| Literature DB >> 34204903 |
Arun Butreddy1, Nagavendra Kommineni2, Narendar Dudhipala3.
Abstract
Exosomes as nanosized vesicles are emerging as drug delivery systems for therapeutics owing to their natural origin, their ability to mediate intercellular communication, and their potential to encapsulate various biological molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids within the lipid bilayer membrane or in the lumen. Exosomes contain endogenous components (proteins, lipids, RNA) that could be used to deliver cargoes to target cells, offering an opportunity to diagnose and treat various diseases. Owing to their ability to travel safely in extracellular fluid and to transport cargoes to target cells with high efficacy, exosomes offer enhanced delivery of cargoes in vivo. However, several challenges related to the stabilization of the exosomes, the production of sufficient amounts of exosomes with safety and efficacy, the efficient loading of drugs into exosomes, the clearance of exosomes from circulation, and the transition from the bench scale to clinical production may limit their development and clinical use. For the clinical use of exosomes, it is important to understand the molecular mechanisms behind the transport and function of exosome vesicles. This review exploits techniques related to the isolation and characterization of exosomes and their drug delivery potential to enhance the therapeutic outcome and stabilization methods. Further, routes of administration, clinical trials, and regulatory aspects of exosomes will be discussed in this review.Entities:
Keywords: characterization; drug delivery; exosomes; isolation; route of administration; stabilization
Year: 2021 PMID: 34204903 PMCID: PMC8229362 DOI: 10.3390/nano11061481
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1Exosome vesicle formation, cargo sorting (starts from endocytosis and ends in the MVBs), and release. (A). Endocytosis of the plasma membrane (B) Uptake of proteins, nucleic acids, and membrane-associated molecules into encysted body and formation of EE. (C) Transformation of early endosomes (EE) into multivesicular bodies (MVB) or late endosomes (LE), intraluminal vesicle (ILV) formation via inward budding of MVB or LE, and cargo sorting through ESCRT- and ESCRT-independent pathways. (D) Fusion of MVB or LE with the plasma membrane and lysosome. (E) Exocytosis of exosomes in response to MVB–plasma membrane interactions. (F). Degradation of MVB or LE by the lysosome (modified from [14]).
Figure 2Overview of drug delivery and therapeutic applications of exosomes.
Strategies, advantages, and disadvantages of exosome isolation or purification methods.
| Isolation or Purification Methods | Mechanism | Advantages | Limitations | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ultracentrifugation | Sedimentation coefficient of exosomes and other substances in a sample. | Capable of producing a large number of exosomes with high separation purity. | Poor repeatability, low recovery rate, requires more time, unsuitable for clinical diagnosis. | [ |
| Density gradient ultracentrifugation | Separation based on the different densities. | Preserves exosome vesicle integrity, while yield can be maximized for samples that are already pure. | Difficult to scale-up, multi-step procedure. | [ |
| Ultrafiltration | Separation based on size and molecular weight. | Faster, requires no special equipment, easy to handle compared to ultracentrifugation. | Deformation and breaking up of large vesicles may occur due to the use of force. | [ |
| Size exclusion liquid chromatography | Utilizes a column packed with porous polymeric beads, which separate the exosomes based on size. | Allows separation of large and small molecules. The structure of the exosomes isolated by this method is not affected by shearing force compared to centrifugation methods. | Requires a long running time, which limits the processing of multiple biological samples. | [ |
| Immunoaffinity capture-based techniques | Based on the specific interactions between immobilized antibodies (ligands) and membrane-bound antigens (receptors) of exosomes. | Suitable for isolation of specific exosomes, high possibility of subtyping, high-purity isolation. | High reagent cost, low capacity and yield, cannot be used for the separation of exosomes at a large scale. Requires non-physiological salt and pH conditions. | [ |
| Precipitation technique | Change in the dispersibility or solubility of exosome vesicles using water excluding polymers. | Easy to use, requires no specialized equipment, and scalable sample capacity. | Requires long running times and preand postseparation cleanup. Co-precipitation of non-exosome contaminants within the sample. | [ |
| Microfluidic technologies | Immunoaffinity, sieving, and trapping of exosomes on porous structure. | Quantitative technique that allows high-throughput analysis of | Low sample capacity. Lack of standardization, method validation, and large-scale tests on clinical samples. | [ |
Examples of exosomes as drug delivery systems.
| Cargo Type | Origin of Exosomes | Disease Type | Isolation or Purification Method | Drug Loading Method | Outcome | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proteins | Signal regulatory protein α | Human embryonic kidney293T cells | Cancer | Centrifugation | Transfection | Enhanced phagocytosis of tumor cells | [ |
| Survivin-T34A | Melanoma cell lines | Pancreatic cancer | Centrifugation | NA | Apoptotic death of cells | [ | |
| Antiepidermal growth factor receptor | Mouse neuroblastoma | Epidermoid carcinoma | Ultrafiltration/size exclusion liquid chromatography | NA | Target specificity | [ | |
| 20S proteasome | Mesenchymal stem cells | Mouse myocardium | Tangential flow filtration | NA | Reduction in myocardial infraction | [ | |
| Genetic substances | miRNA | Glioblastoma cells | Glioblastoma tumor | Differential centrifugation | Transfection | Providing diagnostic information | [ |
| miRNA | Human cord blood endothelial colony-forming cells | Ischemic kidney injury | Centrifugation | Transfection | Protected kidney function and reduced kidney injury | [ | |
| Spherical nucleic acids | PC-3 cells | Prostate cancer | Centrifugation | Naturally | 3000-fold-enhanced knockdown of miR-21 | [ | |
| siRNA | Human embryonic kidneycells (HEK293) | Breast cancer | Sequential centrifugation | Electroporation | TPD52 gene expression was downregulated up to 70% compared with non-targeted exosomes | [ | |
| Small molecules | Paclitaxel | Prostate cancer cell lines (PC-3 and LNCaP) | Autologous prostate cancer | Differential centrifugation | Co-incubation | Enhanced drug cytotoxicity to cancer cells | [ |
| Doxorubicin | Immature mouse dendritic cells transfected with the vector-expressing iRGD-Lamp2b fusion proteins | Breast cancer | Centrifugation and ultrafiltration | Electroporation | Specific drug delivery to the tumor site andinhibited tumor growth | [ | |
| Curcumin | Tumor cells (GL26-Luc, BV2, 3T3L1, 4T1, CT26, A20, and EL-4) | Brain tumor and autoimmune encephalitis | Sucrose gradient centrifugation | Direct mixing | Inhibited brain inflammation and delayed brain tumor growth | [ | |
| Dopamine | Kunming mouse blood | Parkinson’s disease | Ultracentrifugation | Co-incubation | Enhanced therapeutic effect due to brain specific drug delivery | [ | |
Figure 3Exosomal drug loading approaches: (A) postloading approach; (B) preloading approach.
Advantages and disadvantages of different exosome drug loading approaches [97,137,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153].
| Drug Loading Approach | Mechanism | Advantages | Disadvantages | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Passive loading | Incubation of exosomes and free drugs. | Diffusion of cargo into a cell or exosomal membrane. | Simple operation. | Loading efficiency. |
| Incubation of the donor cells with free drugs. | ||||
| Active loading | Sonication | Creation of micropores for diffusion by mechanical shear force. | Higher loading capacity than the simple incubation method. | Sonication-induced membrane damage is a roadblock for large scale application. Influence on exosome integrity and cargo aggregation. |
| Extrusion | Membrane recombination. | High cargo loading efficiency. | Recombination of exosomal surface structure may compromise the immune-privileged status of exosomes, making exosomes visible to immune cells such as mononuclear phagocytes. | |
| Freeze–thaw cycles | Membrane fusion. | Simple and effective strategy to load various cargoes (drugs, proteins, and peptides) into exosomes directly. | Repeated freeze–thaw may cause protein degeneration and exosome aggregation. | |
| Electroporation | Creation of micropores for diffusion by the electric field. | High loading efficiency | The loading efficiency and aggregation of cargoes are major limitations. | |
| Incubation with membrane permeabilizers | Dissolves membrane molecules (cholesterol), create pores on the exosomal surface. | Higher loading capacity as compared with the simple incubation method | Saponin is hemolytically active in vivo, limiting the concentration (toxicity) of saponin used for drug loading. | |
Advantages and targeted diseases of exosomes administered via different routes [145,164,165,166,167,168].
| Routes of Administration | Targeted Disease | Advantages |
|---|---|---|
| Intravenous | Stroke, Parkinson’s disease, traumatic brain injury, acute kidney injury, antitumor therapies (prostate and breast cancer). | Most common route for systemic administration of exosomes. |
| Intraperitoneal | Bronchopulmonary dysplasia | Allows the loading of larger EV doses. |
| Oral | Facilitates | Convenient administration route |
| Intranasal | Brain parenchyma | Suitable for EV delivery into the brain, surpassing the blood brain barrier. |
| Intratumoral | Glioblastoma multiforme | More effective strategy for antitumor therapies due to higher |
Methods, advantages, and limitations of exosome characterization techniques [172,179,188,190,191,192,193,194,195].
| Identification or Quantification Methods | Purpose | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dynamic light scattering | Exosomes size distribution. | The lower measurement limit is 10 nm, suitable for the determination of monodisperse systems. Sample preservation for downstream analysis and requires no sample preparation. | Difficult to distinguish contaminated proteins with exosomes, not suitable for measuring complex exosome samples with large size ranges. Inaccurate with polydispersed and heterogeneous samples. |
| Nanoparticle tracking analysis Technology | Measurement of size and concentration of exosomes. | Higher resolution than flow cytometer, exosomes can be observed in real time with faster detection speed. | Detection threshold and camera levels will affect the quantification of exosomes. |
| Atomic force microscopy | Detection of exosomal morphology. | Require small sample amount, no sample fixation or staining. | Sample dehydration on mica surfaces may lead to modifications of the size and morphology of exosomes. |
| SEM and TEM | Detection of exosomal morphology. | SEM can be used to directly observe the surface structure, whereas TEM can be used to observe the internal structure of exosomes and provide information about particle size distribution. | SEM resolution is lower than TEM, high requirements in terms of sample preparation make TEM not suitable for rapid measurement of a large number of samples. |
| Flow cytometry | Detection of biomarkers of exosomes. | Qualitative and quantitative characterization of exosomes. | Detection limit is 400 nm, identification of multiple vesicles as a single event is possible, the particle size of exosomes cannot be measured, detection of proteins or antibody aggregates limits its application. |
| ELISA | Exosome protein quantification. | Suitable for high-throughput analysis and rapid detection with high specificity, can be used to analyze the marker proteins quantitatively and qualitatively. | Time-consuming, possible detection of non exosomal marker proteins, complicated operation with less repeatability. |
| Western blot | Exosome marker protein quantification. | Easy to analyze exosomes from cell culture media, the classic method for qualitative and quantitative analysis of marker proteins. | The detection of exosomal marker proteins varies depending on the type of parental cell, meaning this technique not suitable for the detection of exosomal marker proteins in biological fluid. Provides non-specific information on exosome concentration and size or distribution. |
Figure 4Schematic representation of the manufacturing scheme (upstream and downstream processing) for exosome-based therapeutics.
List of clinical trials for exosome-based therapeutics.
| Study Title | NCT Number | Conditions | Phase | Outcome Measures | Source of Exosomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allogenic mesenchymal stem cell derived exosome in patients with acute ischemic stroke. | NCT03384433 | Cerebrovascular disorders | Phase 1/2 | Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (deteriorating stroke, stroke recurrences, brain edema, seizures, hemorrhagic transformation). | Mesenchymal stem cell |
| Evaluation of adipose derived stem cells exosomes in treatment of periodontitis. | NCT04270006 | Periodontitis | Early phase 1 | Changes in gingival inflammation, bone levels, probing depth. | Adipose-derived stem cells |
| Study investigating the ability of plant exosomes to deliver curcumin to normal and colon cancer tissue. | NCT01294072 | Colon cancer | Phase 1 | The concentrations of curcumin in normal and cancerous tissue, safety and tolerability of curcumin, and immune system response to curcumin. | Plants (fruit) |
| Effect of plasma derived exosomes on cutaneous wound healing. | NCT02565264 | Ulcers | Early phase 1 | Ulcer size, the pain of cutaneous wounds. | Plasma |
| Trial of a vaccination with tumor antigen-loaded dendritic cell-derived exosomes. | NCT01159288 | Non-small cell lung | Phase 2 | Progression-free survival. | Dendritic cells |
| Edible plant exosome ability to prevent oral mucositis associated with chemoradiation treatment of head and neck cancer. | NCT01668849 | Head and neck cancer and oral mucositis | Phase 1 | Pain caused by oral mucositis, levels of immune biomarkers in blood and mucosal tissue. | Plants (grape) |
| Effect of microvesicles and exosomes therapy on β-cell mass in type I diabetes mellitus. | NCT02138331 | Diabetes mellitus type 1 | Phase 2 and phase 3 | Total daily insulin dose, pancreatic β-cell mass, and hemoglobin A1c. | Mesenchymal stem cells |
| Exosomes and Immunotherapy in Non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphomas. | NCT03985696 | Lymphoma, B-cell, aggressive non-Hodgkin | Not applicable | Quantification of CD20 and PDL-1 in exosomes purified from cell cultures of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) human cell lines and evaluation of whether peripheral exosomes can be used as novel diagnostic biomarkers in DLBCL. | Tumor B cells |
| Exosomes in treating participants with metastatic pancreas cancer with KrasG12D mutation. | NCT03608631 | Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma | Phase 1 | Overall survival, progression-free survival, minimal residual disease rate in high-risk patients, and maximum tolerated dose determined by dose-limiting toxicity. | Mesenchymal stromal cells |
| A safety study of IV stem cell-derived extracellular Vesicles (UNEX-42) in preterm neonates at high risk for BPD. | NCT03857841 | Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) | Phase 1 | Safety and tolerability, incidence, and severity of BPD at 36 weeks postmenstrual age and incidence of death at 36 weeks postmenstrual age. | Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells |