91桃色

Nanomedicine; Surface modification; Nanoparticles; Drug delivery; Targeting; Biocompatibility

Introduction

Nanomedicine represents a transformative approach to drug delivery and therapy, leveraging nanoparticles (NPs) for precise and efficient delivery of therapeutic agents. NPs offer unique advantages, including high surface area-to-volume ratio, tunable physicochemical properties, and the ability to encapsulate diverse payloads such as drugs, genes, or imaging agents. However, challenges such as nonspecific biodistribution, rapid clearance by the immune system, and insufficient targeting to diseased tissues necessitate sophisticated strategies to optimize NP performance [1].

Surface modification techniques are pivotal in tailoring NP properties to meet specific therapeutic requirements. These techniques involve the functionalization of NP surfaces with ligands, polymers, or coatings to enhance biocompatibility, prolong circulation time, and facilitate targeted delivery to desired tissues or cells. By modulating NP interactions with biological systems, surface modification strategies aim to improve drug efficacy, minimize side effects, and enable personalized medicine approaches [2,3].

This article explores advanced surface modification techniques aimed at improving the efficacy of nanomedicines. We discuss key strategies, mechanisms of action, and recent advancements in NP surface engineering to address challenges in drug delivery and therapeutic applications. By highlighting these innovations, we aim to underscore the transformative potential of surface-modified NPs in advancing precision medicine and enhancing patient outcomes [4].

Discussion

Targeting ligands and functional groups

Surface modification enables the conjugation of targeting ligands (e.g., antibodies, peptides, aptamers) to NPs, enhancing their specificity for diseased tissues or cells:

1. Active targeting: Ligands bind to receptors overexpressed on target cells, facilitating NP internalization and enhancing therapeutic efficacy while minimizing off-target effects.
2. Passive targeting: Surface modifications with hydrophilic polymers (e.g., polyethylene glycol, PEG) reduce NP opsonization, prolong circulation time, and enhance accumulation in leaky tumor vasculature via the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect [5].

Stealth coatings and biomimetic approaches

Stealth coatings such as PEGylation shield NPs from immune recognition and clearance, improving their systemic circulation and reducing immunogenicity:

1. PEGylation: Conjugation of PEG chains to NP surfaces imparts stealth properties, prolonging circulation half-life and enhancing drug delivery to target tissues.
2. Cell membrane coatings: Biomimetic NPs coated with cell membranes (e.g., red blood cells, platelets) inherit biological functionalities (e.g., immune evasion, targeted homing), improving biocompatibility and reducing immune responses [6].

Responsive and stimuli-sensitive nanocarriers

Responsive NPs are designed to release payloads in response to specific stimuli (e.g., pH, enzymes, temperature) within diseased tissues or cellular microenvironments:

1. pH-responsive NPs: Polymer or lipid-based NPs release drugs in acidic environments characteristic of tumors or inflamed tissues, enhancing therapeutic efficacy while minimizing systemic toxicity.
2. Enzyme-sensitive NPs: NPs with enzyme-cleavable linkers selectively release payloads in response to elevated enzyme levels (e.g., matrix metalloproteinases) in diseased tissues, improving site-specific drug delivery [7].

Multifunctional nanoplatforms

Integration of multiple functionalities within NP platforms enhances their versatility and therapeutic potential:

1. Theranostic NPs: Combined diagnostic (e.g., imaging agents) and therapeutic functionalities enable real-time monitoring of drug delivery and treatment efficacy.
2. Combination therapy: NPs capable of co-delivering multiple therapeutic agents (e.g., drugs, genes) achieve synergistic effects, overcoming drug resistance and enhancing treatment outcomes [8].

Clinical translation and future perspectives

Despite significant advancements, the clinical translation of surface-modified NPs faces challenges including scalability, reproducibility, and regulatory approval:

1. Scale-Up and manufacturing: Standardization of NP synthesis and scaling up production to ensure consistency and cost-effectiveness for clinical applications.
2. Biocompatibility and safety: Comprehensive evaluation of NP biocompatibility, toxicity profiles, and long-term effects in preclinical and clinical studies.
3. Regulatory considerations: Navigating regulatory pathways to obtain approval for clinical use, addressing safety concerns, and ensuring compliance with quality standards [9,10].

Conclusion

Surface modification techniques play a pivotal role in enhancing the efficacy and clinical applicability of nanomedicines by optimizing pharmacokinetics, targeting specificity, and therapeutic outcomes. By tailoring NP surfaces with advanced functionalities, researchers can overcome biological barriers, improve drug delivery efficiency, and enable personalized treatment strategies. Future research efforts should focus on refining surface modification strategies, addressing translational challenges, and advancing NP-based therapies towards transformative solutions in precision medicine and patient-centered healthcare.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

References

1. Thao NT, Wanapat M, Kang S, Cherdthong A (2015)Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 28: 951–957.

,

2. Gunun P, Gunun N, Cherdthong A, Wanapat M, Polyorach S, et al. (2018)Journal of Applied Animal Research 46: 626–631.

,

3. Kholif AE, Hassan AA, El Ashry GM, Bakr MH, El-Zaiat HM, et al. (2020)Animal Biotechnology 1–11.

, ,

4. Neubauer V, Petri R, Humer E, Kröger I, Mann E, et al. (2018)Journal of Dairy Science 101: 2335–2349.

, ,

5. Kholif AE, Matloup OH, Morsy TA, Abdo MM, Abu Elella AA, et al. (2017) Livestock Science 204: 39–46.

,

6. Akbarian-Tefaghi M, Ghasemi E, Khorvash M (2018)Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 102: 630–638.

, ,

7. Matloup OH, Abd El Tawab AM, Hassan AA, Hadhoud FI, Khattab MSA, et al. (2017)Animal Feed Science and Technology 226: 88–97.

,

8. Parra-Garcia A, Elghandour MMMY, Greiner R, Barbabosa-Pliego A, Camacho-Diaz LM, et al. (2019)Environmental.Science and Pollution Research 26: 15333-15344.

, ,

9. Singh RK, Dey A, Paul SS, Singh M, Dahiya SS, et al. (2020)Agroforestry Systems 94: 1555–1566.

,

10. Bhatta R, Saravanan M, Baruah L, Prasad CS (2015)Journal of Applied  Microbiology 118: 557–564.

, ,