4.8 Article

Modifying a Commonly Expressed Endocytic Receptor Retargets Nanoparticles in Vivo

期刊

NANO LETTERS
卷 18, 期 12, 页码 7590-7600

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b03149

关键词

DNA barcode; nanoparticle; drug delivery; Caveolin; Kupffer cell; ddPCR

资金

  1. NIH [T32EB021962]
  2. Cystic Fibrosis Research Foundation [DAHL-MA15XX0]
  3. Parkinson's Disease Foundation [PDF-JFA-1860]
  4. Bayer Hemophilia Awards Program (AGE DTD)
  5. Georgia Tech startup funds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nanoparticles are often targeted to receptors expressed on specific cells, but few receptors are (i) highly expressed on one cell type and (ii) involved in endocytosis. One unexplored alternative is manipulating an endocytic gene expressed on multiple cell types; an ideal gene would inhibit delivery to cell type A more than cell type B, promoting delivery to cell type B. This would require a commonly expressed endocytic gene to alter nanoparticle delivery in a cell type-dependent manner in vivo; whether this can occur is unknown. Based on its microenvironmental regulation, we hypothesized Caveolin 1 (Cav1) would exert cell type-specific effects on nanoparticle delivery. Fluorescence was not sensitive enough to investigate this question, and as a result, we designed a platform named QUANT to study nanoparticle biodistribution. QUANT is 10(8)x more sensitive than fluorescence and can be multiplexed. By measuring how 226 lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) delivered nucleic acids to multiple cell types in vivo in wild-type and Cav1 knockout mice, we found Cav1 altered delivery in a cell-type specific manner. Cav1 knockout did not alter LNP delivery to lung and kidney macrophages but substantially reduced LNP delivery to Kupffer cells, which are liver-resident macrophages. These data suggest caveolin-mediated endocytosis of nanomedicines by macrophages varies with tissue type. These results suggest manipulating receptors expressed on multiple cell types can tune drug delivery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据