4.6 Review

Conscripts of the infinite armada: systemic cancer therapy using nanomaterials

期刊

NATURE REVIEWS CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 7, 期 5, 页码 266-276

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2010.38

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P30CA008748, R01CA055349] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [T32GM007739] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA008748, R01 CA055349] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIGMS NIH HHS [T32 GM007739] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The field of clinical nanomaterials is enlarging steadily, with more than a billion US dollars of funding allocated to research by US government agencies in the past decade. The first generation of anticancer agents using novel nanomaterials has successfully entered widespread use. Newer nanomaterials are garnering increasing interest as potential multifunctional therapeutic agents; these drugs are conferred novel properties, by virtue of their size and shape. The new features of these agents could potentially allow increased cancer selectivity, changes in pharmacokinetics, amplification of cytotoxic effects, and simultaneous imaging capabilities. After attachment to cancer target reactive-ligands, which interact with cell-surface antigens or receptors, these new constructs can deliver cytolytic and imaging payloads. The molecules also introduce new challenges for drug development. While nanoscale molecules are of a similar size to proteins, the paradigms for how cells, tissues and organs of the body react to the non-biological materials are not well understood, because most cellular and metabolic processes have evolved to deal with globular, enzyme degradable molecules. We discuss examples of different materials to illustrate interesting principles for development and future applications of these nanomaterial medicines with emphasis on the possible pharmacologic and safety hurdles for accomplishing therapeutic goals.

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

4.6
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