Mechanistic Understanding of the Biological Responses to Polymeric Nanoparticles

Abstract

Polymeric nanoparticles play important roles in the delivery of a multitude of therapeutic and imaging contrast agents. Although these nanomaterials have shown tremendous potential in disease diagnosis and therapy, there have been many reports on the failure of these nanoparticles in realizing their intended objectives due to an individual or a combination of factors, which have collectively challenged the merit of nanomedicine for disease theranostics. Herein, we investigate the interactions of polymeric nanoparticles with biological entities from molecular to organism levels. Specifically, the protein corona formation, in vitro endothelial uptake, and in vivo circulation time of these nanoparticles are systematically probed. We identify the crucial role of nanocarrier lipophilicity, zeta-potential, and size in controlling the interactions between nanoparticles and biological systems and propose a two-step framework in formulating a single nanoparticle system to regulate multiple biological effects. This study provides insight into the rational design and optimization of the performance of polymeric nanoparticles to advance their theranostic and nanomedicine applications.

Effects of polyethylene glycol on the surface of nanoparticles for targeted drug delivery

“…After PEGylation, a hydrophilic protective layer is formed around the NPs, which increases several times for the blood circulation half-life of the particles through spatial repulsion rejection 17,18 . Also, it is easy for NPs to use PEG as a bridge to conjugate targeted ligands or peptides onto its terminal of hydroxyl group, which can bind the corresponding over-expressed receptors on the surface of cells, to realize targeted drug delivery 19,20 .…”

In vivo protein corona on nanoparticles: does the control of all material parameters orient the biological behavior?

“…PC thus shows the potential to alter the synthetic identities of NPs and affect their interaction on different encounters with in vivo biological entities followed by their body retention and excretion time. As also explained by Kenry et al 77 , the surface charge controls the biodistribution of polymeric NPs and negatively charged NPs show a longer circulation time with minimal macrophage uptake compared to positively charged ones. This further enables lesion penetration and the accumulation of NPs at the targeted sites for theranostic application.…”

Recent Advances in AIEgen‐Based Photodynamic Therapy and Immunotherapy

“…[ 46 ] However, the delivery of PSs by EPR is a passive way, which is usually affected by many factors. [ 47 ] Therefore, active targeting strategies are promising to promote the delivery efficiency of photosensitizer NPs.…”