In vitro interaction of colloidal nanoparticles with mammalian cells: What have we learned thus far?

Abstract

SummaryThe interfacing of colloidal nanoparticles with mammalian cells is now well into its second decade. In this review our goal is to highlight the more generally accepted concepts that we have gleaned from nearly twenty years of research. While details of these complex interactions strongly depend, amongst others, upon the specific properties of the nanoparticles used, the cell type, and their environmental conditions, a number of fundamental principles exist, which are outlined in this review.

Electrostatic interactions favor the binding of positive nanoparticles on cells: A reductive theory

“…This so-called protein corona modifies the original nanoparticle physico-chemical features and generates a new interface defining the ''biological identity'' of the nanoparticle. This change adds an additional level of complexity for the biological responses [3,9,12,[17][18][19][20][21]. The formation of the protein corona is a dynamic process consisting in the competitive binding of biomolecules at the nanoparticle surface.…”

“…The first one seems to be most affected by the physico-chemical characteristics of the particles and especially the surface charge [6,7]. It is commonly acknowledged that positively charged nanoparticles are more internalized by cells than neutral or negatively charged nanoparticles [1,2,6,[8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. The accepted explanation lies in the fact that electrostatic interactions are favored with cell membrane that is negatively charged.…”

Biodegradable, multifunctional DNAzyme nanoflowers for enhanced cancer therapy

“…These results further demonstrated that the DNAzymes could escape from the lysosomes; however, the details are unclear. 35 Next, we investigated the inhibitory effect of the dual-DNFs on EGR-1 and survivin protein expression.…”

Effects of Ingested Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes in Poecilia reticulata: Localization and Physiological Responses

“…In p-MWCNTexposed fish, haemorrhaging resulted from high aggregative propensity, hydrophobicity (signified by its pronounced agglomerative behaviour) as well as the amorphous carbon revealed by TEM ( Figure 1a). Therefore, the observed gut damage by the MWCNTs was due to their adhesive and abrasive nature, surface charges, functional groups and hydrophobicity which made them highly affinitive for the mucous membranes of the intestinal walls [41,42]. Degeneration of the mucosa and necrosis are known to lead to permeability and absorption of substances mediated through them [43,44].…”