4.7 Article

Bioinspired Cell-Derived Nanovesicles versus Exosomes as Drug Delivery Systems: a Cost-Effective Alternative

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-14725-x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National University of Singapore (NUS), Department of Pharmacy (AcRF Tier 1 FRC grant) [R-148-000-213-112]
  2. Leung Kai Fook grant [R-148-000-227-720]
  3. A-STAR-SERC grant [R-148-000-222-305]
  4. National University Health System collaborative grant (NUHS O-CRG)
  5. NUS Graduate School for Integrative Sciences and Engineering graduate
  6. Electron Microscopy Unit (Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, NUS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cell Derived Nanovesicles (CDNs) have been developed from the rapidly expanding field of exosomes, representing a class of bioinspired Drug Delivery Systems (DDS). However, translation to clinical applications is limited by the low yield and multi-step approach in isolating naturally secreted exosomes. Here, we show the first demonstration of a simple and rapid production method of CDNs using spin cups via a cell shearing approach, which offers clear advantages in terms of yield and cost-effectiveness over both traditional exosomes isolation, and also existing CDNs fabrication techniques. The CDNs obtained were of a higher protein yield and showed similarities in terms of physical characterization, protein and lipid analysis to both exosomes and CDNs previously reported in the literature. In addition, we investigated the mechanisms of cellular uptake of CDNs in vitro and their biodistribution in an in vivo mouse tumour model. Colocalization of the CDNs at the tumour site in a cancer mouse model was demonstrated, highlighting the potential for CDNs as anti-cancer strategy. Taken together, the results suggest that CDNs could provide a cost-effective alternative to exosomes as an ideal drug nanocarrier.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available