine within 120 min of administration but fermented in the colon to produce short chain fatty acids such as butyrate [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. The short chain fatty acids are known to incur a positive bowel health impact via improving the absorption of magnesium and calcium, epithelial proliferation, ecological balance of bacteria species and bacterial metabolism of bile salts [23]. The butyrate predominantly enhances the growth of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria which play a vital role in the wellbeing of colon physiology and metabolism [24], [25]. Oral colon-specific drug delivery advocates the exploitation of colonic microflora as the stimuli of drug release instead of time-, pH and peristaltic wave-dependent systems [26]. On this note, the resistant starch is deemed to be an ideal candidate of matrix material for drug carrier design. Lately, the resistant starch has been employed in the form of a film coat for oral colon-specific microparticles [4], [27]. The resistant starch shows a high digestion resistibility and this renders it favorable for use in development of colon-targeting vehicle.

The resistant starch is obtainable via acid hydrolysis [28], [29], heat-moisture, annealing [30], [31] and acetylation [32] treatments of the native starch. The oral delivery of medicine is first met with the acidic milieu of the gastric cavity. As such, this study intends to produce resistant starch by means of acid hydrolysis alone using the simulated gastric medium and in combination with heat-moisture treatment to increase the resistance level of starch against the hostile gastrointestinal environment. Thus far, there is limited study reporting the sequential acid followed by heat-moisture treatment in resistant starch development. This study produces starch variants using acid hydrolysis, heat-moisture and sequential combination treatments. The physicochemical changes of starch in conjunction with the build-up of resistance are elucidated via molecular spectroscopy, thermal, molecular weight and microscopy characterization. Pharmaceutically, nanoparticles are defined as matrices with sizes between 10 and 1000 nm [33], [34], [35], [36]. The nanoparticles are preferred dosage form in cancer targeting therapy. They can be decorated with targeting ligand and are characterized by a nanoscale geometry that is deemed favorable to interact with the specific overexpressed receptors on cancer cells. The resistant starch has been reported to commonly have a lower molecular weight than the corresponding native starch [28], [37]. The nanoparticles, due to its small dimension, have a relatively large specific surface area for drug dissolution. Lower molecular weight materials, formulated in the form of nanoparticles, are envisaged to exhibit a remarkably faster drug release propensity which is unfavorable in oral colon-specific administration. This study also aims to evaluate the drug release profiles of resistant starch as well as native starch nanoparticles in search of possible negative attribute of molecular weight changes and their influence on drug release.

2 Materials

Corn starch (Sigma-Aldrich, USA) was used as the starting material for the preparation of resistant starch. 5-Fluorouracil (AoBo Bio-Pharmaceutical Technology Co. Ltd., China) was selected as the model water-soluble anti-cancer drug. Hydrochloric acid, potassium chloride and tri-sodium phosphate dodecahydrate (Merck, Germany) were used as the buffer composition for in vitro drug release study. Sodium hydroxide (Merck, Germany) was used to neutralize acidified starch slurry. Resistant starch assay kit was purchased from Megazyme International Ireland Ltd. Co., Ireland.

3 Methods

3.1 Resistant starch preparation

Three variants of resistant starch were produced by means of heat-moisture treatment, acid treatment and combination of both modes of treatment (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2: Process flow in resistant starch design.
Fig. 2:

Process flow in resistant starch design.

3.1.1 Acid treatment

Deionized water (15 g) had its temperature equilibrated to 37±0.2 °C in a thermo-regulated shaker bath (Memmert, Germany) through subjecting it to agitation at 50 rpm for 1 h. An accurately weighed amount of native corn starch (15 g) was introduced into the deionized water. It was dispersed by means of agitation for 1 h to form a 50 % w/w slurry. Acidic buffer solution USP pH 2.2 (70 g) was added into the slurry and allowed to react for 2 h, an average resident duration of ingested materials, at 37.0±0.2 °C. The acid treated slurry was neutralized with 2 % w/v sodium hydroxide solution to a final pH of 7.0±0.5 [38], [39]. The precipitated sample was collected by cellulose acetate membrane filtration (pore size=0.45 μm; Sartorius, Germany) and washed with deionized water. It was subjected to hot air drying at 40±0.5 °C until constant weight and stored in the silica gel desiccator for at least 7 days prior to further analysis.

3.1.2 Heat-moisture treatment

The moisture content of the native corn starch was first determined by corneometer (Cutometer MPA 580, Courage+Khazaka, Germany) as previously described [40]. It was then adjusted to 25 %w/w by adding a required amount of deionized water [41]. The moist sample was subjected to hot air oven heating at 90 °C, 100 °C and 110 °C for 2 h and 16 h in an opened heating system. The same process was applied for acid treated corn starch when applicable.

3.2 Nanoparticles preparation

An accurately weighed amount of starch-5-fluorouracil mixture (300 mg; weight ratio 10:1) was dissolved in distilled water (299.7 g) through warming at 70 °C and under continuous magnetic stirring at 400 rpm for 1 h. The formed solution was stored at 4 °C overnight. It was then thawed to ambient temperature at 25 °C, and subjected to nanospray-drying using a nanospray dryer (TwinNanoSpray, UiTM, Malaysia) by means of the following parameters: inlet temperature=70 °C, outlet temperature=23±2 °C, solution feed rate=3.4 g/min, concurrent air flow rate=2–2.5 m/s, atomizing air pressure=6 bar. The spray-dried powders were accumulated at the collecting electrode and retrieved using rubber spatula into a 10 ml vial. The sample was conditioned in a desiccator and kept at 25±1 °C. Drug-free starch nanoparticles were similarly prepared.

3.3 Characterization of starch and nanoparticles

3.3.1 Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR)

FTIR was performed to evaluate the molecular interaction and double helical structure of starch. Two milligram of sample were mixed with 78 mg of potassium bromide (FTIR grade; Aldrich, Germany). The mixture was ground into a fine powder using an agate mortar before compressing into a disc. Each disc was scanned at a resolution of 4 cm−1 over a wavenumber region of 400–4000 cm−1 using the FTIR spectrometer (Spectrum RX1 FTIR system, Perkin Elmer, USA). The characteristic peaks of IR transmission spectra were recorded. Triplicates were carried out for each sample and the results averaged.

3.3.2 X-ray diffraction (XRD)

The crystallinity state of starch and nanoparticles was evaluated using X-ray diffractometer (Ultima IV, Rigaku Corporation, Japan) with Cu Kα radiation at 30 kV voltage and 15 mA current. The scanning speed was set at 3°/min and in the range between 3° and 80° (2θ). The relative crystallinity of starch was calculated using MDI Jade 6.5 software (Materials Data Inc., USA). Triplicates were carried out for each sample and the results averaged.

3.3.3 Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC)

DSC analysis was performed to evaluate the gelatinization and thermal properties of starch. The thermograms were obtained using a differential scanning calorimeter (Pyris 6 DSC, Perkin Elmer, USA). Three milligram of sample were crimped in a standard aluminum pan and heated from 30 to 380 °C at a heating rate of 10 °C/min under constant purging of nitrogen at 40 ml/min. The characteristic onset temperature To, peak temperature Tp, completion temperature Tc and enthalpy values of endotherm ΔH were recorded. Triplicates were carried out for each sample and the results averaged.

3.3.4 Molecular weight

The molecular weight of starch was analyzed based on its intrinsic viscosity attribute. The starch was dissolved in 1 M sodium hydroxide solution to form 0.1 mg/ml starch solution [42]. Its capillary flow duration was determined using Ubbelohde type B viscometer (Poulten Selfe & Lee Ltd, UK) at 35±1 °C. The intrinsic viscosity of the starch solution was calculated using Solomon-Ciuta equation as followed:

(1)[η]=1c2ηi−2lnηr

where ƞi=inherent viscosity; ƞr=relative viscosity; [ƞ]=intrinsic viscosity; c=concentration (mg/ml).

The relative viscosity was defined as quotient of flow duration of sample solution to that of solvent and the inherent viscosity was represented by relative viscosity minus 1.

Dextran with molecular weights of 8000 Da, 150 000 Da, 270 000 Da and 670 000 Da (Sigma-Aldrich, USA) were selected as the reference standard. Their intrinsic viscosity values at 0.1 mg/ml were similarly determined. The molecular weight of starch was computed using the following Mark-Houwink equation with intrinsic viscosity-molecular weight plot of dextran as the standard reference:

(2)log[η]=logK+alogM

where M was molecular weight of the species of interest, K and a were constants obtained from the standard plot of dextran. Triplicates were carried out for each sample and the results averaged.

3.3.5 Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)

The surface morphology of starch and nanoparticles was examined using scanning electron microscopy technique (Quanta FEG 450, FEI, The Netherlands). The sample was subjected to platinum coating at a current intensity of 20 mA for 50 s by means of auto fine coater (JFC1600, Jeol, Japan) followed by SEM examination at an accelerating voltage of 5 kV. Representative sections were photographed. The average roughness and shape of particles were analyzed using image processing software ImageJ (NiH, USA). Mean values and standard deviations of arithmetic mean roughness (Ra) and circularity (Circ) were calculated from nine measurements of three images.

3.3.6 Particle size

The particle size and polydispersity of starch was determined using the laser diffraction particle size analyzer (Malvern Mastersizer 2000, Malvern Instrument Ltd., UK) via the dry dispersion method at 25±1 °C. The volume weighted diameter (D[4,3]) and span of sample were computed. Triplicates were carried out for each sample and the results averaged.

The particle size and polydispersity of nanoparticles was determined using dynamic light scattering method [Nano ZS 90 (Zetasizer), Malvern Instrument Ltd., UK] at 25±1 °C. The sample (0.1 mg) was dispersed in 10 ml of distilled water and subjected to magnetic stirring to form a homogeneous dispersion prior test. Triplicates were carried out for each sample and the results averaged.

3.3.7 Zeta potential

The zeta potential of nanoparticles was measured by means of a Zetasizer (Nano ZS 90, Malvern Instruments Ltd., UK) at 25±1 °C. 0.1 mg of nanoparticles was dispersed in 10 ml of distilled water under continuous magnetic stirring. The dispersion was loaded in a folded capillary zeta cell for test. Its electrostatic mobility was converted into zeta-potential using the Helmholtz–Smoluchowski equation [43]. Triplicates were carried out for each sample and the results averaged.

3.3.8 Erosion

The erosion propensity of starch was examined by first compressing 400 mg starch into a compact (diameter=13.02 mm, thickness=2.38 mm) using a manual hydraulic press (Specac, USA) under 10 tonnes pressure for 1 min. The compact was then conditioned in a silica gel desiccator for at least 7 days. It was then placed in 10 ml of 0.1 N hydrochloric acid solution in simulation of gastric fluid [44]. The compact was subjected to agitation at 50 strokes/min using a shaker bath (Memmert, Germany) at 37±0.2 °C for 120 min. It was then harvested and oven-dried at 40±0.5 °C till a constant weight was attained followed by desiccator conditioning at 25±1 °C. The erosion index of starch (EI) was defined as:

(3)EI=Wi–Wt(d)/Wi· 100 %

where Wi=initial dry sample weight and Wt(d)=dry weight of sample collected at time t. Three replicates were conducted and the results averaged.

3.3.9 Resistant starch content

The resistant starch content was determined using Megazyme Resistant Starch Assay Kit (AOAC Method 2002.02 and AACC Method 32-40.01) [45]. One hundred milligram of sample were incubated in a thermo-regulated shaker bath (Memmert, Germany) with pancreatic α-amylase and amyloglucosidase for 16 h at 37±0.2 °C under shaking speed of 200 strokes/min to solubilize the non-resistant starch and hydrolyze it to D-glucose. The reaction was terminated by adding denatured ethanol with the resistant starch being recovered as a pellet via centrifugation (Heraeus Labofuge 200, DJB Labcare Ltd., UK) at 3000 rpm for 10 min. The pellet was washed twice through suspending it in 8 ml of aqueous ethanol (50 % v/v) followed by centrifugation. The supernatant was removed by decantation. The resistant starch in pellet was dissolved in 2 M potassium hydroxide solution via vigorous magnetic stirring in an ice-water bath. The solution was neutralized with acetate buffer and the starch was quantitatively hydrolyzed to glucose with amyloglucosidase. The solution absorbance was measured at 510 nm using UV-VIS spectrophotometry against the reagent blank to quantify the amount of resistant starch. Triplicates were conducted and the results averaged.

3.3.10 In vitro drug release

The drug release profiles of nanoparticles (3 mg) transiting from acidic gastric milieu (2 h) to near-neutral intestinal medium (6 h) were evaluated. This study utilized 7.5 ml of 0.1 N hydrochloric acid solution to simulate gastric fluid followed by its adjustment to pH 6.8 to simulate intestinal fluid through adding 2.5 ml of 0.2 M of a tribasic sodium phosphate solution that had been previously equilibrated to 37±0.2 °C (total simulated intestinal fluid=10 ml). The sample was subjected to agitation at 50 strokes/min. Aliquots (5 ml) were withdrawn at specified intervals of 1 h and 2 h in simulated gastric medium, and 3 h, 4 h and 8 h in simulated intestinal medium. The aliquot was filtered through 0.45 μm nitrocellulose membrane (Millipore, Merck Millipore Ltd., Ireland) and had its 5-fluorouracil content analyzed by simple UV-VIS spectrophotometry technique at wavelength maxima of 265 nm. Fresh batches of samples were introduced into the test media for sampling at each and every interval. The percentage of drug release was calculated with respect to the total drug content of nanoparticles. The drug content of nanoparticles was evaluated by subjecting 3 mg of nanoparticles to stirring at 1000 rpm for 4 h at 25 °C in phosphate buffer pH 6.8, followed by ultracentrifugation (Ultracentrifuge Optima LE-80K, Beckman Coulter, USA) at 40 000 rpm for 1 h at 4 °C prior to spectrophotometric assay of the supernatant. Drug-free nanoparticles were used as the control sample. Triplicates were conducted for each sample and the results averaged.

3.4 Statistical analysis

Results were expressed as a mean of at least three experiments with the corresponding standard deviation. Student’s t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA)/post hoc analysis by Tukey HSD test were employed when applicable. Statistical data analysis was carried out using SPSS software version 22.0 and a statistically significant difference was denoted by p<0.05.

4 Results and discussion

Three variants of resistant starches were produced by acid, heat-moisture and combination treatments of the native corn starch. Preliminary trials of heat-moisture treatment suggested that processing of native corn starch at 90 °C and 110 °C did not bring about marked net changes in its chemical environment, inferring from the outcome of FTIR studies. This could possibly due to inadequate or excessive modification of the starch under the influences of heat and moisture. It implied that such starch could have under-developed or lost its resistance attribute.

The heat-moisture treatment of native corn starch at 100 °C apparently produced resistant starch with its resistance level being higher in sample treated for 2 h than that of 16 h. FTIR analysis indicated that the starches treated by heat-moisture approach for 2 h and 16 h were characterized by lower wavenumbers at 3293.0±8.4 cm−1 and 3377.5±7.8 cm−1 ascribing to O–H moiety, respectively (Fig. 3). The heat-moisture treated starches exhibited a higher strength of hydrogen bonding which could account for its higher resistance. The starch treated by heat-moisture for 2 h had a lower FTIR wavenumber than that of 16 h (Fig. 3). A short exposure duration of starch to heat and moisture was deemed to produce resistant starch with greater hydrogen bonding strength and resistance attribute. An overly long exposure duration of starch to heat and moisture might negate the build-up of resistance, similar to the case of treatment using a higher temperature at 110 °C.

Fig. 3: FTIR spectra of native, acid treated and heat-moisture treated starches.
Fig. 3:

FTIR spectra of native, acid treated and heat-moisture treated starches.

The acid treatment of native corn starch similarly led to the production of resistant starch with enhanced hydrogen bonding (Fig. 3). The gain in hydrogen bonding strength by acid treated starch was however lower than that of heat-moisture treated starch. This was reflected by a lower reduction extent of wavenumber with acid treated starch (3388.6±5.5 cm−1) from that of native starch (3397.2±3.4 cm−1). Further processing of acid treated starch with heat-moisture approach increased the hydrogen bonding strength and resistance of starch (Fig. 3). Nevertheless, the gain in hydrogen bonding strength of this starch was not comparable to that of treated by heat-moisture alone for 2 h. It was characterized by FTIR wavenumbers similar to that of heat-moisture treated starch for 16 h (3375–3377 cm−1). It appeared that the combination treatments did not enable a synergistic rise in the hydrogen bonding strength of starch.

With reference to resistant starch, a low extent of dissolution is envisaged to translate to reduced interaction with enzymes and enzymatic degradation thereby allowing it to survive in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Polymer dissolution is typically promoted by low molecular weight [46], low hydrophobic moiety substitution degree [47], small particle size [47], irregular particle shape, reduced crystallinity and lattice strength attributes [48]. Under the influences of acid, heat and/or moisture, the starch was characterized by hydrogen bonding strength and lattice resistance in the order of heat-moisture treated starch>acid treated starch>native starch (Fig. 3). The resistance of starch was developed via debranching of amylopectin into amylose and had its amylose fraction increased [49], [50]. The extent of debranching was found to progress in the following order: heat-moisture treated starch for 2 h>acid treated starch>native starch, in accordance to their respective molecular weights of 4.3×105±2.9×104 g/mol, 1.1×106±5.3×104 g/mol and 1.6×106±3.1×104 g/mol. Theoretically, a reduction in molecular weight of starch through amylopectin debranching would negate its resistance. However, low molecular weight starch enabled efficient molecular packing and facilitated hydrogen bonding. These starch molecules could be randomly arranged in close proximity within the particulate matter, inferring from their reduced crystallinity with the relative crystallinity of the heat-moisture treated starch, acid treated starch and native starch being 20.8±0.9 %, 22.4±0.3 % and 23.1±0.4 % respectively (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4: XRD diffractograms of native, acid treated and heat-moisture treated starches.
Fig. 4:

XRD diffractograms of native, acid treated and heat-moisture treated starches.

The summative effect was that the starch gained resistance with treatments, particularly with heat-moisture approach. Figure 5 showed that the native starch, heat-moisture treated starch and acid treated starch had similar morphology (circularity=0.9±0.0, surface roughness=14.6±3.2 nm) and particle sizes (15.6±1.9 μm). Despite having the lowest molecular weight, the heat-moisture treated starch however displayed similar erosion profiles as acid treated and native starches (1.6±0.5 %; Students’s-t-test, p>0.05).

Fig. 5: Scanning electron micrographs of native, acid treated and heat-moisture treated starches.
Fig. 5:

Scanning electron micrographs of native, acid treated and heat-moisture treated starches.

DSC analysis showed that both heat-moisture treated starch and acid treated starch were characterized by lower gelatinization/melting temperature (To, Tp and Tc) than native starch (Fig. 6). This was associated with reduced fractions of amylopectin in starch [50] of which suggested debranching of amylopectin into amylose. FTIR study indicated that heat-moisture treatment and acid treatment increased the hydrogen bonding strength of starch. DSC quantifies both chemical (hydrogen bonding) as well as physical (chain entanglement) interactions in a polymer sample [50], [51], [52], [53]. A reduction in the gelatinization temperature of the native starch, following heat-moisture or acid treatment, was possibly ascribed to reduced chain entanglement as a result of reduced starch molecular weight. The heat-moisture treated starch exhibited a significantly larger enthalpy of gelatinization (ΔH) in comparison to native and acid treated starches (ANOVA, p<0.05). The magnitude of ΔH reflects the presence of amylose and double helical order in starch, of which is stabilized by hydrogen bonds [52]. An excessive energy is needed to break and melt the double helices during gelatinization [50]. The heat-moisture treated starch was found to possess a remarkably high hydrogen bond strength. It implied that such starch had a high double helical order thus requiring a markedly large enthalpy of gelatinization.

Fig. 6: DSC thermograms of native, acid-treated and heat-moisture treated starches.
Fig. 6:

DSC thermograms of native, acid-treated and heat-moisture treated starches.

Among all treated starches, the heat-moisture treated starch had the lowest molecular weight and the highest hydrogen bonding propensity with reference to the native starch. Drug dissolution trials of nanoparticles prepared from heat-moisture treated starch (size=680.8±118.2 nm, zeta potential=−10.6±3.5 mV; relative crystallinity=14.9±0.7 %, surface roughness=13.3±1.6 nm, circularity=0.9±0.0, drug content=8.7 %) and native starch (size=504.1±143.6 nm, zeta potential=−3.0±5.5 mV, relative crystallinity=15.9±0.8 %, surface roughness=14.4±2.6 nm, circularity=0.9±0.0, drug content=10.7 %) showed comparable 5-fluouracil release (Fig. 7), parallel to the outcome of starch erosion study. The resistant starch content analysis showed that the heat-moisture treated sample (3.4±0.0 %) had a higher resistant starch content than the native sample (2.1±0.0 %). It might be partly responsible for heat-moisture treated starch nanoparticles having a drug release that was not markedly promoted by its reduction in molecular weight.

Fig. 7: Drug dissolutions of nanoparticles prepared from •, native starch and ο, heat-moisture treated starch.
Fig. 7:

Drug dissolutions of nanoparticles prepared from •, native starch and ο, heat-moisture treated starch.

5 Conclusion

Resistant starch was formed by amylopectin debranching via heat-moisture or acid treatment of native starch. Prolongation of heat-moisture treatment duration, use of suboptimal or high heating temperatures, and sequential combination of acid with heat-moisture treatment modes did not increase the resistance degree of starch. The resistant starch was characterized by reduced molecular weight, crystallinity and physical chain entanglement, but a rise in hydrogen bonding capacity. The interplay of these physicochemical properties enabled the resistant starch experiencing a similar extent of particulate erosion, and had its nanoparticles exhibiting a comparable drug release as those of the native starch in the simulated gastrointestinal media. The resistant starch apparently did not bring about delayed or sustained drug release profiles. Its development is nonetheless essential as linear amylose fraction is favorable for conjugation chemistry in the development of targeting ligand and/or functional excipients decorated nanocarrier as the oral colon-specific drug vehicle.

Article note:

A collection of invited papers based on presentations at the 25th POLYCHAR 2017 World Forum on Advanced Materials Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 9–13, 2017.

Acknowledgment

The authors wish to express their heart-felt gratitude to UiTM for fund and facility support (0141903), Centre of Foundation Studies and Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia for scholarship support.

References

[1] A. Rodrigues, M. Emeje. Carbohydr. Polym.87, 987 (2012).10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.09.044Search in Google Scholar

[2] M. Lemieux, P. Gosselin, M. A. Mateescu. Int. J. Pharm.382, 172 (2009).10.1016/j.ijpharm.2009.08.030Search in Google Scholar

[3] È. Demirgo, C. Elvira, A. M. Cunha, E. Piskin, R. L. Reis. Polym. Degrad. Stab.70, 161 (2000).10.1016/S0141-3910(00)00102-6Search in Google Scholar

[4] H. Pu, L. Chen, X. Li, F. Xie, L. Yu, L. Li. J. Agric. Food Chem.59, 5738 (2011).10.1021/jf2005468Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[5] M. Mihaela Friciu, T. Canh Le, P. Ispas-Szabo, M. A. Mateescu. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm.85, 521 (2013).10.1016/j.ejpb.2013.03.007Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[6] P. F. Minimol, W. Paul, C. P. Sharma. Carbohydr. Polym.95, 1 (2013).10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.02.021Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] C. K. Simi, T. Emilia Abraham. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng.30, 173 (2007).10.1007/s00449-007-0112-5Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[8] K. Kumari, U. Rani. Adv. Appl. Sci. Res.2, 48 (2011).Search in Google Scholar

[9] C. Thiele, D. Auerbach, G. Jung, L. Qiong, G. Wenz. Polym. Chem.2, 209 (2011).10.1039/C0PY00241KSearch in Google Scholar

[10] M. R. Saboktakin, R. M. Tabatabaie, A. Maharramov, M. A. Ramazanov. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.48, 381 (2011).10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2010.10.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] C. Calinescu, M. A. Mateescu. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm.70, 582 (2008).10.1016/j.ejpb.2008.06.006Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[12] L. Zhang, Y. Liu, Z. Wu, H. Chen. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm.35, 369 (2009).10.1080/03639040802369255Search in Google Scholar

[13] S. Ning, Q. Huang, J. Li, Y. Zhang, Y. N. Liu. J. Control. Release152, 49 (2011).10.1016/j.jconrel.2011.02.031Search in Google Scholar

[14] M. Z. Ahmad, S. Akhter, I. Ahmad, A. Singh, M. Anwar, M. Shamim, F. J. Ahmad. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv.9, 141 (2012).10.1517/17425247.2012.633507Search in Google Scholar

[15] A. El-Hag Ali, A. AlArifi. Carbohydr. Polym.78, 725 (2009).10.1016/j.carbpol.2009.06.009Search in Google Scholar

[16] X. Li, P. Zhang, L. Chen, F. Xie, L. Li, B. Li. Food Res. Int.47, 246 (2012).10.1016/j.foodres.2011.06.031Search in Google Scholar

[17] E. Fuentes-Zaragoza, M. J. Riquelme-Navarrete, E. Sánchez-Zapata, J. A. Pérez-Álvarez. Food Res. Int.43, 931 (2010).10.1016/j.foodres.2010.02.004Search in Google Scholar

[18] F. Brouns, B. Kettlitz, E. Arrigoni. Trends Food Sci. Technol.13, 251 (2002).10.1016/S0924-2244(02)00131-0Search in Google Scholar

[19] R. K. Le Leu, I. L. Brown, Y. Hu, T. Morita, A. Esterman, G. P. Young. Carcinogenesis28, 240 (2007).10.1093/carcin/bgl245Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[20] L. Prado-Silva, L. Azevedo, J. A. C. Oliveira, A. P. M. Moreira, M. Schmiele, Y. K. Chang, F. B. A. Paula, M. T. P. S. Clerici. Food Res. Int.62, 609 (2014).10.1016/j.foodres.2014.04.027Search in Google Scholar

[21] A. W. Walker, J. Ince, S. H. Duncan, L. M. Webster, G. Holtrop, X. Ze, D. Brown, M. D. Stares, P. Scott, A. Bergerat, P. Louis, F. McIntosh, A. M. Johnstone, G. E. Lobley, J. Parkhill, H. J. Flint. ISME J.5, 220 (2011).10.1038/ismej.2010.118Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[22] J. Peres. J. Natl. Cancer Inst.106, 6 (2014).10.1093/jnci/dju139Search in Google Scholar

[23] S. G. Haralampu. Carbohydr. Polym.41, 285 (2000).10.1016/S0144-8617(99)00147-2Search in Google Scholar

[24] E. Hijova, A. Chmelarova. Bratisl. Lek. Listy108, 354 (2007).Search in Google Scholar

[25] C. C. Roy, C. L. Kien, L. Bouthillier, E. Levy. Nutr. Clin. Pract.21, 351 (2006).10.1177/0115426506021004351Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[26] T. W. Wong, G. Colombo, F. Sonvico. AAPS PharmSciTech12, 201 (2011).10.1208/s12249-010-9564-zSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[27] W. Situ, L. Chen, X. Wang, X. Li. J. Agric. Food Chem.62, 3599 (2014).10.1021/jf500472bSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[28] J. Hasjim, J. L. Jane. J. Food Sci.74, C556 (2009).10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01285.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[29] S. Ozturk, H. Koksel, P. K. W. Ng. J. Food Eng.103, 156 (2011).10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.10.011Search in Google Scholar

[30] G. Jacobasch, G. Dongowski, D. Schmiedl, K. Müller-Schmehl. Br. J. Nutr.95, 1063 (2007).10.1079/BJN20061713Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[31] H. Singh, Y. H. Chang, J. H, Lin, N. Singh. Food Res. Int.44, 2949 (2011).10.1016/j.foodres.2011.07.005Search in Google Scholar

[32] X. S. Sha, Z. J. Xiang, L. Bin, L. Jing, Z. Bin, Y. J. Jiao, S. R. Kun. Food Chem.134, 149 (2012).10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.02.081Search in Google Scholar

[33] W. H. De Jong, P. J. A. Borm. Int. J. Nanomed.3, 133 (2008).10.2147/IJN.S596Search in Google Scholar

[34] Z. Liu, Y. Jiao, Y. Wang, C. Zhou, Z. Zhang. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev.60, 1650 (2008).10.1016/j.addr.2008.09.001Search in Google Scholar

[35] S. Othman, S. Mohamad, Y. Tze, F. Tan, T. Wui. React. Funct. Polym.84, 45 (2014).10.1016/j.reactfunctpolym.2014.09.005Search in Google Scholar

[36] T. W. Wong. J. Drug Target.18, 79 (2010).10.3109/10611860903302815Search in Google Scholar

[37] S. Shin, J. Byun, K. H. Park, T. W. Moon. Cereal Chem.81, 194 (2004).10.1094/CCHEM.2004.81.2.194Search in Google Scholar

[38] D. B. Thompson, J. O. Brumovsky, US Patent 6 486 355 B1, Filed 25 May 2002, Issued 22 Oct 2002.Search in Google Scholar

[39] M. Kaur, D. P. S. Oberoi, D. S. Sogi, B. S. Gill. J. Food Sci. Technol.48, 460 (2011).10.1007/s13197-010-0126-xSearch in Google Scholar

[40] N. Khaizan, T. W. Wong, D. K. Ghodgaonkar, M. N. Taib. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal.43, 549 (2007).10.1016/j.jpba.2006.08.014Search in Google Scholar

[41] S. T. Lim, E. H. Chang, H. J. Chung. Carbohydr. Polym.46, 107 (2001).10.1016/S0144-8617(00)00287-3Search in Google Scholar

[42] H. W. Leach. Cereal Chem.40, 593 (1963).10.1016/0029-5582(63)90305-5Search in Google Scholar

[43] P. C. Hiemenz, R. Rajagopalan, “Electrophoresis and other electrokinetic phenomena”, in Principles of Colloid and Surface Chemistry, 3rd ed., Chapter 12, pp. 544–547. CRC Press, New York (1997).10.1201/9781315274287-20Search in Google Scholar

[44] T. W. Wong, A. Iskandar, M. Kamal, S. J. Jumi, N. H. Kamarudin, N. Z. M. Zin, N. H. M. Salleh. Prog. Electromagn. Res.11, 121 (2009).10.2528/PIERC09092105Search in Google Scholar

[45] B. V. McCleary, M. McNally, P. Rossiter. J. AOAC Int.85, 1103 (2002).10.1093/jaoac/85.5.1103Search in Google Scholar

[46] B. A. Miller-chou, J. L. Koenig. Prog. Polym. Sci.28, 1223 (2003).10.1016/S0079-6700(03)00045-5Search in Google Scholar

[47] K. Saeio, Y. Pongpaibul, H. Vierstein, S. Okonogi. Sci. Pharm.75, 147 (2007).10.3797/scipharm.2007.75.147Search in Google Scholar

[48] F. Francuskiewicz, in Polymer Fractionation, pp. 10–18. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (1994).10.1007/978-3-642-78704-1_3Search in Google Scholar

[49] P. J. Jenkins, A. M. Donald. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.17, 315 (1995).10.1016/0141-8130(96)81838-1Search in Google Scholar

[50] H. J. Chung, Q. Liu, R. Hoover. Carbohydr. Polym.75, 436 (2009).10.1016/j.carbpol.2008.08.006Search in Google Scholar

[51] H. J. Chung, Q. Liu, R. Hoover. Food Res. Int.43, 501 (2010).10.1016/j.foodres.2009.07.030Search in Google Scholar

[52] F. Altay, S. Gunasekaran. J. Agric. Food Chem.54, 4235 (2006).10.1021/jf0527089Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[53] K. Kohyama, J. Matsuki, T. Yasui, T. Sasaki. Carbohydr. Polym.58, 71 (2004).10.1016/j.carbpol.2004.06.032Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-4-19
Published in Print: 2018-6-27

© 2018 IUPAC & De Gruyter. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. For more information, please visit: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. In this issue
  3. Preface
  4. 25th World Forum on Advanced Materials (POLYCHAR-25)
  5. Conference papers
  6. Characterization of polymer electrolytes by dielectric response using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy
  7. Determination of thermodynamic and structural quantities of polymers by scattering techniques
  8. Education program for controversial defect of recent X-ray instrument termed as a simultaneous small angle X-ray scattering and wide angle X-ray diffraction measuring instrument
  9. Synthesis and ionic conductivity of siloxane based polymer electrolytes with pendant propyl acetoacetate groups
  10. Composites containing bamboo with different binders
  11. Direct determination of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) accumulated in bacteria by thermally assisted hydrolysis and methylation-gas chromatography in the presence of organic alkali
  12. Synthesis, characterization and cellulose dissolution capabilities of ammonium-based room temperature ionic liquids (RTILs)
  13. Conversion of glucose into lactic acid using silica-supported zinc oxide as solid acid catalyst
  14. Enzymatic preparation of functional polysaccharide hydrogels by phosphorylase catalysis
  15. An ideal enzyme immobilization carrier: a hierarchically porous cellulose monolith fabricated by phase separation method
  16. Functionalized and engineered nanochannels for gas separation
  17. Development of resistant corn starch for use as an oral colon-specific nanoparticulate drug carrier
  18. Aggregation kinetics of irreversible patches coupled with reversible isotropic interaction leading to chains, bundles and globules
https://doi.org/10.1515/pac-2017-0806
Keywords for this article
acid treatment; corn starch; heat-moisture treatment; nanoparticles; POLYCHAR-25; resistant starch

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. In this issue
  3. Preface
  4. 25th World Forum on Advanced Materials (POLYCHAR-25)
  5. Conference papers
  6. Characterization of polymer electrolytes by dielectric response using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy
  7. Determination of thermodynamic and structural quantities of polymers by scattering techniques
  8. Education program for controversial defect of recent X-ray instrument termed as a simultaneous small angle X-ray scattering and wide angle X-ray diffraction measuring instrument
  9. Synthesis and ionic conductivity of siloxane based polymer electrolytes with pendant propyl acetoacetate groups
  10. Composites containing bamboo with different binders
  11. Direct determination of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) accumulated in bacteria by thermally assisted hydrolysis and methylation-gas chromatography in the presence of organic alkali
  12. Synthesis, characterization and cellulose dissolution capabilities of ammonium-based room temperature ionic liquids (RTILs)
  13. Conversion of glucose into lactic acid using silica-supported zinc oxide as solid acid catalyst
  14. Enzymatic preparation of functional polysaccharide hydrogels by phosphorylase catalysis
  15. An ideal enzyme immobilization carrier: a hierarchically porous cellulose monolith fabricated by phase separation method
  16. Functionalized and engineered nanochannels for gas separation
  17. Development of resistant corn starch for use as an oral colon-specific nanoparticulate drug carrier
  18. Aggregation kinetics of irreversible patches coupled with reversible isotropic interaction leading to chains, bundles and globules
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 8.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/pac-2017-0806/html
Scroll to top button