Journal of Nanomaterials

Journal of Nanomaterials / 2020 / Article
Special Issue

Advanced Nano/Micro Materials for Drug Delivery Applications

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 |Article ID 2047379 |

Kankai Wang, Xiaohong Zhu, Enxing Yu, Priyanka Desai, Hao Wang, Chun-li Zhang, Qichuan Zhuge, Jianjing Yang, Jiangnan Hu, "Therapeutic Nanomaterials for Neurological Diseases and Cancer Therapy", Journal of Nanomaterials, vol. 2020, Article ID 2047379, 18 pages, 2020.

Therapeutic Nanomaterials for Neurological Diseases and Cancer Therapy

Academic Editor: Garima Agrawal
Received11 Apr 2020
Accepted03 Aug 2020
Published25 Sep 2020


In the recent decade, nanomedicine and nanotechnology have been broadly developed leading to a significant advancement in biomedical research as well as clinical practices. The application of several functionalized nanomaterials on the molecular and cellular levels has yielded a lot of promising progresses in various fields of regenerative medicine including disease diagnosis, combinational cell therapy, tissue engineering, and drug and gene delivery. In this review, we will summarize the recent approaches of nanoscale materials utilized in neurological diseases and cancer therapy, with highlights on the most current findings and future prospects of diverse biomedical nanomaterials for tissue regeneration, drug innovations, and the synthesis of delivery system.

1. Introduction

Nanomedicine is a promising field that uses nanosized (10-100 nm) materials to facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of diseases. These nanomaterials with being used as a drug are also used as a carrier, a scaffold, or an imaging agent [13]. In common, all these applications could benefit from the extraordinary properties of nanomaterials, such as high specific surface area, transformable shape and size, and tunable chemical reactivity. A high surface area gives nanomaterials a huge adsorption capacity to load various molecules of a certain density like drugs, proteins, genes, and metal ion for the drug delivery, targeting ability, or disease interventions. In addition, shape (sphere, rod, wire, fiber, tube, etc.) and size can also influence the characteristics of nanomaterials [4, 5]. All these clues indicate that nanomaterials possess an ever-changing capacity, enabling them to adapt to different application environments.

Neurological diseases and cancer are affecting approximately billions of people worldwide irrespective of age, sex, education, or income. Neurological diseases, including Alzheimer’s (AD), Parkinson’s (PD), and stroke, have caused tremendous pressure on human health. Not only is the pathogenic mechanism still unclear, the special anatomical location of the brain and its criticality also make few drugs safe to achieve therapeutic effects. The blood-brain barrier (BBB) is obviously one of the key barriers. It prevents most drugs from freely entering and leaving the brain, but its integrity is vital to the safety of the central nervous system. Therefore, we can only try to bypass or cross this barrier in certain ways without destroying the BBB. Drugs based on nanomaterials are one of the promising ways to realize this idea. In addition, specially designed nanomaterials can also improve the thrombolytic process of ischemic stroke and the effect of stem cell transplantation. Similarly, in cancer treatment, nanomaterials rely on their unique advantages to accurately target some biotoxic drugs to cancer tissues without causing damage to normal tissues [6].

Currently, a wide variety of nanomaterials have been tested in neurological diseases and tumors, including liposomes, micelles, polymeric nanomaterials, carbon nanotubes, quantum dots, and metallic nanomaterials. Each of them shows great promise in clinical applications, although there are still many shortcomings to be resolved. Several nanomaterials, including liposomal vincristine, liposomal irinotecan, PEGylated IFN beta-1a, and PEGylated factor VIII, have been approved by the US FDA, or in the FDA clinical trial processes [7] which signify the development of nanomaterials and their journey from lab to bedside. In this review, we will focus on the application of nanomedicine in neurological diseases and cancer.

2. Therapeutic Nanomaterials for Neurological Diseases

2.1. Nanomaterial for Neurodegeneration

Neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s (AD), Parkinson’s (PD), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) generally have a long pathological damage process, which causes inestimable harm to the patients and their families [8]. Since the 1990s, with the continuous maturity of nanotechnology, the technical barriers to nanomaterial research have disappeared [9]. In the studies of neurodegenerative diseases, nanomaterials have gradually entered the field of vision for researchers. Various nanomaterials including lipid-based nanomaterials (liposomes, solid lipid nanoparticle (SLN)), polymeric nanomaterials (micelle, dendrimer, nanocapsule, and nanosphere), and inorganic nanomaterials have been used for research.

At present, the research direction of nanomaterials in neurodegenerative diseases is mainly focused on drug delivery, maintaining drug concentration, and early accurate diagnosis and treatment of diseases based on the characteristics of nanomaterials. For example, lipid-based nanomaterials and polymeric nanomaterials showed great biocompatibility and membrane penetrating power [10, 11]. They have significant advantages over traditional drugs in their ability to cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB), along with the slow and controlled release of the drug. In the research of PD, the use of poly lactide-co-glycolide (PLGA) as a controlled release shell for levodopa or neurotrophic factors has been studied by researchers for more than 20 years [1214]. Gold nanomaterials, carbon nanotubes, and other inorganic nanomaterials are easy to shape and transform and can be stably identified by imaging and laboratory methods. An interesting study published in 2017 pointed out that the BBB permeability of gold nanomaterials is closely related to their shape; the size with 20 nm circular particles could achieve the strongest penetration [15]. Nowadays, with the development of imaging science, various studies on the enhancement of imaging performance of gold nanomaterials have emerged endlessly. Some research groups demonstrated that dopamine could enhance Raman spectroscopic scattering on the surface of self-assembled gold nanomaterials, making it possible to monitor dopamine levels in the brain [16]. The applications of various nanomaterials in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases were exhibited in Table 1 [17].

TypeNanomaterialsDrugs deliveredDiseaseFindingsDisadvantagesReferences

Lipid-based nanomaterialsPrp CsiRNA-RVG-9r-liposomesPrp CsiRNA RVG-9rPrp CsNeurodegenerative protein misfolding diseases (NPMD)Increase delivery efficiency, prolong half-life of drug in peripheral circulation, and increase BBB passage rate.In animal experiments, mice treated with nanomaterials have a certain probability of causing type III acute allergic reaction.[18]
Fus-liposomes-rhFGF20rhFGF20Parkinson’s disease (PD)Extend drug half-life, high encapsulation rate, increase BBB penetration ability, slow-release drugs, targeting, high biocompatibility.Not mentioned.[19]
RVG29-liposomesN-3,4-Bis(pivaloyloxy)-dopaminePDHigh BBB penetrability, high biocompatibility, striatum nigra targeting, drug sustained release.Not mentioned.[20]
PEG-liposomes-MBsGDNF+Nurr1PDUltrasound-guided ability, ultrasound-guided BBB penetration ability, sustained release, and extended drug half-life.Poor BBB penetration.[21]
RMP7-lf-PEG-liposomesQuercetinAlzheimer’s disease (AD)High BBB penetration ability, SK-N-MC cell targeting, drug sustained release.May be able to induce inflammation.[22]
NGF-SM-ApoE-liposomesNerve growth factor, surface serotonin modulator, ApoEADMaintain NGF activity, high biocompatibility, high BBB permeability, Aβ1-42 and SK-N-MC cell targeting, sustained release of contents.Not mentioned.[23]
Polymeric nanomaterialsNanomicellar system (SANS)L-DOPAPDAutonomous formation, easy to manufacture, epidermal permeability, drug sustained release.Lack of targeting.[24]
LD crystalsomes (micellar)L-DOPAPDAutonomous formation, easy to manufacture, drug sustained release, good biocompatibility, higher drug delivery efficiency.The biological toxicity is not clear.[25]
Pluronic P85/F68 micellesBaicaleinPDSelf-forming, stable character suitable for oral administration, sustained release, enhance content of crossing BBB capacity, enhance content of cell accumulation.Weak BBB permeability, may cause damage to the structure and function of mitochondria.[26]
Mixed-shell polymeric micelle (MSPM)NoneADAβ deposits are targeted, Aβ deposits have strong affinity, reduce the production of proinflammatory factors, have good BBB permeability and strong biocompatibility.Longer metabolic time.[27]
C(NCAM-C3)T(TPP)-N(nano)M(micelle)ResveratrolADAutomated assembly, good BBB permeability, high encapsulation efficiency, mitochondrial targeting, cumulative, drug sustained release, reduce expression of proinflammatory factors.Longer metabolic time.[28]
MicelleCurcuminADAutomatic formation, good drug encapsulation rate, drug sustained release, BBB permeability.Not targeted itself.[29]
PAMAM dendrimersCarbamazepineNeurodegeneration (ND)Improve the solubility of the package, increase the stability of the package, good drug packaging ability, reduce the package of peripheral and cellular toxicity, good biocompatibility.Not resistant to acid and alkali, high concentration, easy to kill, drug sustained release ability is poor.[30]
G4HisMal-dendrimersBoc-L-histidineADHigh BBB permeability, good biocompatibility, Aβ (1 − 40) targeting.Not mentioned.[31]
Lactoferrin coupled PAMAM dendrimers (PAMAM-lf)MemantineADDrug sustained release, controlled release, extended drug half-life, good encapsulation ability, high drug delivery efficiency, good BBB penetration, and brain targeting.Have some blood toxicity.[32]
Phosphorus dendrimersPhosphorusPDSome anti-HIV ability, inhibition of -SYN fibrosis.Hematotoxicity.[33]
Carbosilane dendrimersNonePDInhibits ASN fibrillation, reduces ROS, and protects nerve cells.Not mentioned.[34]
Dopamine-loaded PLGA nanomaterialsDopaminePDProlonged half-life, slow-release, controlled-release, decreased peripheral circulation toxicity, good biocompatibility, decreased Ros, striatum targeting, BBB permeability.Cause inflammation in the targeted area.[35]
Collagen-coated PLGANonePDGood cell adhesion, good biocompatibility, and certain ability to promote cell growth.Not mentioned.[36]
PLK2-PLGA-NPPLK2PDInhibition of drug degradation, improvement of enzyme stability and long-term drug release, good biocompatibility and strong encapsulation ability.Not mentioned.[37]
Fe3O4-PEG/PLGA-OX26Magnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles, OX26ADStrong drug loading, magnetic targeting, biocompatibility, sustained release, controlled release.Larger particles.[38]
Inorganic nanomaterialsHollow gold nanoparticlesXanthocerasideNDLarge drug loading, increased drug solubility, can be traced.No targeted ability[39]
Hollow au/Ag nanostarsNoneNDLarge surface area, high Raman spectrum activity, and high near-infrared light sensitivity.Unknown biological toxicity.[40]
Concave cubic Qu-P80-AuPdQuercetinADGood biocompatibility, good BBB penetration, high loading capacity, low cytotoxicity, good biocompatibility, lysosomal targeting.Not mentioned.[41]
GNRs-APH-scFv, GASThermophilic acylpeptide hydrolaseADGood biocompatibility, strong photothermal effect, near infrared light sensitivity, low toxicity, stable physical and chemical properties.Self-BBB penetration is slightly worse.[42]
Single-wall carbon nanotubes and gold nanoparticles modified screen-printed electrodesNonePD (dopamine monitoring)High sensitivity, good stability, small damage, real-time monitoring.Not mentioned.[43]
Functionalized random networks of carbon nanotube RN-CNTNonePD (early diagnosis)High sensitivity, high detection accuracy, high degree of integration of DOPA.Not mentioned.[44]
Carbon nanotubes (CNTs)NonePDReduce glial cell proliferation, increase stem cell proliferation, good biocompatibility.Not mentioned.[45]
SWCNT-PEGs-lfL -1 6-hydro--xydopaminePDStriatal targeting, high biocompatibility, good BBB permeability, strong drug loading capacity, low toxicity, sustained release.Cause a certain inflammatory response.[46]
EMT nanomaterialsNoneADInhibition of fibrinogen interactions in abnormal clots.Not mentioned.[47]
SBA-15 (silica holed nanorod)L-DOPAPDHas good BBB permeability, good drug loading, and good biocompatibility.No targeted ability.[48]

2.2. Nanomaterials for Neuroprotection

Stroke is the leading cause of death and disability around the world [4951]. 87% of cases are ischemic stroke, caused by cerebral vascular embolism. However, there are no more effective treatments in clinical practice, except for tissue plasminogen activator- (tPA-) mediated thrombolytic or mechanical thrombectomy within the prescribed time [52, 53]. Currently, nanomaterials are considered to have great potential in the field of stroke treatment [54, 55]. Three research directions attract the most attention: (i) construction of safer and more efficient tPA-coated nanomaterials, (ii) antioxidants delivered through nanomaterials to reduce reperfusion injury, and (iii) generation of neuroprotective nanoscale exosomes.

Novel tPA-coated nanomaterials have been reported multiple times in the thrombolysis studies. Various kinds of structures and materials were applied in such researches. Shear- [56, 57], sound- [5861], light- [62], and magnetic- [63, 64] sensitive nanomaterials were designed to improve the thrombolytic efficiency of tPA and reduce its side effect by changing the external physical environment. A previous study in our lab demonstrated that nickel-nanorod-composed nanomotors could be used as an independent input to strengthen the efficacy of tPA in a mouse embolism model [63]. Later on, we synthesized tPA-coated Fe3O4 nanorods, which could be accurately targeted at the thrombus site under the guidance of a magnetic field. Fascinatingly, a mechanically rotated force could be created in an external rotational magnetic field, which not only provides physical strength to break down the clot but also allows more tPA to be delivered at the blood clot and create better penetration; as such, the plasminogen can be bound to a new site to enhance the effect of chemical thrombolysis; significant enhancement was both achieved in in vitro [64] and in vivo [65] ischemic stroke mouse model studies. Similarly, nanomaterial functionalized methods have also been used to improve the targeting of tPA therapy. A recent study, conducted by Chauvierre et al., demonstrated that tPA-fucoidan-coated nanomaterials were able to bind the P-selectin of activated platelets in thrombus due to the nanomolar affinity between fucoidan and P-selectin. As a result, the therapeutic dose and hemorrhagic complications of tPA were dramatically reduced, and the time window of tPA treatment could be much wider. However, the cytotoxicity and systemic side effects of these nanomaterials are still a big challenge [66].

Reperfusion injury is caused by the free radicals like reactive oxygen species (ROS), reactive nitrogen species (RNS), and nitric oxide (NO) from injured cells, inflammatory cells, and endothelial cells that are stimulated when blood is restored in ischemic brain tissue [67, 68]. However, the direct use of free radical scavengers has not been reported to be able to achieve pleasant clinical results. To overcome these limitations, scientists shifted the gear to synthesize all kinds of novel nanomaterials with free radical scavengers like tocopherol [69], ascorbic acid [70], and melanin [71]. As a study reported by Liu’s group, they conjugated melanin with nanomaterials to form a novel material, which could not only effectively scavenge the free radicals in a rat stroke model but also sufficiently inhibit the expression of inflammatory mediators. What is more important is that this biomaterial obtained fairly good biocompatibility, resulting in very minor adverse reactions to the degree that the human body could totally ignore [71]. In addition, antioxidant enzymes have also received widespread attention since they are more effective at removing free radicals than free radical scavengers. For instance, Yun and his colleagues combined superoxide dismutase (SOD) enzyme with multiple nanomaterials (liposomes, polybutylcyanoacrylate (PBCA), or poly lactide-co-glycolide (PLGA)) and added targeting antibodies. In vivo experiments show that this modified nanomaterial significantly reduced the infarct area in the hippocampus region after stroke by more than 50% [72]. Interestingly, nanoscale exosomes secreted by a variety of cells have been shown to improve the prognosis of stroke significantly [7376]. Due to the complexity of exosome components, the underlying mechanism regarding the neuroprotective effect is really hard to explain. However, exosomes’ certain properties, such as no cytotoxicity and ability to carry a variety of lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids through the BBB, may contribute to the therapeutic effect after stroke [77]. Put together, by leveraging the novel nanotechnology and nanomaterials in the neuroprotective medicine, the faster delivery, more biocompatible and efficient neuroprotective drugs that could be synthesized, and the better therapeutic strategies and approaches could be provided to eventually overcome the challenges we are facing right now.

2.3. Nanomaterials for Drug Delivery across the Blood-Brain Barrier

BBB is a multicell-composed membrane between the peripheral blood and the brain [78]. It not only blocks most pathogens from invading the brain but also prevents the entry of most drugs for targeting neurological diseases [79], except for those small lipophilic molecules with a molecular weight less than 400-500 Da and confined amount of hydrogen bonds less than 9-10, which can pass through the BBB [80]. In addition, even if the drug enters the brain smoothly, a large proportion of the active ingredients will be degraded or eliminated from the brain [81]. Such unique anatomical structure and physiological characteristics determine that lots of medicines that act in the brain seem very challenging. Therefore, many researchers around the world are trying to find novel solutions to address these situations by providing a better drug delivery system to penetrate the BBB, while maintaining sufficient drug activities.

Based on current researches, four major strategies were widely considered: (i) Bypassing the BBB, including methods like intracerebroventricular, intracerebral, intrathecal, intratympanic, and intranasal [82]. However, the limitations of invasiveness, cytotoxicity, and low efficiency make it an unsuitable method. (ii) BBB manipulation, focusing on increasing the permeability of the blood-brain barrier, but the consequence is that peripheral pathogens can also enter the brain, causing diseases such as Parkinson’s disease (PD), Alzheimer’s disease (AD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), multiple sclerosis (MS), and intracranial infection [83, 84]. (iii) Drug modification, including improving drug liposolubility and modifying the drugs to increase the binding affinity with the specific receptors or carriers on BBB [85]. (iv) Nanomaterial-based drug delivery system (Figure 1), nanomaterials with multiple modifications could penetrate the BBB and localize to the brain tissues quickly and accurately, reducing enzymatic degradation, improving drug stability, and therefore maintaining a stable drug concentration to achieve the best therapeutic effect [86, 87]. Undoubtedly, due to the fact that the method involves easy modification of nanomaterials, this drug delivery system will be the focus of future scientists’ research.

At present, various nanomaterials are used in biopharmaceutical research, including lipid-based nanomaterials, polymeric nanomaterials, and inorganic nanomaterials. One of the most promising biomaterials is the lipid-based nanomaterials, because of their stability and nontoxicity. Among which, the most well-reported lipid-based nanomaterials are liposomes as discussed below.

Liposomes are composed of phospholipid bilayers surrounding a hydrophilic core [88]. This structure gives liposomes the ability to support both hydrophilic and hydrophobic molecules, and these nanomaterials can be easily modified to make them stable and effectively localized in the specific cells after passing through BBB [89]. For example, a novel Y-shaped multifunctional targeting material c(RGDyK)-pHA-PEG-DSPE was designed to be incorporated with liposomes (c(RGDyK)-pHA-LS). In which, c(RGDyK) and pHA could circumvent the blood-brain tumor barrier (BBTB) and BBB, respectively. And the PEG-DSPE was added to escape the liposomal removal function of the reticuloendothelial system (RES). A multiple-ligand structure gives it an ability to circulate stably in the blood and target brain tumor cells specifically. In vitro and in vivo studies demonstrated that doxorubicin- (DOX-) loaded c(RGDyK)-pHA-LS display a better therapeutic effect than the DOX-loaded liposome only group [90]. This result indicated that more functional ligands should be applied to nanomaterial synthesis. For instance, monoclonal antibodies and receptor substrates were used as liposome ligands to allow more precise binding of nanomaterials to the BBB [9193]. However, these receptors are distributed throughout the body, reducing the specificity of these nanomaterials. Corresponding side effects are also caused by the activation of receptors at various positions. Lipid-based nanomaterials also include solid lipid nanomaterials (SLN), which possess benefits like biocompatibility, improved drug stability, and massive load capacity and provided a controlled drug release within a few weeks. Although these nanomaterials have low hydrophilic molecular loading capacity and some special preparations in application, they are considered to have great potential in drug delivery [94, 95].

The other two nanomaterials, including polymeric nanomaterials and inorganic nanomaterials, are also hotspots of research. But same as lipid-based nanomaterials, there are still many restrictions waiting to be overcome. Ideally, safe nanomaterials that could be loaded with various drugs and be able to target the specific cells in the brain remotely are highly expected.

2.4. Nanomaterial Stem Cell Hybrids for Neuroscience

Stem cell transplant therapy using neural stem cells (NSCs), embryonic stem cells, mesenchymal stem cells (ESCs), or induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) has been considered as a potential therapeutic strategy for neurological diseases, including stroke, brain trauma, PD, AD, and brain tumor [96]. The low survival rate of transplanted stem cells is the major reason why the majority of clinical trials fail. 30% of embryonic stem cells died within 3 days after transplantation into a rat stroke model, caused by reasons like immune rejection, lack of trophic factors, and extracellular matrix [97, 98]. Although there are a lot of studies reporting that the preconditioning of stem cells [99] or lesion microenvironment [100] may help to increase the cell survival ratio and acquire better prognosis, the limitations and challenges still remain [101, 102]. Recently, nanomaterial-composed scaffolds were used to facilitate stem cell transplantation therapy [103, 104]. Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are considered promising nanomaterials due to their excellent electrical conductivity, which is beneficial for stem cell differentiation and intercellular communication [105]. Kam and his colleagues have synthesized laminin-SWNT (single-walled carbon nanotube) thin films in order to mimic the structure of living tissues in the human body, in which laminin is a significant part of the extracellular matrix. An in vitro study demonstrated that this material could support proliferation and differentiation of NSCs, indicated by the presence of synaptic connections [106]. Similarly, scaffolds like collagen/MMA/acrylic acid (PMMAAA) [107], poly-L-lactic acid-co-poly-(3-caprolactone)/collagen [108], terpolymer/collagen [109], poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) [110], and poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)/praphene oxide-l-theanine (PLGA/GO-TH) [111] are synthesized to enhance stem cell survival and promote the differentiation.

Interestingly, some nanomaterials even could be absorbed by stem cells and quickly spread throughout the cells. A nanomaterial with superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) as the core and ZnO as the shell could be absorbed by human adipose tissue-derived stem cells (hATSC), and then, the transcription factors could be activated to modulate the neurogenesis [112]. In another study, retinoic acid- (RA-) loaded nanomaterials were taken up by NSC and the RA could be further released in the cells, leading to the activation of the SAPK/JNK signaling pathway and ultimately influencing the proneurogenic genes to benefit the differentiation of neural stem cells in vitro and in vivo [113]. This study suggested that some cell growth regulators could possibly be loaded to the nanomaterials as well and eventually acquire better effects. For instance, fibroblast growth factor receptor-1 (FGFR1) and its FGF-2 ligand were delivered into the brain subventricular zone, and the release of these growth factors could stimulate the neurogenesis in the adult brain [114].

Of course, transplantation therapy also faces the problem of a lack of monitoring system. Scientists in many fields are trying to build a nanomaterial-based imaging agent, which requires merits like long half-life, high selectivity, contrast-to-noise enhancement, and noncytotoxic. An amphiphilic fluorophore-derived nanomaterial with aggregate-induced emission (AIE) effect and self-assembly ability was used to label human embryonic stem cells (hESC) and monitor their differentiation. Experiments show that this monitoring could last for 40 days and has better fluorescence intensity and biocompatibility [115]. These nanomaterials could also be radioactive, magnetic, paramagnetic, superparamagnetic, and electron-dense [116121], which can be monitored by commercially available equipment (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), or fluorescence tomography (FT)) easily. However, the toxicity of nanomaterials to stem cells remains an open question.

3. Therapeutic Nanomaterials for Cancer

3.1. Nanomaterials as Immune-Modulating Agents

The biological immunity of cancer cells is divided into three steps: (i) cancer cells recognized by the immune system, (ii) targeting of the cancer cells for specific elimination, and (iii) immune system destroying cancer cells effectively [122]. Significant progress has been made in the field of cancer immunotherapy by regulating the human immune system to eliminate cancer cells. However, the problems of immune changes and delivery efficiency at nontumor sites caused by the systemic delivery of immunomodulatory compounds have not been well addressed, resulting in the limited application of immunotherapy. Nanotechnology offers a lot of innate advantages in these aspects. Combining immunomodulatory compounds by covalence conjugation [123], chelation [124], encapsulation [125], etc., can increase the functional efficacy of the immunomodulatory compounds and reduce their depletion in the peripheral circulation to avoid unnecessary immune responses.

Lipid-based nanomaterials and polymeric nanomaterials have good encapsulation capabilities. The modification of such nanomaterials makes it easier to obtain a single stable targeting than other materials or immunomodulatory compound only approach, therefore making it more reliable and controllable [126]. For inorganic nanomaterials, under certain conditions, they can become immunomodulators themselves. This is undoubtedly a huge distinctive advantage compared to other immune presenters that require targeted controlled release. For example, gold nanomaterials could produce a photothermal effect after receiving near-infrared light to stimulate the immune system to work, and gold nanomaterials are easily engulfed by monocytes [127].

At present, the application of nanomaterials in immunomodulatory therapy is mainly focused on the targeted delivery of immunomodulators and enhanced immune recognition of tumor cells [128, 129]. It is worth mentioning that a special nanomaterial used in immunomodulatory therapy is the virus-like particle (VLP). VLPs can be efficiently absorbed, processed, and presented by MHC class II molecules of DCs, thereby activating T cells. In addition, unlike many soluble antigens, VLPs efficiently cross-present through APCs via the class I MHC pathway, thereby activating CD8+ T cells [125].

3.2. Nanomaterials as Anticancer Drug Delivery System

Cancer is now responsible for the majority of global deaths and is expected to be the single most important obstacle to increase life expectancy in the 21st century [130]. Nanocarrier-targeted drug delivery systems have the potential to circumvent several shortcomings of conventional therapeutic formulations. Nanomaterials with special ligand functionality can efficiently target cancer cells [131]. Moreover, nanomaterials can be designed for improving the solubility and stability of anticancer drugs, increased drug loading, improved half-life in the body, controlled release, and selective distribution by modifying their composition, size, morphology, and surface chemistry [132].

As an anticancer drug delivery system, it can be divided into three parts. The first part is the carrier, which refers to a variety of nanomaterials, such as metal nanomaterials, carbon-based materials, liposomes, and dendritic and macromolecule polymer nanomaterials [133]. Metal and metal oxide nanomaterials are ideal anticancer drug carriers due to their controllable size and shape, easily modified surface functionalization, and good biocompatibility. A recent study showed that docetaxel coupled with gold-doped apatite has anticancer effects in vitro. The material showed higher cytotoxicity to human liver cancer cell line HepG2 and showed improved bioavailability [134]. Carbon-based nanomaterials have many advantages, such as large specific surface area, high drug loading, and easy surface modification. They have also been widely studied in imaging, drug delivery, and diagnosis of tumors [135]. Recently, the study of drug delivery by multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) has shown that the release of drugs in the tumor site and the absorption of cells have shown the potential for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tumors [136]. Liposomes are the first nanomaterials to be used; it can prolong the circulation time of the drugs and reduce toxicity to healthy tissues around. Correspondingly, these vehicles offer several other advantages including biocompatibility, self-assembly, and high drug cargo loading [137]. Another polymer nanomaterial platform that has received much attention as a drug delivery system is polymer micelle nanomaterial. Recently, Peng et al. prepared a polymer micelle by combining temozolomide (TMZ) and anti-bcl-2 siRNA with a folic acid triblock copolymer to overcome the limitations of acquired drug resistance of glioma cells and BBB on drug delivery [138].

The second part is the combination and release of drugs with nanomaterials, such as the encapsulation of drugs by liposomes, or the modification of metals and metal oxide nanomaterials by drugs, and then the release of drugs through REDOX, pH-mediated release systems, or other stimulation methods, such as magnetic field, ultrasonic induction, and electrochemical triggering.

The third part is the targeted drug delivery system. Targeting can be divided into active and passive targeting. Passive targeting refers to the accumulation of nanomaterials in tumor sites due to the vascular barrier destruction and poor lymph node clearance in tumor sites. Active targeting is ligand-mediated targeting, including recognition and uptake of substrate [139, 140]. The system includes ligands like antibodies, proteins, nucleic acids, peptides, vitamins, and other organic molecules. Substrates can be molecules on the surface of cancer cells, substances in the internal environment of cancer cells, or proteins secreted by cancer cells [141, 142]. For example, Au nanomaterials coated with nuclear localizing signal (NLS) were able to escape the endosome and penetrate the nucleus of cancer cells to induce DNA damage [143]. And nanomaterials coated with polyethylene glycol (PEG) achieve passive targeting of tumor tissue through EPR effect. The invisible coating of PEG and other polymers prevents the adsorption of serum proteins, increases cycle time, and increases the probability of particle penetration of tumor tissue [144]. When multiple ligands are combined with nanomaterials, their targeting also can be improved [145].

At present, multiple nanomaterials (Table 2) were demonstrated to benefit from cancer treatment, but due to their particularity, the biological toxicity of nanomaterials is still the major focus that we cannot ignore [146, 147].

TypeNanomaterialsDrugs deliveredDiseaseFindingsDisadvantagesReferences

Lipid-based nanomaterialsLiposomal annamycinAnnamycinAcute lymphocytic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemiaBypass multidrug resistance mechanisms of cellular drug resistanceDiarrhea, typhlitis, and nausea[148]
Liposomal doxorubicinDoxorubicinNon-Hodgkin’s lymphomaProlong systemic circulation, a ligand for cell-specific targeting, and an imaging agent for diagnosisInduce infusion reactions about activating the complement cascade[149]
Liposomal vincristineVincristineNon-Hodgkin’s lymphomaReduce neurotoxicity and increase dose intensity deliveryThe risk of peripheral neuropathy[150]
Liposomal cisplatinCisplatinProgressive osteogenic sarcoma metastatic to the lungHigh reactivity, affinity to biomolecules, and low release rate at the tumor sitePossible immune-related reactions or the blood clearance in the case of PEGylated liposomes[151]
Docetaxel-loaded solid lipid nanomaterialsDocetaxelBreast cancer
Lung metastasis
High stability for at least 120 daysShort lifespan, poor durability, poor encapsulation[152]
Cisplatin-loaded solid lipid nanomaterialsCisplatinBreast cancerOvercome dose-related toxicity, enhance targetingRequire additional microwave-assisted equipment[153]
Polymeric nanomaterialsHPMA copolymer—DACH platinateProLindacOvarian cancerIncrease platinum accumulation in tumors via the enhanced permeability and retention effectNausea and vomiting[154]
Polymer-lipid hybrid nanomaterialsDoxorubicinSolid tumorsProlong drug release, enhance systemic half-life, decrease toxicity, and targeted drug deliveryPotential biotoxicity of nanomaterials[155]
Poly(ethylene glycol)-block-poly(L-lactic-co-glycolic acid)DocetaxelProstate cancersHave good biocompatibility and effective cancer cell inhibition abilityHave potential biotoxicity due to slow drug clearance[156]
Folic acid-PAMAM dendrimersMethotrexateEpithelial cancerIncrease its antitumor activity and markedly decreased its toxicityThe optimal dose of targeted drug has not been definitively established[157]
Poly(glycerol-succinic acid) dendrimersCamptothecinVarious cancersEnhance anticancer activityLimit water solubility and resulting suboptimal pharmacokinetics[158]
Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanomaterialsDoxorubicinLiver cancerEnhance the biological effects of doxorubicinCertain hepatorenal toxicity[159]
AOT-alginate nanomaterialsDoxorubicinBreast cancerEnhancement of therapeutic effectSome cardiotoxicity[160]
Glycol chitosan nanomaterialsDoxorubicinSolid tumorsExhibit excellent tumor-homing efficacy, an effective strategy to overcome multidrug resistanceLow solubility[161]
Inorganic nanomaterialsAnti-HER2 antibody-targeted gold nanomaterialsNanoshell-assisted infrared photothermal therapyMetastatic breast cancerRetain high antimitotic potency, which could contribute to a higher therapeutic index in high EPR tumorsPotential biotoxicity[162]
Silica-based nanomaterialsOrganotin metallodrugBreast cancerReduce hepatic and renal toxicitySome hepatic and renal toxicity[163]
Aminosilane-coated iron oxide nanomaterialsThermotherapyBrain tumorsLow toxicity, the possibility of radical cureComplex operation, need further exploration[164]
Nanocrystalline 2-methoxyestradiolPanzem NCDVarious cancersDelivery of poorly water-soluble drugFatigue, nausea, mild transaminitis, and dysgeusia[165, 166]
ND-biopolymer nanocompositesDoxorubicinLiver cancerProlong and continue release of antitumor drugsComplicated technology[167]
Special categoryPaclitaxel nanomaterials in porousPaclitaxelSolid tumorsFavorable preclinical safety and antitumor activity profilesFatigue, alopecia, nausea, vomiting, neuropathy, anorexia, and myalgia[168]
Albumin-bound nanomaterialsDoxorubicin, methotrexateVarious cancersDecrease the glycolysis and metabolic tumor volumeDecrease antibody presence in the general circulation, which might lead to undesirable effects[169]

3.3. Nanomaterials as a Combination Therapy for Cancers

Traditional single-drug or multidrug combination chemotherapy tends to produce serious adverse consequences due to the accumulation of drugs and their metabolism in vital organs. Moreover, tumor cells are prone to multidrug resistance, and the efficacy of chemotherapy drugs is often not up to the expected effect [170, 171]. In medical applications, liposomes and polymeric nanomaterial conjugates are the two major categories, accounting for more than 80% of all nanomaterial drugs.

Liposome is a kind of spherical lipid vesicles with a double-membrane structure. It is widely used as a drug carrier by reasons that it can effectively encapsulate hydrophilic and hydrophobic drugs to avoid adverse external stimuli and carry specific ligands to identify specific cell tissues and organs. For example, Doxil was the first liposome drug approved by the FDA for the treatment of Kaposi’s sarcoma. It wraps doxorubicin (a widely used anticancer chemotherapy drug) in a liposome carrier to significantly extend the half-life of doxorubicin and increase the accumulation of the drug in tumor tissue [172, 173].

Another research hotspot is polymer-drug coupling of polymeric nanomaterials. The combination of small molecule drugs with polymeric nanomaterials can improve adverse reactions. It also enhances the passive delivery of drugs to leaky tumor tissue [174, 175]. In addition, metal nanomaterials and ceramic nanomaterials have demonstrated some specific therapeutic potential such as amino-silane-coated iron oxide nanomaterials, which have recently been used in brain tumors treated with thermotherapy; the survival time was prolonged by 4.5 times by means of magnetic field-induced excitation of iron oxide superparamagnetic nanomaterials and hyperthermia in a rat model [176].

In addition to the anticancer drugs that can inhibit or kill tumor cells, the interaction between nanomaterials and intracellular organelles also plays an important role in cancer treatment [177]. For example, lysosomes and endolysosomes of endogenous foreign bodies are used to monitor cell apoptosis cascade, calcium cycle, and ATP synthesis. The nucleus consists of DNA mutation, gene expression, cell proliferation, endoplasmic reticulum [178], and other Golgi complexes, which promote protein synthesis and transport to other organisms [179]. Despite recent breakthroughs in the research of nanomaterials in the field of tumors, more in-depth exploration is needed, such as the optimal properties of various nanomaterials, the numerous biological barriers faced by nanomaterials, and the related cytotoxicity of nanomaterials.

4. Conclusion and Future Directions

As discussed above, nanomaterials have proved their importance in the medical field and provided new directions for the treatment of neurological diseases and cancers, although the disadvantages are remaining, such as lack of specialized equipment for efficient and high-quality nanomaterial synthesis, difficulty of assessing its safety and effectiveness, and some shortcomings of specific materials mentioned above. Future directions of nanomaterials should be in line with the following principles: (1) diameter within 100 nm, possess high scalability, and easy to be degraded; (2) low cost and high productivity; (3) biocompatibility, nontoxic, and without initiating the pathological processes like inflammation and thrombosis; (4) highly sufficient targeting and ability to penetrate multiple biological barriers, like BBB; (5) stable in the blood and resistant to be cleared by RES; and (6) loaded molecules could be released smoothly and achieve significant therapeutic effect for the diseases. In conclusion, the treatment of neurological diseases or cancers, in this regard, is an uphill battle that might be easily overcome with nanotechnology if solutions such as multimodal agents are actively practiced. Nevertheless, the future still holds promises for the field of nanomedicine to be exploited to its fullest extent for the potential advanced therapeutic approaches.


AD:Alzheimer’s disease
AIE:Aggregate-induced emission
ALS:Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
BBB:Blood-brain barrier
BBTB:Blood-brain tumor barrier
CNS:Central nervous system
CNTs:Carbon nanotubes
CT:Computed tomography
ESCs:Mesenchymal stem cells
FGFR1:Fibroblast growth factor receptor-1
FT:Fluorescence tomography
hATSC:Human adipose tissue-derived stem cells
iPSCs:Induced pluripotent stem cells
MRI:Magnetic resonance imaging
MS:Multiple sclerosis
MWCNTs:Multiwalled carbon nanotubes
NLS:Nuclear localizing signal
NO:Nitric oxide
NSCs:Neural stem cells
PD:Parkinson’s disease
PEG:Polyethylene glycol
PLGA:Poly lactide-co-glycolide
PLLA:Poly-L-lactic acid
RA:Retinoic acid
RES:Reticuloendothelial system
RNS:Reactive nitrogen species
ROS:Reactive oxygen species
SLN:Solid lipid nanoparticle
SOD:Superoxide dismutase
SPIO:Superparamagnetic iron oxide
SWNT:Single-walled carbon nanotubes
tPA:Tissue plasminogen activator
VLP:Virus-like particle.

Conflicts of Interest

The author(s) declare(s) that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

KW, XZ, and EY wrote the first draft. PD, HW, CZ, JY, and JH revised and edited the final manuscript. QZ, JY, and JH supervised the manuscript and provided critical input. All authors gave feedback and agreed on the final version of the manuscript.


This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81771262), Zhejiang Health Science and Technology Project (2016RCA022), Zhejiang Key Research and Development Project (2017C03027), and American Heart Association Predoctoral Fellowship for JH (19PRE34380114).


  1. V. T. Nguyen, T. H. Nguyen, L. H. Dang, H. Vu-Quang, and N. Q. Tran, “Folate-conjugated chitosan-pluronic P123 nanogels: synthesis and characterizations towards dual drug delivery,” Journal of Nanomaterials, vol. 2019, Article ID 1067821, 14 pages, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. J. Preechawong, K. Noulta, S. T. Dubas, M. Nithitanakul, and P. Sapsrithong, “Nanolayer film on poly(styrene/ethylene glycol dimethacrylate) high internal phase emulsion porous polymer surface as a scaffold for tissue engineering application,” Journal of Nanomaterials, vol. 2019, Article ID 7268192, 10 pages, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. C. Lin, S. Cai, and J. Feng, “Positive contrast imaging of SPIO nanoparticles,” Journal of Nanomaterials, vol. 2012, Article ID 734842, 9 pages, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. S. E. A. Gratton, P. A. Ropp, P. D. Pohlhaus et al., “The effect of particle design on cellular internalization pathways,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 105, no. 33, pp. 11613–11618, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. 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 Site | Google Scholar
  6. K.-T. Jin, Z. B. Lu, J. Y. Chen et al., “Recent trends in nanocarrier-based targeted chemotherapy: selective delivery of anticancer drugs for effective lung, colon, cervical, and breast cancer treatment,” Journal of Nanomaterials, vol. 2020, Article ID 9184284, 14 pages, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. D. Bobo, K. J. Robinson, J. Islam, K. J. Thurecht, and S. R. Corrie, “Nanoparticle-based medicines: a review of FDA-approved materials and clinical trials to date,” Pharmaceutical Research, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 2373–2387, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. D. E. Bredesen, R. V. Rao, and P. Mehlen, “Cell death in the nervous system,” Nature, vol. 443, no. 7113, pp. 796–802, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. A. W. Hübler and O. Osuagwu, “Digital quantum batteries: energy and information storage in nanovacuum tube arrays,” Complexity, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 48–55, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  10. A. Di Stefano, M. Carafa, P. Sozio et al., “Evaluation of rat striatal L-dopa and DA concentration after intraperitoneal administration of L-dopa prodrugs in liposomal formulations,” Journal of Controlled Release, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 293–300, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. C. Y. Lin, Y. C. Lin, C. Y. Huang, S. R. Wu, C. M. Chen, and H. L. Liu, “Ultrasound-responsive neurotrophic factor-loaded microbubble- liposome complex: preclinical investigation for Parkinson's disease treatment,” Journal of Controlled Release, vol. 321, pp. 519–528, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. A. McRae and A. Dahlström, “Transmitter-loaded polymeric microspheres induce regrowth of dopaminergic nerve terminals in striata of rats with 6-OH-DA induced parkinsonism,” Neurochemistry International, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 27–33, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. A. Aubert-Pouëssel, M. C. Venier-Julienne, A. Clavreul et al., “In vitro study of GDNF release from biodegradable PLGA microspheres,” Journal of Controlled Release, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 463–475, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. E. D'Aurizio, P. Sozio, L. S. Cerasa et al., “Biodegradable microspheres loaded with an anti-Parkinson prodrug: an in vivo pharmacokinetic study,” Molecular Pharmaceutics, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 2408–2415, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. O. Betzer, M. Shilo, R. Opochinsky et al., “The effect of nanoparticle size on the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier: an in vivo study,” Nanomedicine, vol. 12, no. 13, pp. 1533–1546, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. J. H. An, W. A. el-Said, C. H. Yea, T. H. Kim, and J. W. Choi, “Surface-enhanced Raman scattering of dopamine on self-assembled gold nanoparticles,” Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 4424–4429, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. K. S. Siddiqi, A. Husen, S. S. Sohrab, and M. O. Yassin, “Recent status of nanomaterial fabrication and their potential applications in neurological disease management,” Nanoscale Research Letters, vol. 13, no. 1, article 231, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. R. Titze-de-Almeida, S. S. Titze-de-Almeida, N. R. Ferreira, C. Fontanari, L. H. Faccioli, and E. del Bel, “Suppressing nNOS enzyme by small-interfering RNAs protects SH-SY5Y cells and nigral dopaminergic neurons from 6-OHDA injury,” Neurotoxicity Research, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 117–131, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. J. Niu, J. Xie, K. Guo et al., “Efficient treatment of Parkinson's disease using ultrasonography-guided rhFGF20 proteoliposomes,” Drug Delivery, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1560–1569, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. M. Qu, Q. Lin, S. He et al., “A brain targeting functionalized liposomes of the dopamine derivative N-3,4-bis(pivaloyloxy)-dopamine for treatment of Parkinson's disease,” Journal of Controlled Release, vol. 277, pp. 173–182, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. P. Yue, L. Gao, X. Wang, X. Ding, and J. Teng, “Ultrasound-triggered effects of the microbubbles coupled to GDNF- and Nurr1-loaded PEGylated liposomes in a rat model of Parkinson's disease,” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, vol. 119, no. 6, pp. 4581–4591, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. Y. C. Kuo and C. W. Tsao, “Neuroprotection against apoptosis of SK-N-MC cells using RMP-7- and lactoferrin-grafted liposomes carrying quercetin,” International Journal of Nanomedicine, vol. Volume 12, pp. 2857–2869, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. Y. C. Kuo and Y. J. Lee, “Rescuing cholinergic neurons from apoptotic degeneration by targeting of serotonin modulator-and apolipoprotein E-conjugated liposomes to the hippocampus,” International Journal of Nanomedicine, vol. Volume 11, pp. 6809–6824, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. A. C. Sintov, H. V. Levy, and I. Greenberg, “Continuous transdermal delivery of L-DOPA based on a self-assembling nanomicellar system,” Pharmaceutical Research, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1459–1468, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. X. Li, Q. Liu, D. Zhu, Y. Che, and X. Feng, “Preparation of levodopa-loaded crystalsomes through thermally induced crystallization reverses functional deficits in Parkinsonian mice,” Biomaterials Science, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1623–1631, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. T. Chen, Y. Li, C. Li et al., “Pluronic P85/F68 micelles of baicalein could interfere with mitochondria to overcome MRP2-mediated efflux and offer improved anti-Parkinsonian activity,” Molecular Pharmaceutics, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 3331–3342, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. H. Yang, X. Li, L. Zhu et al., “Heat shock protein inspired nanochaperones restore Amyloid‐β homeostasis for preventative therapy of Alzheimer's disease,” Advanced Science, vol. 6, no. 22, article 1901844, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. P. Yang, D. Sheng, Q. Guo et al., “Neuronal mitochondria-targeted micelles relieving oxidative stress for delayed progression of Alzheimer's disease,” Biomaterials, vol. 238, article 119844, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. Z. Mirzaie, M. Ansari, S. S. Kordestani, M. H. Rezaei, and M. Mozafari, “Preparation and characterization of curcumin-loaded polymeric nanomicelles to interference with amyloidogenesis through glycation method,” Biotechnology and Applied Biochemistry, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 537–544, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  30. D. E. Igartúa, C. S. Martinez, C. F. Temprana, S. D. Alonso, and M. J. Prieto, “PAMAM dendrimers as a carbamazepine delivery system for neurodegenerative diseases: a biophysical and nanotoxicological characterization,” International Journal of Pharmaceutics, vol. 544, no. 1, pp. 191–202, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. E. Aso, I. Martinsson, D. Appelhans et al., “Poly(propylene imine) dendrimers with histidine-maltose shell as novel type of nanoparticles for synapse and memory protection,” Nanomedicine, vol. 17, pp. 198–209, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. A. Gothwal, H. Kumar, K. T. Nakhate et al., “Lactoferrin coupled lower generation PAMAM dendrimers for brain targeted delivery of memantine in aluminum-chloride-induced Alzheimer's disease in mice,” Bioconjugate Chemistry, vol. 30, no. 10, pp. 2573–2583, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. K. Milowska, J. Grochowina, N. Katir et al., “Viologen-phosphorus dendrimers inhibit α-Synuclein fibrillation,” Molecular Pharmaceutics, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1131–1137, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. K. Milowska, A. Szwed, M. Mutrynowska et al., “Carbosilane dendrimers inhibit α-synuclein fibrillation and prevent cells from rotenone-induced damage,” International Journal of Pharmaceutics, vol. 484, no. 1-2, pp. 268–275, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. R. Pahuja, K. Seth, A. Shukla et al., “Correction to trans-blood brain barrier delivery of dopamine-loaded nanoparticles reverses functional deficits in Parkinsonian Rats,” ACS Nano, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 8490–8490, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. H. Moradian, H. Keshvari, H. Fasehee, R. Dinarvand, and S. Faghihi, “Combining NT3-overexpressing MSCs and PLGA microcarriers for brain tissue engineering: a potential tool for treatment of Parkinson's disease,” Materials Science & Engineering. C, Materials for Biological Applications, vol. 76, pp. 934–943, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. C. Rodríguez-Nogales, E. Garbayo, I. Martínez-Valbuena, V. Sebastián, M. R. Luquin, and M. J. Blanco-Prieto, “Development and characterization of polo-like kinase 2 loaded nanoparticles-a novel strategy for (serine-129) phosphorylation of alpha-synuclein,” International Journal of Pharmaceutics, vol. 514, no. 1, pp. 142–149, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. N. Cui, H. Lu, and M. Li, “Magnetic nanoparticles associated PEG/PLGA block copolymer targeted with anti-transferrin receptor antibodies for Alzheimer's disease,” Journal of Biomedical Nanotechnology, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1017–1024, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. D. L. Meng, L. Shang, X. H. Feng, X. F. Huang, and X. Che, “Xanthoceraside hollow gold nanoparticles, green pharmaceutics preparation for poorly water-soluble natural anti-AD medicine,” International Journal of Pharmaceutics, vol. 506, no. 1-2, pp. 184–190, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. A. Garcia-Leis, A. Torreggiani, J. V. Garcia-Ramos, and S. Sanchez-Cortes, “Hollow au/Ag nanostars displaying broad plasmonic resonance and high surface-enhanced Raman sensitivity,” Nanoscale, vol. 7, no. 32, pp. 13629–13637, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. Y. Liu, H. Zhou, T. Yin et al., “Quercetin-modified gold-palladium nanoparticles as a potential autophagy inducer for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease,” Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 552, pp. 388–400, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. D. Liu, W. Li, X. Jiang et al., “Using near-infrared enhanced thermozyme andscFvdual-conjugated au nanorods for detection and targeted photothermal treatment of Alzheimer's disease,” Theranostics, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 2268–2281, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. D. Ji, N. Xu, Z. Liu et al., “Smartphone-based differential pulse amperometry system for real-time monitoring of levodopa with carbon nanotubes and gold nanoparticles modified screen-printing electrodes,” Biosensors & Bioelectronics, vol. 129, pp. 216–223, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. U. Tisch, Y. Aluf, R. Ionescu et al., “Detection of asymptomatic nigrostriatal dopaminergic lesion in rats by exhaled air analysis using carbon nanotube sensors,” ACS Chemical Neuroscience, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 161–166, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. H. E. Marei, A. A. Elnegiry, A. Zaghloul et al., “Nanotubes impregnated human olfactory bulb neural stem cells promote neuronal differentiation in trimethyltin-induced neurodegeneration rat model,” Journal of Cellular Physiology, vol. 232, no. 12, pp. 3586–3597, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. Q. Guo, H. You, X. Yang et al., “Functional single-walled carbon nanotubes 'CAR' for targeting dopamine delivery into the brain of parkinsonian mice,” Nanoscale, vol. 9, no. 30, pp. 10832–10845, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. H. Derakhshankhah, M. J. Hajipour, E. Barzegari et al., “Zeolite nanoparticles inhibit Aβ–Fibrinogen interaction and formation of a consequent abnormal structural clot,” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, vol. 8, no. 45, pp. 30768–30779, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. S. Swar, V. Makova, and I. Stibor, “Effectiveness of diverse mesoporous silica nanoparticles as potent vehicles for the drug L-DOPA,” Materials, vol. 12, no. 19, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  49. V. L. Feigin, B. Norrving, and G. A. Mensah, “Global burden of stroke,” Circulation Research, vol. 120, no. 3, pp. 439–448, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. X. Xu, B. Wang, C. Ren et al., “Age-related impairment of vascular structure and functions,” Aging and Disease, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 590–610, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. X. Xu, B. Wang, C. Ren et al., “Recent progress in vascular aging: mechanisms and its role in age-related diseases,” Aging and Disease, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 486–505, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. G. J. Hankey, “Stroke,” Lancet, vol. 389, no. 10069, pp. 641–654, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. C. Ren, Y. Yao, R. Han et al., “Cerebral ischemia induces angiogenesis in the peri-infarct regions via Notch1 signaling activation,” Experimental Neurology, vol. 304, pp. 30–40, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. S. Kyle and S. Saha, “Nanotechnology for the detection and therapy of stroke,” Advanced Healthcare Materials, vol. 3, no. 11, pp. 1703–1720, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. D. Huang, K. Wu, Y. Zhang et al., “Recent advances in tissue plasminogen activator-based nanothrombolysis for ischemic stroke,” Reviews on Advanced Materials Science, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 159–170, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. N. Korin, M. Kanapathipillai, B. D. Matthews et al., “Shear-activated nanotherapeutics for drug targeting to obstructed blood Vessels,” Science, vol. 337, no. 6095, pp. 738–742, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. M. N. Holme, I. A. Fedotenko, D. Abegg et al., “Shear-stress sensitive lenticular vesicles for targeted drug delivery,” Nature Nanotechnology, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 536–543, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. C. Correa-Paz, M. F. Navarro Poupard, E. Polo et al., “In vivo ultrasound-activated delivery of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator from the cavity of sub-micrometric capsules,” Journal of controlled release, vol. 308, pp. 162–171, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. H. Kawata, Y. Uesugi, T. Soeda et al., “A new drug delivery system for intravenous coronary thrombolysis with thrombus targeting and stealth activity recoverable by ultrasound,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 60, no. 24, pp. 2550–2557, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. Y. Uesugi, H. Kawata, J. I. Jo, Y. Saito, and Y. Tabata, “An ultrasound-responsive nano delivery system of tissue-type plasminogen activator for thrombolytic therapy,” Journal of controlled release, vol. 147, no. 2, pp. 269–277, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. H. Jin, H. Tan, L. Zhao et al., “Ultrasound-triggered thrombolysis using urokinase-loaded nanogels,” International Journal of Pharmaceutics, vol. 434, no. 1-2, pp. 384–390, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. T. Hirano, M. Komatsu, H. Uenohara, A. Takahashi, K. Takayama, and T. Yoshimoto, “A novel method of drug delivery for fibrinolysis with Ho:YAG laser-induced liquid jet,” Lasers in Medical Science, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 165–172, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. R. Cheng, W. Huang, L. Huang et al., “Acceleration of tissue plasminogen activator-mediated thrombolysis by magnetically powered nanomotors,” ACS Nano, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 7746–7754, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. J. Hu, W. Huang, S. Huang, Q. ZhuGe, K. Jin, and Y. Zhao, “Magnetically active Fe3O4 nanorods loaded with tissue plasminogen activator for enhanced thrombolysis,” Nano Research, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 2652–2661, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. J. Hu, S. Huang, L. Zhu et al., “Tissue plasminogen activator-porous magnetic microrods for targeted thrombolytic therapy after ischemic stroke,” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, vol. 10, no. 39, pp. 32988–32997, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. M. Juenet, R. Aid-Launais, B. Li et al., “Thrombolytic therapy based on fucoidan-functionalized polymer nanoparticles targeting P-selectin,” Biomaterials, vol. 156, pp. 204–216, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. M.-S. Sun, H. Jin, X. Sun et al., “Free radical damage in ischemia-reperfusion injury: an obstacle in acute ischemic stroke after revascularization therapy,” Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity, vol. 2018, Article ID 3804979, 17 pages, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. C. Ren, N. Li, S. Li et al., “Limb ischemic conditioning improved cognitive deficits via eNOS-dependent augmentation of angiogenesis after chronic cerebral hypoperfusion in rats,” Aging and Disease, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 869–879, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. I. G. Zigoneanu, C. E. Astete, and C. M. Sabliov, “Nanoparticles with entrapped α-tocopherol: synthesis, characterization, and controlled release,” Nanotechnology, vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 105606–105606, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. C. E. Astete, D. Dolliver, M. Whaley, L. Khachatryan, and C. M. Sabliov, “Antioxidant poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid nanoparticles made with α-tocopherol-ascorbic acid surfactant,” ACS Nano, vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 9313–9325, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. Y. Liu, K. Ai, X. Ji et al., “Comprehensive insights into the multi-antioxidative mechanisms of melanin nanoparticles and their application to protect brain from injury in ischemic stroke,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 139, no. 2, pp. 856–862, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. X. Yun, V. D. Maximov, J. Yu, Zhu, A. A. Vertegel, and M. S. Kindy, “Nanoparticles for targeted delivery of antioxidant enzymes to the brain after cerebral ischemia and reperfusion injury,” Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 583–592, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. K. Hira, Y. Ueno, R. Tanaka et al., “Astrocyte-derived exosomes treated with a semaphorin 3A inhibitor enhance stroke recovery via prostaglandin D2Synthase,” Stroke, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 2483–2494, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. H. Xin, M. Katakowski, F. Wang et al., “MicroRNA cluster miR-17-92 cluster in exosomes enhance neuroplasticity and functional recovery after stroke in rats,” Stroke, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 747–753, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. T. Tian, H. X. Zhang, C. P. He et al., “Surface functionalized exosomes as targeted drug delivery vehicles for cerebral ischemia therapy,” Biomaterials, vol. 150, pp. 137–149, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. H. Xin, Y. Li, Y. Cui, J. J. Yang, Z. G. Zhang, and M. Chopp, “Systemic administration of exosomes released from mesenchymal stromal cells promote functional recovery and neurovascular plasticity after stroke in rats,” Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 1711–1715, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  77. L. Qing, H. Chen, J. Tang, and X. Jia, “Exosomes and their microRNA cargo: new players in peripheral nerve regeneration,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 765–776, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. N. J. Abbott, L. Rönnbäck, and E. Hansson, “Astrocyte-endothelial interactions at the blood-brain barrier,” Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 41–53, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  79. N. J. Abbott, A. A. K. Patabendige, D. E. M. Dolman, S. R. Yusof, and D. J. Begley, “Structure and function of the blood-brain barrier,” Neurobiology of Disease, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 13–25, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. W. M. Pardridge, “The blood-brain barrier: bottleneck in brain drug development,” NeuroRx, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 3–14, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. S. Krol, R. Macrez, F. Docagne et al., “Therapeutic benefits from nanoparticles: the potential significance of nanoscience in diseases with compromise to the blood brain barrier,” Chemical Reviews, vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 1877–1903, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  82. M. F. Bennewitz and W. M. Saltzman, “Nanotechnology for delivery of drugs to the brain for epilepsy,” Neurotherapeutics, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 323–336, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  83. A. Ben-Zvi, B. Lacoste, E. Kur et al., “Mfsd2a is critical for the formation and function of the blood-brain barrier,” Nature, vol. 509, no. 7501, pp. 507–511, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  84. B. V. Zlokovic, “The blood-brain barrier in health and chronic neurodegenerative disorders,” Neuron, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 178–201, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  85. K. A. Witt, T. J. Gillespie, J. D. Huber, R. D. Egleton, and T. P. Davis, “Peptide drug modifications to enhance bioavailability and blood-brain barrier permeability,” Peptides, vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 2329–2343, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  86. M. Saeedi, M. Eslamifar, K. Khezri, and S. M. Dizaj, “Applications of nanotechnology in drug delivery to the central nervous system,” Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy, vol. 111, pp. 666–675, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. D. Furtado, M. Björnmalm, S. Ayton, A. I. Bush, K. Kempe, and F. Caruso, “Overcoming the blood-brain barrier: the role of nanomaterials in treating neurological diseases,” Advanced materials, vol. 30, no. 46, article e1801362, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  88. T. M. Allen and P. R. Cullis, “Liposomal drug delivery systems: from concept to clinical applications,” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 36–48, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  89. Y. Zhou, Z. Peng, E. S. Seven, and R. M. Leblanc, “Crossing the blood-brain barrier with nanoparticles,” Journal of controlled release, vol. 270, pp. 290–303, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. Z. Belhadj, M. Ying, X. Cao et al., “Design of Y-shaped targeting material for liposome-based multifunctional glioblastoma-targeted drug delivery,” Journal of controlled release, vol. 255, pp. 132–141, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  91. J. W. Paul, S. Hua, M. Ilicic et al., “Drug delivery to the human and mouse uterus using immunoliposomes targeted to the oxytocin receptor,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 216, no. 3, pp. 283.e1–283.e14, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  92. J. A. Loureiro, B. Gomes, G. Fricker et al., “Dual ligand immunoliposomes for drug delivery to the brain,” Colloids and Surfaces. B, Biointerfaces, vol. 134, pp. 213–219, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  93. Y.-S. Kang, H. J. Jung, J. S. Oh, and D. Y. Song, “Use of PEGylated immunoliposomes to deliver dopamine across the blood-brain barrier in a rat model of Parkinson's disease,” CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 817–823, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  94. H. He, J. Yao, Y. Zhang et al., “Solid lipid nanoparticles as a drug delivery system to across the blood-brain barrier,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 519, no. 2, pp. 385–390, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  95. G. Graverini, V. Piazzini, E. Landucci et al., “Solid lipid nanoparticles for delivery of andrographolide across the blood-brain barrier: in vitro and in vivo evaluation,” Colloids and Surfaces. B, Biointerfaces, vol. 161, pp. 302–313, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  96. R. Gonzalez, M. H. Hamblin, and J.-P. Lee, “Neural stem cell transplantation and CNS diseases,” CNS & Neurological Disorders Drug Targets, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 881–886, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. L. Wei, L. Cui, B. J. Snider et al., “Transplantation of embryonic stem cells overexpressing Bcl-2 promotes functional recovery after transient cerebral ischemia,” Neurobiology of Disease, vol. 19, no. 1-2, pp. 183–193, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. A. Trounson and C. McDonald, “Stem cell therapies in clinical trials: progress and challenges,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 11–22, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  99. K. Wu, D. Huang, C. Zhu et al., “NT3P75-2 gene-modified bone mesenchymal stem cells improve neurological function recovery in mouse TBI model,” Stem Cell Research & Therapy, vol. 10, no. 1, article 311, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. J. Hu, L. Chen, X. Huang et al., “Calpain inhibitor MDL28170 improves the transplantation-mediated therapeutic effect of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells following traumatic brain injury,” Stem Cell Research & Therapy, vol. 10, no. 1, article 96, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  101. H. Ni, S. Yang, F. Siaw-Debrah et al., “Exosomes derived from bone mesenchymal stem cells ameliorate early inflammatory responses following traumatic brain injury,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 13, p. 14, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  102. C. Hu and L. Li, “Preconditioning influences mesenchymal stem cell properties in vitro and in vivo,” Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1428–1442, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  103. L. Yang, S. T. D. Chueng, Y. Li et al., “A biodegradable hybrid inorganic nanoscaffold for advanced stem cell therapy,” Nature Communications, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 3147–3147, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  104. Y. Zhang, S. Wang, and P. Yang, “Effects of graphene-based materials on the behavior of neural stem cells,” Journal of Nanomaterials, vol. 2020, Article ID 2519105, 16 pages, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  105. N. Saito, H. Haniu, Y. Usui et al., “Safe clinical use of carbon nanotubes as innovative biomaterials,” Chemical Reviews, vol. 114, no. 11, pp. 6040–6079, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  106. N. W. S. Kam, E. Jan, and N. A. Kotov, “Electrical stimulation of neural stem cells mediated by humanized carbon nanotube composite made with extracellular matrix protein,” Nano Letters, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 273–278, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  107. W. Li, Y. Guo, H. Wang et al., “Electrospun nanofibers immobilized with collagen for neural stem cells culture,” Journal of Materials Science. Materials in Medicine, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 847–854, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  108. M. P. Prabhakaran, J. R. Venugopal, and S. Ramakrishna, “Mesenchymal stem cell differentiation to neuronal cells on electrospun nanofibrous substrates for nerve tissue engineering,” Biomaterials, vol. 30, no. 28, pp. 4996–5003, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  109. A. Dhaliwal, M. Brenner, P. Wolujewicz et al., “Profiling stem cell states in three-dimensional biomaterial niches using high content image informatics,” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 45, pp. 98–109, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  110. L. Wang and W. S. Kisaalita, “Characterization of micropatterned nanofibrous scaffolds for neural network activity readout for high-throughput screening,” Journal of biomedical materials research Part B, Applied biomaterials, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 238–249, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  111. Z. Qi, X. Chen, W. Guo, C. Fu, and S. Pan, “Theanine-modified graphene oxide composite films for neural stem cells proliferation and differentiation,” Journal of Nanomaterials, vol. 2020, Article ID 3068173, 10 pages, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  112. J. I. Choi, H. T. Cho, M. K. Jee, and S. K. Kang, “Core-shell nanoparticle controlled hATSCs neurogenesis for neuropathic pain therapy,” Biomaterials, vol. 34, no. 21, pp. 4956–4970, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  113. T. Santos, R. Ferreira, J. Maia et al., “Polymeric nanoparticles to control the differentiation of neural stem cells in the subventricular zone of the brain,” ACS Nano, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 10463–10474, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  114. E. K. Stachowiak, I. Roy, Y. W. Lee et al., “Targeting novel integrative nuclear FGFR1 signaling by nanoparticle-mediated gene transfer stimulates neurogenesis in the adult brain,” Integrative biology, vol. 1, no. 5-6, pp. 394–403, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  115. S. Zhou, H. Zhao, R. Feng et al., “Application of amphiphilic fluorophore-derived nanoparticles to provide contrast to human embryonic stem cells without affecting their pluripotency and to monitor their differentiation into neuron-like cells,” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 78, pp. 274–284, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  116. X. Michalet, F. F. Pinaud, L. A. Bentolila et al., “Quantum dots for live cells, in vivo imaging, and diagnostics,” Science, vol. 307, no. 5709, pp. 538–544, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  117. N. K. Devaraj, E. J. Keliher, G. M. Thurber, M. Nahrendorf, and R. Weissleder, “18F labeled nanoparticles forin VivoPET-CT imaging,” Bioconjugate Chemistry, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 397–401, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  118. X. Meng, H. C. Seton, L. T. Lu, I. A. Prior, N. T. K. Thanh, and B. Song, “Magnetic CoPt nanoparticles as MRI contrast agent for transplanted neural stem cells detection,” Nanoscale, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 977–984, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  119. C. Corot, P. Robert, J. M. Idée, and M. Port, “Recent advances in iron oxide nanocrystal technology for medical imaging,” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, vol. 58, no. 14, pp. 1471–1504, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  120. F. Hyafil, J. C. Cornily, J. E. Feig et al., “Noninvasive detection of macrophages using a nanoparticulate contrast agent for computed tomography,” Nature Medicine, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 636–641, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  121. J. C. Frias, K. J. Williams, E. A. Fisher, and Z. A. Fayad, “Recombinant HDL-like nanoparticles: a specific contrast agent for MRI of atherosclerotic plaques,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 126, no. 50, pp. 16316-16317, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  122. C. Wang, Y. Ye, Q. Hu, A. Bellotti, and Z. Gu, “Tailoring biomaterials for cancer immunotherapy: emerging trends and future outlook,” Advanced Materials, vol. 29, no. 29, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  123. S. Zhou, S. Kawakami, F. Yamashita, and M. Hashida, “Intranasal administration of CpG DNA lipoplex prevents pulmonary metastasis in mice,” Cancer Letters, vol. 287, no. 1, pp. 75–81, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  124. T. Mocan, C. Matea, F. Tabaran, C. Iancu, R. Orasan, and L. Mocan, “In vitro administration of gold nanoparticles functionalized with MUC-1 protein fragment generates anticancer vaccine response via macrophage activation and polarization mechanism,” Journal of Cancer, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 583–592, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  125. B. W. Simons, F. Cannella, D. T. Rowley, and R. P. Viscidi, “Bovine papillomavirus prostate cancer antigen virus-like particle vaccines are efficacious in advanced cancers in the TRAMP mouse spontaneous prostate cancer model,” Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 641–651, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  126. T. Nakamura, H. Miyabe, M. Hyodo, Y. Sato, Y. Hayakawa, and H. Harashima, “Liposomes loaded with a STING pathway ligand, cyclic di-GMP, enhance cancer immunotherapy against metastatic melanoma,” Journal of Controlled Release, vol. 216, pp. 149–157, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  127. Y. Ma, Y. Zhang, X. Li et al., “Near-infrared II phototherapy induces deep tissue immunogenic cell death and potentiates cancer immunotherapy,” ACS Nano, vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 11967–11980, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  128. Q. Chen, M. Chen, and Z. Liu, “Local biomaterials-assisted cancer immunotherapy to trigger systemic antitumor responses,” Chemical Society Reviews, vol. 48, no. 22, pp. 5506–5526, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  129. M. B. Heo and Y. T. Lim, “Programmed nanoparticles for combined immunomodulation, antigen presentation and tracking of immunotherapeutic cells,” Biomaterials, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 590–600, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  130. F. Bray, J. Ferlay, I. Soerjomataram, R. L. Siegel, L. A. Torre, and A. Jemal, “Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries,” CA: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 394–424, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  131. M. J. Akhtar, M. Ahamed, H. A. Alhadlaq, S. A. Alrokayan, and S. Kumar, “Targeted anticancer therapy: overexpressed receptors and nanotechnology,” Clinica Chimica Acta, vol. 436, pp. 78–92, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  132. P. N. Navya and H. K. Daima, “Rational engineering of physicochemical properties of nanomaterials for biomedical applications with nanotoxicological perspectives,” Nano Convergence, vol. 3, no. 1, article 1, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  133. P. N. Navya, A. Kaphle, S. P. Srinivas, S. K. Bhargava, V. M. Rotello, and H. K. Daima, “Current trends and challenges in cancer management and therapy using designer nanomaterials,” Nano Convergence, vol. 6, no. 1, article 23, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  134. J. Wan, X. Ma, D. Xu, B. Yang, S. Yang, and S. Han, “Docetaxel-decorated anticancer drug and gold nanoparticles encapsulated apatite carrier for the treatment of liver cancer,” Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology. B, vol. 185, pp. 73–79, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  135. P. Navya, A. Kaphle, and H. Daima, “Nanomedicine in sensing, delivery, imaging and tissue engineering: advances, opportunities and challenges,” Nanoscience, pp. 30–56, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  136. M. Kumar, G. Sharma, C. Misra et al., “Desmethyl tamoxifen and quercetin-loaded multiwalled CNTs: a synergistic approach to overcome MDR in cancer cells,” Materials Science and Engineering: C, vol. 89, pp. 274–282, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  137. L. Sercombe, T. Veerati, F. Moheimani, S. Y. Wu, A. K. Sood, and S. Hua, “Advances and challenges of liposome assisted drug delivery,” Frontiers in Pharmacology, vol. 6, p. 286, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  138. Y. Peng, J. Huang, H. Xiao, T. Wu, and X. Shuai, “Codelivery of temozolomide and siRNA with polymeric nanocarrier for effective glioma treatment,” International Journal of Nanomedicine, vol. Volume 13, pp. 3467–3480, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  139. N. Bertrand, J. Wu, X. Xu, N. Kamaly, and O. C. Farokhzad, “Cancer nanotechnology: the impact of passive and active targeting in the era of modern cancer biology,” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, vol. 66, pp. 2–25, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  140. D. Rosenblum, N. Joshi, W. Tao, J. M. Karp, and D. Peer, “Progress and challenges towards targeted delivery of cancer therapeutics,” Nature Communications, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 1410, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  141. A. Verma and F. Stellacci, “Effect of surface properties on nanoparticle-cell interactions,” Small, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 12–21, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  142. R. Mout, D. F. Moyano, S. Rana, and V. M. Rotello, “Surface functionalization of nanoparticles for nanomedicine,” Chemical Society Reviews, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 2539–2544, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  143. M. S. Devadas, T. Devkota, S. Guha, S. K. Shaw, B. D. Smith, and G. V. Hartland, “Spatial modulation spectroscopy for imaging and quantitative analysis of single dye-doped organic nanoparticles inside cells,” Nanoscale, vol. 7, no. 21, pp. 9779–9785, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  144. Y. Zhang, P. Lundberg, M. Diether et al., “Histamine-functionalized copolymer micelles as a drug delivery system in 2D and 3D models of breast cancer,” Journal of Materials Chemistry B, vol. 3, no. 12, pp. 2472–2486, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  145. R. Weissleder, K. Kelly, E. Y. Sun, T. Shtatland, and L. Josephson, “Cell-specific targeting of nanoparticles by multivalent attachment of small molecules,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 1418–1423, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  146. R. Coradeghini, S. Gioria, C. P. García et al., “Size-dependent toxicity and cell interaction mechanisms of gold nanoparticles on mouse fibroblasts,” Toxicology Letters, vol. 217, no. 3, pp. 205–216, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  147. Z. Ji, X. Wang, H. Zhang et al., “Designed synthesis of CeO2 nanorods and nanowires for studying toxicological effects of high aspect ratio nanomaterials,” ACS Nano, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 5366–5380, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  148. M. Wetzler, D. A. Thomas, E. S. Wang et al., “Phase I/II trial of nanomolecular liposomal annamycin in adult patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia,” Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 430–434, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  149. E. Chen, B. M. Chen, Y. C. Su et al., “Premature drug release from polyethylene glycol (PEG)-coated liposomal DoxorubicinviaFormation of the membrane attack complex,” ACS Nano, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 7808–7822, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  150. K. Sasaki, H. Kantarjian, W. Wierda et al., “Phase 2 study of hyper-CMAD with liposomal vincristine for patients with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia,” American Journal of Hematology, vol. 95, no. 7, pp. 734–739, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  151. F. Zahednezhad, P. Zakeri-Milani, J. Shahbazi Mojarrad, and H. Valizadeh, “The latest advances of cisplatin liposomal formulations: essentials for preparation and analysis,” Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 523–541, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  152. M. C. O. da Rocha, P. B. da Silva, M. A. Radicchi et al., “Docetaxel-loaded solid lipid nanoparticles prevent tumor growth and lung metastasis of 4T1 murine mammary carcinoma cells,” Journal of Nanobiotechnology, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 43, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  153. H. M. Aldawsari and S. Singh, “Rapid microwave-assisted cisplatin-loaded solid lipid nanoparticles: synthesis, characterization and anticancer study,” Nanomaterials, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 510, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  154. J. M. Rademaker-Lakhai, “A phase I and pharmacological study of the platinum polymer AP5280 given as an intravenous infusion once every 3 weeks in patients with solid tumors,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 3386–3395, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  155. M. Rizwanullah, M. Alam, Harshita, S. R. Mir, M. M. A. Rizvi, and S. Amin, “Polymer-lipid hybrid nanoparticles: a next-generation nanocarrier for targeted treatment of solid tumors,” Current Pharmaceutical Design, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 1206–1215, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  156. Q. Liu, H. Zhu, J. Qin, H. Dong, and J. du, “Theranostic vesicles based on bovine serum albumin and poly(ethylene glycol)-block-poly(L-lactic-co-glycolic acid) for magnetic resonance imaging and anticancer drug delivery,” Biomacromolecules, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1586–1592, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  157. J. F. Kukowska-Latallo, K. A. Candido, Z. Cao et al., “Nanoparticle targeting of anticancer drug improves therapeutic response in animal model of human epithelial cancer,” Cancer Research, vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 5317–5324, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  158. M. T. Morgan, Y. Nakanishi, D. J. Kroll et al., “Dendrimer-encapsulated camptothecins: increased solubility, cellular uptake, and cellular retention affords enhanced anticancer activity in vitro,” Cancer Research, vol. 66, no. 24, pp. 11913–11921, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  159. J. H. Maeng, D. H. Lee, K. H. Jung et al., “Multifunctional doxorubicin loaded superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles for chemotherapy and magnetic resonance imaging in liver cancer,” Biomaterials, vol. 31, no. 18, pp. 4995–5006, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  160. C. Kim, H. Kim, H. Park, and K. Y. Lee, “Controlling the porous structure of alginate ferrogel for anticancer drug delivery under magnetic stimulation,” Carbohydrate Polymers, vol. 223, article 115045, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  161. S. J. Lee, H. S. Min, S. H. Ku et al., “Tumor-targeting glycol chitosan nanoparticles as a platform delivery carrier in cancer diagnosis and therapy,” Nanomedicine, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 1697–1713, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  162. E. Cruz and V. Kayser, “Synthesis and enhanced cellular uptake in vitro of anti-HER2 multifunctional gold nanoparticles,” Cancers, vol. 11, no. 6, p. 870, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  163. K. Ovejero Paredes, D. Díaz-García, V. García-Almodóvar et al., “Multifunctional silica-based nanoparticles with controlled release of organotin metallodrug for targeted theranosis of breast cancer,” Cancers, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 187, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  164. G. Rego, M. Nucci, J. Mamani et al., “Therapeutic efficiency of multiple applications of magnetic hyperthermia technique in glioblastoma using aminosilane coated iron oxide nanoparticles: in vitro and in vivo study,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 21, no. 3, p. 958, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  165. A. J. Tevaarwerk, K. D. Holen, D. B. Alberti et al., “Phase I trial of 2-methoxyestradiol nanocrystal dispersion in advanced solid malignancies,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1460–1465, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  166. D. Matei, J. Schilder, G. Sutton et al., “Activity of 2 methoxyestradiol (Panzem NCD) in advanced, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer and primary peritoneal carcinomatosis: a Hoosier oncology group trial,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 115, no. 1, pp. 90–96, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  167. A. Rehman, S. Houshyar, and X. Wang, “Nanodiamond in composite: biomedical application,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part A, vol. 108, no. 4, pp. 906–922, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  168. A. C. Mita, A. J. Olszanski, R. C. Walovitch et al., “Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of AI-850, a novel microparticle hydrophobic drug delivery system for paclitaxel,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 3293–3301, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  169. K. Wosikowski, E. Biedermann, B. Rattel et al., “In vitro and in vivo antitumor activity of methotrexate conjugated to human serum albumin in human cancer cells,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1917–1926, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  170. S.-S. Feng and S. J. C. E. S. Chien, “Chemotherapeutic engineering: application and further development of chemical engineering principles for chemotherapy of cancer and other diseases,” vol. 58, no. 18, pp. 4087–4114, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  171. B. R. Ferrell, J. S. Temel, S. Temin et al., “Integration of palliative care into standard oncology care: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 96–112, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  172. D. W. Northfelt, B. J. Dezube, J. A. Thommes et al., “Pegylated-liposomal doxorubicin versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, and vincristine in the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma: results of a randomized phase III clinical trial,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 2445–2451, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  173. R. Duncan, “Polymer conjugates as anticancer nanomedicines,” Nature Reviews. Cancer, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 688–701, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  174. T. Tanaka, S. Shiramoto, M. Miyashita, Y. Fujishima, and Y. Kaneo, “Tumor targeting based on the effect of enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) and the mechanism of receptor-mediated endocytosis (RME),” International Journal of Pharmaceutics, vol. 277, no. 1-2, pp. 39–61, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  175. J.-o. Deguchi, M. Aikawa, C.-H. Tung et al., “Inflammation in atherosclerosis: visualizing matrix metalloproteinase action in macrophages in vivo,” Circulation, vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 55–62, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  176. A. Jordan, R. Scholz, K. Maier-Hauff et al., “The effect of thermotherapy using magnetic nanoparticles on rat malignant glioma,” Journal of Neuro-Oncology, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 7–14, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  177. S. D. Steichen, M. Caldorera-Moore, and N. A. Peppas, “A review of current nanoparticle and targeting moieties for the delivery of cancer therapeutics,” European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 416–427, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  178. E. Polo, M. Collado, B. Pelaz, and P. del Pino, “Advances toward more efficient targeted delivery of nanoparticles in vivo: understanding interactions between nanoparticles and cells,” ACS Nano, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 2397–2402, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  179. K. Unfried, C. Albrecht, L.-O. Klotz, A. Von Mikecz, S. Grether-Beck, and R. P. F. Schins, “Cellular responses to nanoparticles: target structures and mechanisms,” Nanotoxicology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 52–71, 2009. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2020 Kankai Wang 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.

More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted research articles as well as case reports and case series related to COVID-19. Review articles are excluded from this waiver policy. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.