4.6 Article

Particle size affects the cellular response in macrophages

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
Volume 41, Issue 5, Pages 650-657

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejps.2010.09.006

Keywords

Biomaterials; Cellular response; Macrophage; Particle design; Size

Funding

  1. 973 Program [2009CB724705]
  2. National Nature Science Foundation of China [20536050, 50703043]
  3. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KJCX2-YW-M02]
  4. Knowledge Innovation Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A deeper understanding of how the physical properties of particles regulate specific biological responses is becoming a crucial requirement for their successful biomedical application. To provide insights on their design and application, J774A.1 cells are exposed to particles with different diameters (430 nm, 1.9 mu m and 4.8 mu m), and the size effects on a series of cellular responses in macrophages are evaluated. Cellular uptake study demonstrates that nanosized particles accumulate in the cells at a faster rate, and with a higher surface area. Once the data are converted into the expression of particle volume, the maximum value is found with 1.9 mu m particles instead of nanoparticles. Moreover, the uptake intermediates are also trapped, and the steps of particle internalization include filopodia sensing, skeleton rearrangement, and morphology change. Subsequent cellular trafficking reveals that only nanosized particles transport via lysosomal pathway, which is consistent with their uptake mechanisms. Furthermore, nanosized particles prefer to promote the secretion of Th1-specific molecule signals (e.g. IFN, IL-12) rather than immune suppressors. All these results, along with a couple of surprises, are discussed in the view of clinical practice. They are expected, in principle, to establish the basis of new design concepts for particle-based biomedical applications. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available