4.8 Article

Safe and Immunocompatible Nanocarriers Cloaked in RBC Membranes for Drug Delivery to Treat Solid Tumors

期刊

THERANOSTICS
卷 6, 期 7, 页码 1004-1011

出版社

IVYSPRING INT PUBL
DOI: 10.7150/thno.14471

关键词

nanomedicine; biomimetic nanoparticle; immunocompatible nanocarrier; drug delivery; lymphoma treatment

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DMR-1505699]
  2. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health [R01DK095168]
  3. National Institutes of Health from the National Cancer Institute [5F31CA186392, R25CA153915]
  4. Division Of Materials Research
  5. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1505699] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The therapeutic potential of nanoparticle-based drug carriers depends largely on their ability to evade the host immune system while delivering their cargo safely to the site of action. Of particular interest are simple strategies for the functionalization of nanoparticle surfaces that are both inherently safe and can also bestow immunoevasive properties, allowing for extended blood circulation times. Here, we evaluated a recently reported cell membrane-coated nanoparticle platform as a drug delivery vehicle for the treatment of a murine model of lymphoma. These biomimetic nanoparticles, consisting of a biodegradable polymeric material cloaked with natural red blood cell membrane, were shown to efficiently deliver a model chemotherapeutic, doxorubicin, to solid tumor sites for significantly increased tumor growth inhibition compared with conventional free drug treatment. Importantly, the nanoparticles also showed excellent immunocompatibility as well as an advantageous safety profile compared with the free drug, making them attractive for potential translation. This study demonstrates the promise of using a biomembrane-coating approach as the basis for the design of functional, safe, and immunocompatible nanocarriers for cancer 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