No abstract

Nanoparticles hold tremendous potential as an effective drug delivery system. In this review we discussed recent developments in nanotechnology for drug delivery. To overcome the problems of gene and drug delivery, nanotechnology has gained interest in recent years. Nanosystems with different compositions and biological properties have been extensively investigated for drug and gene delivery applications. To achieve efficient drug delivery it is important to understand the interactions of nanomaterials with the biological environment, targeting cell-surface receptors, drug release, multiple drug administration, stability of therapeutic agents and molecular mechanisms of cell signalling involved in pathobiology of the disease under consideration. Several anti-cancer drugs including paclitaxel, doxorubicin, 5-fluorouracil and dexamethasone have been successfully formulated using nanomaterials. Quantom dots, chitosan, Polylactic/glycolic acid (PLGA) and PLGA-based nanoparticles have also been used for in vitro RNAi delivery. Brain cancer is one of the most difficult malignancies to detect and treat mainly because of the difficulty in getting imaging and therapeutic agents past the blood-brain barrier and into the brain. Anti-cancer drugs such as loperamide and doxorubicin bound to nanomaterials have been shown to cross the intact blood-brain barrier and released at therapeutic concentrations in the brain. The use of nanomaterials including peptide-based nanotubes to target the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor and cell adhesion molecules like integrins, cadherins and selectins, is a new approach to control disease progression.

The evaluation of engineered nanomaterial safety has been hindered by conflicting reports demonstrating differential degrees of toxicity with the same nanoparticles. The unique properties of these materials increase the likelihood that they will interfere with analytical techniques, which may contribute to this phenomenon. We tested the potential for: 1) nanoparticle intrinsic fluorescence/absorbance, 2) interactions between nanoparticles and assay components, and 3) the effects of adding both nanoparticles and analytes to an assay, to interfere with the accurate assessment of toxicity. Silicon, cadmium selenide, titanium dioxide, and helical rosette nanotubes each affected at least one of the six assays tested, resulting in either substantial over- or under-estimations of toxicity. Simulation of realistic assay conditions revealed that interference could not be predicted solely by interactions between nanoparticles and assay components. Moreover, the nature and degree of interference cannot be predicted solely based on our current understanding of nanomaterial behaviour. A literature survey indicated that ca. 95% of papers from 2010 using biochemical techniques to assess nanotoxicity did not account for potential interference of nanoparticles, and this number had not substantially improved in 2012. We provide guidance on avoiding and/or controlling for such interference to improve the accuracy of nanotoxicity assessments.