Molecules 2009, 14, 3286-3312; doi:10.3390/molecules14093286

molecules

ISSN 1420-3049

www.mdpi.com/journal/molecules

Review

Squalene Emulsions for Parenteral Vaccine and Drug Delivery

Christopher B. Fox

Infectious Disease Research Institute, 1124 Columbia St, Ste 400, Seattle, WA 98104, USA;

E-mail: cfox@idri.org

Received: 13 August 2009; in revised form: 25 August 2009 / Accepted: 31 August 2009 /

Published: 1 September 2009

Abstract: Squalene is a linear triterpene that is extensively utilized as a principal

component of parenteral emulsions for drug and vaccine delivery. In this review, the

chemical structure and sources of squalene are presented. Moreover, the physicochemical

and biological properties of squalene-containing emulsions are evaluated in the context of

parenteral formulations. Historical and current parenteral emulsion products containing

squalene or squalane are discussed. The safety of squalene-based products is also

addressed. Finally, analytical techniques for characterization of squalene emulsions are

examined.

Keywords: squalene; squalane; adjuvant; emulsion; parenteral

1. Introduction to Squalene and Emulsions

Squalene is widely used for numerous vaccine and drug delivery emulsions due to its stabilityenhancing

effects and biocompatibility. Emulsions containing squalene facilitate solubilization,

modified release, and cell uptake of drugs, adjuvants, and vaccines. Squalene and its hydrogenated

form, squalane, have unique properties that are ideally suited for making stable and non-toxic

nanoemulsions. Because of these characteristics, numerous squalene-based emulsions have been

effectively developed for drug and vaccine applications.

The chemical structure of squalene is that of a linear triterpene (Figure 1). The hydrocarbon

composition of the molecule results in a highly hydrophobic nature; the calculated values for

octanol/water partitioning coefficient (log P) and solubility of squalene in water are 10.67 and

0.124 mg/L, respectively [1]. A liquid at room temperature, squalene oil has a viscosity of ~11 cP, a

surface tension of ~32 mN/m, and a density of 0.858 g/mL [2-4]. The X-ray crystal structure of

squalene indicates a symmetric, stretched conformation [5]. The term squalene was coined in 1916

OPEN ACCESS

Molecules 2009, 14

3287

after the discovery of high concentrations of the C30H50 hydrocarbon in squaloid shark liver oil; some

early reports also refer to squalene as spinacene [6,7]. Significant amounts were later found in olive oil

and olive leaves [8-12]. In addition, squalene is present in other diverse sources such as wheat germ

oil, rice bran oil, carrots, Phycomyces blakesleeanus mold, alfalfa, elderberry, and lettuce [9,13,14].

Moreover, squalene is a main component of human sebum and a precursor of cholesterol biosynthesis

[6,13-18]. Interestingly, squalene from different sources has been shown to have characteristic

deuterium distribution patterns, indicating varying synthesis and processing parameters [13]. The role

of squalene as an important biological compound is illustrated by the fact that squalene and its related

compounds oxidosqualene and bis-oxidosqualene have been discovered as precursors to almost 200

natural product triterpenoids [19]. The biosynthesis of these triterpenoids follows the biogenetic

isoprene rule, a systematic reaction where the squalene precursors are catalyzed by triterpene

synthases such as squalene cyclase to create a large diversity of squalene derivatives [19].

Figure 1. Chemical structure of squalene.

There have been concerns regarding the sustainability of obtaining squalene from sources such as

sharks [20,21], not to mention the possibility of contamination or disease which is associated with

animal sources in general. Cosmetic companies, for instance, have begun obtaining squalene from

more renewable sources such as olives [21]. Indeed, studies indicate that squalene (and other valuable

products) can be successfully extracted from olive oil processing waste [22]. Synthetic squalene has

not been reported, although a synthetic polyisoprene called Syntesqual has been described [23].

Synthetic components are advantageous for vaccine and drug applications from a regulatory

perspective [24]. Regulatory standards for parenteral formulations are becoming more strict and favor

complete quantitative and qualitative characterization of active ingredients and excipients, extensive

physicochemical analysis, and overall component purity [25]. However, the supply of natural squalene

is currently relatively inexpensive and is used in most medicinal and cosmetic products.

Squalene has found use in various applications. Along with its hydrogenated analogue squalane, it

is widely employed in the cosmetics industry as an emollient [13,18,26,27]. Interestingly, squalene is

also used as a model compound to study vulcanization processes of natural rubber, which is also a

polyisoprene [28,29]. Another novel application of a squalene emulsion employs a complex surfactant

mixture that could be useful as a replacement of organic solvents used in dry-cleaning applications

[30]. Beneficial physiological properties have been demonstrated by squalene, including anticancer

and antioxidant activity, and it may be one of the reasons that Mediterranean diets have proven to be

healthy [12-14,18,31]. In addition, squalene has been found to be a good marker for postprandial

lipoproteinemia [32]. Because of its biocompatibility, squalene makes an attractive choice not just for

cosmetics but for medicinal products as well. Thus, squalene has essentially become the de-facto oil of

choice for parenteral vaccine emulsions and is also used for many pharmaceutical emulsions. The

various reports describing the use of squalene in these parenteral formulations are reviewed below

Molecules 2009, 14

3288

after an introduction to emulsions in general. Several references are also made to squalane, which has

similarly found use in an array of medicinal and cosmetic applications [33], and is also found naturally

in sebaceous secretions [34].

Emulsions are of interest in pharmaceutical and vaccine applications for several reasons. For

instance, a common challenge in drug discovery is overcoming drug insolubility or instability in order

to increase the bioavailability of the active compound. Emulsions can help solubilize lipophilic drugs

and decrease aqueous instability by associating them with a hydrophobic oil phase [35]. In addition,

emulsions offer a slower release of drug from the formulation. Moreover, since emulsions are

particulate in nature, they have longer biological residence times and are more effectively

phagocytosed by scavenging cells than aqueous formulations [36,37]. Thus, they can increase drug or

vaccine uptake into cells. In order for an emulsion to be an effective pharmaceutical or vaccine

vehicle, it is essential that the emulsion components create a stable formulation without adversely

affecting the safety profile of the active compound. In addition, the physicochemical characteristics of

the emulsion are important for activity. For example, smaller diameter particles (

apparently travel faster to lymphatics and are more efficiently endocytosed than larger ones [36-39].

Finally, emulsions themselves have multiple adjuvant effects when added to vaccine antigens. These

mechanisms of emulsion adjuvant activity are not completely understood and ongoing studies are

seeking to address the issue [4,40-42].

An immiscible oil and water mixture can be emulsified using an appropriate surfactant to create an

oil-in-water (o/w) emulsion (oil droplets surrounded by aqueous bulk phase) or, conversely, a waterin-

oil (w/o) emulsion (water droplets surrounded by oil bulk phase). Some emulsions are ‘selfemulsifying’

(spontaneous formation upon gentle mixing with water) while others require various

levels of energy input obtained through temperature increase, blending, sonication, high-pressure

homogenization (i.e., microfluidization), or other methods. Droplet diameters can range from

nanometers to microns and larger. The factors that determine what type of emulsion is created include

the concentration of oil, water, and surfactant(s); the structures of oil and surfactant(s); temperature;

and processing conditions. A schematic of an emulsified oil droplet with various emulsifiers is

depicted in Figure 2. In an o/w emulsion, it is generally assumed that the oil droplet is surrounded by

the emulsifying surfactants, which are in contact with the bulk aqueous phase. In general, o/w

emulsions are considered more biocompatible than w/o emulsions, which are more viscous, remain

longer at the site of injection, and have higher incidences of reactogenicity.

The selection of optimal surfactants is often based on the nature of the oil and whether an o/w or

w/o emulsion is desired [43,44]. A scale called the hydrophilic-lypophilic balance (HLB) has been

created to classify surfactant emulsifying properties. This scale ranges from 1 (lypophilic) to 20

(hydrophilic), although higher HLB values (more hydrophilic) are routinely reported as well. A

surfactant with a high HLB value interacts extensively with water, whereas a low HLB value indicates

a preference for oil. Oils have ‘required HLB’ values for w/o or w/o emulsions where they are

optimally stabilized by emulsifiers. Moreover, combinations of surfactants have been found to create

more stable emulsions, possibly due to tighter molecular packing at the oil/water interface. Thus, a

surfactant with a low HLB value can be combined with a high HLB value surfactant to create a stable

interfacial film. For example, the most commonly used squalene emulsion for vaccine formulations,

MF59®, employs a 50/50 mixture of low HLB and high HLB surfactants to create an overall HLB

Molecules 2009, 14

3289

value of 8.4. Nevertheless, a required HLB value for squalene has not been reported in the literature

and the various squalene-containing emulsions described below have a wide range of HLBs.

Interestingly, vaccine w/o emulsions employing squalane showed that slight variations in surfactant

HLB values had a significant effect on vaccine efficacy [45]. Moreover, it has been shown that

emulsion surfactants themselves can have significant biological activity [46-48].

Figure 2. Schematic of oil droplet emulsified by various surfactants in aqueous bulk phase.

Figure taken with permission from reference [76].

Emulsion stability is a primary concern for drug and vaccine manufacturers. Instability can be

caused by many factors, such as droplet flocculation or coalescence, creaming or phase separation,

chemical degradation, and Ostwald ripening (a physicochemical phenomenon whereby emulsified

droplets increase in size due to diffusion of molecules from smaller to larger droplets based on

differences in interfacial Laplace pressure). Emulsion stability can be optimized by appropriate

selection of oil, surfactants, and aqueous components as well as processing conditions. Squalene, for

instance, is essentially insoluble in water. Thus, any instability due to Ostwald ripening is unlikely

since the squalene molecules would be unlikely to diffuse through the aqueous medium [49]. Indeed,

squalene can be used in combination with other oils to reduce their tendency for Ostwald ripening and

increase emulsion stability [50]. On the other hand, the chemical structure of squalene, which includes

many double bonds, may indicate the potential of chemical degradation through oxidation [31,45,51].

Thus, squalene in olive oil has been shown to undergo oxidation over time; oxidation rate increased

with oxygen exposure or decrease of -tocopherol, an antioxidant [31]. Conversely, squalene itself has

demonstrated antioxidant properties, providing protection to lipids from undergoing peroxidation

[14,18,31]. Therefore, stability studies are recommended to determine if degradation by oxidation is an

issue in squalene emulsions and whether addition of other antioxidants or buffers for pH control is

warranted [52]. Along these lines, an unbuffered version of the squalene o/w emulsion MF59®

experienced an unexplained loss in squalene content at 25 or 37 °C over a 3-month period [53].

Molecules 2009, 14

3290

Emulsions for parenteral use have additional stability and safety requirements that should be

considered. For example, parenteral emulsions must be sterile, either by 0.2 m filtration or some

other means such as autoclaving. Parenteral emulsions should avoid extreme pH values and are

preferably isotonic to ensure biocompatibility. Emulsion components should be regarded as generally

safe for parenteral use. For instance, metabolizable oils and emulsifiers are most desirable. Parenteral

emulsions employing oils other than squalene have been used extensively in the clinic for many years

(e.g. Intralipid®).

What follows is a review of the published reports on specific squalene- or squalane-containing

emulsions used in vaccine or drug formulations. Whenever possible, specific formulation components

and their concentrations have been listed, with a focus on o/w emulsions. The purpose for this is to

allow easy comparison between the different formulations and to make clear the presence of other

excipients which may have both physicochemical and biological effects. For example, surfactants by

themselves or emulsified with squalene can have significantly differing biological effects based on

their structure [47,48]. Specifying exact component concentrations can be a confusing undertaking

since many investigators do not specify exact compositions or do not clarify whether published

compositions are diluted before injection. Many emulsions are manufactured at a certain concentration

and then diluted before injection for practical reasons. Another point of confusion is that many

composition concentrations are listed as a % value without specifying whether the value represents a

weight/volume (w/v) or volume/volume (v/v) percentage. This review attempts to rectify these

uncertainties, where possible, by specifying concentrations both at manufacture and at injection (i.e.,

at final dilution) as well as explicitly stating % w/v or v/v values.

2. Vaccines

Although squalene and squalane had been used earlier without antigen to increase nonspecific

immunity against tumors, it has been claimed that the first vaccine emulsion to employ squalene or

squalane with an antigen was Syntex Adjuvant Formulation (SAF) in the mid-1980s [36]. However,

we have found an earlier report describing the combination of a squalane emulsion with ovalbumin in

1981 [54]. In any case, SAF has been reviewed in detail elsewhere [36]. Briefly, SAF is a squalane or

squalene o/w emulsion intended to reduce the toxicity of the common w/o emulsion employing

mineral oil [known as Complete Freund’s Adjuvant (CFA)] while still inducing a potent cell-mediated

immune response. To this end, the mineral oil of CFA was replaced with metabolizable oils, and the

w/o emulsion was exchanged for an o/w emulsion so as to eliminate the tendency of the formulation to

remain at the injection site, inducing reactogenicity. Several metabolizable oils were compared, among

which squalene and squalane were chosen as most effective along with the surfactant Tween® 80.

Other additives, such as Pluronic® L121 (Pluronics® are polyethylene oxide-polypropylene oxide

block copolymers) or a muramyl dipeptide analogue, were found to increase SAF adjuvant properties.

Emulsion processing via several microfluidization cycles facilitated reduced particle size and

polydispersity, increased reproducibility, and capability for sterile filtration [33]. Remarkably, the SAF

emulsion (before addition of muramyl dipeptide) was stable for six years at room temperature; even

freezing temperatures did not break the emulsion [33]. The final SAF composition before muramyl

dipeptide addition was 5% w/v squalane, 2.5% w/v Pluronic® L121, and 0.2% w/v Tween® 80 in PBS

Molecules 2009, 14

3291

at pH 7.4 [33]. These final component concentrations for injection are obtained after diluting a 2x

stock upon mixing with the antigen and/or muramyl dipeptide [55,56]. Average particle size was 150-

160 nm, although this included a bimodal distribution of 270 nm and 90 nm [56,57]. Squalane was

finally chosen over squalene because it was presumed to be more chemically stable than squalene (no

double bonds susceptible to oxidation) [33]. SAF elicited IgG2a antibodies and the cytokine IFN-,

and other indications of a Th1-type cell mediated immune response, although many of these potent

adjuvant effects are attributable to the presence of Pluronic® L121 and/or the muramyl dipeptide

analogue [36,58]. Interestingly enough, SAF also was found to activate the alternative complement

pathway, another possible adjuvant mechanism of action [58]. Many different antigens were combined

with SAF and showed good immune activity [36]. SAF induced very little muscle irritation in humans

[33], but was apparently discontinued as an adjuvant product after clinical trials revealed high

reactogenicity, although this was associated with the inclusion of the muramyl dipeptide analogue

[36,59,60].

Perhaps the best known squalene-based vaccine adjuvant is MF59®. This o/w emulsion originally

included the added immunostimulant muramyl tripeptide phosphatidyl ethanolamine (MTP-PE), but

this was later taken out because of toxicity [61]. MF59® is manufactured as a 5% v/v squalene, 0.5%

w/v Tween® 80, 0.5% w/v Span® 85 emulsion in 10 mM citrate buffer at pH 6, with a particle size of

~165 nm after microfluidization [53,61]. It is generally diluted 2-fold upon mixing with the vaccine

antigen for injection. Interestingly, MF59 and other emulsions can be modified to include cationic

emulsifiers for more effective oil-adjuvant association or cell delivery [3,62]. Although MF59 is very

stable, it cannot be frozen, the squalene and surfactant components (Tween® 80 and Span® 85) contain

unsaturated bonds that may be subject to oxidation, and pH extremes may hydrolyze Tween® 80 or

Span® 85 [4]. MF59 has already been licensed for use in many countries as a component of the

influenza vaccine Fluad® [63]. It is also under investigation with several other vaccine candidates [63].

Because of its widespread use, several studies have examined MF59®’s adjuvant effects and

mechanisms. It has been found to induce antibodies, T cell proliferation, and cyotoxic T lymphocyte

activity [4]. Muscle tissue analysis after intramuscular injection of MF59® in a mouse showed

adjuvant-induced changes in the expression of ~900 genes (3x more than alum or CpG), including

genes responsible for cytokines, cytokine receptors, leukocyte migration, and antigen presentation

[40]. A study employing extensive in vitro cell assays concluded that MF59® may increase immune

cell migration to injection site, promote DC maturation and antigen uptake, and enhance DC migration

to lymph nodes [41]. In addition, a different study proposed that emulsion adjuvants containing

squalene such as MF59® and Hjorth adjuvant (see below) enhance antigen presenting cell survival or

proliferation [42]. Another report found that four hours after intramuscular injection in mice, 86% of

the injected MF59® was still in the muscle or surrounding fat tissue and had a half-life in mouse

muscle of 42 hours [64]. This same study reported that MF59® in the lymph nodes was detected as

~0.2% of the injected dose and peaked at two days after injection and that an associated antigen was

cleared independently and more rapidly than the MF59®, meaning no antigen depot effect [64].

However, fluorescence microscopy images showed that MF59® significantly increased antigen uptake

into antigen presenting cells, a finding correlated by increased antibody titers of MF59® associated

antigens [65]. While at three hours after injection most of the MF59® remained extracellular, at 48

Molecules 2009, 14

3292

hours most of the MF59® at the site of injection had been taken up by dendritic cells (see Figure 3) or

transported with antigen presenting cells to the lymph node [65].

Figure 3. Fluorescently-labeled MF59® three hours after injection has not been taken up

by cells (left). At 48 hours after injection, MF59® is intracellular (middle). Images taken

with permission from reference [65].

Ribi ImmunoChem Research (later acquired by Corixa, then GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals)

developed several squalene or squalane-containing emulsions for delivery of immunostimulants [66].

The formulation known as DETOX® includes bacterial cell wall skeleton (CWS) and monophosphoryl

lipid A (MPL) in a squalane (1%), and Tween® 80 (0.2%) formulation [66]. DETOX® shows good

adjuvant activity, but also reactogenicity and granulomas at the injection site [66,67]. Nevertheless,

DETOX® has been approved in a licensed therapeutic vaccine called Melacine® for treatment of

melanoma [68,69]. Ribi also published work on several other adjuvant emulsions, including a 10% v/v

squalene, 1.2% w/v lecithin, 0.45% v/v Tween® 80 mixture in water, which is diluted 5x upon

injection [37,70]. The closely related and widely used formulation known as Ribi Adjuvant System

(RAS) contains 2% v/v squalene, 0.2% Tween 80, and added immunostimulants such as synthetic

trehalose dicorynomycolate, bacterial cell wall skeleton, and MPL.[71,72] This is now available from

Sigma-Aldrich as Sigma Adjuvant System® (product #S6322), consisting of 2% v/v squalene, 0.2%

Tween® 80, synthetic trehalose dicorynomycolate, and MPL. A similar formulation termed SE (stable

emulsion) has been patented by Ribi and consists of 10% v/v squalene, 1.9% w/v lecithin, 0.091% w/v

Pluronic® F68, 0.05% w/v -tocopherol, and 1.8% v/v glycerol in 25 mM ammonium phosphate buffer

pH 5.1 [73,74]. Adding MPL to SE creates MPL-SE, a potent adjuvant currently in clinical trials as a

Leishmaniasis vaccine [75]. Development work on SE and other adjuvant emulsions has continued at

the Infectious Disease Research Institute (IDRI) [75-77]. IDRI has studied the physicochemical and

Molecules 2009, 14

3293

biological effects of substituting components of different source and structure in the SE formulation,

such as replacing shark squalene with olive squalene as well as comparing squalene source purity (see

Figure 4) [76].

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals has developed several squalene emulsion formulations as vaccine

adjuvants. SB62 consists of 5% v/v squalene, 5% v/v -tocopherol, and 1.8% v/v Tween® 80 in PBS at

pH 6.8, with a particle size of ~150-155 nm [78]. When diluted two-fold for injection, the above

formulation is called AS03 [78]. AS03 has been approved as a component of the pandemic flu vaccine

Prepandrix [75]. Several variations of AS03 have been reported, the most well-known being AS02.

AS02 is identical to AS03 with the addition of immunostimulants MPL and QS21 [79-81]. Another

possible variation on AS03 is to include CpG and a saponin (such as QS21) [82]. AS02 is in clinical

trials for various vaccine applications, including malaria, hepatitis B, human papilloma virus,

tuberculosis, and HIV [75], although some reactogenicity has been reported [83].

Figure 4. HPLC analysis with charged aerosol detection of squalene and impurities from

shark or olive sources. Figure taken with permission from reference [76].

Sanofi Pasteur has developed a promising squalene-based o/w emulsion known as AF03 that is

manufactured by cooling a pre-heated w/o emulsion until it crosses the emulsion phase inversion

temperature, creating an o/w emulsion (i.e., thermoreversible) [84-86]. This emulsion optionally

contains a TLR4 agonist molecule and mannitol, and can reportedly be lyophilized. Upon injection, it

consists of 2.5% w/v squalene, ~0.48% w/v Ceteareth-12, ~0.37% w/v sorbitan monooleate (also

known as Span® 80), and phosphate buffered saline or citrate buffer, with droplet size

Molecules 2009, 14

3294

Experimental squalene adjuvant (ESA) is composed, upon injection, of 5% w/v squalene, 4% w/v

Pluronic® L35, and 2% w/v of the surfactant Abil®-Care (polysiloxan polymer dimethicone copolyol),

with a particle size of 200 nm [87]. The antigen is emulsified with the emulsion under mild conditions.

This formulation was found to be more effective at eliciting immunogenicity than alum with a rabies

or parvovirus vaccine. ESA exhibited a promising safety profile in guinea pigs, with low

reactogenicity, low pyrogenicity levels, and no adverse sensitization [88].

Several more squalene-based emulsions for vaccines or drugs have been described in the literature,

including several patents [36,89]. Various squalene emulsions have also been described for the

delivery of human chorionic gonadotropin for HIV, cancer, or fertility treatments [90,91]. The

combination of a squalene emulsion with polymeric particles in a tetanus toxoid vaccine significantly

increased antibody titers to tetanus toxoid [92]. Mixing a squalene emulsion with alum has also been

reported [93].

Water-in-oil emulsions containing squalene have also garnered interest. A widely used and effective

squalene-containing w/o formulation is Montanide® ISA 720, which combines 70% v/v squalene with

a mannide monooleate emulsifier [4,94,95]. Although much less toxic than mineral oil adjuvants, the

reactogenicity of Montanide® ISA 720 may be cause for concern and is currently under investigation

[83,96-98]. Another w/o squalene emulsion is TiterMax® Classic, which contains squalene, Tween®

80, the block copolymer CRL-8941 (Pluronic® L141), and silica microparticles coated with CRL-8941

[87,99-101]. Generally, a 50% v/v squalene content is injected but this can be reduced to as low as

10% [101]. TiterMax® Gold is closely related to TiterMax® Classic, but employs a different

polyethylene oxide-polypropylene oxide block copolymer (CRL-8300) and no silica microparticles

[99,102]. TiterMax® is a potent adjuvant designed to elicit similar response as CFA in research

animals with reduced toxicity [99,100]. It has been compared to MF59® and alum in a meningitis

vaccine in mice [103]. In addition, an adjuvant formulation consisting of 35% v/v squalene emulsion

emulsified with 15% v/v Arlacel® A (mannide monooleate) mixed with a polycationic polyelectrolyte

has been described [104]. Also of interest, a water-in-oil-in-water (w/o/w) squalene adjuvant was

found to be safe and effective in protecting chickens against Newcastle disease virus [105]. It is

composed of liquid paraffin (25%), squalene (10%), diglyceryl monooleate (5%), and Tween® 80 (2%)

in PBS.

Not surprisingly, the hydrogenated form of squalene, squalane, has also been widely applied in

vaccine emulsion formulations. As mentioned above, an early report of a squalane/Tween® emulsion

containing muramyl dipeptide and ovalbumin described the resulting induction of a cell mediated

immune response [54]. Later, SAF and DETOX® employed squalane instead of squalene. A different

squalane-based o/w emulsion with Tween® 80 and a sulfolipo-cyclodextrin adjuvant found efficacy in

veterinary applications, producing similar antibody titers as w/o formulations and an earlier and

stronger cell mediated response with no reactogenicity in cattle [106]. Earlier, this adjuvant had shown

efficacy eliciting high antibody titers compared to mineral oil, hexadecane, or soya oil emulsions in

pigs and mice, although some reactogenicity was apparent due to the sulfolipid-cyclodextrin [107].

The immunostimulant molecular structure has since been refined and the formulation is now called

CoVaccine HT, consisting (upon injection) of 8% w/v squalane, 2% w/v Tween® 80, and 2% w/v

immunostimulant (sucrose fatty acid sulfate ester) in PBS and was found effective in eliciting humoral

Molecules 2009, 14

3295

and cellular responses in pigs [68,108,109]. CoVaccine HT in a therapeutic hypertension vaccine is in

phase II clinical trials [110].

Other squalane formulations have also been reported. A squalane emulsion known as AF, SPT, or

PROVAX® has been created by IDEC Pharmaceuticals. This emulsion formulation is similar to SAF,

but reduces the concentration of Pluronic L121 to 1.25% w/v upon injection and eliminates the

muramyl dipeptide analogue. PROVAX® is prepared as a 3x concentrate and contains 15% w/v

squalane, 3.75% w/v Pluronic® L121, and 0.6% w/v Tween® 80. It induces both antibodies and

cytotoxic T cells [36,111]. Also of interest, a w/o/w squalane-based emulsion effectively elicited IgG

and IgA antibody responses to ovalbumin after oral administration [112].

The preferred choice of oil between squalane or squalene is not obvious. While both oils have

reduced tissue reaction compared to historical mineral oils [36,45,113], squalane may be slightly more

reactogenic at injection sites than squalene [37]. This may in part be due to squalane’s higher viscosity

[45]. Moreover, differences in metabolizability of the two oils may play a role. As a precursor of

cholesterol synthesis, it is agreed that squalene is metabolizable. However, there are conflicting

opinions regarding the metabolism of squalane; its saturated chemical structure indicates that it may be

more difficult to metabolize than unsaturated squalene [36,87,106,113,114]. In the case of orally

ingested formulations, it is thought that non-metabolizable oils prevent effective drug bioabsorption

[115]. Some consider squalane a better choice than squalene for stability purposes (i.e., no double

bonds subject to oxidation) [106], although this does not appear to be a serious issue with squalene

since emulsions such as MF59® are stable for years [63]. On the other hand, olive oil squalene clearly

undergoes oxidation over time, especially with increased vial headspace (i.e., more exposure to

oxygen) [31]. Differences in biological efficacy of squalane and squalene are also unclear. For

instance, squalene and squalane (but not peanut oil) are effective substitutes for mineral oil as bacterial

cell wall carriers for antitumor activity [113,114,116]. However, in some early reports of anticancer

formulations containing cell wall materials, squalane emulsions out-performed squalene emulsions in

inducing tumor regression [113,117]. Similarly, w/o emulsions made of squalane showed higher HI

titers than those employing squalene in a bird Newcastle disease vaccine model [45]. However, it was

also shown that surfactant concentration (Tween® 80) affected anticancer activity of squalene

emulsions and could be optimized to produce similar efficacy as squalane or mineral oil [113]. This

finding illustrates the importance of considering all formulation components and physicochemical

aspects when comparing emulsions.

As indicated above, various surfactants alone or in combination with squalane have differing

biological effects based on their structure and HLB value [46-48]. In squalene-DOTAP emulsions used

for gene transfection, it was shown that various non-ionic surfactants had differing effects on

transfection efficiency according to the polyethylene glycol content (Tween® 80 had low toxicity and

good efficiency) [118]. In a drug delivery application, various surfactants slowed drug release from a

squalene emulsion at different rates [35]. A related study indicated that the surfactants Brij 30 and Brij

98 shielded the hemolytic activity of squalene-lecithin emulsions, while all surfactants affected particle

size and drug release rates [119]. Moreover, studies show a complex interplay between particle size,

surfactant concentration, and immunostimulant component in mineral oil emulsions for

immunotherapy [113,120]. Particle size itself is generally thought to have significant effects on

biological activity of particulate formulations [36-38]. For example, a microfluidized version of SAF

Molecules 2009, 14

3296

(smaller droplet size) was more effective in a Hepatitis B model but showed no difference with

ovalbumin compared to a non-microfluidized SAF [56,121]. Finally, although the preferred choice

between squalene and squalane has not been established, it does appear that these oils have advantages

over many other oils, whether from mineral or vegetable sources. As mentioned above, nutritional

supplement emulsions for intravenous injection have successfully employed various oils other than

squalene with lipid emulsifiers. However, the high surface tension of squalene allows it to create

smaller size emulsions when emulsified with egg phosphatidylcholine than at least 17 other oils,

including mineral oil, coconut oil, sesame oil, or soybean oil (see Table 1) [3,119]. As mentioned

above, several investigators have found that squalene or squalane emulsions outperformed vegetable

oils in vaccine adjuvant applications [107,113,114].

3. Drug Delivery

While squalene emulsions have taken precedence in the vaccine field, there is also significant

interest in pharmaceutical applications. Indeed, many of the studies cited above comparing oils and

surfactants were undertaken in the drug delivery context. While squalene is effective for vaccine

adjuvant applications and for making stable emulsions, the use of squalene vs. other oils for drug

delivery will depend upon solubility and release characteristics of the drug in the oil. Thus, squalene-

DOTAP emulsions for gene transfection had smaller particle size and more stability compared to

soybean oil-DOTAP or linseed oil-DOTAP emulsions, and were more effective at in vitro and in vivo

transfection efficiency than these emulsions or DOTAP liposomes while also being the least cytotoxic

(see Figure 5) [3,122]. Squalane emulsions (10% v/v) with varying concentrations of DOTAP and

cholesterol or DOPE as coemulsifiers were also effective gene transfection vehicles [123]. A related

study showed that a 10% w/v squalene-2.4% w/v DOTAP emulsion had better in vivo transfection

efficiency and minimal toxicity compared to liposome or poly(ethyleneimine) vehicles [124].

Furthermore, 10% v/v squalene emulsions with varying concentrations of lecithin showed good

stability and the slowest release of the lipophilic drug rifampicin compared to soybean and linseed oil

emulsions [3]. It should be noted, however, that in vitro drug release assays are not necessarily

indicative of the in vivo situation [125]. Especially with submicron emulsions, slowed in vivo drug

release is more likely to be achieved with drugs that have high log P values [126].

Submicron squalene-phosphatidylethanolamine emulsions slowed morphine and morphine prodrug

release and induced successful anesthesia; addition of Pluronic® F68 and cholesterol further slowed

drug release and increased anesthesia duration [35]. An emulsion formulation in this case was

especially useful since the drugs themselves were susceptible to hydrolysis in aqueous solution. A

similar 10% v/v squalene, 3% w/v lecithin emulsion with 200 nm particle size and various

coemulsifiers was used to deliver a morphine-like drug, nalbuphine [119]. These emulsions slowed

drug release, especially in the presence of Brij® 98, significantly increasing the duration and potency

of analgesia. Further more, Brij® 30 and Brij® 98 shielded the hemolytic activity of the emulsions.

Molecules 2009, 14

3297

Table 1. Comparison of physicochemical properties of emulsions made with different oils, taken with permission from reference [3]. Surface

tension and viscosity values were measured at 22 ± 2 °C and 20 ± 2 °C, respectively.

Size (nm) Polydispersity Viscosity (cSt/s)

273.8 0.306 723.0

246.3 0.216 -

261.0 0.220 70.4

263.6 0.199 62.3

247.1 0.257 -

247.0 0.251 42.0

224.7 0.213 43.0

282.7 0.271 73.4

354.9 0.116 51.2

263.2 0.195 84.0

256.8 0.212 66.1

283.6 0.225 54.2

263.3 0.246 62.9

249.7 0.279 69.3

191.7 0.125 15.9

249.2 0.185 47.4

253.2 0.217 63.1

209.9 0.154 37.8

Cottonseed oil 23.8

23.3

22.0

-

23.2

Surface Tension (dyne/cm)

12.8

-

22.0

-

25.8

18.6

Olive oil

Lard oil

Linseed oil 1.8

Soybean oil

Sesame oil

Mineral oil

Wheatgerm oil

Sunflower oil

Squalene

Coconut oil

Corn oil

Evening primrose oil

Jojoba oil

24.0

Oil

Castor oil

Fish oil 15.6

Peanut oil

Safflower oil

26.0

14.0

33.9

26.5

Molecules 2009, 14

3298

Cancer drug applications have also been reported. For instance, squalene itself is of interest as a

drug because it has been shown to have chemopreventive activity [12]. In a study of an anticancer

drug, camptothecin, which is highly insoluble, chemically unstable, and toxic when not formulated,

lipid nanoparticles (including one containing squalene) and a 10% w/v squalene-0.2% w/v Myverol™-

2.4% w/v Pluronic® F68 emulsion were compared [127]. In this case, a non-squalene lipid nanoparticle

was found to have the best stability, drug release, and biological activity properties while maintaining

low levels of hemolytic activity. An i.v. emulsion for the administration of taxol (an insoluble cancer

drug) consisting of squalane or squalene, sucrose, and emulsifiers such as Pluronic® F86 and Tween®

80 has also been described [128].

Finally, other research suggests that squalene in combination with prevastatin is an effective

treatment for hypercholesterolemia with a low level of side effects [129]. In a related application, it

was found that squalene oil was more effective than canola oil or triolein oil, but not seal oil, at

loading and delivering a radioactive marker to acylated human low density lipoprotein [130].

Interestingly, i.v.-injected squalene has longer half-life than plant sterols or triglycerides [131].

Figure 5. In vitro gene activity in the absence (open bar) and presence (closed bar) of

serum as measured by -galactoxidase activity. Figure taken with permission from

reference [3].

To summarize the above discussion of vaccine and drug delivery emulsions employing squalene (or

squalane) and to allow direct comparison between formulations, the emulsion compositions have been

collated in Tables 2 through 4. Table 2 presents squalene-based o/w emulsions, Table 3 includes

squalane-based o/w emulsions, and Table 4 covers squalene-based w/o emulsions.

Molecules 2009, 14

3299

Table 2. Composition of squalene oil-in-water parenteral emulsions.

Application % v/v Squaleneb Additional Components

Particle

Size (nm)

Manuf.

Conc.c References

Vaccine

Adjuvant 2.5% 10 mM citrate, pH 6 165 2x

4,40-42,53,

61-65

Vaccine

Adjuvant

2% squalene,

0.01% -tocopherol

glycerol, 25 mM ammonium phosphate,

pH 5.1, (MPL optional) 120 5x 73-77

Vaccine

Adjuvant

2.5% squalene,

2.5% -tocopherol

PBS, pH 6.8, adding MPL and QS21

makes AS02 150-155 2x 75,78-83

Vaccine

Adjuvant 2.92% PBS or citrate buffer, TLR4 agonist,

mannitol

Vaccine

Adjuvant 5.85% - 200 1x 87,88

Vaccine

Adjuvant 2% PBS, (MPL,TDM,CWS optional) - 1x 71-72

Vaccine

Adjuvant 2% MPL optional - 5x 37,70

Vaccine

Adjuvant 10%d - - -

36

Vaccine

Adjuvant 5%d glycerol >200 - 36

Vaccine

Adjuvant ~10% - - - 89

Gene

Transfection 11.70% - - - 124

Drug Delivery 10% - 200 - 119

Drug Delivery 10% - - - 127

~0.48% Ceteareth-12,

AF03 ~0.37% Span 80

2.4% DOTAP

3% lecithin

2.4% Pluronic F68,

0.2% Myverol

~4% Pluronic L121

% w/v Emulsifiersb

0.25% Tween 80,

0.25% Span 85

0.38% lecithin,

0.018% Pluronic F68

0.96% Tween 80

4% Pluronic L35,

2% Abil-Care

0.24% lecithin,

0.096% Tween 80

1% lecithind,

0.2% Tween 80d

Podolski

Hjorth1

Hjorth2 0.2% Tween 80d

Notes and Abbreviations: aWhere a common emulsion name is not available, the name of the first publication author is used. bStated concentrations are final concentrations prior to injection. cManuf. Conc.

is the concentration at which the emulsion is manufactured before dilution for injection. dUnclear from the literature whether % value is v/v or w/v. MPL, monophosphoryl lipid A; TDM, synthetic trehalose

dicorynomycolate; CWS, bacterial cell wall skeleton; QS21, quillaja saponin 21; RAS, Ribi Adjuvant System which is now available as Sigma Adjuvant System® containing MPL and TDM; w/o/w, waterin-

oil-in-water emulsion.

AS03

ESA

Baldridge

Huang

Namea

MF59®

RAS 0.2% Tween 80d

Kwon

Wang

SE

Molecules 2009, 14

3300

Table 3. Composition of squalane oil-in-water parenteral emulsions.

Application % v/v Squalaneb Additional Components

Particle

Size (nm)

Manuf.

Conc.c References

Vaccine

Adjuvant 5.85% PBS, pH 7.4, (MDP optional) 150-160 2x 33,36,55-60

Vaccine

Adjuvant 1%d CWS, MPL - - 66-69

Vaccine

Adjuvant 9.88% PBS pH 7.0, sucrose fatty acid sulfate

ester, thimerosal 135 - 65,106-110

Vaccine

Adjuvant 6.17% PBS - 3x 35,111

CoVaccine

PROVAX®

Notes and Abbreviations: aWhere a common emulsion name is not available, the name of the first publication author is used. bStated concentrations are final concentrations prior to injection. cManuf. Conc.

is the concentration at which the emulsion is manufactured before dilution for injection. dUnclear from the literature whether % value is v/v or w/v. MPL, monophosphoryl lipid A; MDP, synthetic muramyl

dipeptide analogue; CWS, bacterial cell wall skeleton; w/o/w, water-in-oil-in-water emulsion.

Namea

SAF

DETOX®

% w/v Emulsifiersb

2.5% Pluronic L121,

0.2% Tween 80

0.2% Tween 80d

2% Tween 80

1.25% Pluronic L121,

0.2% Tween 80

Table 4. Composition of squalene water-in-oil parenteral emulsions.

Application % v/v Squaleneb References

Vaccine

Adjuvant 70% 4,83,94-98

Vaccine

Adjuvant 10 to 50% 87,99-101,103

Vaccine

Adjuvant 10 to 50% 99,102

Vaccine

Adjuvant 35% 104

Tween 80,

CRL-8300

Montanide® mannide monooleate

ISA 720

Notes: aWhere a common emulsion name is not available, the name of the first publication author is used. bStated concentrations are final concentrations

prior to injection.

Hoskinson mannide monooleate

TiterMax®

Gold

Namea

TiterMax®

Classic

Emulsifiers

Tween 80,

CRL-8941, silica

Molecules 2009, 14

3301

4. Safety

It is important to verify the safety of squalene for use in drug and vaccine products, especially in

prophylactic populations and/or young children. Much has been published regarding the safety of

squalene, including a concise but thorough review from the Institute of Medicine [132]. In general,

squalene has an excellent safety profile: it is nonirritating, nonallergenic, poorly absorbed through the

gastrointestinal tract, slowly absorbed through the skin, and has low toxicity by all routes, with an oral

LD50 of 5 g/kg and an i.v. LD50 of 1.8g/kg [4,6,26,133]. Intravenous injection of 21 mg of squalene

into humans together with the emulsion Intralipid® induced no side effects [32]. Encouragingly,

vaccine applications would typically require very little total squalene, since 1 to 2.5% v/v final oil

concentration has similar adjuvanticity but minimal reactogenicity than higher squalene concentrations

[37,53]. As mentioned, squalene emulsion injection sites have reduced tissue reaction compared to

mineral oil emulsions, with faster healing and smaller scarring [36,45,113]. Also previously described,

squalene in combination with prevastatin as a treatment for hypercholesterolemia exhibited low side

effects [129]. Perhaps the strongest case for the safety of squalene in a vaccine setting is the welldocumented

safety record of MF59®, which has been reviewed elsewhere [63]. Approximately 27

million doses of MF59® have been injected into humans of all age groups (including infants) with little

or no adverse side effects. It has been licensed for use in 20 countries as a component of Fluad®

influenza vaccine (the first licensed adjuvant since alum). MF59® has also been tested in many

preclinical animal models which showed low severity inflammation and other minor, reversible

reactogenicity, but was not genotoxic, teratogenic, or sensitization-inducing. Clinical data, mostly

from Fluad® trials and postmarket analysis, show a low/acceptable incidence rate of adverse events

incident with MF59® injection, the most common complaint being pain at injection site.

A controversial claim regarding the safety of squalene concerns allegations that the The Gulf War

Syndrome (GWS) is typified by high squalene antibodies in anthrax vaccine recipients [103,134-137].

However, these claims were regarded as inconclusive based on several reasons, including the use of an

unvalidated assay, lack of proper controls, small sample sizes, and the fact that the vaccine was found

to contain no squalene [132,138-140]. A validated, quantitative squalene antibody assay was

developed and used to show that anthrax or MF59® vaccination recipients did not have higher levels of

IgG or IgM squalene antibodies and that squalene antibodies occur naturally in humans [63,141-145].

There are studies regarding some oils, including squalene, that have been found to induce

autoimmunity indications when 500 L of the pure oil was injected intraperitoneally in mice

[144,146], or 200 L of pure oil intradermally in rats [147], or that neural damage in rats was induced

after 20g/kg squalene per day for 4 days [148]. Similarly, one report suggested that excessive intake of

oral squalene tablets caused lipoid pneumonia in a human patient [149]. Of course, all of these reports

involve excessive amounts of non-emulsified squalene and so their relevance for administration of

minute amounts of emulsified squalene such as would be injected in a vaccine is questionable. In

summary, there is significant evidence that squalene vaccine emulsions such as MF59® have an

excellent safety record. Any indication of squalene toxicity at low doses is inconclusive.

Molecules 2009, 14

3302

5. Squalene and Emulsion Characterization

It has been pointed out that appropriate quantification of squalene in vaccine or pharmaceutical

formulations is essential for manufacturing quality control and regulatory considerations [25,150].

Detection or characterization of squalene is possible using various analytical methods [150]. For

example, squalene can be quantified by RP-HPLC or HPLC-SEC with UV, light scattering, or

refractive index detection [10,28,135,151,152]. Moreover, a charged aerosol detector (Corona® CAD®)

with HPLC has been used to effectively detect squalene (see Figure 4) [76]. In fact, this technique

demonstrated a lower limit of detection (

atmospheric pressure chemical ionization mass spectrometry [152]. Thin-layer chromatography with

fluorescence, flame ionization, or radioactive detection has also been demonstrated [15,17,153]. Gas

chromatography, especially in combination with mass spectroscopy, has also been shown to be an

effective squalene detection method [9,11,154,155]. Finally, NMR spectroscopy and vibrational

spectroscopy are also useful, especially for structural characterization [16,29]. Indeed, site-specific

natural isotope fractionation measured by deuterium NMR (SNIF-NMR) was able to differentiate

squalene from different origins based on deuterium distribution [13].

Figure 6. Cryo-EM image of triglyceride oil emulsion showing oil droplets (shaded) and

liposomes (clear). Scale bar is 200 nm. Figure taken with permission from reference [159].

Multiple methods are available for analysis of interactions between emulsion components. There

are several analytical techniques that can determine component concentration, particle size, charge,

and other interfacial properties, as well as help elucidate mechanisms of emulsion instability, active

ingredient association, and biological activity. A recent review [156] highlights several techniques

useful for monitoring emulsion stability including visual inspection or optical profiling for phase

separation, accelerated destabilization caused by high temperature or centrifugation, particle size

measurements (often using dynamic light scattering [3,49,76,123]), morphological characterization

using optical or electron microscopy, particle charge (zeta potential) obtained using microelectrophoresis

[123], and viscometers and rheometers for rheology characterization [3,157]. It should be

noted that an additional particle sizing technique (besides dynamic light scattering) such as single

particle optical sensing is necessary for determining the amount of large emulsion droplets (e.g. >5

m) in a formulation [158]. Detection of large-sized droplets is important for safety and stability

monitoring [158]. Cryo-TEM is the preferred electron microscopy method for nanoemulsions since it

avoids artifacts inherent with other electron microscopy sample preparation techniques and allows

Molecules 2009, 14

3303

clear differentiation between emulsion droplets and other structures (see Figure 6) [159]. NMR

spectroscopy, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and surface tension measurement can be very

useful to elucidate interfacial interactions [3,159]. Finally, in vitro or in vivo assays help correlate

physicochemical parameters with biological effects [3,76,123].

6. Conclusions

In summary, squalene has proven effective for numerous vaccine and drug delivery applications

due to its unique properties, including high surface tension (allowing small droplet size emulsions),

stability, and biocompatibility. Squalene and squalane emulsions allow the solubilization and slowed

release of lipophilic drugs, adjuvants, and vaccines, facilitating increased bioavailability and sustained

mechanisms of action. Moreover, squalene emulsions demonstrate adjuvant activity such as eliciting

increased antibody titers and cell mediated responses in vaccine applications. Finally, there are various

established methods for the analysis of squalene and emulsion formulations, allowing thorough

physicochemical characterization and stability monitoring. It is expected that squalene and squalane

will continue to play a significant role as components in future vaccine and drug formulations.

List of Abbreviations

CAD, charged aerosol detector; CpG, oligonucleotide adjuvant containing cytosine-phosphateguanine

sequences; CWS, bacterial cell wall skeleton; DSC, differential scanning calorimetry; ESA,

Experimental Squalene Adjuvant; FCA, Freund’s Complete Adjuvant; GWS, Gulf War Syndrome;

HLB, hydrophilic-lipophilic balance; IFN-, interferon-; MPL, monophosphoryl lipid A; MTP-PE,

muramyl tripeptide phosphatidyl ethanolamine; QS21, quillaja saponin 21; RAS, Ribi Adjuvant

System; SAF, Syntex Adjuvant Formulation; SE, stable emulsion.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by Grant 42387 from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Potential Conflict of Interest

The author is employed by the Infectious Disease Research Institute, which develops squalenebased

emulsions for vaccine formulations.

References and Notes

1. Tetko, I.V.; Gasteiger, J.; Todeschini, R.; Mauri, A.; Livingstone, D.; Ertl, P.; Palyulin, V.A.;

Radchenko, E.V.; Zefirov, N.S.; Makarenko, A.S.; Tanchuk, V.Y.; Prokopenko, V.V. Virtual

computational chemistry laboratory - design and description. J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des. 2005, 19,

453-463.

2. Whittenton, J.; Harendra, S.; Pitchumani, R.; Mohanty, K.; Vipulanandan, C.; Thevananther, S.

Evaluation of asymmetric liposomal nanoparticles for encapsulation of polynucleotides. Langmuir

2008, 24, 8533-8540.

3. Chung, H.; Kim, T.W.; Kwon, M., Kwon, I.C.; Jeong, S.Y. Oil components modulate physical

Molecules 2009, 14

3304

characteristics and function of the natural oil emulsions as drug or gene delivery system. J.

Control. Release 2001, 71, 339-350.

4. Vogel, F.R.; Powell, M.F. A compendium of vaccine adjuvants and excipients. In Vaccine

Design: The Subunit and Adjuvant Approach; Powell, M.F., Newman, M.J., Eds.; Plenum Press:

New York, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 141-228.

5. Ernst, J.; Sheldrick, W.S.; Fuhrhop, J.H. The crystal structure of squalene. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.

1976, 15, 778.

6. Channon, H.J. The biological significance of the unsaponifiable matter of oils: Experiments with

the unsaturated hydrocarbon, squalene (spinacene). Biochem. J. 1926, 20, 400-408.

7. Tsujimoto, M. A highly unsaturated hydrocarbon in shark liver oil. Indust. Eng. Chem. 1916, 8,

889-896.

8. Thorbjarnarson, T.; Drummond, J.C. Occurrence of an unsaturated hydrocarbon in olive oil.

Analyst 1935, 60, 23-29.

9. Alam, S.Q.; Brossard, J.; Mackinney, G. Detection and estimation of squalene in leaves. Nature

1962, 194, 479-480.

10. Murkovic, M.; Lechner, S.; Pietzka, A.; Bratacos, M.; Katzogiannos, E. Analysis of minor

components in olive oil. J. Biochem. Biophys. Methods 2004, 61, 155-160.

11. Ollivier, D.; Artaud, J.; Pinatel, C.; Durbec, J.P.; Guerere, M. Triacylglycerol and fatty acid

compositions of French virgin olive oils. Characterization by chemometrics. J. Agricul. Food

Chem. 2003, 51, 5723-5731.

12. Smith, T.J. Squalene: Potential chemopreventive agent. Expert Opin. Investig. Drugs 2000, 9,

1841-1848.

13. Deiana, M.; Corongui, F.P.; Dessi, M.A.; Scano, P.; Casu, M.; Lai, A. NMR determination of

site-specific deuterium distribution (SNIF-NMR) in squalene from different sources. Magn.

Reson. Chem. 2001, 39, 29-32.

14. Kelly, G.S. Squalene and its potential clinical uses. Alter. Med. Rev. 1999, 4, 29-36.

15. Melnik, B.C.; Hollmann, J.; Erler, E.; Verhoeven, B.; Plewig, G. Microanalytical screening of all

major stratum corneum lipids by sequential high-performance thin-layer chromatography. J.

Invest. Dermatol. 1989, 92, 231-234.

16. Robosky, L.C.; Wade, K.; Woolson, D.; Baker, J.D.; Manning, M.L.; Gage, D.A.; Reily, M.D.

Quantitative evaluation of sebum lipid components with nuclear magnetic resonance. J. Lipid Res.

2008, 49, 686-692.

17. Rozner, S.; Verkhovski, L.; Nissimov, Y.; Aserin, A.; Vilensky, R.; Danino, D.; Zouboulis, C.C.;

Milner, Y.; Garti, N. Inhibition of cholesterol transport into skin cells in cultures by phytosterolloaded

microemulsion. Chem. Phys. Lipids 2008, 153, 109-118.

18. Huang, Z.R.; Lin, Y.K.; Fang, J.Y. Biological and pharmacological activities of squalene and

related compounds: potential uses in cosmetic dermatology. Molecules 2009, 14, 540-554.

19. Xu, R.; Fazio, G.C.; Matsuda, S.P. On the origins of triterpenoid skeletal diversity.

Phytochemistry 2004, 65, 261-291.

20. Walker, T.I. Can shark resources be harvested sustainably? A question revisited with a review of

shark fisheries. Marine Freshwater Res. 1998, 49, 553-572.

21. Jenck, J.F.; Agterberg, F.; Droescher, M.J. Products and processes for a sustainable chemical

Molecules 2009, 14

3305

industry: A review of achievements and prospects. Green Chem. 2004, 6, 544-556.

22. Stavroulias, S.; Panayiotou, C. Determination of optimum conditions for the extraction of

squalene from olive pomace with supercritical CO2. Chem. Biochem. Eng. Quart. 2005, 19,

373-381.

23. Dicker, D.W.; Whiting, M.C. Synthetical studies on terpenoids. Part I. The synthesis of squalene.

J. Chem. Soc. 1958, 1994-2000.

24. Zauner, W.; Lingnau, K.; Mattner, F.; von Gabain, A.; Buschle, M. Defined synthetic vaccines.

Biol. Chem. 2001, 382, 581-595.

25. Sesardic, D.; Dobbelaer, R. European union regulatory developments for new vaccine adjuvants

and delivery systems. Vaccine 2004, 22, 2452-2456.

26. Annual review of cosmetic ingredient safety assessments–2001/2002. Int. J. Toxicol. 2003, 22,

1-35.

27. Komesvarakul, N.; Sanders, M.D.; Szekeres, E.; Acosta, E.J.; Faller, J.F.; Mentlik, T.; Fisher,

L.B.; Nicoll, G.; Sabatini, D.A.; Scamehorn, J.F. Microemulsions of triglyceride-based oils: The

effect of co-oil and salinity on phase diagrams. J. Cosmet. Sci. 2006, 57, 309-325.

28. Vidal-Escales, E.; Borros, S. New methodology to follow the evolution of squalene by-products

during model compound vulcanization studies. Talanta 2004, 62, 539-547.

29. Datta, R.N.; Hofstraat, J.W.; Geurts, F.A.J.; Talma, A.G. Fourier transform Raman spectroscopy

for characterization of natural rubber reversion and of antireversion agents. Rubber Chem. Tech.

1999, 72, 829-843.

30. Acosta, E.J.; Nguyen, T.; Witthayapanyanon, A.; Harwell, J.H.; Sabatini, D.A. Linker-based biocompatible

microemulsions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 1275-1282.

31. Rastrelli, L.; Passi, S.; Ippolito, F.; Vacca, G.; De Simone, F. Rate of degradation of a-tocopherol,

squalene, phenolics, and polyunsaturated fatty acids in olive oil during different storage

conditions. J. Agricul. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 5566-5570.

32. Ketomaki, A.; Gylling, H.; Miettinen, T.A. Removal of intravenous Intralipid in patients with

familial hypercholesterolemia during inhibition of cholesterol absorption and synthesis. Clin.

Chim. Acta 2004, 344, 83-93.

33. Lidgate, D.M.; Byars, N.E. Development of an emulsion-based muramyl dipeptide adjuvant

formulation for vaccines. In Vaccine Design: The Subunit and Adjuvant Approach; Powell, M.F.;

Newman, M.J., Eds.; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 313-324.

34. Allison, A.C. The mode of action of immunological adjuvants. Dev. Biol. Stand. 1998, 92, 3-11.

35. Wang, J.J.; Sung, K.C.; Yeh, C.H.; Fang, J.Y. The delivery and antinociceptive effects of

morphine and its ester prodrugs from lipid emulsions. Int. J. Pharm. 2008, 353, 95-104.

36. Allison, A.C. Squalene and squalane emulsions as adjuvants. Methods 1999, 19, 87-93.

37. Baldridge, J.R.; Crane, R.T. Monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL) formulations for the next generation

of vaccines. Methods 1999, 19, 103-107.

38. Foged, C.; Brodin, B.; Frokjaer, S.; Sundblad, A. Particle size and surface charge affect particle

uptake by human dendritic cells in an in vitro model. Int. J. Pharm. 2005, 298, 315-322.

39. Ryman, B.E.; Jewkes, R.F.; Jeyasingh, K.; Osborne, M.P.; Patel, H.M.; Richardson, V.J.;

Tattersall, M.H.N.; Tyrrell, D.A. Potential applications of liposomes to therapy. Annals NY Acad.

Sci. 1978, 308, 281-307.

Molecules 2009, 14

3306

40. Mosca, F.; Tritto, E.; Muzzi, A.; Monaci, E.; Bagnoli, F.; Iavarone, C; O’Hagan, D.; Rappuoli, R.;

de Gregorio, E. Molecular and cellular signatures of human vaccine adjuvants. Proc. Nat. Acad.

Sci. USA 2008, 105, 10501-10506.

41. Seubert, A.; Monaci, E.; Pizza, M.; O’Hagan, D.T.; Wack, A. The adjuvants aluminum hydroxide

and MF59 induce monocyte and granulocyte chemoattractants and enhance monocyte

differentiation toward dendritic cells. J. Immunol. 2008, 180, 5402-5412.

42. Hamilton, J.A.; Byrne, R.; Whitty, G. Particulate adjuvants can induce macrophage survival,

DNA synthesis, and a synergistic proliferative response to GM-CSF and CSF-1. J. Leukoc. Biol.

2000, 67, 226-232.

43. Berg, J.C. An Introduction to Surfaces, Colloids and Nanoscience; University of Washington:

Seattle, WA, USA, 2007.

44. Mollet, H; Grubenmann, A. Formulation Technology: Emulsions, Suspensions, Solid Forms.

Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2001.

45. Stone, H.D.; Xie, Z.X. Efficacy of experimental Newcastle disease water-in-oil oil-emulsion

vaccines formulated from squalane and squalene. Avian Dis. 1990, 34, 979-983.

46. Yang, Y.W.; Shen, S.S. Enchanced antigen delivery via cell death induced by the vaccine

adjuvants. Vaccine 2007, 25, 7763-7772.

47. Yang, Y.W.; Wei, A.C.; Shen, S.S. The immunogenicity-enhancing effect of emulsion vaccine

adjuvants is independent of the dispersion type and antigen release rate–a revisit of the role of the

hydrophile-lipophile balance (HLB) value. Vaccine 2005, 23, 2665-2675.

48. Yang, Y.W.; Wu, C.A.; Morrow, W.J.W. Cell death induced by vaccine adjuvants containing

surfactants. Vaccine 2004, 22, 1524-1536.

49. Tadros, T.; Izquierdo, P.; Esquena, J.; Solans, C. Formation and stability of nano-emulsions. Adv.

Coll. Inter. Sci. 2004, 108-109, 303-318.

50. Al-Edresi, S.; Baie, S. Formulation and stability of whitening VCO-in-water nano-cream. Int. J.

Pharm. 2009, 373, 174-178.

51. Bolland, J.L.; Hughes, H. The primary thermal oxidation product of squalene. J. Chem. Soc. 1949,

26, 492-497.

52. McClements, D.J.; Decker, E.A. Lipid oxidation in oil-in-water emulsions: Impact of molecular

environment on chemical reactions in heterogeneous food systems. J. Food Sci. 2000, 65,

1270-1282.

53. Ott, G.; Barchfeld, G.L.; Chernoff, D.; Radhakrishnan, R.; van Hoogevest, P.; van Nest, G. MF59:

design and evaluation of a safe and potent adjuvant for human vaccines. In Vaccine Design: The

Subunit and Adjuvant Approach; Powell, M.F.; Newman, M.J., Eds; Plenum Press: New York,

NY, USA, 1995; pp. 277-296.

54. Carelli, C.; Audibert, F.; Chedid, L. Persistent enhancement of cell-mediated and antibody

immune responses after administration of muramyl dipeptide derivatives with antigen in

metabolizable oil. Infect. Immun. 1981, 33, 312-314.

55. Allison, A.C.; Byars, N.E. Syntex adjuvant formulation. Res. Immunol. 1992, 143, 519-525.

56. Lidgate, D.M.; Fu, R.C.; Byars, N.E.; Foster, L.C.; Fleitman, J.S. Formulation of vaccine adjuvant

muramyldipeptides. 3. Processing optimization, characterization, and bioactivity of an emulsion

vehicle. Pharm. Res. 1989, 6, 748-752.

Molecules 2009, 14

3307

57. Lidgate, D.M.; Trattner, T.; Shultz, R.M.; Maskiewicz, R. Sterile filtration of a parenteral

emulsion. Pharm. Res. 1992, 9, 860-863.

58. Allison, A.C.; Byars, N.E. An adjuvant formulation that selectively elicits the formation of

antibodies of protective isotypes and of cell-mediated immunity. J. Immunol. Methods 1986, 95,

157-168.

59. Hsu, F.J.; Caspar, C.B.; Czerwinski, D.; Kwak, L.W.; Liles, T.M.; Syrengelas, A.; Taidi-

Laskowski, B.; Levy, R. Tumor-specific idiotype vaccines in the treatment of patients with B-cell

lymphoma–long-term results of a clinical trial. Blood 1997, 89, 3129-3135.

60. Kenney, R.T.; Edelman, R. Adjuvants for the future. In New Generation Vaccines; Levine, M.M.;

Kaper, J.B., Eds.; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 2004.

61. O’Hagan, D.T.; Singh, M. MF59: a safe and potent oil-in-water emulsion adjuvant. In Vaccine

Adjuvants and Delivery Systems; Singh, M., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007;

pp. 115-129.

62. Ott, G.; Singh, M.; Kazzaz, J.; Briones, M.; Soenawan, E.; Ugozzoli, M.; O’Hagan, D.T. A

cationic sub-micron emulsion (MF59/DOTAP) is an effective delivery system for DNA vaccines.

J. Control. Rel. 2002, 79, 1-5.

63. Schultze, V.; D’Agosto, V.; Wack, A.; Novicki, D.; Zorn, J.; Hennig, R. Safety of MF59 adjuvant.

Vaccine 2008, 26, 3209-3222.

64. Dupuis, M.; McDonald, D.M.; Ott, G. Distribution of adjuvant MF59 and antigen gD2 after

intramuscular injection in mice. Vaccine 1999, 18, 434-439.

65. Dupuis, M.; Murphy, T.J.; Higgins, D.; Ugozzoli, M.; van Nest, G.; Ott, G.; McDonald, D.M.

Dendritic cells internalize vaccine adjuvant after intramuscular injection. Cell. Immunol. 1998,

186, 18-27.

66. Baldridge, J.R.; Ward, J.R. Effective adjuvants for the induction of antigen-specific delayed-type

hypersensitivity. Vaccine 1997, 15, 395-401.

67. Ott, G.; van Nest, G. Development of vaccine adjuvants: a historical perspective. In Vaccine

Adjuvants and Delivery Systems; Singh, M., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007;

pp. 1-31.

68. Blom, A.G.; Hilgers, L.A. Sucrose fatty acid sulphate esters as novel vaccine adjuvants: effect of

the chemical composition. Vaccine 2004, 23, 743-754.

69. Sondak, V.K.; Sosman, J.A. Results of clinical trials with an allogeneic melanoma tumor cell

lysate vaccine: Melacine. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2003, 13, 409-415.

70. Ivins, B.E.; Pitt, M.L.M.; Fellows, P.F.; Farchaus, J.W.; Benner, G.E.; Waag, D.M.; Little, S.F.;

Anderson, G.W., Jr; Gibbs, P.H.; Friedlander, A.M. Comparative efficacy of experimental anthrax

vaccine candidates against inhalation anthrax in rhesus macaques. Vaccine 1998, 16, 1141-1148.

71. Gomeza, J.A.; Criadoa, M.T.; Ferreirosa, C.M. Bactericidal activity of antibodies elicited against

the Neisseria meningitidis 37-kDA ferric binding protein (FbpA) with different adjuvants. FEMS

Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 1998, 20, 79-86.

72. Sjolander, S.; Hansen, J.E.S.; Lovgren-Bengtsson, K.; Akerblom, L.; Morein, B. Induction of

homologous virus neutralizing antibodies in guinea-pigs immunized with two human

immunodeficiency virus type 1 glycoprotein gp12-iscom preparations. A comparison with other

adjuvant systems. Vaccine 1996, 14, 344-352.

Molecules 2009, 14

3308

73. Leesman, G.D. Adjuvant composition and methods for its use. US Patent 6,630,161 B1, 2003.

74. Hui, G.S.; Hashimoto, C.N. Adjuvant formulations possess differing efficacy in the potentiation

of antibody and cell mediated responses to a human malaria vaccine under selective immune

genes knockout environment. Int. Immunopharm. 2008, 8, 1012-1022.

75. Reed, S.G.; Bertholet, S.; Coler, R.N.; Friede, M. New horizons in adjuvants for vaccine

development. Trends Immunol. 2009, 30, 23-32.

76. Fox, C.B.; Anderson, R.C.; Dutill, T.S.; Goto, Y.; Reed, S.G.; Vedvick, T. Monitoring the effects

of component structure and source and formulation stability and adjuvant activity of oil-in-water

emulsions. Coll. Surf. B: Biointerfaces 2008, 65, 98-105.

77. Goto, Y.; Bogatzki, L.Y.; Bertholet, S.; Coler, R.N.; Reed, S.G. Protective immunization against

visceral leishmaniasis using Leishmania sterol 24-c-methyltransferase formulated in adjuvant.

Vaccine 2007, 25, 7450-7458.

78. D’Hondt, E.; Hehme, N.; Hanon, E.J.; Stephenne, J. Influenza vaccine. US Patent Appl

2007/0141078 A1, 2007.

79. Momin, P.M.; Garcon, N.M.J. Vaccines. US Patent 6,146,632, 2000.

80. Garcon, N.; Momin, P.M. Vaccines. US Patent 6,372,227 B1, 2002.

81. Cohen, J.; Druilhe, P. Immunogenic compositions comprising liver stage malarial antigens. WIPO

WO/2002/038176, 2002.

82. Friede, M.; Garcon, N.; Ghislaine Gerard, C.M.; Hermand, P. Vaccines. US Patent 6,544,518,

2003.

83. Roestenberg, M.; Remarque, E.; de Jonge, E.; Hermsen, R.; Blythman, H.; Leroy, O.;

Imoukhuede, E.; Jepsen, S.; Ofori-Anyinam, O.; Faber, B.; Kocken, C.H.; Arnold, M.; Walraven,

V.; Teelen, K.; Roeffen, W.; de Mast, Q.; Ballou, W.R.; Cohen, J.; Dubois, M.C.; Ascarateil, S.;

van der Ven, A.; Thomas, A.; Sauerwein, R. Safety and immunogenicity of a recombinant

Plasmodium falciparum AMA1 malaria vaccine adjuvanted with Alhydrogel, Montanide ISA 720

or AS02. PLoS ONE 2008, 3, e3960:1-e3960:12.

84. Hayden, F.G.; Howard, W.A.; Palkonyay, L.; Kieny, M.P. Report of the 5th meeting on the

evaluation of pandemic influenza prototype vaccines in clinical trials: World Health Organization,

Geneva, Switzerland, 12–13 February 2009. Vaccine 2009, 27, 4079-4089.

85. Levie, K.; Leroux-Roels, I.; Hoppenbrouwers, K.; Kervyn, A.D.; Vandermeulen, C.; Forgus, S.;

Geroux-Roels, G.; Pichon, S.; Kusters, I. An adjuvanted, low-dose, pandemic influenza A (H5N1)

vaccine candidate is safe, immunogenic, and induces cross-reactive immune responses in healthy

adults. J. Infect. Dis. 2008, 198, 642-649.

86. Klucker, M.F.; Haensler, J.; Probeck-Quelleec, P.; Chaux, P. Thermoreversible oil-in-water

emulsion. US 2007/0191314 A1, 2007.

87. Suli, J.; Benisek, Z.; Elias, D.; Svrcek, S.; Ondrejkova, A.; Ondrejka, R.; Bajova, V. Experimental

squalene adjuvant: I. Preparation and testing of its effectiveness. Vaccine 2004, 22, 3464-3469.

88. Benisek, Z.; Suli, J.; Elias, D.; Lenhardt, L.; Ondrejkova, A.; Ondrejka, R.; Svrcek, S.; Bajova, V.

Experimental squalene advjuvant II. Harmlessness and local reactogenity. Vaccine 2004, 22,

3470-3474.

89. Podolski, J.S.; Martinez, M.L. Chitosan induced immunopotentiation. US Patent 5,980,912, 1999.

90. Snyder, L.L.; Woo, D.V.; Triozzi, P.L.; Stevens, V.C. Synthetic hormone/growth factor subunit

Molecules 2009, 14

3309

vaccine with application to antifertility and cancer. In Vaccine Design: The Subunit and Adjuvant

Approach; Powell, M.F.; Newman, M.J., Eds.; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995;

pp. 907-930.

91. Acevedo, H.F. HCG formulation. WIPO WO/2002/085311, 2002.

92. Raghuvanshi, R.S.; Katare, Y.K.; Lalwani, K.; Ali, M.M.; Singh, O.; Panda, A.K. Improved

immune response from biodegradable polymer particles entrapping tetanus toxoid by use of

different immunization protocol and adjuvants. Int. J. Pharm. 2002, 245, 109-121.

93. Hjorth, R.N. Adjuvants for viral vaccines. US Patent 5,718,904, 1997.

94. Miles, A.P.; McClellan, H.A.; Rausch, K.M.; Zhu, D.; Whitmore, M.D.; Singh, S.; Martin, L.B.;

Wu, Y.; Giersing, B.K.; Stowers, A.W.; Long, C.A.; Saul, A. Montanide ISA 720 vaccines:

quality control of emulsions, stability of formulated antigens, and comparative immunogenicity of

vaccine formulations. Vaccine 2005, 23, 2530-2539.

95. Lawrence, G.W.; Saul, A.; Giddy, A.J.; Kemp, R. Phase I trail in humans of an oil-based adjuvant

Seppic Montanide ISA 720. Vaccine 1997, 15, 176-178.

96. Aucouturier, J.; Ascarateil, S.; Dupuis, L. The use of oil adjuvants in therapeutic vaccines.

Vaccine 2006, 24, S44-S45.

97. Aguado, T.; Engers, H.; Pang, T.; Pink, R. Novel adjuvants currently in clinical testing November

2-4, 1998, Fondation Merieux, Annecy, France: A meeting sponsored by the World Health

Organization. Vaccine 1999, 17, 2321-2328.

98. Langermans, J.A.M.; Schmidt, A.; Vervenne, R.A.W.; Birkett, A.J.; Calvo-Calle, J.M.;

Hensmann, M.; Thornton, G.B.; Dubovsky, F.; Weiler, H.; Nardin, E.; Thomas, A.W. Effect of

adjuvant on reactogenicity and long-term immunogenicity of the malaria Vaccine ICC-1132 in

macaques. Vaccine 2005, 23, 4935-4943.

99. Uptima. TiterMax adjuvants product info sheet (http://www.interchim.com/interchim/

inter_intro_chem.htm).

100. Jennings, V.M. Review of selected adjuvants used in antibody production. ILAR J. 1995, 37,

119-125.

101. Sigma-Aldrich. Product Information Sheet H4397, 2006.

102. Sigma-Aldrich. Product Information Sheet T2684, 2009.

103. Fukasawa, L.O.; Dias, W.O.; Schenkman, R.P.; Raw, I.; Tanizaki, M.M. Adjuvant can improve

protection induced by OMV vaccine against Neisseria meningitidis serogroups B/C in neonatal

mice. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 2004, 41, 205-210.

104. Hoskinson, R.M.; Rigby, R.D.G.; Mattner, P.E. 2-component immunoadjuvant. US Patent

5,109,026, 1992.

105. Fukanoki, S.; Iwakura, T.; Iwaki, S.; Matsumoto, K.; Takeda, R.; Ikeda, K.; Shi, Z.; Mori, H.

Safety and efficacy of water-in-oil-in-water emulsion vaccines containing Newcastle disease virus

haemagglutinin-neuraminidase glycoprotein. Avian Pathol. 2001, 30, 506-516.

106. Romera, S.A.; Hilgers, L.A.; Puntel, M.; Zamorano, P.I.; Alcon, V.L.; Dus Santos, M.J.; Blanco

Viera, J.; Borca, M.V.; Sadir, A.M. Adjuvant effects of sulfolipo-cyclodextrin in a squalane-inwater

and water-in-mineral oil emulsions for BHV-1 vaccines in cattle. Vaccine 2001, 19, 132-141.

107. Hilgers, L.A.; Lejeune, G.; Nicolas, I.; Fochesato, M.; Boon B. Sulfolipo-cyclodextrin in

squalane-in-water as a novel and safe vaccine adjuvant. Vaccine 1999, 17, 219-228.

108. Hilgers, L.A.T.; Blom, A.G. Sucrose fatty acid sulphate esters as novel vaccine adjuvant. Vaccine

2006, 24S2, S2/81-S2/82.

Molecules 2009, 14

3310

109. Hilgers, L.A.T.; Blom, A.G. Mono- and disaccharide derivatives. European Patent 1,233,969 B1,

2008.

110. Safety and efficacy study of angiotensin therapeutic vaccine in subjects with mild to moderate

hypertension (http://clinicaltrialsgov/show/NCT00702221).

111. Hariharan, K.; Hanna, N. Development and application of PROVAX adjuvant formulation for

subunit cancer vaccines. Adv. Drug. Del. Rev. 1997, 32, 187-197.

112. Shahiwala, A.; Amiji, M.M. Enhanced mucosal and systemic immune response with squalane oilcontaining

multiple emulsions upon intranasal and oral administration in mice. J. Drug Target.

2008, 16, 302-310.

113. Yarkoni, E.; Rapp, H.J. Influence of type of oil and surfactant concentration on the efficacy of

emulsified Mycobacterium bovis BCG cell walls to induce tumor regression in guinea pigs.

Infect. Immun. 1980, 28, 881-886.

114. Yarkoni, E.; Rapp, H.J. Tumor regression after intralesional injection of mycobacterial

components emulsified in 2,6,10,15,19,23-hexamethyl-2,6,10,14,18,22-tetracosahexaene

(squalene), 2,6,10,15,19,23-hexamethyltetracosane (squalane), peanut oil, or mineral oil. Cancer

Res. 1979, 39, 1518-1520.

115. Hauss, D.J. Oral lipid-based formulations. Adv. Drug Del. Rev. 2007, 59, 667-676.

116. Yoo, Y.C.; Hata, K.; Lee, K.B.; Azuma, I. Inhibitory effect of BCG cell-wall skeletons (BCGCWS)

emulsified in squalane on tumor growth and metastasis in mice. Arch. Pharm. Res. 2002,

25, 522-527.

117. Yarkoni, E.; Lederer, E.; Rapp, H.J. Immunotherapy of experimental cancer with a mixture of

synthetic muramyl dipeptide and trehalose dimycolate. Infect. Immun. 1981, 32, 273-276.

118. Kim, T.W.; Kim, Y.J.; Chung, H.; Kwon, I.C.; Sung, H.C.; Jeong, S.Y. The role of non-ionic

surfactants on cationic lipid mediated gene transfer. J. Control. Rel. 2002, 82, 455-465.

119. Wang, J.J.; Sung, K.C.; Hu, O.Y.; Yeh, C.H.; Fang, J.Y. Submicron lipid emulsion as a drug

delivery system for nalbuphine and its prodrugs. J. Control. Rel. 2006, 115, 140-149.

120. Yarkoni, E.; Rapp, H.J. Influence of surfactant concentration on the antitumor activity of

components of mycobacteria. Cancer Res. 1980, 40, 975-978.

121. Byars, N.E.; Nakano, G.; Welch, M.; Lehman, D.; Allison, A.C. Improvement of hepatitis B

vaccine by the use of a new adjuvant. Vaccine 1991, 9, 309-318.

122. Kim, Y.J.; Kim, T.W.; Chung, H.; Kwon, I.C.; Sung, H.C.; Jeong, S.Y. The effects of serum on

the stability and the transfection activity of the cationic lipid emulsion with various oils. Int. J.

Pharm. 2003, 252, 241-252.

123. Hung, C.F.; Hwang, T.L.; Chang, C.C.; Fang, J.Y. Physicochemical characterization and gene

transfection efficiency of lipid emulsions with various co-emulsifiers. Int. J. Pharm. 2005, 289,

197-208.

124. Kwon, S.M.; Nam, H.Y.; Nam, T.; Park, K.; Lee, S.; Kim, K.; Kwon, I.C.; Kim, J.; Kang, D.;

Park, J.H.; Jeong, S.Y. In vivo time-dependent gene expression of cationic lipid-based emulsion

as a stable and biocompatible non-viral gene carrier. J. Control. Rel. 2008, 128, 89-97.

125. Washington, C. Evaluation of non-sink dialysis methods for the measurement of drug release

from colloids: effects of drug partition. Int. J. Pharm. 1989, 56, 71-74.

126. Takino, T.; Konishi, K.; Takakura, Y.; Hashida, M. Long circulating emulsion carrier systems for

highly lipophilic drugs. Biol. Pharm. Bull. 1994, 17, 121-125.

Molecules 2009, 14

3311

127. Huang, Z.R.; Hua, S.C.; Yang, Y.L.; Fang, J.Y. Development and evaluation of lipid

nanoparticles for camptothecin delivery: a comparison of solid lipid nanoparticles, nanostructured

lipid carriers, and lipid emulsion. Acta Pharmacol. Sin. 2008, 29, 1094-1102.

128. Shively, M.L. Pharmaceutical solutions and emulsions containing taxol. US Patent 5,407,683,

1995.

129. Chan, P.; Tomlinson, B.; Lee, C.B.; Lee, Y.S. Effectiveness and safety of low-dose pravastatin

and squalene, alone and in combination, in elderly patients with hypercholesterolemia. J. Clin.

Pharmacol. 1996, 36, 422-427.

130. Xiao, W.; Wang, L.; Davis, P.J.; Liu, H. Microemulsion of seal oil markedly enhances the transfer

of a hydrophobic radiopharmaceutical into acetylated low density lipoprotein. Lipids 1999, 34,

503-509.

131. Relas, H.; Gylling, H.; Miettinen, T.A. Fate of intravenously administered squalene and plant

sterols in human subjects. J. Lipid Res. 2001, 42, 988-994.

132. Fulco, C.E.; Liverman, C.T.; Sox, H.C. Gulf War and Health: Depleted Uranium, Pyridostigmine

Bromide, Sarin, Vaccines; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.

133. Christian, M.S. Final report on the safety assessment of squalane and squalene. Int. J. Toxicol.

1982, 1, 37-56.

134. Gherardi, R.K. Lessons from macrophagic myofasciitis: Towards definition of a vaccine

adjuvant-related syndrome. Rev. Neurol. (Paris) 2003, 159, 162-164.

135. Spanggord, R.J.; Sun, M.; Lim, P.; Ellis, W.Y. Enhancement of an analytical method for the

determination of squalene in anthrax vaccine adsorbed formulations. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal.

2006, 42, 494-499.

136. Asa, P.B.; Cao, Y.; Garry, R.F. Antibodies to squalene in Gulf War Syndrome. Exp. Mol. Pathol.

2000, 68, 55-64.

137. Asa, P.B.; Wilson, R.B.; Garry, R.F. Antibodies to squalene in recipients of anthrax vaccine. Exp.

Mol. Pathol. 2002, 73, 19-27.

138. Alving, C.R.; Grabenstein, J.D. Letter to the Editor. Exp. Mol. Pathol. 2000, 68, 196-197.

139. Asa, P.B.; Cao, Y.; Garry, R.F. Reply. Exp. Mol. Pathol. 2000, 68, 197-198.

140. del Giudice, G.; Fragapane, E.; Bugarini, R.; Hora, M.; Henriksson, T.; Palla, E; O’Hagan, D.;

Donnelly, J.; Rappuoli, R.; Podda, A. Vaccines with the MF59 adjuvant do not stimulate antibody

responses against squalene. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 2006, 13, 1010-1013.

141. Matyas, G.R.; Wassef, N.M.; Rao, M.; Alving, C.R. Induction and detection of antibodies to

squalene. J. Immunol. Methods 2000, 245, 1-14.

142. Matyas, G.R.; Rao, M.; Alving, C.R. Induction and detection of antibodies to squalene: II.

Optimization of the assay for murine antibodies. J. Immunol. Methods 2002, 267, 119-129.

143. Matyas, G.R.; Rao, M.; Pittman, P.R.; Burge, R.; Robbins, I.E.; Wassef, N.M.; Thivierge, B.;

Alving, C.R. Detection of antibodies to squalene: III. Naturally occurring antibodies to squalene

in humans and mice. J. Immunol. Methods 2004, 286, 47-67.

144. Kuroda, Y.; Nacionales, D.C.; Akaogi, J.; Reeves, W.H.; Satoh, M. Autoimmunity induced by

adjuvant hydrocarbon oil components of vaccine. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2004, 58, 325-337.

145. Phillips, C.J.; Matyas, G.R.; Hansen, C.J.; Alving, C.R.; Smith, T.C.; Ryan, M.A.K. Antibodies to

squalene in US Navy Persian Gulf War veterans with chronic multisymptom illness. Vaccine

2009, 27, 3921-3926.

Molecules 2009, 14

3312

146. Satoh, M.; Kuroda, Y.; Yoshida, H.; Behney, K.M.; Mizutani, A.; Akaogi, J.; Nacionales, D.C.;

Lorenson, T.D.; Rosenbauer, R.J.; Reeves, W.H. Induction of lupus autoantibodies by adjuvants.

J. Autoimmun. 2003, 21, 1-9.

147. Lorentzen, J.C. Identification of arthritogenic adjuvants of self and foreign origin. Scand. J.

Immunol. 1999, 49, 45-50.

148. Gajkowska, B.; Smialek, M.; Ostrowski, R.P.; Piotrowski, P.; Frontczak-Baniewicz, M. The

experimental squalene encephaloneuropathy in the rat. Exp. Toxicol. Pathol. 1999, 51, 75-80.

149. Asnis, D.S.; Saltzman, H.P.; Melchert, A. Shark oil pneumonia. An overlooked entity. Chest

1993, 103, 976-977.

150. Klein, N. Quality control methods for oil-in-water emulsions containing squalene. WIPO

WO/2008/056263 A2, 2008.

151. Nenadis, N.; Tsimidou, M. Determination of squalene in olive oil using fractional crystallization

for sample preparation. J. Amer. Oil Chem. Soc. 2002, 79, 257-259.

152. Hazotte, A.; Libong, D.; Matoga, M.; Chaminade, P. Comparison of universal detectors for hightemperature

micro liquid chromatography. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1170, 52-61.

153. Masukawa, Y.; Tsujimura, H.; Imokawa, G. A systematic method for the sensitive and specific

determination of hair lipids in combination with chromatography. J. Chromatogr. B 2005, 823,

131-142.

154. Iwata, M.; Ohno, S.; Kawai, T.; Ichijima, H.; Cavanagh, H.D. In vitro evaluation of lipids

adsorbed on silicone hydrogel contact lenses using a new gas chromatography/mass spectrometry

analytical method. Eye Contact Lens 2008, 34, 272-280.

155. Rocha, S.M.; Goncalves, V.; Evtuguin, D.; Delgadillo, I. Distinction and identification of lignins

based on their volatile headspace composition. Talanta 2008, 75, 594-597.

156. McClements, D.J. Critical review of techniques and methodologies for characterization of

emulsion stability. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutri. 2007, 47, 611-649.

157. Tadros, T. Application of rheology for assessment and prediction of the long-term physical

stability of emulsions. Adv. Coll. Inter. Sci. 2004, 108-109, 227-258.

158. Driscoll, D.F. Lipid injectable emulsions: pharmacopeial and safety issues. Pharm. Res. 2006, 23,

1959-1969.

159. Norden, T.P.; Siekmann, B.; Lundquist, S.; Malmsten, M. Physicochemical characterisation of a

drug-containing phospholipid-stabilised o/w emulsion for intravenous administration. Eur. J.

Pharm. Sci. 2001, 13, 393-401.

Sample Availability: Squalene can be obtained from various chemical suppliers, including Sigma-

Aldrich, Alfa Aesar, Acros Organics, and Wilshire Technologies. For specific squalene emulsion

products described in this article, the corresponding suppliers should be contacted to determine

availability.

© 2009 by the authors; licensee Molecular Diversity Preservation International, Basel, Switzerland.

This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative

Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).