Nanoparticles for Immune Stimulation Against Infection, Cancer, and Autoimmunity

Singha, Santiswarup; Shao, Kun; Ellestad, Kristofor K.; Yang, Yang; Santamaría, Pere

doi:10.1021/acsnano.8b05950

Cited by 87 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 105 publications

(214 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The considerations and design‐criteria for biomaterials as vaccine strategies were extensively discussed elsewhere . Here, we aim to convey the unique considerations of biomaterial platform design in the context of mucosal surfaces, and the associated mucosal immune responses.…”

Section: Rational Biomaterials Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To avoid, or at lease minimize, dilution of the vaccine throughout the surface of the mucosal tissues, mucoadhesive gels harboring mucus‐penetrating NPs might be the preferred strategy. Another important consideration for core polymer choice is the type of antigen . Protein or peptide antigens may be entrapped, encapsulated, adsorbed or conjugated to the vehicle.…”

Section: Rational Biomaterials Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[89][90][91][92][93] Particulate delivery systems include nanoparticles (NPs) and microparticles (MPs), which can be synthesized from a diverse range of materials and fabricated to form selfassembled particles (e.g., liposomes, emulsion, micelles, polymersomes), covalent systems (e.g., dendrimer and polymer conjugates), metallic particles (e.g., gold and silver), metal oxide particles (e.g., iron oxide), and carbon materials (e.g., fullerenes, carbon nanotubes) ( Figure 2A). [72,94,95] Table 5 summarizes some of the most common materials used to fabricate mucosal vaccines and their relevant properties to guide material choice. Antigens and adjuvants to be encapsulated within, entrapped or conjugated to the surface of the particles, thus attenuating their degradation and controlling their release.…”

Section: Bridging the Gap In Mucosal Immunity With Biomaterialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The considerations and design-criteria for biomaterials as vaccine strategies were extensively discussed elsewhere. [11,89,[93][94][95]100] Here, we aim to convey the unique considerations of biomaterial platform design in the context of mucosal surfaces, and the associated mucosal immune responses. Material design criteria for mucosal cancer vaccines is mostly derived from studies in prophylactic vaccines for infectious diseases (which mostly focus on humoral response), Adv.…”

Section: Rational Biomaterials Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A wide range of materials may be utilized as building blocks, and can be broadly classified as organic (lipids and synthetic or natural polymers), [94] inorganic (metals such as gold, iron, zinc or calcium, carbon, mesoporous silica) and biological (virus-like particles, proteins, peptides, and caveospheres) materials (Table 5). [10][11][12][13]72,95,103] Most common synthetic polymers include PEI, polyesters-poly(d,l-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA), poly(l-lactic acid), poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL), polylysine, polyethers such as poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) and triblock copolymers (poloxamers) like poly((ethylene oxide)-b-(propylene oxide)-b-(ethylene oxide)). These hold the advantage of controlled composition, which can be reproducibly processed and manufactured with a wide range of chemical and physical properties.…”

Section: Rational Biomaterials Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Immunology‐Guided Biomaterial Design for Mucosal Cancer Vaccines

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cancer of mucosal tissues is a major cause of worldwide mortality for which only palliative treatments are available for patients with late‐stage disease. Engineered cancer vaccines offer a promising approach for inducing antitumor immunity. The route of vaccination plays a major role in dictating the migratory pattern of lymphocytes, and thus vaccine efficacy in mucosal tissues. Parenteral immunization, specifically subcutaneous and intramuscular, is the most common vaccination route. However, this induces marginal mucosal protection in the absence of tissue‐specific imprinting signals. To circumvent this, the mucosal route can be utilized, however degradative mucosal barriers must be overcome. Hence, vaccine administration route and selection of materials able to surmount transport barriers are important considerations in mucosal cancer vaccine design. Here, an overview of mucosal immunity in the context of cancer and mucosal cancer clinical trials is provided. Key considerations are described regarding the design of biomaterial‐based vaccines that will afford antitumor immune protection at mucosal surfaces, despite limited knowledge surrounding mucosal vaccination, particularly aided by biomaterials and mechanistic immune–material interactions. Finally, an outlook is given of how future biomaterial‐based mucosal cancer vaccines will be shaped by new discoveries in mucosal vaccinology, tumor immunology, immuno‐therapeutic screens, and material–immune system interplay.

show abstract

Section: Rational Biomaterials Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rational Biomaterials Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Bridging the Gap In Mucosal Immunity With Biomaterialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rational Biomaterials Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rational Biomaterials Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Immunology‐Guided Biomaterial Design for Mucosal Cancer Vaccines

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Advances of Nanotechnology Toward Vaccine Development Against Animal Infectious Diseases

Wang

Gao

Wang

et al. 2023

Adv Funct Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vaccines are the most effective means of controlling infectious diseases. Increasingly epidemics have driven the development of vaccines for human use. However, insufficient attention has been paid to preventing animal epidemics. The spread of animal epidemics directly affects food and nutritional safety, the economy, and outbreaks of zoonotic diseases, which can eventually threaten human health. Reducing safety risks, saving production costs, adapting to mass vaccination, and improving immunogenicity are important that must be considered in animal vaccines. Nanotechnology in vaccine development provides unique advantages in meeting these challenges, both at in vitro preparation and in vivo immune response levels. In terms of in vitro vaccine formulation, nanoparticles offer the possibility to provide multiple antigen display sites, maintain antigen conformation, and improve vaccine stability, which facilitates the development of vaccines with enhanced immunogenicity and thermal stability. In terms of in vivo vaccine‐induced immunity, nanoparticles show superior immunostimulatory activity which facilitates multiple immune response processes, including antigen delivery, cellular uptake, antigen presentation, and lymphocyte activation, thus markedly augmenting vaccine‐mediated immune responses. Herein, the application of nanotechnology to vaccine development and the characteristics of animal vaccines are reviewed, aiming to provide general guidelines for the design of future vaccines against animal infectious diseases and promote harmonious coexistence of humans and animals.

show abstract

A Focus on “Bio” in Bio–Nanoscience: The Impact of Biological Factors on Nanomaterial Interactions

Cortez‐Jugo

Czuba-Wojnilowicz

Tan

et al. 2021

Adv Healthcare Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bio–nanoscience research encompasses studies on the interactions of nanomaterials with biological structures or what is commonly referred to as the biointerface. Fundamental studies on the influence of nanomaterial properties, including size, shape, composition, and charge, on the interaction with the biointerface have been central in bio–nanoscience to assess nanomaterial efficacy and safety for a range of biomedical applications. However, the state of the cells, tissues, or biological models can also influence the behavior of nanomaterials at the biointerface and their intracellular processing. Focusing on the “bio” in bio–nano, this review discusses the impact of biological properties at the cellular, tissue, and whole organism level that influences nanomaterial behavior, including cell type, cell cycle, tumor physiology, and disease states. Understanding how the biological factors can be addressed or exploited to enhance nanomaterial accumulation and uptake can guide the design of better and suitable models to improve the outcomes of materials in nanomedicine.

show abstract

Nanoparticles for Immune Stimulation Against Infection, Cancer, and Autoimmunity

Cited by 87 publications

References 105 publications

Immunology‐Guided Biomaterial Design for Mucosal Cancer Vaccines

Immunology‐Guided Biomaterial Design for Mucosal Cancer Vaccines

Advances of Nanotechnology Toward Vaccine Development Against Animal Infectious Diseases

A Focus on “Bio” in Bio–Nanoscience: The Impact of Biological Factors on Nanomaterial Interactions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About