Understanding the immunological interactions of engineered nanomaterials: Role of the bio‐corona

Abstract

Engineered nanomaterials are a broad class of materials with the potential for breakthrough applications in many sectors of society not least in medicine. Consequently, safety assessment of nanomaterials and nano‐enabled products with respect to human health and the environment is of key importance. To this end, the biological interactions of nanoscale materials must be understood. Here, the dual “identities” of nanomaterials, namely, the material‐intrinsic properties or synthetic identity and the acquired, context‐dependent properties or biological identity, are discussed in relation to nanomaterial interactions with the immune system, our main defense against foreign intrusion. Specifically, we address whether macrophages and other innate immune cells respond to the synthetic identity or the biological identity of nanomaterials, that is, the surface adsorbed proteins and/or other biomolecules known as the bio‐corona, or both? This article is categorized under: Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Toxicology of Nanomaterials

Amorphous silica nanoparticles and the human gut microbiota: a relationship with multiple implications

“…1 ) is a characteristic of ENM present in biological fluids and can influence the toxicological properties of the nanoparticles, as extensively shown and reviewed in literature [ 14 – 20 ]. For instance, macrophages and other innate immune cells respond to the biocorona-dependent biological identity of nanomaterials rather than to their synthetic identity [ 18 ].…”

Could a Non-Cellular Molecular Interactome in the Blood Circulation Influence Pathogens’ Infectivity?

“…The term nanoparticle refers to any natural or artificial structure, including tubes and fibers, with external dimensions between 1 and 100 nanometers (nm) [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. A spectrum of technologies enables nanoparticles to be manufactured and engineered with a specific synthetic (material-intrinsic) identity including rational coating of their surface to facilitate specific applications including tissue targeting in biomedical applications [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ] (see Table 1 , column 2). For example, nanoparticles that have been covalently linked to macromolecules such as polyethylene glycol, antibodies, or peptides are designed to ensure desirable levels of solubility, stability, or biological activity in drug delivery ( Table 1 , columns 1–3).…”

“…Much of the biological behavior of nanoparticles, including aggregation, circulation time, clearance rate, and targeting, are greatly influenced by the protein corona [ 10 , 26 , 30 , 32 , 38 , 39 ], which may include proteins involved in blood coagulation, immune responses including complement activation, and lipid transport ( Table 1 , column 4). Protein coronas can concentrate proteins known as opsonins, such as complement proteins, coagulation proteins, and antibodies.…”

“…Nanoparticles in biological environments including saliva, lung fluid, and blood have been found to interact with phospholipids, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, and other metabolites, in addition to proteins and peptides [ 10 , 45 , 46 ]. As a result, a layer of biomolecules (biocorona) may end up coating the nanoparticles’ surface giving nanoparticles a new biological identity [ 26 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 36 , 47 ].…”

New and more effective application assays for hemostatic disorder assessment: A systematic review

“…Novel platform assays for the diagnosis of hemostatic disorders were limited in hemostasis research during the drug acceleration phase of vitro-based therapeutics, particularly during the product design phase. An in vitro test flow was built in the year 2005 to evaluate the immune response stability of nanomaterials and devices for hemostatic evaluations [1]. 400 different nanotechnology devices were used to validate the hemostasis biomarker sequence.…”