4.8 Review

Form Follows Function: Nanoparticle Shape and Its Implications for Nanomedicine

Journal

CHEMICAL REVIEWS
Volume 117, Issue 17, Pages 11476-11521

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00194

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Adolphe Merkle Foundation
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [PP00P2_123373]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation through National Centre of Competence in Research Bio-Inspired Materials
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation's fellowship Early Postdoc.Mobility
  5. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PP00P2_123373] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review is a comprehensive description of the past decade of research into understanding how the geometry and size of nanoparticles affect their interaction with biological systems: from single cells to whole organisms. Recently, there has been a great deal of effort to use both the shape and the size of nanoparticles to target specific cellular uptake mechanisms, biodistribution patterns, and pharmacokinetics. While the successes of spherical lipid-based nanoparticles have heralded marked changes in chemotherapy worldwide, the history of asbestos-induced lung disease casts a long shadow over fibrous materials to date. The impact of particle morphology is known to be intertwined with many physicochemical parameters, namely, size, elasticity, surface chemistry, and biopersistence. In this review, we first highlight some of the morphologies observed in nature as well as shapes available to us through synthetic strategies. Following this we discuss attempts to understand the cellular uptake of nanoparticles through various theoretical models before comparing this with observations from in vitro and in vivo experiments. In addition, we consider the impact of nanoparticle shape at different size regimes on targeting, cytotoxicity, and cellular mechanics.

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