4.8 Article

Nanoparticle clearance is governed by Th1/Th2 immunity and strain background

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
Volume 123, Issue 7, Pages 3061-3073

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/JCI66895

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Liquidia Technologies
  2. HHMI
  3. NIH
  4. Carolina Center for Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence [U54CA151652]
  5. University Cancer Research Fund
  6. UNC-Olympus Imaging Research Center

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Extended circulation of nanoparticles in blood is essential for most clinical applications. Nanoparticles are rapidly cleared by cells of the mononuclear phagocyte system (MPS). Approaches such as grafting polyethylene glycol onto particles (PEGylation) extend circulation times; however, these particles are still cleared, and the processes involved in this clearance remain poorly understood. Here, we present an intravital microscopy-based assay for the quantification of nanoparticle clearance, allowing us to determine the effect of mouse strain and immune system function on particle clearance. We demonstrate that mouse strains that are prone to Th1 immune responses clear nanoparticles at a slower rate than Th2-prone mice. Using depletion strategies, we show that both granulocytes and macrophages participate in the enhanced clearance observed in Th2-prone mice. Macrophages isolated from Th1 strains took up fewer particles in vitro than macrophages from Th2 strains. Treating macrophages from Th1 strains with cytokines to differentiate them into M2 macrophages increased the amount of particle uptake. Conversely, treating macrophages from Th2 strains with cytokines to differentiate them into M1 macrophages decreased their particle uptake. Moreover, these results were confirmed in human monocyte-derived macrophages, suggesting that global immune regulation has a significant impact on nanoparticle clearance in humans.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available