4.8 Article

Optimizing the Size of Micellar Nanoparticles for Efficient siRNA Delivery

期刊

ADVANCED FUNCTIONAL MATERIALS
卷 25, 期 30, 页码 4778-4787

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/adfm.201501548

关键词

cancer therapy; drug delivery; nanocarriers; siRNA; size effect

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Programs) [2013CB933900, 2015CB932100, 2012CB932500]
  2. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Programs) [2012AA022501]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51125012, 51390482, 51203145, 81272897]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Delivery of small interfering RNA (siRNA) by nanocarriers has shown promising therapeutic potential in cancer therapy. However, poor understanding of the correlation between the physicochemical properties of nanocarriers and their interactions with biological systems has significantly hindered its anticancer efficacy. Herein, in order to identify the optimal size of nanocarriers for siRNA delivery, different sized cationic micellar nanoparticles (MNPs) (40, 90, 130, and 180 nm) are developed that exhibit similar siRNA binding efficacies, shapes, surface charges, and surface chemistries (PEGylation) to ensure size is the only variable. Size-dependent biological effects are carefully and comprehensively evaluated through both in vitro and in vivo experiments. Among these nanocarriers, the 90 nm MNPs show the optimal balance of prolonged circulation and cellular uptake by tumor cells, which result in the highest retention in tumor cells. In contrast, larger MNPs are rapidly cleared from the circulation and smaller MNPs are inefficiently taken up by tumor cells. Accordingly, 90 nm MNPs carrying polo-like kinase 1 (Plk1)-specific siRNA (siPlk1) show superior antitumor efficacy, indicating that 90 nm could either be the optimal size for systemic delivery of siRNA or close to it. Our findings provide valuable information for rationally designing nanocarriers for siRNA-based cancer therapy in the future.

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