Selective targeting of cancer signaling pathways with nanomedicines: challenges and progress

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

• 1. Marte B. Tumor heterogeneity. Nature 501(7467), 327 (2013). • Provides a summary of cancer complications.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 2. Kircher M, Witten DM, Jain P, O'Roak BJ, Cooper GM, Shendure J. A general framework for estimating the relative pathogenicity of human genetic variants. Nat. Genet. 46(3), 310–315 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 3. Suvà ML, Riggi N, Bernstein BE. Epigenetic reprogramming in cancer. Science 339(6127), 1567–1570 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 4. Seyfried TN, Flores RE, Poff AM, D'Agostino DP. Cancer as a metabolic disease: implications for novel therapeutics. Carcinogenesis 35(3), 515–527 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 5. Sliwkowski MX, Mellman I. Antibody therapeutics in cancer. Science 341(6151), 1192–1198 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 6. Jabir NR, Tabrez S, Ashraf GM, Shakil S, Damanhouri GA, Kamal MA. Nanotechnology-based approaches in anticancer research. Int. J. Nanomed. 7, 4391–4408 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 7. Shiekh FA. Targeted nanotherapeutics in cancer. Int. J. Nanomed. 26(9), 1627–1628 (2014). •• Outlines the targeting potential of nanomedicine-based chemotherapeutics for cancer treatment.
  Google Scholar
• 8. Bar-Zeev M, Livney YD, Assaraf YG. Targeted nanomedicine for cancer therapeutics: towards precision medicine overcoming drug resistance. Drug. Resist. Updat. 31, 15–30 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 9. Goldberg MS, Hook SS, Wang AZ et al. Biotargeted nanomedicines for cancer: six tenets before you begin. Nanomedicine 8(2), 299–308 (2013).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 10. Godwin A, Bolina K, Clochard M et al. New strategies for polymer development in pharmaceutical science – a short review. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 53(9), 1175–1184 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 11. Rihova B. Immunomodulating activities of soluble synthetic polymer-bound drugs. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 54(5), 653–674 (2002).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 12. Duncan R, Ringsdorf H, Satchi-Fainaro R. Polymer therapeutics–polymers as drugs, drug and protein conjugates and gene delivery systems: past, present and future opportunities. J. Drug Target. 14(6), 337–341 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 13. Segal E, Pan H, Ofek P et al. Targeting angiogenesis-dependent calcified neoplasms using combined polymer therapeutics. PLoS ONE 4(4), e5233 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 14. Miller K, Eldar-Boock A, Polyak D et al. Antiangiogenic antitumor activity of HPMA copolymer-paclitaxel-alendronate conjugate on breast cancer bone metastasis mouse model. Mol. Pharm. 8(4), 1052–1062 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 15. Miller K, Clementi C, Polyak D et al. Poly (ethylene glycol)-paclitaxel-alendronate self-assembled micelles for the targeted treatment of breast cancer bone metastases. Biomaterials 34(15), 3795–3806 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 16. Ringsdorf H. Structure and properties of pharmacologically active polymers. J. Polymer Sci. 51, 135–153 (1975).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 17. Mayer LD, Bally MB, Loughrey H, Masin D, Cullis PR. Liposomal vincristine preparations which exhibit decreased drug toxicity and increased activity against murine l1210 and p388 tumors. Cancer Res. 50(3), 575–579 (1990).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 18. Allen TM, Martin FJ. Advantages of liposomal delivery systems for anthracyclines. Semin. Oncol. 31(13 Suppl. 6), 5–15 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 19. Gabizon A, Shmeeda H, Barenholz Y. Pharmacokinetics of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin: review of animal and human studies. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 42(5), 419–436 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 20. Gabizon A, Meshorer A, Barenholz Y. Comparative long-term study of the toxicitiesof free and liposome-associated doxorubicin in mice after intravenous administration. J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 77(2), 459–469 (1986).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 21. Klibanov AL, Maruyama K, Torchilin VP, Huang L. Amphipathic polyethyleneglycols effectively prolong the circulation time of liposomes. FEBS Lett. 268(1), 235–237 (1990).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 22. Allen TM, Hansen C. Pharmacokinetics of stealth versus conventional liposomes: effect of dose. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1068(2), 133–141 (1991). • Focuses on nonselective targeting of nanocarriers.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 23. Matsumura Y, Maeda H. A new concept for macromolecular therapeutics in cancer chemotherapy: mechanism of tumoritropic accumulation of proteins and the antitumor agent smancs. Cancer Res. 46(12 Pt 1), 6387–6392 (1986).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 24. Dvorak HF, Brown LF, Detmar M, Dvorak AM. Vascular permeability factor/vascular endothelial growth factor, microvascular hyperpermeability, and angiogenesis. Am. J. Pathol. 146(5), 1029–1039 (1995).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 25. Jain RK. Transport of molecules in the tumor interstitium: a review. Cancer Res. 47(12), 3039–3051 (1987).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 26. Maeda H, Matsumura Y. Tumoritropic and lymphotropic principles of macromolecular drugs. Crit. Rev. Ther. Drug Carrier Syst. 6(3), 193–210 (1989).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 27. Maeda H, Wu J, Sawa T, Matsumura Y, Hori K. Tumor vascular permeability and the EPR effect in macromolecular therapeutics: a review. J. Control. Release 65(1–2), 271–284 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 28. Jang SH, Wientjes MG, Lu D, Au JL. Drug delivery and transport to solid tumors. Pharm. Res. 20(9), 1337–1350 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 29. Fang J, Nakamura H, Maeda H. The EPR effect: unique features of tumor blood vessels for drug delivery, factors involved, and limitations and augmentation of the effect. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 63(3), 136–151 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 30. Torchilin V. Tumor delivery of macromolecular drugs based on the EPR effect. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 63(3), 131–135 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 31. Maeda H, Nakamura H, Fang J. The EPR effect for macromolecular drug delivery to solid tumors: improvement of tumor uptake, lowering of systemic toxicity, and distinct tumor imaging in vivo. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 65, 71–79 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 32. Carmeliet P, Jain RK. Angiogenesis in cancer and other diseases. Nature 407, 249–257 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 33. Hashizume H, Baluk P, Morikawa S et al. Openings between defective endothelial cells explain tumor vessel leakiness. Am. J. Pathol. 156(4), 1363–1380 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 34. Hobbs SK, Monsky WL, Yuan F et al. Regulation of transport pathways in tumor vessels: role of tumor type and microenvironment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95(8), 4607–4612 (1998).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 35. Jain RK, Stylianopoulos T. Delivering nanomedicine to solid tumors. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 7(11), 653–664 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 36. Chauhan VP, Jain RK. Strategies for advancing cancer nanomedicine. Nat. Mater. 12(11), 958–962 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 37. Padera TP, Stoll BR, Tooredman JB, Capen D, Tomaso ED, Jain RK. Pathology: cancer cells compress intratumor vessels. Nature 427(6976), 695 (2005).
  Google Scholar
• 38. Adiseshaiah PP, Crist RM, Hook SS, McNeil SE. Nanomedicine strategies to overcome the pathophysiological barriers of pancreatic cancer. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 13(12), 750–765 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 39. Jiang W, Roemeling CAV, Chen Y et al. Designing nanomedicine for immuno-oncology. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 1(2), 1–11 (2017).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 40. Balkwill FR, Capasso M, Hagemann T. The tumor microenvironment at a glance. J. Cell Sci. 125(Pt 23), 5591–5596 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 41. Peer D, Karp JM, Hong S, Farokhzad OC, Margalit R, Langer R. Nanocarriers as an emerging platform for cancer therapy. Nat. Nanotech. 2(12), 751–760 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 42. Allen TM. Ligand-targeted therapeutics in anticancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2(10), 750–763 (2002).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 43. Kim BYS, Jiang W, Oreopoulos J, Yip CM, Rutka JT, Chan WCW. Biodegradable quantum dot nanocomposites enable live cell labeling and imaging of cytoplasmic targets. Nano Lett. 8(11), 3887–3892 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 44. Gao X, Cui Y, Levenson RM, Chung LWK, Nie S. In vivo cancer targeting and imaging with semiconductor quantum dots. Nat. Biotechnol. 22(8), 969–976 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 45. Choi HS, Liu W, Liu W et al. Design considerations for tumor-targeted nanoparticles. Nat. Nanotech. 5(1), 42–47 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 46. Peng L, Liu R, Marik J, Wang X, Takada Y, Lam KT. Combinatorial chemistry identifies high-affinity peptidomimetics against α4β1 integrin for in vivo tumor imaging. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2(7), 381–389 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 47. Jiang W, Kim BYS, Rutka JT, Chan WCW. Nanoparticle-mediated cellular response is size-dependent. Nat. Nanotech. 3(3), 145–150 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 48. Scott AM, Wolchok JD, Old LJ. Antibody therapy of cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 12(4), 278–287 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 49. Chan AC, Carter PJ. Therapeutic antibodies for autoimmunity and inflammation. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 10(5), 301–316 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 50. Van Cutsem E, Köhne CH, Hitre E et al. Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 360(14), 1408–1417 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 51. Hudis CA. Trastuzumab-mechanism of action and use in clinical practice. N. Engl. J. Med. 357(1), 39–51 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 52. Cheson BD, Leonard JP. Monoclonal antibody therapy for B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 359(6), 613–626 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 53. Verma S, Miles D, Gianni L et al. Trastuzumabemtansine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 367(19), 1783–1791 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 54. Tolcher AW, Sugarman S, Gelmon KA et al. Randomized Phase II study of BR96-doxorubicin conjugate in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 17(2), 478–484 (1999).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 55. Wilhelm S, Tavares AJ, Dai Q et al. Analysis of nanoparticle delivery to tumors. Nat. Rev. Mater. 1, 16014 (2016).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 56. Kim BYS, Rutka JT, Chan WCW. Nanomedicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 363, 2434–2443 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 57. Joyce JA. Therapeutic targeting of the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Cell 7(6), 513–520 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 58. Arap W, Pasqualini R, Ruoslahti E. Cancer treatment by targeted drug delivery to tumor vasculature in a mouse model. Science 279(5349), 377–380 (1998).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 59. Sugahara KN, Teesalu T, Karmali PP et al. Tissue-penetrating delivery of compounds and nanoparticles into tumors. Cancer Cell 16(6), 510–520 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 60. Ruoslahti E, Bhatia SN, Sailor MJ. Targeting of drugs and nanoparticles to tumors. J. Cell Biol. 188(6), 759–768 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 61. Teesalu T, Sugahara KN, Kotamraju VR, Ruoslahti E. C-end rule peptides mediate neuropilin-1-dependent cell, vascular, and tissue penetration. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106(38), 16157–16162 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 62. Simberg D, Duza T, Park JH et al. Biomimetic amplification of nanoparticle homing to tumors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104(3), 932–936 (2007).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 63. Messerschmidt SK, Musyanovych A, Altvater M et al. Targeted lipid-coated nanoparticles: delivery of tumor necrosis factor-functionalized particles to tumor cells. J. Control. Release 137(1), 69–77 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 64. Weissleder R, Nahrendorf M, Pittet MJ. Imaging macrophages with nanoparticles. Nat. Mater. 13(2), 125–138 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 65. Zhang B, Shen S, Liao Z et al. Targeting fibronectins of glioma extracellular matrix by CLT1 peptide-conjugated nanoparticles. Biomaterials 35(13), 4088–4098 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 66. Carmeliet P, Jain RK. Principles and mechanisms of vessel normalization for cancer and other angiogenic diseases. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10(6), 417–427 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 67. Chauhan VP, Stylianopoulos T, Martin JD et al. Normalization of tumour blood vessels improves the delivery of nanomedicines in a size-dependent manner. Nat. Nanotechnol. 7(6), 383–388 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 68. Jiang W, Huang Y, An Y, Kim BY. Remodeling tumor vasculature to enhance delivery of intermediate-sized nanoparticles. ACS Nano 9(9), 8689–8696 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 69. Wong C, Stylianopoulos T, Cui J et al. Multistage nanoparticle delivery system for deep penetration into tumor tissue. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108(6), 2426–2431 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 70. Cabral H, Matsumoto Y, Mizuno K et al. Accumulation of sub-100 nm polymeric micelles in poorly permeable tumours depends on size. Nat. Nanotechnol. 6(12), 815–823 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 71. Das M, Mohanty C, Sahoo SK. Ligand-based targeted therapy for cancer tissue. Expert Opin. Drug Del. 6, 285–304 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 72. Das SS, Alkahtani S, Bharadwaj P et al. Molecular insights and novel approaches for targeting tumor metastasis. Int. J. Pharm. 585, 119556 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 73. Eldar-Boock A, Miller K, Sanchis J, Lupu R, Vicent MJ, Satchi-Fainaro R. Integrin-assisted drug delivery of nano-scaled polymer therapeutics bearing paclitaxel. Biomaterials 32(15), 3862–3874 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 74. Sjoblom T, Jones S, Wood LD et al. The consensus coding sequences of human breast and colorectal cancers. Science 314(5797), 268–274 (2006).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 75. Wood LD, Parsons DW, Jones S et al. The genomic landscapes of human breast and colorectal cancers. Science 318(5853), 1108–1113 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 76. Sellers WR. A blueprint for advancing genetics-based cancer therapy. Cell 147(1), 26–31 (2011). • Overview of different limitations associated with conventional chemotherapy.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 77. Zhao G, Rodriguez BL. Molecular targeting of liposomal nanoparticles to tumor microenvironment. Int. J. Nanomed. 8, 61–71 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 78. Nguyen K T. Targeted nanoparticles for cancer therapy: promises and challenges. J. Nanomedic. Nanotechnol. 2(5), 103e (2011).
  Google Scholar
• 79. Coates A, Abraham S, Kaye SB. On the receiving end – patient perception of the side-effects of cancer chemotherapy. Eur. J. Cancer. Clin. Oncol. (192), 203–208 (1983).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 80. Tannock IF, Lee CM, Tunggal JK, Cowan DS, Egorin MJ. Limited penetration of anticancer drugs through tumor tissue: a potential cause of resistance of solid tumors to chemotherapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 8(3), 878–884 (2002).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 81. Mousa SA, Bharali DJ. Nanotechnology-based detection and targeted therapy in cancer: nano-bio paradigms and applications. Cancers 3(3), 2888–2903 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 82. Krishna R, Mayer LD. Multidrug resistance (MDR) in cancer mechanisms, reversal using modulators of MDR and the role of MDR modulators in influencing the pharmacokinetics of anticancer drugs. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 11(4), 265–283 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 83. Links M, Brown R. Clinical relevance of the molecular mechanisms of resistance to anti-cancer drugs. Expert Rev. Mol. Med. 1999, 1–21 (1999).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 84. Gottesman MM, Hrycyna CA, Schoenlein PV, Germann UA, Pastan I. Genetic analysis of the multidrug transporter. Annu. Rev. Genet. 29, 607–649 (1995).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 85. Harshita Barkat MA, Das SS, Pottoo FH, Beg S, Rahman Z. Lipid-based nanosystem as intelligent carriers for versatile drug delivery applications. Curr. Pharm. Des. 26(11), 1167–1180 (2020). •• Provides updates on various advantages of nanotechnology-based approaches.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 86. Shi J, Kanto PW, Wooster R, Farokhzad OC. Cancer nanomedicine: progress, challenges and opportunities. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 17(1), 20–37 (2016). • Overview of different approaches for overcoming the limitations associated with conventional chemotherapy.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 87. Patri AK, Kukowska-Latallo JF, Baker JR Jr. Targeted drug delivery with dendrimers: comparison of the release kinetics of covalently conjugated drug and non-covalent drug inclusion complex. Adv. Drug Deliver. Rev. 57(15), 2203–2214 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 88. Das SS, Hussain A, Verma PRP et al. Recent advances in liposomal drug delivery system of Quercetin for cancer targeting: a mechanistic approach. Curr. Drug Deliv. (17(10), 845–860 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 89. Soma CE, Dubernet C, Bentolila D, Benita S, Couvreur P. Reversion of multidrug resistance by co-encapsulation of doxorubicin and cyclosporin A in polyalkylcyanoacrylate nanoparticles. Biomaterials 21(1), 1–7 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 90. Amin ML. P-glycoprotein inhibition for optimal drug delivery. Drug Target Insights 7, 27–34 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 91. Matsuo H, Wakasugi M, Takanaga H et al. Possibility of the reversal of multidrug resistance and the avoidance of side effects by liposomes modified with MRK-16, a monoclonal antibody to P-glycoprotein. J. Control. Release 77(1–2), 77–86 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 92. Danson S, Ferry D, Alakhov V et al. Phase I dose escalation and pharmacokinetic study of pluronic polymer-bound doxorubicin (SP1049C) in patients with advanced cancer. Br. J. Cancer 90(11), 2085–2091 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 93. Batrakova EV, Dorodnych TY, Klinskii EY et al. Anthracycline antibiotics non-covalently incorporated into the block copolymer micelles: in vivo evaluation of anti-cancer activity. Br. J. Cancer 74(10), 1545–1552 (1996).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 94. Goren D, Horowitz AT, Tzemach D, Tarshish M, Zalipsky S, Gabizon A. Nuclear delivery of doxorubicin via folate-targeted liposomes with bypass of multidrug-resistance efflux pump. Clin. Cancer Res. 6(5), 1949–1957 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 95. Barkat A, Beg S, Panda SK, Alharbi KS, Rahman M, Ahmed FJ. Functionalized mesoporous silica nanoparticles in anticancer therapeutics. Semin. Cancer Biol. S1044-579X(19), 30104–X (2019).
  Google Scholar
• 96. Yanes RE, Tamanoi F. Development of mesoporous silica nanomaterials as a vehicle for anticancer drug delivery. Ther. Deliv. 3, 389–404 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 97. Das SS, Bharadwaj P, Bilal M et al. Stimuli-responsive polymeric nanocarriers for drug delivery, imaging, and theragnosis. Polymers (Basel) 12, E1397 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 98. Hergt R, Andrä W. Magnetism in medicine. J. Appl. Phys. 404, 550–570 (2007).
  Google Scholar
• 99. Conde J, Doria G, Baptista P. Noble metal nanoparticles applications in cancer. J. Drug Deliv. 2012, 751075 (2012).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 100. Kong FY, Zhang JW, Li RF, Wang ZX, Wang WJ, Wang W. Unique roles of gold nanoparticles in drug delivery, targeting and imaging applications. Molecules 22, 1445 (2017).
  Google Scholar
• 101. Clark AJ, Davis ME. Increased brain uptake of targeted nanoparticles by adding an acid-cleavable linkage between transferrin and the nanoparticle core. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 12486–12491 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 102. Qian W, Murakami M, Ichikawa Y, Che Y. Highly efficient and controllable PEGylation of gold nanoparticles prepared by femtosecond laser ablation in water. J. Phys. Chem. C 115, 23293–23298 (2011).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 103. El-Sayed IH, Huang X, El-Sayed MA. Surface plasmon resonance scattering and absorption of anti-EGFR antibody conjugated gold nanoparticles in cancer diagnostics: applications in oral cancer. Nano Lett. 5, 829–834 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 104. Wahajuddin Arora S. Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles: magnetic nanoplatforms as drug carriers. Int. J. Nanomed. 7, 3445–3471 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 105. Patra S, Roy E, Karfa P, Kumar S, Madhuri R, Sharma PK. Dual-responsive polymer coated superparamagnetic nanoparticle for targeted drug delivery and hyperthermia treatment. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 7, 9235–9246 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 106. Eatemadi A, Daraee H, Karimkhanloo H, Kouhi M, Zarghami N. Carbon nanotubes: properties, synthesis, purification, and medical applications. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 9, 393 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 107. Matea C, Mocan T, Tabaran F, Pop T, Mosteanu O, Puia C. Quantum dots in imaging, drug delivery and sensor applications. Int. J. Nanomed. 12, 5421–5431 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 108. von Roemeling C, Jiang W, Chan CK, Weissman IL, Kim BYS. Breaking down the barriers to precision cancer nanomedicine. Trends Biotechnol. 35(2), 159–171 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 109. Garcia KP, Zarschler K, Barbaro L et al. Zwitterionic-coated ‘stealth’ nanoparticles for biomedical applications: recent advances in countering biomolecular corona formation and uptake by the mononuclear phagocyte system. Small 10(13), 2516–2529 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 110. Harshita Barkat, MA Beg S, Pottoo FH, Ahmad FJ. Nanopaclitaxel therapy: an evidence based review on the battle for next-generation formulation challenges. Nanomedicine 14(10), 1323–1341 (2019).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 111. Tran S, De Giovanni PJ, Piel B, Rai P. Cancer nanomedicine: a review of recent success in drug delivery. Clin. Transl. Med. 6(1), 1–22 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 112. Rodriguez PL, Harada T, Christian DA, Pantano DA, Tsai RK, Discher DE. Minimal ‘self” peptides that inhibit phagocytic clearance and enhance delivery of nanoparticles. Science 339(6122), 971–975 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 113. Nie S. Understanding and overcoming major barriers in cancer nanomedicine. Nanomedicine (London) 5, 523–528 (2010).
  Google Scholar
• 114. Duan X, Li Y. Physicochemical characteristics of nanoparticles affect circulation, biodistribution, cellular internalization, and trafficking. Small 9(9–10), 1521–1532 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 115. Toy R, Hayden E, Shoup C, Baskaran H, Karathanasis E. The effects of particle size, density and shape on margination of nanoparticles in microcirculation. Nanotechnology 22(11), 115101 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 116. Hussain A, Singh S, Das SS, Anjireddy K, Karpagam S, Shakeel F. Nanomedicines as drug delivery carriers of anti-tubercular drugs: from pathogenesis to infection control. Curr. Drug Deliv. 16(5), 400–429 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 117. Li SD, Huang L. Nanoparticles evading the reticuloendothelial system: role of the supported bilayer. Biochim. Et Biophys. Acta 1788(10), 2259–2266 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 118. Choi HS, Liu W, Misra P et al. Renal clearance of quantum dots. Nat. Biotechnol. 25(10), 1165–1170 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 119. Longmire M, Choyke PL, Kobayashi H. Clearance properties of nanosized particles and molecules as imaging agents: considerations and caveats. Nanomedicine (London) 3(5), 703–717 (2008).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 120. Liu J, Yu M, Zhou C, Zheng J. Renal clearable inorganic nanoparticles: a new frontier of bionanotechnology. Mater. Today 16(12), 477–486 (2013).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 121. Hashizume H, Baluk P, Morikawa S et al. Openings between defective endothelial cells explain tumor vessel leakiness. Am. J. Pathol. 156(4), 1363–1380 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 122. Yuan H, Takeuchi E, Salant DJ. Podocyte slit-diaphragm protein nephrin is linked to the actin cytoskeleton. Am. J. Physiol. Renal. Physiol. 282(4), 585–591 (2002).
  Google Scholar
• 123. Ruggiero A, Villa CH, Bander E et al. Paradoxical glomerular filtration of carbon nanotubes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107(27), 12369 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 124. Stylianopoulos T, Wong C, Bawendi MG, Jain RK, Fukumura D. Multistage nanoparticles for improved delivery into tumor tissue. Methods Enzymol. 508, 109–130 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 125. Pardridge WM. The blood–brain barrier: bottleneck in brain drug development. NeuroRx. 2(1), 3–14 (2005).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 126. Kreuter J. Mechanism of polymeric nanoparticle-based drug transport across the blood–brain barrier (BBB). J. Microencapsul. 30(1), 49–54 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 127. Michaelis K, Hoffmann M, Dreis S et al. Covalent linkage of apolipoprotein e to albumin nanoparticles strongly enhances drug transport into the brain. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 17(3), 1246–1253 (2006).
  Google Scholar
• 128. Ulbrich K, Hekmatara T, Herbert E, Kreuter J. Transferrin- and transferrin-receptor-antibody-modified nanoparticles enable drug delivery across the blood–brain barrier (BBB). Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 71(2), 251–256 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 129. Hu K, Li J, Shen Y et al. Lactoferrin-conjugated PEG–PLA nanoparticles with improved brain delivery: in vitro and in vivo evaluations. J. Control Release 134(1), 55–61 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 130. Kim HR, Gil S, Andrieux K et al. Low-density lipoprotein receptor-mediated endocytosis of PEGylated nanoparticles in rat brain endothelial cells. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 64(3), 356–364 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 131. Lockman PR, Koziara JM, Mumper RJ, Allen DD. Nanoparticle surface charges alter blood–brain barrier integrity and permeability. J. Drug Target. 12(9–10), 635–641 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 132. Sharma HS, Sharma A. Neurotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles from metals. CNS Neurol. Disord. Drug Targets 11(1), 65–80 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 133. Xue Y, Wu J, Sun J. Four types of inorganic nanoparticles stimulate the inflammatory reaction in brain microglia and damage neurons in vitro. Toxicol. Lett. 214(2), 91–98 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 134. Cho CF. The blood–brain barrier: brain cancer therapy hits a wall. Oncol. Times 40, 1–6 (2018).
  Google Scholar
• 135. Teleanu DM, Negut I, Grumezescu V, Grumezescu AM, Teleanu RI. Nanomaterials for drug delivery to the central nervous system. Nanomaterials 9(3), 2–18 (2019).
  Google Scholar
• 136. Shilo M, Sharon A, Baranes K, Motiei M, Lellouche JP, Popovtzer R. The effect of nanoparticle size on the probability to cross the blood–brain barrier: an in vitro endothelial cell model. J. Nanobiotechnol. 13(19), 2–7 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 137. Blanco E, Shen H, Ferrari M. Principles of nanoparticle design for overcoming biological barriers to drug delivery. Nat. Biotechnol. 33(9), 941–951 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 138. Chauhan VP, Stylianopoulos T, Martin JD et al. Normalization of tumour blood vessels improves the delivery of nanomedicines in a size-dependent manner. Nat. Nanotechnol. 7(6), 383–388 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 139. Matsumoto Y, Nichols JW, Toh K et al. Vascular bursts enhance permeability of tumour blood vessels and improve nanoparticle delivery. Nat Nanotechnol. 11(6), 533–538 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 140. Ko YJ, Kim WJ, Kim K, Kwon IC. Advances in the strategies for designing receptor-targeted molecular imaging probes for cancer research. J. Control. Release 305, 1–17 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 141. Rosenblum D, Joshi N, Tao W, Karp JM, Peer D. Progress and challenges towards targeted delivery of cancer therapeutics. Nat. Commun. 9, 1410 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 142. Sriraman SK, Aryasomayajula B, Torchilin VP. Barriers to drug delivery in solid tumors. Tissue Barriers 2, e29528 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 143. Zhang YR, Lin R, Li HJ, He WL, Du JZ, Wang J. Strategies to improve tumor penetration of nanomedicines through nanoparticle design. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol. 11(1), e1519 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 144. Harshita Barkat, Rizwanullah MA M et al. Paclitaxel-loaded nanolipidic carriers with improved oral bioavailability and anticancer activity against human liver carcinoma. AAPS PharmSciTech. 20(2), 87 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 145. Rathore B, Sunwoo K, Jangili P et al. Nanomaterial designing strategies related to cell lysosome and their biomedical applications: a review. Biomaterials 211, 25–47 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 146. Fortuni B, Inose T, Ricci M et al. Polymeric engineering of nanoparticles for highly efficient multifunctional drug delivery systems. Sci. Rep. 9(1), 2666 (2019). • Provides an overview on nanoparticles (NPs)-associated proton sponge effect and lysosomal/endosomal escape.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 147. Qiu L, Zhu M, Gong K et al. pH-triggered degradable polymeric micelles for targeted anti-tumor drug delivery. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 78, 912–922 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 148. Smita SA, Selby LI, Johnston A, Such GK. The endosomal escape of nanoparticles: towards more efficient cellular delivery. Bioconjugate Chem. 30(2), 263–272 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 149. Barar J, Omidi Y. Dysregulated pH in tumor microenvironment checkmates cancer therapy. BioImpacts 3, 149–162 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 150. Akinc A, Thomas M, Klibanov AM, Langer R. Exploring polyethylenimine-mediated DNA transfection and the proton sponge hypothesis. J. Gene Med. 7, 657–663 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 151. Benjaminsen RV, Mattebjerg MA, Henriksen JR, Moghimi SM, Andresen TL. The possible ‘proton sponge’ effect of polyethylenimine (PEI) does not include change in lysosomal pH. Mol. Ther. 21, 149–157 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 152. Godbey WT, Barry MA, Saggau P, Wu KK, Mikos AG. Poly(ethylenimine)-mediated transfection: a new paradigm for gene delivery. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 51, 321–328 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 153. Saadat M, Zahednezhad F, Zakeri-Milani P, Heidari HR, Shahbazi-Mojarrad J, Valizadeh H. Drug targeting strategies based on charge dependent uptake of nanoparticles into cancer cells. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 22, 191–220 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar