Advertisement

Interaction of Nanomaterials with Biological Systems

  • Young-Chul Lee
  • Ju-Young Moon
Chapter
  • 49 Downloads

Abstract

Nanomaterials have been used in biology and medicine. For instance, superparamagnetic iron oxide (Fe3O4) nanoparticles (NPs) have been applied as contrast agents in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology [1, 2]. Materials in range of 50–200 nm could be uptaked into various cell types [3, 4]. Nanoscale materials have been attracted due to their advantages in flexible design, large-surface areas, and easy modification via different ligands [5]. As a result, nanomaterials showed their potential in drug delivery application. When materials at nanoscale as drug carriers, drugs could be efficiently protected from its degradation and metabolism after injection to human body [2]. Nanomaterials could also effectively carry drugs through cell membrane into intracellular environment via different pathways as presented. For cancer treatment purpose, nanoscale materials could be designed for uptaking in only disease targets while avoiding accumulation by healthy cells [6].

References

  1. 1.
    Arsalani N, Fattahi H, Nazarpoor M. Synthesis and characterization of PVP-functionalized superparamagnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles as an MRI contrast agent. Express Polym Lett. 2010;4:329–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mailander V, Landfester K. Interaction of nanoparticles with cells. Biomacromolecules. 2009;10:2379–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rejman J, Oberle V, Zuhorn IS, Hoekstra D. Size-dependent internalization of particles via the pathways of clathrin- and caveolar-medicated endocytosis. Biochem J. 2004;377:159–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lorenz MR, et al. Uptake of functionalized, fluorescent-labeled polymeric particles in different cell lines and stem cells. Biomaterials. 2006;27:2820–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang X-Q et al. Interactions of nanomaterials and biological systems: Implications to personalized nanomedicine. Adv Drug Deliver Rev. 2012; 64: 1363–84, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2012.08.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hrkach J, et al. Preclinical development and clinical translation of a PSMA-targeted docetaxel nanoparticle with a differentiated pharmacoligical profile. Sci Transl Med. 2012; 4: 128ra139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jain KK. Personalized medicine. Curr Opin Mol Ther. 2002;4:548–58.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harper S, Usenko C, Hutchison JE, Maddux BLS, Tanguay RL. In vivo biodistribution and toxicity depends on nanomaterial composition, size, surface functionalisation and route of exposure. J Exp Nanosci. 2008;3:195–206.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17458080802378953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saptarshi SR, Duschl A, Lopata AL. Interaction of nanoparticles with proteins: relation to bio-reactivity of the nanoparticle. J Nanobiotechnol. 2013;11:26.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-3155-11-26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wolfram J, et al. The nano-plasma interface: implications of the protein corona. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 2014; 124: 17–24, doi:10.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.02.035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cedervall T, et al. Detailed identification of plasma proteins adsorbed on copolymer nanoparticles. Angew Chem Int Edit. 2007; 46: 5754–6, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.200700465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Landsiedel R, et al. Testing metal-oxide nanomaterials for human safety. Adv Mater. 2010; 22: 2601–27, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.200902658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lundqvist M, Sethson I, Jonsson B-H. Protein adsorption onto silica nanoparticles: conformational changes depend on the Particles’ curvature and the protein stability. Langmuir. 2004;20:10639–47.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la0484725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lundqvist M, Sethson I, Jonsson B-H. Transient interaction with nanoparticles “freezes” a protein in an ensemble of metastable near-native conformations. Biochemistry. 2005;44:10093–9.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bi0500067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karajanagi SS, Vertegel AA, Kane RS, Dordick JS. Structure and function of enzymes adsorbed onto single-walled carbon nanotubes. Langmuir. 2004;20:11594–9.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la047994h.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nel AE, et al. Understanding biophysicochemical interactions at the nano–bio interface. Nat Mater. 2009; 8: 543. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat2442.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wangoo N, Suri CR, Shekhawat G. Interaction of gold nanoparticles with protein: a spectroscopic study to monitor protein conformational changes. Appl Phys Lett. 2008;92:133104.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2902302.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu S, Sui Y, Guo K, Yin Z, Gao X. Spectroscopic study on the interaction of pristine C60 and serum albumins in solution. Nanoscale Res Lett. 2012;7:433.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1556-276X-7-433.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vonarbourg A, Passirani C, Saulnier P, Benoit J-P. Parameters influencing the stealthiness of colloidal drug delivery systems. Biomaterials. 2006;27:4356–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.03.039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gref R, et al. ‘Stealth’ corona-core nanoparticles surface modified by polyethylene glycol (PEG): influences of the corona (PEG chain length and surface density) and of the core composition on phagocytic uptake and plasma protein adsorption. Colloid Surface B. 2000; 18: 301–13, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-7765(99)00156-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peracchia MT, et al. Visualization of in vitro protein-rejecting properties of PEGylated stealth® polycyanoacrylate nanoparticles. Biomaterials. 1999; 20: 1269–75, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(99)00021-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bazile D, et al. Stealth Me.PEG-PLA nanoparticles avoid uptake by the mononuclear phagocytes system. J Pharm Sci. 1995; 84: 493–8, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.2600840420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rensen PCN, et al. Selective liver targeting of antivirals by recombinant chylomicrons—a new therapeutic approach to hepatitis B. Nat Med. 1995; 1: 221. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0395-221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Michaelis K, et al. Covalent linkage of apolipoprotein E to albumin nanoparticles strongly enhances drug transport into the brain. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2006;317:1246–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kreuter J, et al. Covalent attachment of apolipoprotein A-I and apolipoprotein B-100 to albumin nanoparticles enables drug transport into the brain. J Control Release 2007; 118:54–8. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2006.12.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Desai N, Trieu V, Damascelli B, Soon-Shiong P. SPARC expression correlates with tumor response to albumin-bound paclitaxel in head and neck Cancer patients. Transl Oncol. 2009;2:59–64.  https://doi.org/10.1593/tlo.09109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Podhajcer OL, et al. The role of the matricellular protein SPARC in the dynamic interaction between the tumor and the host. Cancer Metast Rev. 2008; 27: 691. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10555-008-9146-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peer D, et al. Nanocarriers as an emerging platform for cancer therapy. Nat Nanotechnol. 2007; 2: 751, doi:10.1038/nnano.2007.387.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Qian ZM, Li H, Sun H, Ho K. Targeted drug delivery via the transferrin receptor-mediated endocytosis pathway. Pharmacol Rev. 2002;54:561–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Davis ME. The first targeted delivery of siRNA in humans via a self-assembling, cyclodextrin polymer-based nanoparticle: from concept to clinic. Mol Pharm. 2009; 6: 659–68. doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/mp900015y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Davis ME, et al. Evidence of RNAi in humans from systemically administered siRNA via targeted nanoparticles. Nature 2010; 464: 1067. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08956.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Farokhzad OC, et al. Targeted nanoparticle-aptamer bioconjugates for cancer chemotherapy in vivo. P Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:6315–20.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Verma A, Stellacci F. Effect of surface properties on nanoparticle–cell interactions. Small. 2009;6:12–21.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.200901158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Verma A, et al. Surface-structure-regulated cell-membrane penetration by monolayer-protected nanoparticles. Nat Mater. 2008; 7: 588, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat2202.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Whitehead KA, Langer R, Anderson DG. Knocking down barriers: advances in siRNA delivery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2009;8:129–38.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd2742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bareford LM, Swaan PW. Endocytic mechanisms for targeted drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliver Rev. 2007;59:748–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2007.06.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Duncan R. Polymer conjugates as anticancer nanomedicines. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006;6:688–701.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vivero-Escoto JL, Slowing II, Trewyn BG, Lin VSY. Mesoporous silica nanoparticles for intracellular controlled drug delivery. Small. 2010;6:1952–67.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.200901789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yan Y, Such GK, Johnston APR, Best JP, Caruso F. Engineering particles for theurapeutic delivery: prospects and challenges. ACS Nano. 2012;6:3663–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Oberdörster G, et al. Translocation of inhaled ultrafine particles to the brain. Inhal Toxicol. 2004; 16: 437–45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/08958370490439597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dawson KA, Salvati A, Lynch I. Nanoparticles reconstruct lipids. Nat Nanotechnol. 2009;4:84–5.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.426.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gao H, Shi W, Freund LB. Mechanics of receptor-mediated endocytosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:9469–74.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Slowing I, Trewyn BG, Lin VSY. Effect of surface functionalization of MCM-41-type mesoporous silica nanoparticles on the endocytosis by human Cancer cells. J Am Chem Soc. 2006;128:14792–3.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ja0645943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kim BYS, Rutka JT, Chan WCW. Nanomedicine. New Engl J Med. 2010;363:2434–43.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra0912273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nam J-M, Thaxton CS, Mirkin CA. Nanoparticle-based bio-Bar codes for the ultrasensitive detection of proteins. Science. 2003;301:1884–6.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shad Thaxton C, et al. Nanoparticle-based bio-barcode assay redefines “undetectable” PSA and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lin X, et al. Nanozyme-based bio-barcode assay for high sensitive and logic-controlled specific detection of multiple DNAs. Biosens Bioelectron. 2017; 94: 471–7. doi:10.1016/j.bios.2017.01.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sakamoto JH, et al. Enabling individualized therapy through nanotechnology. Pharmacol Res. 2010; 62: 57–89. doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2009.12.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kramer-Marek G, Kiesewetter DO, Capala J. Changes in HER2 expression in breast cancer xenografts after therapy can be quantified using PET and (18)F-labeled affibody molecules. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1131–9.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.057695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lee J-H, et al. Artificially engineered magnetic nanoparticles for ultra-sensitive molecular imaging. Nat Med. 2006; 13: 95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nm1467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hudziak RM, et al. p185HER2 monoclonal antibody has antiproliferative effects in vitro and sensitizes human breast tumor cells to tumor necrosis factor. Mol Cell Biol. 1989;9:1165–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bagalkot V, et al. Quantum Dot−Aptamer conjugates for synchronous cancer imaging, therapy, and sensing of drug delivery based on Bi-Fluorescence resonance energy transfer. Nano Lett. 2007; 7: 3065–70, doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/nl071546n.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Karathanasis E, et al. Imaging nanoprobe for prediction of outcome of nanoparticle chemotherapy by using mammography. Radiology. 2009; 250: 398–406, doi: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2502080801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chan JM, et al. Spatiotemporal controlled delivery of nanoparticles to injured vasculature. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hu C-MJ, Aryal S, Zhang L. Nanoparticle-assisted combination therapies for effective cancer treatment. Ther Deliv. 2010;1:323–34.  https://doi.org/10.4155/tde.10.13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Jia J, et al. Mechanisms of drug combinations: interaction and network perspectives. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2009;8:111–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    de Gaetano Donati K, Rabagliati R, Iacoviello L, Cauda R. HIV infection, HAART, and endothelial adhesion molecules: current perspectives. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004; 4:213–22, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(04)00971-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Suarez-Pinzon WL, et al. Combination therapy with glucagon-like Peptide-1 and gastrin restores Normoglycemia in diabetic NOD mice. Diabetes. 2008;57:3281–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kolishetti N, et al. Engineering of self-assembled nanoparticle platform for precisely controlled combination drug therapy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:17939–44.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Langer R. Drugs on target. Science. 2001;293:58–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zhang L, et al. Nanoparticles in medicine: therapeutic applications and developments. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007; 83: 761–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.clpt.6100400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    LaVan DA, McGuire T, Langer R. Small-scale systems for in vivo drug delivery. Nat Biotechnol. 2003;21:1184–91.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Brannon-Peppas L, Blanchette JO. Nanoparticle and targeted systems for cancer therapy. Adv Drug Deliver Rev. 2012;64:206–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2012.09.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Brigger I, Dubernet C, Couvreur P. Nanoparticles in cancer therapy and diagnosis. Adv. Drug Deliver. Rev. 2012;64:24–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2012.09.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Young-Chul Lee
    • 1
  • Ju-Young Moon
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BioNano TechnologyGachon UniversitySeongnam-siRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Beauty Design ManagementHansung UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations