Nanotechnology offers many potential benefits to cancer research through passive and active targeting, increased solubility/bioavailablility, and novel therapies. However, preclinical characterization of nanoparticles is complicated by the variety of materials, their unique surface properties, reactivity, and the task of tracking the individual components of multicomponent, multifunctional nanoparticle therapeutics in in vivo studies. There are also regulatory considerations and scale‐up challenges that must be addressed. Despite these hurdles, cancer research has seen appreciable improvements in efficacy and quite a decrease in the toxicity of chemotherapeutics because of ‘nanotech’ formulations, and several engineered nanoparticle clinical trials are well underway. This article reviews some of the challenges and benefits of nanomedicine for cancer therapeutics and diagnostics. © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol
Nanoparticle therapeutics: a personal perspective
Hypothetical mechanism by which a PEG coating protects a nanoparticle from recognition by the immune system The left panel shows that the PEG coating prevents the transient interaction and binding of antibodies with proteins on the nanoparticle surface. The right panel shows that the same PEG coating does not interfere with recognition by the cellular receptors.
Nanoparticles interfere with the LAL test for endotoxin contamination All samples shown here were spiked with a known amount (0.4 EU/mL) of UPS grade endotoxin standard. The quality control sample (blue) and the dendrimer sample (yellow) yield signals very close to the theoretical value, and fall within USP limits of ± 50%. Quantification of endotoxin in the gold nanoparticle (green) sample is inhibitedthe test result is below the acceptable limits, yielding a false-negative endotoxin result. Quantification of the endotoxin in the polymer nanoparticles (burgundy) is enhancedthe test result is above the acceptable limit.
The physicochemical characteristics of a nanoparticle influence biocompatibility Here we qualitatively show trends in relationships between the independent variables of particle size (neglecting contributions from attached coatings and biologics), particle zeta potential (surface charge), and solubility with the dependent variable of biocompatibilitywhich includes the route of uptake and clearance (shown in green), cytotoxicity (red), and RES recognition (blue).
Access to this WIREs title is by subscription only.
Recommend to YourLibrarian Now!
The latest WIREs articles in your inbox
Sign Up for Article AlertsIn the Spotlight
works at the interface of biotechnology and materials science. His lab is researching many topics, such as investigating the mechanism of release from polymeric delivery systems with concomitant microstructural analysis and mathematical modeling; studying applications of these systems including the development of effective long-term delivery systems for insulin, anti-cancer drugs, growth factors, gene therapy agents and vaccines; developing controlled release systems that can be magnetically, ultrasonically, or enzymatically triggered to increase release rates; synthesizing new biodegradable polymeric delivery systems which will ultimately be absorbed by the body; creating new approaches for delivering drugs such as proteins and genes across complex barriers such as the blood-brain barrier, the intestine, the lung and the skin; stem cell research including controlling growth and differentiation; and creating new biomaterials with shape memory or surface switching properties.
Learn More
