About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Journal of Drug Delivery
Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 751075, 12 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/751075
Review Article

Noble Metal Nanoparticles Applications in Cancer

1CIGMH, Departamento de Ciências da Vida, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Campus de Caparica, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal
2Instituto de Nanociencia de Aragón, Universidad de Zaragoza, Pedro Cerbuna 12, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain

Received 23 May 2011; Accepted 2 August 2011

Academic Editor: Paulo Cesar de Morais

Copyright © 2012 João Conde et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Nanotechnology has prompted new and improved materials for biomedical applications with particular emphasis in therapy and diagnostics. Special interest has been directed at providing enhanced molecular therapeutics for cancer, where conventional approaches do not effectively differentiate between cancerous and normal cells; that is, they lack specificity. This normally causes systemic toxicity and severe and adverse side effects with concomitant loss of quality of life. Because of their small size, nanoparticles can readily interact with biomolecules both at surface and inside cells, yielding better signals and target specificity for diagnostics and therapeutics. This way, a variety of nanoparticles with the possibility of diversified modification with biomolecules have been investigated for biomedical applications including their use in highly sensitive imaging assays, thermal ablation, and radiotherapy enhancement as well as drug and gene delivery and silencing. Here, we review the available noble metal nanoparticles for cancer therapy, with particular focus on those already being translated into clinical settings.

1. Introduction

Cancer is one of the leading causes of mortality in the modern world, with more than 10 million new cases every year [1]. It is well established that cancer is a multifactorial disease caused by a complex mixture of genetic and environmental factors [24], where considerable advances have led to a more comprehensive understanding of cancer at the genetic, molecular, and cellular levels providing new targets and strategies for therapy [5]. Nevertheless, these advances have yet to be effectively translated into functioning diagnostics and therapy. For example, the effectiveness of many anticancer drugs is limited due to the inability to reach the target site in sufficient concentrations and efficiently exert the pharmacological effect without causing irreversible unwanted injury to healthy tissues and cells [6, 7].

The technological leap of controlling materials at nanoscale provides for a “big revolution” in medical and healthcare treatments and therapies [8, 9]. Nanotechnology offers a wealth of tools to diagnose and treat cancer—new imaging agents, multifunctional, targeted devices capable of bypassing biological barriers to deliver therapeutic agents directly to cells and tissues involved in cancer growth and metastasis, monitor predictive molecular changes allowing preventive action against precancerous cells, and minimizing costs and side effects [5, 10, 11]. Nanotechnology-based therapies for cancer with minimal side effects and high specificity are on the surge, where the main challenge is to develop a system for molecular therapy capable of circulating in the blood stream undetected by the immune system and recognize the desirable target, signaling it for effective drug delivery or gene silencing with minimum collateral cell damage—nanovectorization. As a result, personalized medicine could become a reality in cancer patient management.

Nanoparticles (NPs), and noble metal NPs in particular, are versatile agents with a variety of biomedical applications including their use in highly sensitive diagnostic assays [12, 13], thermal ablation, and radiotherapy enhancement [1417], as well as drug and gene delivery [1821]. Moreover, noble metal NPs have been proposed as nontoxic carriers for dru and gene-delivery applications [2224]. Additionally, the nanoparticle-based systems can provide simultaneous diagnostic and therapy, that is, Theranostics, exploring their unique properties for better penetration of therapeutic moieties and tracking within the body, allowing a more efficient therapy with a reduced risk in comparison to conventional therapies [25]—see Figure 1.

751075.fig.001
Figure 1: Noble metal NPs for cancer therapy. Once the tumor is directly connected to the main blood circulation system, NPs can exploit several characteristics of the newly formed vasculature and efficiently target tumors. Tumor cells are supplied by blood capillaries that perfuse the cells of the tissue where NPs can (i) passively accumulate or (ii) anchor through targeting moieties to biomarkers overexpress by tumor cells. NPs can act simultaneously as therapeutic agents, inducing hyperthermia, enhancing radiotherapy, silencing genes, and/or delivering drugs to induce tumor cell death, and as imaging enhancers or contrast agents, to help tracking the therapeutic effects in real time.

The unique characteristics of noble metal NPs, such as high surface-to-volume ratio, broad optical properties, ease of synthesis, and facile surface chemistry and functionalization hold pledge in the clinical field for cancer therapeutics [22, 26, 27]. Noble metal NPs (e.g., gold, silver, or a combination of both) present highly tunable optical properties, which can be easily tuned to desirable wavelengths according to their shape (e.g., nanoparticles, nanoshells, nanorods, etc.), size (e.g., 1 to 100 nm), and composition (e.g., core/shell or alloy noble metals), enabling their imaging and photothermal applications under native tissue [28, 29]. These NPs can also be easily functionalized with various moieties, such as antibodies, peptides, and/or DNA/RNA to specifically target different cells [30] and with biocompatible polymers (e.g., polyethylene glycol and PEG) to prolong their in vivo circulation for drug and gene delivery applications [23, 24]. Moreover, they can efficiently convert light or radiofrequencies into heat, thus enabling thermal ablation of targeted cancer cells [31, 32].

In this paper, we will focus on the application of noble metal NPs for cancer therapy with particular emphasis on their use in vivo and their potential to be translated into clinical settings.

2. Therapy

In medical terms, a therapeutic effect is a consequence of a medical treatment of any kind, the results of which are judged to be desirable and beneficial [33]. Conventional therapy methods in cancer involve the employment of agents that do not greatly differentiate between cancerous and normal cells, leading to systemic toxicity and adverse and severe side effects [34]. Efficient in vivo targeting to heterogeneous population of cancer cells and tissue still requires better selectivity and noncytotoxicity to surrounding healthy cells. However, universally targeting cells within a tumor is not always feasible, because some drugs cannot diffuse efficiently and the random nature of the approach makes it difficult to control the process and may induce multiple-drug resistance—a situation where chemotherapy treatments fail due to resistance of cancer cells towards one or more drugs [7]. Making use of their extraordinary properties, nanotechnology-based systems could offer a less-invasive alternative, enhancing the life expectancy and quality of life of the patient [35]. Among these, the potential therapeutic application of noble metal NPs represents an attractive platform for cancer therapy in a wide variety of targets and clinical settings [36, 37].

2.1. Tumor Targeting

It is expected that the greatest gains in therapeutic selectivity will be achieved by synergistic combinations of several multicomponent targeting strategies that is capable of simultaneously target and deliver multiple therapeutic agents while avoiding the organism’s biological and biophysical barriers. NPs targeting strategies to cancerous tissues have focused on passive and active targeting. In passive targeting, because numerous tumors present defective vasculature and poor lymphatic drainage due to the rapid growth of solid tumors, noble metal NPs can extravasate into the tumor stroma through the fenestrations of the angiogenic vasculature, demonstrating targeting by enhanced permeation and retention, thus accumulation at the tumor site [6, 8, 38]. Additionally, functionalization of the NP’s surface with hydrophilic molecules, such as PEG, can also greatly increase their solubility, help evading macrophage-mediated uptake and, thus, avoid removal from the systemic circulation and protect their carriers from enzymatic degradation when used in vivo [30]. For active targeting, NPs can be easily functionalized with a wide variety of biological moieties, such as antibodies, peptides, and/or DNA/RNA to specifically target extracellular and intracellular receptors or pathways [30]. The use of NPs functionalized with multiple peptides or antibodies, such as monoclonal antibodies, have been described to successfully target specific cell surface proteins or receptors on cancer cells and further direct their antitumor action, leading to tumor cell death with minimal damage to collateral healthy cells [36, 3941]. In nucleic-acid functionalized NPs, DNA and RNA macromolecules can be used to simultaneously target specific sequences and exert their genetic-based therapy [42, 43].

To help tracking noble metal NPs in vivo and enhance the imaging properties of such moieties, leading to more efficient control of their therapeutic properties, they can also be functionalized with chemical moieties, such as Raman [44, 45] or fluorescent [46, 47] reporters.

2.2. Gene Silencing

Antisense DNA [48, 49] and RNA interference (RNAi) via the use of small-interfering RNA [5053] have emerged as a powerful and useful tools to block gene function and for sequence-specific posttranscriptional gene silencing, playing an important role in downregulation of specific gene expression in cancer cells.

Small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) can be transfected into mammalian cells by a variety of methods that influence the strength and duration of the silencing response, which in turn is affected by the amount of siRNA that is delivered and on the potential of each siRNA to suppress its target. Thus, one drawback of using naked siRNAs is that they show extremely short half-lives, weak protection against action by RNases, poor chemical stability, and common dissociation from vector [54]. In fact, the major obstacle to clinical application is the uncertainty about how to deliver therapeutic RNAs (e.g., miRNA and/or siRNA) with maximal therapeutic impact. Nanotechnology offers an unprecedented opportunity to overcome these problems, as nanoscale devices, due to their small size, can readily interact with biomolecules on both the surface of cells and inside of cells for longer periods of time [10]. Gold NPs (AuNPs) have shown potential as intracellular delivery vehicles for antisense oligonucleotides [55] and for therapeutic siRNA by providing protection against RNAses and ease of functionalization for selective targeting [42, 43]. For example, Mirkin and coworkers showed that AuNPs attached to single-stranded oligodeoxynucleotides can be used for gene therapy, providing a highly efficient gene regulator in terms of high loading of the antisense DNA with no toxicity at the concentrations studied [55]. They have also shown that polyvalent RNA-AuNP conjugates are readily taken up by cells and that the particle bound siRNA could effectively regulate genes in the context of RNA interference [42]. AuNPs modified with the hydrophilic PEG polymer, siRNAs and then coated with poly(β-aminoester)s have been shown to facilitate high levels of in vitro siRNA delivery and gene silencing in human cells [56]. Also, Braun et al. developed an Au-nanoshell functionalized with TAT-lipid layer for transfection and selective release of siRNA [57], where the TAT-lipid coating was used to efficiently mediate the cellular uptake of the nanoconjugates and the siRNA release was dependent on near-infrared (NIR) laser pulses. The authors demonstrated that this NIR strategy for siRNA release was proficient and time dependent.

Several other studies using engineered NPs modified with siRNA have demonstrated a cytoplasmic delivery system of siRNA and efficient gene silencing using AuNPs [42, 56, 5860].

2.3. Hyperthermia

Hyperthermia is based on the effect increasing temperatures have on living cells, and it is commonly accepted that above 42°C cell viability is strongly reduced. In fact, hyperthermia effects can range from moderate denaturation of blood and extracellular proteins to induction of apoptosis and, above 50°C, to cell death and tissue ablation [61]. Hyperthermia therapy in cancer has been widely used either via direct irradiation or suitable temperature vectors, such as metal NPs [62]. In nanoparticle-mediated hyperthermia for cancer, NPs heat up cancerous cells beyond their temperature tolerance limits, which are lower than normal healthy tissue due to their poor blood supply, killing them selectively. This can be achieved by exposing the entire patient or the targeted area to an alternating current magnetic field, an intense light source or radiofrequencies which will cause the NPs to heat up and induce thermal ablation of the tumor. One of the most widespread examples of hyperthermia mediated by NPs, magnetic NPs have been introduced in the body through magnetic delivery systems or local injection to the affected area [63]. The first in vivo Phase II clinical trials of magnetic NP hyperthermia were undertaken in Germany in 2005 [64] by injecting the prostate of cancer patients with biocompatible magnetite NPs. Successful results were obtained using minimally invasive ablation of the tumor in an AC magnetic field after several sessions.

Noble metal NPs have thoroughly been used as photothermal agents for in vivo therapy as a less invasive experimental technique that holds great promise for the treatment of cancer [65]. It combines two key components: (i) light source, such as lasers with a spectral range of 650–900 nm [66] for deep tissue penetration and (ii) optical absorbing NPs which efficiently transforms the optical irradiation into heat on a picosecond time scale, thus inducing photothermal ablation [67, 68]. For example, Huang and coworkers demonstrated that Au-nanorods are effective photothermal agents due to their longitudinal absorption band in the NIR on account of their SPR oscillations [65, 66, 69]. Small diameter Au-nanorods are being used as photothermal converters of near infrared radiation (NIR) for in vivo applications due to their high absorption cross-sections beyond the tissue absorption spectra. Since NIR light transmits readily through human skin and tissue, these nanorods can be used as ablation components for cancer [70, 71]. Other gold nanostructures such as Au-nanoshells [7274], Au-nanocages [67, 75, 76], and spherical AuNPs [77] have also demonstrated effective photothermal destruction of cancer cells and tissue. PEG-modified Au-nanoshells (Silica/Au core/shell NPs) injected intravenously in tumor-bearing mice showed to passively accumulate in the tumor tissue due to the leakiness of the tumor vasculature. The rapid heating of Au-nanoshells upon NIR laser irradiation allowed for effective photothermal ablation of tumor in the mouse [78]. A similar approach was used by Terentyuk et al., where plasmonic silica/gold nanoshells were used to produce a controllable laser hyperthermia in tissues, thus enhancing the photothermal effect in cancer cells [79]. Sirotkina et al. described the use of AuNPs for skin tumor therapy based on local laser-inducing hyperthermia. After intravenous injection, the AuNPs accumulated in the skin tumor cells after 4-5 hours and induced apoptotic death of tumor cells, completely inhibiting the tumor growth after just five days of treatment [80].

The photothermal properties of AuNPs can also be used to generate transient vapor nanobubbles in order to produce a tunable nanoscale theranostic agent, described as plasmonic nanobubbles [81]. These nanobubbles are generated when the AuNPs are locally overheated with short laser pulses, due to the evaporation of a very thin volume of the surrounding medium, which in turn creates a vapor nanobubble that expands and collapses within nanoseconds. Plasmonic nanobubbles have been successfully applied as an in vivo tunable theranostic cellular agent in zebrafish hosting prostate cancer xenografts and in leukemia cells of human bone marrow specimens, presenting higher therapeutic selectivity when compared with AuNPs alone [82, 83]. The use of noninvasive radiowaves at 13.56 MHz have also been shown to induce heat in AuNPs and thermally destroy tumor tissue [84]. In vivo rat exposures to 35 Watts using direct AuNPs injections resulted in significant thermal injury at subcutaneous injection sites. Radio waves have the advantage of presenting significantly better penetration on tissue than NIR light, making them more efficient for deeper solid tumors [85]. Nonetheless, despite their greater depth of penetration, there is also greater energy attenuation by tissue.

Gold-silver-(AuAg-) nanorods labeled with molecular aptamers proved to require up to six orders of lower laser power irradiation to induce cell death when compared to Au-nanoshells or Au-nanorods [86]. These aptamer Scg8-AuAg-nanorods conjugates presented excellent hyperthermia efficiency and selectivity to CEM cells, exceeding the affinity of the original aptamer probes alone. Bimetallic AuAg-nanostructures with a dendrite morphology and hollow interior have also been developed as photothermal absorbers to destroy A549 lung cancer cells [87]. The photothermal performance of such dendrites required lower NP concentrations and laser power for efficient cancer cell damage when compared to Au-nanorods photothermal therapeutic agents. Likewise, Cheng and coworkers evaluated the photothermal efficiencies of three Au-based nanomaterials (silica@Au-nanoshells, hollow Au/Ag nanospheres and Au-nanorods) at killing three types of malignant cells (A549 lung cancer cells, HeLa cervix cancer cells, and TCC bladder cancer cells) using a CW NIR laser [88]. Silica@Au-nanoshells needed the lowest NP concentration for effective photo-ablation, whereas hollow Au/Ag nanospheres and Au-nanorods needed increasingly higher concentrations.

Gold has also been used together with magnetic or paramagnetic materials to enhance the photothermal effect and, thus, increase cancer cell death [89, 90].

2.4. Drug Delivery

The vast majority of clinically used drugs for cancer are low molecular-weight compounds that diffuse rapidly into healthy tissues being evenly distributed within the body, exhibit a short half-life in the blood stream and a high overall clearance rate. As a consequence, relatively small amounts of the drug reach the target site, and distribution into healthy tissues leads to severe side effects. Poor drug delivery and residence at the target site leads to significant complications, such as multidrug resistance [91]. As seen above, nanoparticles can be used as vectors for targeting cancer tissue/cells so as to optimize biodistribution of drugs. The NPs’ performance as drug vectors depends on the size and surface functionalities of the particles, drug release rate, and particle disintegration. These systems show evidence of enhanced delivery of unstable drugs, more targeted distribution and capability to evade/bypass biological barriers.

AuNPs have already been used as vehicles for the delivery of anticancer drugs, such as paclitaxel- [92] or Platinum- (Pt-) based drugs (e.g., cisplatin, oxaliplatin, etc.) [93, 94]. Gibson et al. described the first example of 2 nm AuNPs covalently functionalized with the chemotherapeutic drug paclitaxel [92]. The administrations of hydrophobic drugs require molecular encapsulation, and it is found that nanosized particles are particularly efficient in evading the reticuloendothelial system [95]. Gold-gold sulfide nanoshells covered by a thermosensitive hydrogel matrix have been developed as a photothermal modulated drug-delivery system [96]. These nanoshell-composite hydrogels were designed to strongly absorb NIR light and release multiple bursts of any soluble material held within the hydrogel matrix in response to repeated NIR irradiation. More recently, Yavuz and coworkers developed a similar approach using 50-nm hollow Au-nanocubes (nanocages) with eight lopped-off porous corners covered by a thermosensitive polymer containing a preloaded effector that can be later released in a controllable fashion using an NIR laser [18].

2.5. Radiotherapy

Radiotherapy uses ionizing radiation for cancer treatment to control the proliferation of malignant cells. Nonetheless, the delivery of a lethal dose of radiation to a tumor while sparing nearby healthy tissues remains the greatest challenge in radiation therapy. Noble metal NPs can act as antennas, providing enhanced radiation targeting with lower radiation doses, consequently avoiding damage to healthy tissues. The irradiation may also be used to activate the NPs and set up the release of their cytotoxic action. AuNPs, upon X-ray irradiation, can act as dose enhancers and/or generate radicals that damage cancer cells and induce cell apoptosis and have been proposed as potential radiosensitizers for X-ray cancer therapy [97]. The use of this strategy has led to improvement in the treatment on cancer cells with little or no increase in harm to normal surrounding tissues in mice models [15] and also in breast cancer [98]. More recently, Xu and coworkers studied the potential effects on radiation-induced killing of glioma cells mediated by 10, 20, and 40 nm AuNPs and 20, 50, and 100 nm silver nanoparticles (AgNPs), all modified with proteins from fetal bovine serum [99]. Treating glioma cells with AgNPs led to radiation dose-dependent cytotoxicity, with smaller size particles (20 and 50 nm) being the most cytotoxic at relatively harmless radiation doses. In this study, AuNPs showed little effect on cell survival across different doses of ionizing radiation, which contrasted with the results of previous studies performed with AuNPs coated with PEG or amino acids in mice colorectal adenocarcinoma and breast cancer cells [15, 98]. Hypothetically, the different coatings of the AuNPs used may be responsible for the different outcomes observed.

The use of platinum NPs (PtNPs) as prominent radiation sensitizers in radiotherapy cancer treatment showed strong enhancement of the biological efficiency of radiations, leading to amplified lethal damage in DNA from tumor cells, when compared to metal atoms [37].

3. Imaging

Along with their therapeutic capabilities, most noble metal NPs can be used for the simultaneous actuation and tracking in vivo—see Figure 2. Because light absorption from biologic tissue components is minimized at near infrared (NIR) wavelengths, most noble metal NPs for in vivo imaging and therapy have been designed to strongly absorb in the NIR so as to be used as effective contrast agents [100]. However, noble metal nanomaterials, such as NPs, nanoshells, nanoclusters, nanocages, and nanorods, have showed widespread application as contrast agents for in vivo cancer imaging: those presenting a significant absorbance and scattering in the NIR region [46, 101] or surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) [102], or as contrast agents for computed tomography (CT) [103], magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [104], optical coherence tomography (OCT) [105107], and photoacoustic imaging (PAI) [108]. Moreover, most noble metal nanomaterials are capable of combining multiple imaging modalities that can yield complementary information and offer synergistic advantages over any single imaging technique [109, 110].

751075.fig.002
Figure 2: Multifunctional NP-based systems for tumor targeting, delivery and imaging. These innovative NPs comprise nucleic acids, aptamers and anticancer drug molecules for delivery to the target tissue. Depending on the targeting mechanism, they can be on the surface or inside the NPs. Responsive NPs/molecules can also trigger reaction upon external stimuli through the functionality of valuable tumor markers, peptides, polymers and antibodies that can used to improve NP circulation, effectiveness and selectivity. Multifunctional systems can carry reporter molecules tethered to the particle surface and employed as tracking and/or contrast agents.

Three-dimensional imaging can be achieved by computed tomography (CT), where a series of plane-cross-sectional images along an axis are interlinked by computer to create a 3D image. Typically, the cross-sectional images are acquired using X-ray radiation involving larger radiation doses than the conventional X-ray imaging procedures, which could lead to increased risk to public health [111]. The use of ~30 nm PEG-coated AuNPs for in vivo CT contrast agent was shown to increase image contrast, which allows to reduce the radiation dosage needed, allow to overcome the limitations of conventional contrast agents (e.g., iodine-based compounds), such as short imaging times due to rapid renal clearance, renal toxicity, and vascular permeation [103]. Hybrid NPs with a super-paramagnetic iron oxide/silica core and a gold nanoshell, with significant absorbance and scattering in the NIR region, have been used in vivo as dual contrast agents for CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) presenting high CT attenuation and a good MR signal in hepatoma, compensating for the weakness of each modality [112].

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is an imaging modality that provides cross-sectional subsurface imaging of biological tissue with micrometer scale resolution. The extra scattering achieved by using Au-nanoshells has been shown to provide an enhanced optical contrast and brightness for improved diagnostic imaging of tumors in mice due to the preferential accumulation of the nanoshells in the tumor. [78]. Tseng et al. developed nanorings with a localized surface plasmon resonance covering a spectral range of 1300 nm that produced both photothermal and image contrast enhancement effects in OCT when delivered into pig adipose samples [113]. Moreover, the image contrast enhancement effect could be isolated by continuously scanning the sample with a lower scan frequency, allowing to effectively control the therapeutic modality. Similarly, gold capped nanoroses have been used in photothermal OCT to detect macrophages in ex vivo rabbit arteries [114].

Photoacoustic imaging (PAI) and photoacoustic tomography (PAT) are noninvasive imaging techniques capable of resolving the optical absorption map of tissue at penetration depths akin with ultrasound imaging. Wang and coworkers have used this technique to image the distribution of Au-nanoshells circulating in the vasculature of a rat brain by achieving a gradual enhancement of the NIR optical absorption in the brain vessels [115]. These Au-nanocages enhanced the contrast between blood and the surrounding tissues by up to 81%, allowing a more detailed image of vascular structures at greater depths. Additionally, these nanocages were shown to be better suited for in vivo applications, specially due to their more compact size (<50 nm compared to >100 nm for Au-nanoshells) and larger optical absorption cross sections when compared to Au-nanoshells. Gold-nanorods show the maximum of the plasmon resonance tuned further into the NIR that allowed Motamedi et al. to develop a contrast agent for a laser optoacoustic imaging system for in vivo detection of gold nanorods and to enhance the diagnostic power of optoacoustic imaging [116]. Song et al. proposed a noninvasive in vivo spectroscopic photoacoustic sentinel lymph node mapping using gold nanorods as lymph node tracers in a rat model [117].

Also, noble metal NP probes can be used for in situ diagnostics of cancer. For example, NP-based NIR probes can overcome several limitations of conventional NIR organic dyes, such as poor hydrophilicity and photostability, low quantum yield and detection sensitivity, insufficient stability in biological systems, and weak multiplexing capability. Additionally, the high scattering properties of these NPs can enhance contrast of imaging systems based on microscopy, such as dark-field or dual-photon luminescence microscopy. Zhang et al. developed fluorescent metal nanoshells as molecular imaging agents to detect single microRNA (miRNA) molecules in lung cancer cells [47]. These metal nanoshells were composed of silica spheres with encapsulated Ru ( b p y ) 3 2 + complexes as core and thin silver layers as shell. The silver shell allowed to enhance emission intensity up to 6-fold and photostability by 2-fold, as well as to achieve longer lifetime emission signals that overcome cellular autofluorescence interference. Loo et al. demonstrated the use of NIR scattering Au-nanoshells as a contrast agent in dark-field microscopy to target antihuman epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), a clinically significant breast cancer molecular marker [72]. These Au-nanoshells were also used by Bickford et al. for imaging live HER2-overexpressing cancer cells using two-photon microscopy [118].

Surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) using Au- or AgNPs with an attached reporter species with a Raman signature can be explored to highlight cellular structures and provide molecular structural information on the cellular environment in live cells [119, 120]. The use of such NPs allows for higher spectral specificity, multiplex capabilities, improved contrast and photostability to Raman-based imaging techniques. In situ monitoring of photothermal nanotherapy of LNCaP human prostate cancer cells by SERS was a significant enhancement of the Raman signal intensity by several orders of magnitude that have been observed [44].

4. Toxicity

Both in vivo and in vitro, nanoparticles have a tendency to accumulate within various types of cells with special affinity for macrophage-type cells (both histiocytes and blood phagocytic cells) and reticuloendothelial cells throughout the body. They also produce varying degrees of bioaccumulation in such tissues as lymph nodes, bone marrow, spleen, adrenals, liver, and kidneys [121123]. The NPs size plays an important role in avoiding immune activation and renal clearance, thus enhancing their circulating time and availability for effective therapy. For example, hydrophilic NPs ranging in size between 10 and 100 nm are small enough to slow down activation of the mononuclear phagocyte system but are big enough to avoid renal filtration [8]. Research shows that NPs can stimulate and/or suppress the immune responses and that their compatibility with the immune system is largely determined by their surface chemistry. In fact, the influence of size, solubility, and surface modification on the biocompatibility of NPs and their use in biological applications is well known [122]. In terms of acute toxic effects to cells, noble metal NPs have been shown to induce DNA damage and oxidative damage [124126].

Generally, AuNPs are considered to be benign, but the size similarity to biological molecules could provide “camouflage” to cellular barriers, leading to undesired cellular entry which might be detrimental to normal cellular function [127]. A systematic investigation of the size-dependent cytotoxicity of AuNPs against four cell lines found that 1 to 2 nm AuNPs displayed cell-type-dependent cytotoxicity with high micromolar IC50s, whereas 15 nm AuNPs were nontoxic to cells at concentrations 60-fold higher than the IC50 of the smaller AuNPs [128]. These results seemed to confirm size-dependent toxicity of AuNPs, an inference that has hitherto been shown to be somewhat ambivalent [129134]. In fact, Yen et al. showed that AuNPs, especially those of smaller sizes, dramatically led to a decrease in the population of the macrophages and upregulated the expressions of proinflammatory genes interlukin-1, interlukin-6, and tumor necrosis factor alpha [135]. Sun et al. studied the in vivo toxicity of AuNPs according to their shape in KM mice showing that rod-shaped AuNPs were the most toxic, followed by cube-shaped AuNPs, while sphere-shaped AuNPs displayed the best biocompatibility, revealing that toxicity is shape dependent. Moreover, this study revealed that all AuNPs accumulated preferentially in the liver and spleen organs [136]. Nonetheless, it is worth pointing out that CTAB (a cationic surfactant commonly used for Au-nanorods synthesis) was also recently pointed out as the source of Au-nanorods’ cytotoxicity, which may explain their toxicity in the previous studies [137].

Silver NPs are generally considered more toxic than AuNPs, with several studies showing that cell exposure to AgNPs induced significant cytotoxicity [138141]. Conversely, Yen et al. determined a lower cytotoxicity of AgNPs than that of the AuNPs and attributed this difference to the surface charges between NPs, which can explain the discrepancy with other studies related to AgNPs cytotoxicity [135].

As for platinum, the cytotoxicity of 5–8 nm PtNPs capped with polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) has been addressed in human cells, where PtNPs were shown to enter the cells through diffusion, leading to an increase in DNA damage, proliferating cell nuclear antigen-mediated growth arrest and apoptosis [126]. Asharani et al. performed a comparison between toxicity of 3–10 nm Pt-, 5–35 nm Ag-, and 15–35 nm AuNPs capped with PVA in developing zebrafish embryos, concluding that AgNPs were the most toxic, followed by PtNPs, while AuNPs presented no indication of toxicity [142].

Even though we have focused our attention on the toxicity aspects of the different noble metal nanoparticles based mainly on size and metal, attention should also be brought upon other properties of the nanoconjugates, such as surface chemistry, shape, and administration pathways. In fact, surface chemistry (e.g., functionalization with biomolecules, stabilizers, etc.) constitutes another interface of interaction with the organism’s proteins and cells, which in term may be associated with unspecific adsorption or specific recognition by the immune system, thus contributing to the overall effects of the use of the nanoparticles. The interaction with the immune system contributes not only for the specificity of the targeting (passive and/or active), but also towards the toxicological effect of nanoconjugates (see [122] and references therein).

5. Conclusions

Nanotechnology has provided for novel and powerful systems that may be used treatment and diagnostic of cancer. In vivo demonstrations of noble metal NPs as theranostic agents are now emerging and serve as important milestones towards clinical application. Nonetheless, the majority of products, reagents and drugs being used for the development of these nanoscale theranostic agents have still to be approved by the main supervising agencies, such as the FDA and EMA. Thus far, there are some questions whose answers still provide no clear understanding about the design and application of NPs, such as pharmacokinetics, biodistribution and side effects of the nanotherapy, and safety profile of NPs before and after conjugation and toxicity [10]. Are noble metal NPs cytotoxic or biocompatible? And how can the NPs be design to avoid these effects? These seem to question more difficult to answer than previously believed. Most therapeutic and imaging approaches based on noble metal NPs rely on AuNPs, mostly due to their higher level of nontoxicity. Nonetheless, a more comprehensive application of core/shell or alloy noble metal NPs, that may allow combination of the benefits of each noble metal into a single carrier, is still to be thoroughly addressed. Even though there is not any general mechanism for making NPs universally “nontoxic” to all living cells and all organisms, there are important findings that can be applied for increasing nanoparticle biocompatibility and reducing cytotoxic interactions in vivo and in vitro. In general, using the lowest NP dose to get the desired response for the shortest period of time seems to promote biocompatibility. The coating/capping of a nanoparticle is also of the utmost relevance, since a noncontinuous covering, the presence of cracks, roughness, or interruptions could lead to complement or antibody attachment, or dissolution of the coating by cell digestion, decreasing bioavailability at target cell [143]. It is essential to test nanoparticle/biological interactions experimentally and modify the NPs for best biocompatibility with the cell in order to eliminate damage to healthy tissue, guarding against alterations in genetic/molecular function while killing the abnormal cells. When interpreting NPs interactions with biological cells and organisms, it is important to remember that living systems may appear normal and be capable of growth and function, but they may be genetically altered in subtle ways following NP exposure, which can produce serious consequences at some time in the distant future, such as cancer itself.

Noble metal nanoparticles have shown to be powerful tools against cancer though still in need of further optimization and characterization for full understanding of their whole potential. It is now time to start translating these promising platforms to the clinical settings towards widespread effective therapy strategies in the fight against cancer.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge FCT/MCTES (Portugal) and CIGMH for financial support.

References

  1. A. Jemal, R. Siegel, J. Xu, and E. Ward, “Cancer statistics, 2010,” CA Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 277–300, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. A. Balmain, J. Gray, and B. Ponder, “The genetics and genomics of cancer,” Nature Genetics, vol. 33, pp. 238–244, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. D. Hanahan and R. A. Weinberg, “The hallmarks of cancer,” Cell, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 57–70, 2000. View at Scopus
  4. B. A. J. Ponder, “Cancer genetics,” Nature, vol. 411, no. 6835, pp. 336–341, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. N. P. Praetorius and T. K. Mandal, “Engineered nanoparticles in cancer therapy,” Recent Patents on Drug Delivery &amp; Formulation, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 37–51, 2007. View at Scopus
  6. M. Ferrari, “Cancer nanotechnology: opportunities and challenges,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 161–171, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. D. Peer, J. M. Karp, S. Hong, O. C. Farokhzad, R. Margalit, and R. Langer, “Nanocarriers as an emerging platform for cancer therapy,” Nature Nanotechnology, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 751–760, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. P. R. Gil and W. J. Parak, “Composite nanoparticles take aim at cancer,” ACS Nano, vol. 2, no. 11, pp. 2200–2205, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. N. Sanvicens and M. P. Marco, “Multifunctional nanoparticles—properties and prospects for their use in human medicine,” Trends in Biotechnology, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 425–433, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. P. V. Baptista, “Cancer nanotechnology—prospects for cancer diagnostics and therapy,” Current Cancer Therapy Reviews, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 80–88, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. J. R. Heath and M. E. Davis, “Nanotechnology and cancer,” Annual Review of Medicine, vol. 59, pp. 251–265, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. S. T. Selvan, T. T. Y. Tan, D. K. Yi, and N. R. Jana, “Functional and multifunctional nanoparticles for bioimaging and biosensing,” Langmuir, vol. 26, no. 14, pp. 11631–11641, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. P. Baptista, E. Pereira, P. Eaton et al., “Gold nanoparticles for the development of clinical diagnosis methods,” Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, vol. 391, no. 3, pp. 943–950, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. X. Huang, P. K. Jain, I. H. El-Sayed, and M. A. El-Sayed, “Gold nanoparticles: interesting optical properties and recent applications in cancer diagnostics and therapy,” Nanomedicine, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 681–693, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. J. F. Hainfeld, D. N. Slatkin, and H. M. Smilowitz, “The use of gold nanoparticles to enhance radiotherapy in mice,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 49, no. 18, pp. N309–N315, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. J. F. Hainfeld, F. A. Dilmanian, D. N. Slatkin, and H. M. Smilowitz, “Radiotherapy enhancement with gold nanoparticles,” Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 977–985, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. L. R. Hirsch, R. J. Stafford, J. A. Bankson et al., “Nanoshell-mediated near-infrared thermal therapy of tumors under magnetic resonance guidance,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 100, no. 23, pp. 13549–13554, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. M. S. Yavuz, Y. Cheng, J. Chen et al., “Gold nanocages covered by smart polymers for controlled release with near-infrared light,” Nature Materials, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 935–939, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. G. Han, P. Ghosh, and V. M. Rotello, “Multi-functional gold nanoparticles for drug delivery,” Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol. 620, pp. 48–56, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. M. Thomas and A. M. Klibanov, “Conjugation to gold nanoparticles enhances polyethylenimine's transfer of plasmid DNA into mammalian cells,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 100, no. 16, pp. 9138–9143, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. M. R. Jones, J. E. Millstone, D. A. Giljohann, D. S. Seferos, K. L. Young, and C. A. Mirkin, “Plasmonically controlled nucleic acid dehybridization with gold nanoprisms,” ChemPhysChem, vol. 10, no. 9-10, pp. 1461–1465, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. S. Bhattacharyya, R. A. Kudgus, R. Bhattacharya, and P. Mukherjee, “Inorganic nanoparticles in cancer therapy,” Pharmaceutical Research, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 237–259, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  23. P. Ghosh, G. Han, M. De, C. K. Kim, and V. M. Rotello, “Gold nanoparticles in delivery applications,” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 1307–1315, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. N. Nishiyama, “Nanomedicine: nanocarriers shape up for long life,” Nature Nanotechnology, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 203–204, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. J. Xie, S. Lee, and X. Chen, “Nanoparticle-based theranostic agents,” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, vol. 62, no. 11, pp. 1064–1079, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. T. K. Sau, A. L. Rogach, F. Jäckel, T. A. Klar, and J. Feldmann, “Properties and applications of colloidal nonspherical noble metal nanoparticles,” Advanced Materials, vol. 22, no. 16, pp. 1805–1825, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. R. A. Sperling, P. R. Gil, F. Zhang, M. Zanella, and W. J. Parak, “Biological applications of gold nanoparticles,” Chemical Society Reviews, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 1896–1908, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. P. K. Jain, X. Huang, I. H. El-Sayed, and M. A. El-Sayed, “Noble metals on the nanoscale: optical and photothermal properties and some applications in imaging, sensing, biology, and medicine,” Accounts of Chemical Research, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 1578–1586, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. K. S. Lee and M. A. El-Sayed, “Gold and silver nanoparticles in sensing and imaging: sensitivity of plasmon response to size, shape, and metal composition,” Journal of Physical Chemistry B, vol. 110, no. 39, pp. 19220–19225, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. R. A. Sperling and W. J. Parak, “Surface modification, functionalization and bioconjugation of colloidal Inorganic nanoparticles,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 368, no. 1915, pp. 1333–1383, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. H. Chen, L. Shao, T. Ming et al., “Understanding the photothermal conversion efficiency of gold nanocrystals,” Small, vol. 6, no. 20, pp. 2272–2280, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. E. S. Day, J. G. Morton, and J. L. West, “Nanoparticles for thermal cancer therapy,” Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, vol. 131, no. 7, Article ID 740011, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. P. Chandra, D. Das, and A. A. Abdelwahab, “Gold nanoparticles in molecular diagnostics and therapeutics,” Digest Journal of Nanomaterials and Biostructures, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 363–367, 2010. View at Scopus
  34. Y. Liu, H. Miyoshi, and M. Nakamura, “Nanomedicine for drug delivery and imaging: a promising avenue for cancer therapy and diagnosis using targeted functional nanoparticles,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 120, no. 12, pp. 2527–2537, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. A. G. Cuenca, H. Jiang, S. N. Hochwald, M. Delano, W. G. Cance, and S. R. Grobmyer, “Emerging implications of nanotechnology on cancer diagnostics and therapeutics,” Cancer, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 459–466, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. A. C. Powell, G. F. Paciotti, and S. K. Libutti, “Colloidal gold: a novel nanoparticle for targeted cancer therapeutics,” Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 624, pp. 375–384, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. E. Porcel, S. Liehn, H. Remita et al., “Platinum nanoparticles: a promising material for future cancer therapy?” Nanotechnology, vol. 21, no. 8, p. 85103, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. C. Minelli, S. B. Lowe, and M. M. Stevens, “Engineering nanocomposite materials for cancer therapy,” Small, vol. 6, no. 21, pp. 2336–2357, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. T. Stuchinskaya, M. Moreno, M. J. Cook, D. R. Edwards, and D. A. Russell, “Targeted photodynamic therapy of breast cancer cells using antibody-phthalocyanine-gold nanoparticle conjugates,” Photochemical and Photobiological Sciences, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 822–831, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  40. V. Raji, J. Kumar, C. S. Rejiya, M. Vibin, V. N. Shenoi, and A. Abraham, “Selective photothermal efficiency of citrate capped gold nanoparticles for destruction of cancer cells,” Experimental Cell Research, vol. 317, no. 14, pp. 2052–2058, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  41. P. Mukherjee, R. Bhattacharya, N. Bone et al., “Potential therapeutic application of gold nanoparticles in B-chronic lymphocytic leukemia (BCLL): enhancing apoptosis,” Journal of Nanobiotechnology, vol. 5, p. 4, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. D. A. Giljohann, D. S. Seferos, A. E. Prigodich, P. C. Patel, and C. A. Mirkin, “Gene regulation with polyvalent siRNA-nanoparticle conjugates,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 131, no. 6, pp. 2072–2073, 2009. View at Scopus
  43. K. A. Whitehead, R. Langer, and D. G. Anderson, “Knocking down barriers: advances in siRNA delivery,” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 129–138, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. W. Lu, A. K. Singh, S. A. Khan, D. Senapati, H. Yu, and P. C. Ray, “Gold nano-popcorn-based targeted diagnosis, nanotherapy treatment, and in situ monitoring of photothermal therapy response of prostate cancer cells using surface-enhanced raman spectroscopy,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 132, no. 51, pp. 18103–18114, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. X. Qian, X. H. Peng, D. O. Ansari et al., “In vivo tumor targeting and spectroscopic detection with surface-enhanced Raman nanoparticle tags,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 83–90, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. X. He, J. Gao, S. S. Gambhir, and Z. Cheng, “Near-infrared fluorescent nanoprobes for cancer molecular imaging: status and challenges,” Trends in Molecular Medicine, vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 574–583, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. J. Zhang, Y. Fu, Y. Mei, F. Jiang, and J. R. Lakowicz, “Fluorescent metal nanoshell probe to detect single mirna in lung cancer cell,” Analytical Chemistry, vol. 82, no. 11, pp. 4464–4471, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. Y. Fichou and C. Férec, “The potential of oligonucleotides for therapeutic applications,” Trends in Biotechnology, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 563–570, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. N. Toub, C. Malvy, E. Fattal, and P. Couvreur, “Innovative nanotechnologies forthedelivery ofoligonucleotides andsiRNA,” Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 607–620, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. A. Fire, S. Xu, M. K. Montgomery, S. A. Kostas, S. E. Driver, and C. C. Mello, “Potent and specific genetic interference by double-stranded RNA in caenorhabditis elegans,” Nature, vol. 391, no. 6669, pp. 806–811, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. M. Baker, “RNA interference: from tools to therapies,” Nature, vol. 464, no. 7292, p. 1225, 2010. View at Scopus
  52. O. Milhavet, D. S. Gary, and M. P. Mattson, “RNA interference in biology and medicine,” Pharmacological Reviews, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 629–648, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. N. R. Wall and Y. Shi, “Small RNA: can RNA interference be exploited for therapy?” The Lancet, vol. 362, no. 9393, pp. 1401–1403, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. G. J. Hannon and J. J. Rossi, “Unlocking the potential of the human genome with RNA interference,” Nature, vol. 431, no. 7006, pp. 371–378, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. N. L. Rosi, D. A. Giljohann, C. S. Thaxton, A. K. R. Lytton-Jean, M. S. Han, and C. A. Mirkin, “Oligonucleotide-modified gold nanoparticles for infracellular gene regulation,” Science, vol. 312, no. 5776, pp. 1027–1030, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. J. S. Lee, J. J. Green, K. T. Love, J. Sunshine, R. Langer, and D. G. Anderson, “Gold, poly(β-amino ester) nanoparticles for small interfering RNA delivery,” Nano Letters, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 2402–2406, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. G. B. Braun, A. Pallaoro, G. Wu et al., “Laser-activated gene silencing via gold nanoshell-siRNA conjugates,” ACS Nano, vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 2007–2015, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. S. Guo, Y. Huang, Q. Jiang et al., “Enhanced gene delivery and siRNA silencing by gold nanoparticles coated with charge-reversal polyelectrolyte,” ACS Nano, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 5505–5511, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. S. H. Lee, K. H. Bae, S. H. Kim, K. R. Lee, and T. G. Park, “Amine-functionalized gold nanoparticles as non-cytotoxic and efficient intracellular siRNA delivery carriers,” International Journal of Pharmaceutics, vol. 364, no. 1, pp. 94–101, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. A. R. Wadhwani, W. L. Klein, and P. N. Lacor, “Efficient gene silencing in neural cells by functionalized gold nanoparticles,” Nanoscape, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 6–10, 2010.
  61. R. B. Roemer, “Engineering aspects of hyperthermia therapy,” Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 347–376, 1999. View at Scopus
  62. P. Cherukuri, E. S. Glazer, and S. A. Curley, “Targeted hyperthermia using metal nanoparticles,” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 339–345, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. D. P. O'Neal, L. R. Hirsch, N. J. Halas, J. D. Payne, and J. L. West, “Photo-thermal tumor ablation in mice using near infrared-absorbing nanoparticles,” Cancer Letters, vol. 209, no. 2, pp. 171–176, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. M. Johannsen, U. Gneveckow, L. Eckelt et al., “Clinical hyperthermia of prostate cancer using magnetic nanoparticles: presentation of a new interstitial technique,” International Journal of Hyperthermia, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 637–647, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  65. X. Huang, P. K. Jain, I. H. El-Sayed, and M. A. El-Sayed, “Determination of the minimum temperature required for selective photothermal destruction of cancer cells with the use of immunotargeted gold nanoparticles,” Photochemistry and Photobiology, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 412–417, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  66. X. Huang, I. H. El-Sayed, W. Qian, and M. A. El-Sayed, “Cancer cell imaging and photothermal therapy in the near-infrared region by using gold nanorods,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 128, no. 6, pp. 2115–2120, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  67. J. Chen, D. Wang, J. Xi et al., “Immuno gold nanocages with tailored optical properties for targeted photothermal destruction of cancer cells,” Nano Letters, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 1318–1322, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  68. Y. Haba, C. Kojima, A. Harada, T. Ura, H. Horinaka, and K. Kono, “Preparation of poly(ethylene glycol)-modified poly(amido amine) dendrimers encapsulating gold nanoparticles and their heat-generating ability,” Langmuir, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 5243–5246, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  69. X. Huang, I. H. El-Sayed, and M. A. El-Sayed, “Applications of gold nanorods for cancer imaging and photothermal therapy,” Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 624, pp. 343–357, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  70. W. S. Kuo, C. N. Chang, Y. T. Chang et al., “Gold nanorods in photodynamic therapy, as hyperthermia agents, and in near-infrared optical imaging,” Angewandte Chemie—International Edition, vol. 49, no. 15, pp. 2711–2715, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  71. L. Tong, Q. Wei, A. Wei, and J. X. Cheng, “Gold nanorods as contrast agents for biological imaging: optical properties, surface conjugation and photothermal effects,” Photochemistry and Photobiology, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 21–32, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  72. C. Loo, A. Lowery, N. Halas, J. West, and R. Drezek, “Immunotargeted nanoshells for integrated cancer imaging and therapy,” Nano Letters, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 709–711, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  73. C. Loo, L. Hirsch, M. H. Lee et al., “Gold nanoshell bioconjugates for molecular imaging in living cells,” Optics Letters, vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 1012–1014, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  74. S. Lal, S. E. Clare, and N. J. Halas, “Nanoshell-enabled photothermal cancer therapy: impending clinical impact,” Accounts of Chemical Research, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 1842–1851, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  75. S. E. Skrabalak, L. Au, X. Lu, X. Li, and Y. Xia, “Gold nanocages for cancer detection and treatment,” Nanomedicine, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 657–668, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  76. Y. Xia, W. Li, C. M. Cobley, et al., “Gold nanocages: from synthesis to theranostic applications,” Accounts of Chemical Research. In press. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  77. X. Huang, P. K. Jain, I. H. El-Sayed, and M. A. El-Sayed, “Plasmonic photothermal therapy (PPTT) using gold nanoparticles,” Lasers in Medical Science, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 217–228, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  78. A. M. Gobin, M. H. Lee, N. J. Halas, W. D. James, R. A. Drezek, and J. L. West, “Near-infrared resonant nanoshells for combined optical imaging and photothermal cancer therapy,” Nano Letters, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 1929–1934, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  79. G. S. Terentyuk, G. N. Maslyakova, L. V. Suleymanova et al., “Laser-induced tissue hyperthermia mediated by gold nanoparticles: toward cancer phototherapy,” Journal of Biomedical Optics, vol. 14, no. 2, Article ID 021016, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  80. M. A. Sirotkina, V. V. Elagin, M. V. Shirmanova et al., “OCT-guided laser hyperthermia with passively tumor-targeted gold nanoparticles,” Journal of Biophotonics, vol. 3, no. 10-11, pp. 718–727, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  81. E. Y. Lukianova-Hleb, A. O. Oginsky, A. P. Samaniego, et al., “Tunable plasmonic nanoprobes for theranostics of prostate cancer,” Theranostics, vol. 1, pp. 3–17, 2011.
  82. D. S. Wagner, N. A. Delk, E. Y. Lukianova-Hleb, J. H. Hafner, M. C. Farach-Carson, and D. O. Lapotko, “The in vivo performance of plasmonic nanobubbles as cell theranostic agents in zebrafish hosting prostate cancer xenografts,” Biomaterials, vol. 31, no. 29, pp. 7567–7574, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  83. D. O. Lapotko, E. Lukianova, and A. A. Oraevsky, “Selective laser nano-thermolysis of human leukemia cells with microbubbles generated around clusters of gold nanoparticles,” Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 631–642, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  84. J. Cardinal, J. R. Klune, E. Chory et al., “Noninvasive radiofrequency ablation of cancer targeted by gold nanoparticles,” Surgery, vol. 144, no. 2, pp. 125–132, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  85. P. Bernardi, M. Cavagnaro, S. Pisa, and E. Piuzzi, “Specific absorption rate and temperature elevation in a subject exposed in the far-field of radio-frequency sources operating in the 10–900-MHz range,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 295–304, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  86. Y. F. Huang, K. Sefah, S. Bamrungsap, H. T. Chang, and W. Tan, “Selective photothermal therapy for mixed cancer cells using aptamer-conjugated nanorods,” Langmuir, vol. 24, no. 20, pp. 11860–11865, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  87. K. W. Hu, C. C. Huang, J. R. Hwu, W. C. Su, D. B. Shieh, and C. S. Yeh, “A new photothermal therapeutic agent: core-free nanostructured Au x Ag1-x dendrites,” Chemistry, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 2956–2964, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  88. F. Y. Cheng, C. T. Chen, and C. S. Yeh, “Comparative efficiencies of photothermal destruction of malignant cells using antibody-coated silica@Au nanoshells, hollow Au/Ag nanospheres and Au nanorods,” Nanotechnology, vol. 20, no. 42, p. 425104, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  89. F. Mohammad, G. Balaji, A. Weber, R. M. Uppu, and C. S. S. R. Kumar, “Influence of gold nanoshell on hyperthermia of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles,” Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 114, no. 45, pp. 19194–19201, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  90. D. H. Kim, E. A. Rozhkova, T. Rajh, S. D. Bader, and V. Novosad, “Synthesis of hybrid gold/iron oxide nanoparticles in block copolymer micelles for imaging, drug delivery, and magnetic hyperthermia,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 45, no. 10, Article ID 5257027, pp. 4821–4824, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  91. B. Ehdaie, “Application of nanotechnology in cancer research: review of progress in the National Cancer Institute's alliance for nanotechnology,” International Journal of Biological Sciences, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 108–110, 2007. View at Scopus
  92. J. D. Gibson, B. P. Khanal, and E. R. Zubarev, “Paclitaxel-functionalized gold nanoparticles,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 129, no. 37, pp. 11653–11661, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  93. S. Dhar, W. L. Daniel, D. A. Giljohann, C. A. Mirkin, and S. J. Lippard, “Polyvalent oligonucleotide gold nanoparticle conjugates as delivery vehicles for platinum(IV) warheads,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 131, no. 41, pp. 14652–14653, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  94. S. D. Brown, P. Nativo, J. A. Smith et al., “Gold nanoparticles for the improved anticancer drug delivery of the active component of oxaliplatin,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 132, no. 13, pp. 4678–4684, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  95. J. R. Hwu, Y. S. Lin, T. Josephrajan et al., “Targeted paclitaxel by conjugation to iron oxide and gold nanoparticles,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 131, no. 1, pp. 66–68, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  96. S. R. Sershen, S. L. Westcott, N. J. Halas, and J. L. West, “Temperature-sensitive polymer-nanoshell composites for photothermally modulated drug delivery,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 293–298, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  97. H. C. Sang, “Estimation of tumour dose enhancement due to gold nanoparticles during typical radiation treatments: a preliminary Monte Carlo study,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 50, no. 15, pp. N163–N173, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  98. T. Kong, J. Zeng, X. Wang et al., “Enhancement of radiation cytotoxicity in breast-cancer cells by localized attachment of gold nanoparticles,” Small, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 1537–1543, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  99. R. Xu, J. Ma, X. Sun et al., “Ag nanoparticles sensitize IR-induced killing of cancer cells,” Cell Research, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 1031–1034, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  100. J. H. Lee, Y. M. Huh, Y. W. Jun et al., “Artificially engineered magnetic nanoparticles for ultra-sensitive molecular imaging,” Nature Medicine, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 95–99, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  101. E. I. Altinoǧlu and J. H. Adair, “Near infrared imaging with nanoparticles,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 461–477, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  102. J. Kneipp, H. Kneipp, B. Wittig, and K. Kneipp, “Novel optical nanosensors for probing and imaging live cells,” Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology, and Medicine, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 214–226, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  103. D. Kim, S. Park, H. L. Jae, Y. J. Yong, and S. Jon, “Antibiofouling polymer-coated gold nanoparticles as a contrast agent for in vivo X-ray computed tomography imaging,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 129, no. 24, pp. 7661–7665, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  104. P. Vartholomeos, M. Fruchard, A. Ferreira, and C. Mavroidis, “MRI-guided nanorobotic systems for therapeutic and diagnostic applications,” Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, vol. 13, pp. 157–184, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  105. E. V. Zagaynova, M. V. Shirmanova, M. Y. Kirillin et al., “Contrasting properties of gold nanoparticles for optical coherence tomography: phantom, in vivo studies and Monte Carlo simulation,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 53, no. 18, pp. 4995–5009, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  106. J. C. Kah, M. Olivo, T. H. Chow et al., “Control of optical contrast using gold nanoshells for optical coherence tomography imaging of mouse xenograft tumor model in vivo,” Journal of Biomedical Optics, vol. 14, no. 5, p. 054015, 2009. View at Scopus
  107. A. L. Oldenburg, M. N. Hansen, T. S. Ralston, A. Wei, and S. A. Boppart, “Imaging gold nanorods in excised human breast carcinoma by spectroscopic optical coherence tomography,” Journal of Materials Chemistry, vol. 19, no. 35, pp. 6407–6411, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  108. X. Yang, E. W. Stein, S. Ashkenazi, and L. V. Wang, “Nanoparticles for photoacoustic imaging,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 360–368, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  109. D. B. Chithrani, “Nanoparticles for improved therapeutics and imaging in cancer therapy,” Recent Patents on Nanotechnology, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 171–180, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  110. E. C. Cho, C. Glaus, J. Chen, M. J. Welch, and Y. Xia, “Inorganic nanoparticle-based contrast agents for molecular imaging,” Trends in Molecular Medicine, vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 561–573, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  111. D. J. Brenner and E. J. Hall, “Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 357, no. 22, pp. 2277–2284, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  112. D. Kim, M. K. Yu, T. S. Lee, J. J. Park, Y. Y. Jeong, and S. Jon, “Amphiphilic polymer-coated hybrid nanoparticles as CT/MRI dual contrast agents,” Nanotechnology, vol. 22, no. 15, p. 155101, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  113. H. Y. Tseng, C. K. Lee, S. Y. Wu et al., “Au nanorings for enhancing absorption and backscattering monitored with optical coherence tomography,” Nanotechnology, vol. 21, no. 29, p. 295102, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  114. A. S. Paranjape, R. Kuranov, S. Baranov, et al., “Depth resolved photothermal OCT detection of macrophages in tissue using nanorose,” Biomedical Optics Express, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 2–16, 2010.
  115. Y. Wang, X. Xie, X. Wang et al., “Photoacoustic tomography of a nanoshell contrast agent in the in vivo rat brain,” Nano Letters, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 1689–1692, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  116. M. Eghtedari, A. Oraevsky, J. A. Copland, N. A. Kotov, A. Conjusteau, and M. Motamedi, “High sensitivity of in vivo detection of gold nanorods using a laser optoacoustic imaging system,” Nano Letters, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 1914–1918, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  117. K. H. Song, C. Kim, K. Maslov, and L. V. Wang, “Noninvasive in vivo spectroscopic nanorod-contrast photoacoustic mapping of sentinel lymph nodes,” European Journal of Radiology, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 227–231, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  118. L. Bickford, J. Sun, K. Fu et al., “Enhanced multi-spectral imaging of live breast cancer cells using immunotargeted gold nanoshells and two-photon excitation microscopy,” Nanotechnology, vol. 19, no. 31, p. 315102, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  119. J. Kneipp, H. Kneipp, M. McLaughlin, D. Brown, and K. Kneipp, “In vivo molecular probing of cellular compartments with gold nanoparticles and nanoaggregates,” Nano Letters, vol. 6, no. 10, pp. 2225–2231, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  120. A. Matschulat, D. Drescher, and J. Kneipp, “Surface-enhanced Raman scattering hybrid nanoprobe multiplexing and imaging in biological systems,” ACS Nano, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 3259–3269, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  121. Y. S. Chen, Y. C. Hung, I. Liau, and G. S. Huang, “Assessment of the in vivo toxicity of gold nanoparticles,” Nanoscale Research Letters, vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 858–864, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  122. M. A. Dobrovolskaia and S. E. McNeil, “Immunological properties of engineered nanomaterials,” Nature Nanotechnology, vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 469–478, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  123. C. Lasagna-Reeves, D. Gonzalez-Romero, M. A. Barria et al., “Bioaccumulation and toxicity of gold nanoparticles after repeated administration in mice,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 393, no. 4, pp. 649–655, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  124. J. J. Li, D. Hartono, C. N. Ong, B. H. Bay, and L. Y. L. Yung, “Autophagy and oxidative stress associated with gold nanoparticles,” Biomaterials, vol. 31, no. 23, pp. 5996–6003, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  125. S. Hackenberg, A. Scherzed, M. Kessler et al., “Silver nanoparticles: evaluation of DNA damage, toxicity and functional impairment in human mesenchymal stem cells,” Toxicology Letters, vol. 201, no. 1, pp. 27–33, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  126. P. V. Asharani, N. Xinyi, M. P. Hande, and S. Valiyaveettil, “DNA damage and p53-mediated growth arrest in human cells treated with platinum nanoparticles,” Nanomedicine, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 51–64, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  127. E. E. Connor, J. Mwamuka, A. Gole, C. J. Murphy, and M. D. Wyatt, “Gold nanoparticles are taken up by human cells but do not cause acute cytotoxicity,” Small, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 325–327, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  128. Y. Pan, S. Neuss, A. Leifert et al., “Size-dependent cytotoxicity of gold nanoparticles,” Small, vol. 3, no. 11, pp. 1941–1949, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  129. I. H. El-Sayed, X. Huang, and M. A. El-Sayed, “Surface plasmon resonance scattering and absorption of anti-EGFR antibody conjugated gold nanoparticles in cancer diagnostics: applications in oral cancer,” Nano Letters, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 829–834, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  130. M. E. H. El-Sayed, A. S. Hoffman, and P. S. Stayton, “Smart polymeric carriers for enhanced intracellular delivery of therapeutic macromolecules,” Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 23–32, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  131. X. L. Huang, B. Zhang, L. Ren et al., “In vivo toxic studies and biodistribution of near infrared sensitive Au-Au2S nanoparticles as potential drug delivery carriers,” Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 2581–2588, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  132. C. K. Kim, P. Ghosh, C. Pagliuca, Z. J. Zhu, S. Menichetti, and V. M. Rotello, “Entrapment of hydrophobic drugs in nanoparticle monolayers with efficient release into cancer cells,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 131, no. 4, pp. 1360–1361, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  133. G. F. Paciotti, L. Myer, D. Weinreich et al., “Colloidal gold: a novel nanoparticle vector for tumor directed drug delivery,” Drug Delivery, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 169–183, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  134. R. K. Visaria, R. J. Griffin, B. W. Williams et al., “Enhancement of tumor thermal therapy using gold nanoparticle-assisted tumor necrosis factor-α delivery,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1014–1020, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  135. H. J. Yen, S. H. Hsu, and C. L. Tsai, “Cytotoxicity and immunological response of gold and silver nanoparticles of different sizes,” Small, vol. 5, no. 13, pp. 1553–1561, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  136. Y. N. Sun, C. D. Wang, X. M. Zhang, L. Ren, and X. H. Tian, “Shape dependence of gold nanoparticles on in vivo acute toxicological effects and biodistribution,” Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1210–1216, 2011.
  137. Y. Qiu, Y. Liu, L. Wang et al., “Surface chemistry and aspect ratio mediated cellular uptake of Au nanorods,” Biomaterials, vol. 31, no. 30, pp. 7606–7619, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  138. L. Braydich-Stolle, S. Hussain, J. J. Schlager, and M. C. Hofmann, “In vitro cytotoxicity of nanoparticles in mammalian germline stem cells,” Toxicological Sciences, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 412–419, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  139. S. M. Hussain, K. L. Hess, J. M. Gearhart, K. T. Geiss, and J. J. Schlager, “In vitro toxicity of nanoparticles in BRL 3A rat liver cells,” Toxicology in Vitro, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 975–983, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  140. K. F. Soto, A. Carrasco, T. G. Powell, K. M. Garza, and L. E. Murr, “Comparative in vitro cytotoxicity assessment of some manufacture dnanoparticulate materials characterized by transmission electron microscopy,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 7, no. 2-3, pp. 145–169, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  141. R. Foldbjerg, D. A. Dang, and H. Autrup, “Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of silver nanoparticles in the human lung cancer cell line, A549,” Archives of Toxicology, vol. 85, no. 7, pp. 743–750, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  142. P. V. Asharani, Y. Lianwu, Z. Gong, and S. Valiyaveettil, “Comparison of the toxicity of silver, gold and platinum nanoparticles in developing zebrafish embryos,” Nanotoxicology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 43–54, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  143. S. Bellucci, “Nanoparticles and nanodevices in biological applications,” Lecture Notes in Nanoscale Science and Technology, vol. 4, pp. 1–198, 2009.