Recent advances in nanomaterials for neural applications: opportunities and challenges

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

References

• 1. Kamat PV. Photophysical, photochemical and photocatalytic aspects of metal nanoparticles. J. Phys. Chem. B 106(32), 7729–7744 (2002).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 2. Sisubalan N, Ramkumar VS, Pugazhendhi et al. ROS-mediated cytotoxic activity of ZnO and CeO₂ nanoparticles synthesized using the Rubia cordifolia L. leaf extract on MG-63 human osteosarcoma cell lines. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25(11), 10482–10492 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 3. Rajith Kumar CR, Virupaxappa S, Betageri G et al. Photocatalytic, nitrite sensing and antibacterial studies of facile bio-synthesized nickel oxide nanoparticles. J. Sci. Adv. Mater. Dev. 5, 48–55 (2020).
  Google Scholar
• 4. Vidu R, Rahman M, Mahmoudi M et al. Nanostructures: a platform for brain repair and augmentation. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 8, 91 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 5. Freitas RA Jr. Nanotechnology, nanomedicine and nanosurgery. Int. J. Surg. 3(4), 243–246 (2005).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 6. Feynman RP. There's plenty of room at the bottom (data storage). J. Microelectromech. Syst. 1(1), 60–66 (1992).
  Google Scholar
• 7. Shabani L, Abbasi M, Azarnew Z et al. Neuro-nanotechnology: diagnostic and therapeutic nano-based strategies in applied neuroscience. Biomed. Eng. Online 22(1), 1–41 (2023).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 8. Shah S. The nanomaterial toolkit for neuroengineering. Nano Converg. 3, 25 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 9. Jamwal D, Sharma A, Kanwar R et al. The multifaceted dimensions of potent nanostructures: a comprehensive review. Mater. Chem. Front. 5(7), 2967–2995 (2021).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 10. Gao W, Hu CM, Fang RH et al. Liposome-like nanostructures for drug delivery. J. Mater. Chem. B 1(48), 6569–6585 (2013).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 11. Chenthamara D, Subramaniam S, Ramakrishnan SG et al. Therapeutic efficacy of nanoparticles and routes of administration. Biomater. Res. 23(1), 1–29 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 12. Pampaloni NP, Giugliano M, Scaini D et al. Advances in nano neuroscience: from nanomaterials to nanotools. Front. Neurosci. 12, 953 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 13. Horner PJ, Gage FH. Regenerating the damaged central nervous system. Nature 407(6807), 963–970 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 14. Fawcett JW, Asher RA. The glial scar and central nervous system repair. Brain Res. Bull. 49(6), 377–391 (1999).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 15. Silver J, Miller JH. Regeneration beyond the glial scar. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 5(2), 146–156 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 16. Agrahari V, Burnouf PA, Burnouf T et al. Nanoformulation properties, characterization, and behavior in complex biological matrices: challenges and opportunities for brain-targeted drug delivery applications and enhanced translational potential. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 148, 146–180 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 17. Cascione M, De Matteis V, Leporatti S et al. The new frontiers in neurodegenerative diseases treatment: liposomal-based strategies. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 8, 566767 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 18. Li J, Wei Y, Zhang C et al. Cell-membrane-coated nanoparticles for targeted drug delivery to the brain for the treatment of neurological diseases. Pharmaceutics 15(2), 621 (2023).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 19. Qiao L, Chen Y, Song X, Dou X, Xu C. Selenium nanoparticles-enriched Lactobacillus casei ATCC 393 prevents cognitive dysfunction in mice through modulating microbiota-gut-brain axis. Int. J. Nanomed. 17, 4807–4827 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 20. Jang YO, Ahn HS, Dao TN et al. Magnetic transferrin nanoparticles (MTNs) assay as a novel isolation approach for exosomal biomarkers in neurological diseases. Biomater. Res. 27(1), 1–9 (2023). •• Reports a magnetic transferrin nanoparticle assay, which combined transferrin and magnetic nanoparticles to isolate brain-derived blood exosomes from clinical samples.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 21. Yang J, Luly KM, Green JJ. Nonviral nanoparticle gene delivery into the CNS for neurological disorders and brain cancer applications. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol. 15(2), e1853 (2023).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 22. Xue L, Ye Q, Wu L et al. Magneto-mechanical effect of magnetic microhydrogel for improvement of magnetic neuro-stimulation. Nano Res. 16, 7393–7404 (2023). • Demonstrates magnetic microhydrogels as a powerful tool for neurostimulation.
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 23. Pardo A, Gómez-Florit M, Barbosa S et al. Magnetic nanocomposite hydrogels for tissue engineering: design concepts and remote actuation strategies to control cell fate. ACS Nano 15(1), 175–209 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 24. Tay A, Kunze A, Murray C et al. Induction of calcium influx in cortical neural networks by nanomagnetic forces. ACS Nano 10(2), 2331–2341 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 25. Tay A, Sohrabi A, Poole K et al. A 3D magnetic hyaluronic acid hydrogel for magneto-mechanical neuromodulation of primary dorsal root ganglion neurons. Adv. Mater. 30(29), 1800927 (2018).
  Google Scholar
• 26. Lee JU, Shin W, Lim Y et al. Non-contact long-range magnetic stimulation of mechanosensitive ion channels in freely moving animals. Nat. Mater. 20(7), 1029–1036 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 27. Issa B, Obaidat IM, Albiss BA et al. Magnetic nanoparticles: surface effects and properties related to biomedicine applications. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 14(11), 21266–21305 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 28. Xue L, Sun J. Magnetic hydrogels with ordered structure for biomedical applications. Front. Chem. 10, 1040492 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 29. Gu N, Zhang Z, Li Y. Adaptive iron-based magnetic nanomaterials of high performance for biomedical applications. Nano Res. 15, 1–17 (2022).
  Google Scholar
• 30. Zhou H, Mayorga-Martinez CC, Pané S et al. Magnetically driven micro and nanorobots. Chem. Rev. 121(8), 4999–5041 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 31. Liu H, Sun J, Wang H et al. Quantitative evaluation of the total magnetic moments of colloidal magnetic nanoparticles: a kinetics-based method. Chemphyschem 16(8), 1598–1602 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 32. Wang H, Ge Y, Sun J et al. Magnetic sensor based on image processing for dynamically tracking magnetic moment of single magnetic mesenchymal stem cell. Biosens. Bioelectron. 169, 112593 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 33. Bayat M, Zabihi S, Karbalaei N et al. Time-dependent effects of platelet-rich plasma on the memory and hippocampal synaptic plasticity impairment in vascular dementia induced by chronic cerebral hypoperfusion. Brain Res. Bull. 164, 299–306 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 34. Zhong G, Yang Z, Jiang T. Precise modulation strategies for transcranial magnetic stimulation: advances and future directions. Neurosci. Bull. 37(12), 1718–1734 (2021).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 35. Sánchez CC, García JJ, Cabello MR et al. Design of coils for lateralized TMS on mice. J. Neural Eng. 17(3), 036007 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 36. Oliveria SF, Rodriguez RL, Bowers D et al. Safety and efficacy of dual-lead thalamic deep brain stimulation for patients with treatment-refractory multiple sclerosis tremor: a single-centre, randomised, single-blind, pilot trial. Lancet Neurol. 16(9), 691–700 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 37. Scangos KW, Khambhati AN, Daly PM et al. Closed-loop neuromodulation in an individual with treatment-resistant depression. Nat. Med. 27(10), 1696–1700 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 38. Bestmann S, Baudewig J, Siebner HR et al. Functional MRI of the immediate impact of transcranial magnetic stimulation on cortical and subcortical motor circuits. Eur. J. Neurosci. 19(7), 1950–1962 (2004).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 39. Manita S, Suzuki T, Inoue M et al. Paired-pulse ratio of synaptically induced transporter currents at hippocampal CA1 synapses is not related to release probability. Brain Res. 1154, 71–79 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 40. Lu Q, Wu F, Jiao J et al. Selective activation of ABCA1/ApoA1 signaling in the V1 by magnetoelectric stimulation ameliorates depression via regulation of synaptic plasticity. iScience 25(5), 104201 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 41. Björklund A, Lindvall O. Cell replacement therapies for central nervous system disorders. Nat. Neurosci. 3(6), 537–544 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 42. Fry EJ. Central nervous system regeneration: mission impossible? Clin. Exp. Pharmacol. Physiol. 28(4), 253–258 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 43. Chawla M, Kumar R, Siril PF. High catalytic activities of palladium nanowires synthesized using liquid crystal templating approach. J. Mol. Catal. A Chem. 423, 126–134 (2016).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 44. Dutt S, Kumar R, Siril PF. Green synthesis of a palladium–polyaniline nanocomposite for green Suzuki–Miyaura coupling reactions. RSC Adv. 5(43), 33786–33791 (2015).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 45. Kumar R, Siril PF, Javid F. Unusual anti-leukemia activity of nanoformulated naproxen and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 69, 1335–1344 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 46. Kumar R, Singh A, Garg N. Acoustic cavitation-assisted formulation of solid lipid nanoparticles using different stabilizers. ACS Omega 4(8), 13360–13370 (2019). •• Describes the formulation of solid lipid nanoparticles using different stabilizers.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 47. Kumar R. Lipid-based nanoparticles for drug-delivery systems. In: Nanocarriers for Drug Delivery. Nanoscience and Nanotechnology in Drug Delivery (1st Edition). Mohapatra SSRanjan SDasgupta NMishra RKThomas S (Eds). Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 249–284 (2019).
  Google Scholar
• 48. Kumar R, Singh A, Garg N. Acoustic cavitation assisted hot melt mixing technique for solid lipid nanoparticles formulation, characterization, and controlled delivery of poorly water soluble drugs. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 54, 101277 (2019). • Explains the nanoparticle as controlled delivery of poorly water-soluble drugs.
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 49. Kumar R, Singh A, Sharma K et al. Preparation, characterization and in vitro cytotoxicity of fenofibrate and nabumetone loaded solid lipid nanoparticles. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 106, 110184 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 50. Xia Y. Nanomaterials at work in biomedical research. Nat. Mater. 7(10), 758–760 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 51. Collazo ER. Repair of stump neuroma using AxoGuard^® nerve protector and Avance^® nerve graft in the lower extremity. Ortho. Rheum. Open Access J. 1(3), 69–70 (2015).
  Google Scholar
• 52. Bibbo C, Rodrigues-Colazzo E, Finzen AG. Superficial peroneal nerve to deep peroneal nerve transfer with allograft conduit for neuroma in continuity. J. Foot Ankle Surg. 57(3), 514–517 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 53. Silva GA. Neuroscience nanotechnology: progress, opportunities and challenges. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 7(1), 65–74 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 54. Suh WH, Suslick KS, Stucky GD et al. Nanotechnology, nanotoxicology, and neuroscience. Prog. Neurobiol. 87(3), 133–170 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 55. Seidlits SK, Lee JY, Schmidt CE. Nanostructured scaffolds for neural applications. Nanomedicine 3, 183–199 (2008).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 56. Baranes K, Shevach M, Shefi O, Dvir T. Gold nanoparticle-decorated scaffolds promote neuronal differentiation and maturation. Nano Lett. 16(5), 2916–2920 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 57. Cheng Z, Yan X, Sun X et al. Tumor molecular imaging with nanoparticles. Engineering 2(1), 132–140 (2016).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 58. Adams JY, Johnson M, Sato M et al. Visualization of advanced human prostate cancer lesions in living mice by a targeted gene transfer vector and optical imaging. Nat. Med. 8(8), 891–896 (2002).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 59. Massoud TF, Gambhir SS. Molecular imaging in living subjects: seeing fundamental biological processes in a new light. Genes Dev. 17(5), 545–580 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 60. James ML, Gambhir SS. A molecular imaging primer: modalities, imaging agents, and applications. Physiol. Rev. 92(2), 897–965 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 61. Koo H, Huh MS, Sun IC et al. In vivo targeted delivery of nanoparticles for theranosis. Acc. Chem. Res. 44(10), 1018–1028 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 62. Ullman EF, Schwarzberg M, Rubenstein KE. Fluorescent excitation transfer immunoassay. A general method for determination of antigens. J. Biol. Chem. 251(14), 4172–4178 (1976).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 63. Wiwanitkit V. Glomerular pore size corresponding to albumin molecular size, an explanation for underlying structural pathology leading to albuminuria at nanolevel. Ren. Fail. 28(1), 101 (2006).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 64. Degani H, Chetrit-Dadiani M, Bogin L, Furman-Haran E. Magnetic resonance imaging of tumor vasculature. Thromb. Haemost. 89(1), 25–33 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 65. Kherlopian AR, Song T, Duan Q et al. A review of imaging techniques for systems biology. BMC Syst. Biol. 2, 74 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 66. Upputuri PK, Sivasubramanian K, Mark CS et al. Recent developments in vascular imaging techniques in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Biomed. Res. Int. 2015, 783983 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 67. Yun SH, Kwok SJ. Light in diagnosis, therapy and surgery. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 1, 0008 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 68. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography – an increasing source of radiation exposure. N. Engl. J. Med. 357(22), 2277–2284 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 69. Choi W, Oh D, Kim C. Practical photoacoustic tomography: realistic limitations and technical solutions. J. Appl. Phys. 127(23), 230903 (2020).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 70. Jo S, Sun IC, Ahn CH et al. Recent trend of ultrasound-mediated nanoparticle delivery for brain imaging and treatment. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 15(1), 120–137 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 71. Kang H, Lee SW, Park SM et al. Real-time functional optical-resolution photoacoustic microscopy using high-speed alternating illumination at 532 and 1064 nm. J. Biophotonics 11(3), e201700210 (2018).
  Google Scholar
• 72. Jathoul AP, Laufer J, Ogunlade O et al. Deep in vivo photoacoustic imaging of mammalian tissues using a tyrosinase-based genetic reporter. Nat. Photonics 9(4), 239–246 (2015).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 73. Fan Q, Cheng K, Yang Z et al. Perylene-diimide-based nanoparticles as highly efficient photoacoustic agents for deep brain tumor imaging in living mice. Adv. Mater. 27(5), 843–847 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 74. Jiang Y, Cui D, Fang Y et al. Amphiphilic semiconducting polymer as multifunctional nanocarrier for fluorescence/photoacoustic imaging guided chemo-photothermal therapy. Biomaterials 145, 168–177 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 75. Zhen X, Zhang J, Huang J et al. Macrotheranostic probe with disease-activated near-infrared fluorescence, photoacoustic, and photothermal signals for imaging-guided therapy. Angew. Chem. 130(26), 7930–7934 (2018).
  Google Scholar
• 76. Zhen X, Pu K, Jiang X. Photoacoustic imaging and photothermal therapy of semiconducting polymer nanoparticles: signal amplification and second near-infrared construction. Small 17(6), 2004723 (2021).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 77. Xu S, Duan Y, Liu B. Precise molecular design for high-performance luminogens with aggregation-induced emission. Adv. Mater. 32(1), 1903530 (2020).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 78. Feng G, Zhang GQ, Ding D. Design of superior phototheranostic agents guided by Jablonski diagrams. Chem. Soc. Rev. 49(22), 8179–8234 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 79. Duan Y, Hu D, Guo B et al. Nanostructural control enables optimized photoacoustic–fluorescence–magnetic resonance multimodal imaging and photothermal therapy of brain tumor. Adv. Funct. Mater. 30(1), 1907077 (2020).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 80. Changalvaie B, Han S, Moaseri E et al. Indocyanine green J aggregates in polymersomes for near-infrared photoacoustic imaging. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 11(50), 46437–46450 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 81. Wang L, Xie S, Wang Z et al. Functionalized helical fibre bundles of carbon nanotubes as electrochemical sensors for long-term in vivo monitoring of multiple disease biomarkers. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 4(2), 159–171 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 82. De La Zerda A, Zavaleta C, Keren S et al. Carbon nanotubes as photoacoustic molecular imaging agents in living mice. Nat. Nanotechnol. 3(9), 557–562 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 83. Wu L, Wang C, Li Y. Iron oxide nanoparticle targeting mechanism and its application in tumor magnetic resonance imaging and therapy. Nanomedicine 17(21), 1567–1583 (2022).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 84. Neuschmelting V, Harmsen S, Beziere N et al. Dual-modality surface-enhanced resonance Raman scattering and multispectral optoacoustic tomography nanoparticle approach for brain tumor delineation. Small 14(23), 1800740 (2018).
  Google Scholar
• 85. Zhan C, Huang Y, Lin G et al. A gold nanocage/cluster hybrid structure for whole-body multispectral optoacoustic tomography imaging, EGFR inhibitor delivery, and photothermal therapy. Small 15(33), 1900309 (2019).
  Google Scholar
• 86. Cai K, Zhang W, Foda et al. Miniature hollow gold nanorods with enhanced effect for in vivo photoacoustic imaging in the NIR-II window. Small 16(37), 2002748 (2020).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 87. Li W, Chen X. Gold nanoparticles for photoacoustic imaging. Nanomedicine 10(2), 299–320 (2015).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 88. Lerouge F, Ong E, Rositi H et al. In vivo targeting and multimodal imaging of cerebral amyloid-β aggregates using hybrid GdF3 nanoparticles. Nanomedicine 17(29), 2173–2187 (2022). •• A new multimodal imaging agent targeting amyloid-β plaques in Alzheimer's disease is demonstrated.
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 89. Guo B, Chen J, Chen N et al. High-resolution 3D NIR-II photoacoustic imaging of cerebral and tumor vasculatures using conjugated polymer nanoparticles as contrast agent. Adv. Mater. 31(25), 1808355 (2019).
  Google Scholar
• 90. Jiang Y, Upputuri PK, Xie C et al. Broadband absorbing semiconducting polymer nanoparticles for photoacoustic imaging in second near-infrared window. Nano Lett. 17(8), 4964–4969 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 91. Pu K, Shuhendler AJ, Jokerst JV et al. Semiconducting polymer nanoparticles as photoacoustic molecular imaging probes in living mice. Nat. Nanotechnol. 9(3), 233–239 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 92. Lyu Y, Fang Y, Miao Q et al. Intraparticle molecular orbital engineering of semiconducting polymer nanoparticles as amplified theranostics for in vivo photoacoustic imaging and photothermal therapy. ACS Nano 10(4), 4472–4481 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 93. Foulkes R, Man E, Thind J et al. The regulation of nanomaterials and nanomedicines for clinical application: current and future perspectives. Biomater. Sci. 8(17), 4653–4664 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 94. Ceña V, Játiva P. Nanoparticle crossing of blood–brain barrier: a road to new therapeutic approaches to central nervous system diseases. Nanomedicine 13(13), 1513–1516 (2018).
  Google Scholar
• 95. Steinberg I, Huland DM, Vermesh O et al. Photoacoustic clinical imaging. Photoacoustics 14, 77–98 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 96. Malar DS, Prasanth MI, Brimson JM et al. Neuroprotective properties of green tea (Camellia sinensis) in Parkinson's disease: a review. Molecules 25(17), 3926 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 97. Tilleux S, Hermans E. Neuroinflammation and regulation of glial glutamate uptake in neurological disorders. J. Neurosci. Res. 85(10), 2059–2070 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 98. Zhang W, Mehta A, Tong Z et al. Development of polymeric nanoparticles for blood–brain barrier transfer – strategies and challenges. Adv. Sci. 8(10), 2003937 (2021).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 99. Abbott NJ, Rönnbäck L, Hansson E. Astrocyte–endothelial interactions at the blood–brain barrier. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 7(1), 41–53 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 100. Chen Y, Liu L. Modern methods for delivery of drugs across the blood–brain barrier. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 64(7), 640–665 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 101. Pinheiro RG, Coutinho AJ, Pinheiro M et al. Nanoparticles for targeted brain drug delivery: what do we know? Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22(21), 11654 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 102. Luo Y, Yang H, Zhou YF et al. Dual and multi-targeted nanoparticles for site-specific brain drug delivery. J. Control. Rel. 317, 195–215 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 103. Kassem LM, Ibrahim NA, Farhana AS. Nanoparticle therapy is a promising approach in the management and prevention of many diseases: does it help in curing Alzheimer disease? J. Nanotechnol. 2020, 8147080 (2020).
  Google Scholar
• 104. Pichla M, Bartosz G, Sadowska-Bartosz I. The antiaggregative and antiamyloidogenic properties of nanoparticles: a promising tool for the treatment and diagnostics of neurodegenerative diseases. Oxid. Med. Cell. Longev. 2020, 3534570 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 105. Lin J, Li H, Guo J et al. Potential of fluorescent nanoprobe in diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Nanomedicine 17(17), 1191–1211 (2022).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 106. De Jong WH, Borm PJ. Drug delivery and nanoparticles: applications and hazards. Int. J. Nanomed. 3(2), 133–149 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 107. Masserini M. Nanoparticles for brain drug delivery. ISRN Biochem. 2013, 238428 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 108. Das S, Dowding JM, Klump KE et al. Cerium oxide nanoparticles: applications and prospects in nanomedicine. Nanomedicine 8(9), 1483–1508 (2013).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 109. Chapman AP. PEGylated antibodies and antibody fragments for improved therapy: a review. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 54, 531–545 (2002).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 110. Lubich C, Allacher P, de la Rosa M et al. The mystery of antibodies against polyethylene glycol (PEG) – what do we know? Pharm. Res. 33, 2239–2249 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 111. Allen TM, Cullis PR. Liposomal drug delivery systems: from concept to clinical applications. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 65(1), 36–48 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 112. Mohammadpour R, Dobrovolskaia MA, Cheney DL et al. Subchronic and chronic toxicity evaluation of inorganic nanoparticles for delivery applications. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 144, 112–132 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 113. Najahi-Missaoui W, Arnold RD, Cummings BS. Safe nanoparticles: are we there yet? Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22(1), 385 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 114. Nemmar A, Yuvaraju P, Beegam S et al. Oxidative stress, inflammation, and DNA damage in multiple organs of mice acutely exposed to amorphous silica nanoparticles. Int. J. Nanomed. 11, 919–928 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 115. Alshehri R, Ilyas AM, Hasan A et al. Carbon nanotubes in biomedical applications: factors, mechanisms, and remedies of toxicity. J. Med. Chem. 59(18), 8149–8167 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 116. Duan L, Li X, Ji R et al. Nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems: an inspiring therapeutic strategy for neurodegenerative diseases. Polymers (Basel) 15(9), 2196 (2023).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar