| Literature DB >> 34959326 |
Laís Ribovski1, Naomi M Hamelmann1, Jos M J Paulusse1.
Abstract
Safe and reliable entry to the brain is essential for successful diagnosis and treatment of diseases, but it still poses major challenges. As a result, many therapeutic approaches to treating disorders associated with the central nervous system (CNS) still only show limited success. Nano-sized systems are being explored as drug carriers and show great improvements in the delivery of many therapeutics. The systemic delivery of nanoparticles (NPs) or nanocarriers (NCs) to the brain involves reaching the neurovascular unit (NVU), being transported across the blood-brain barrier, (BBB) and accumulating in the brain. Each of these steps can benefit from specifically controlled properties of NPs. Here, we discuss how brain delivery by NPs can benefit from careful design of the NP properties. Properties such as size, charge, shape, and ligand functionalization are commonly addressed in the literature; however, properties such as ligand density, linker length, avidity, protein corona, and stiffness are insufficiently discussed. This is unfortunate since they present great value against multiple barriers encountered by the NPs before reaching the brain, particularly the BBB. We further highlight important examples utilizing targeting ligands and how functionalization parameters, e.g., ligand density and ligand properties, can affect the success of the nano-based delivery system.Entities:
Keywords: blood–brain barrier; brain delivery; controlled drug delivery; nanomedicine; nanoparticles; polymers; therapeutics
Year: 2021 PMID: 34959326 PMCID: PMC8705716 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13122045
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Figure 1Blood–brain barrier representation. The brain capillaries irrigate the brain parenchyma, and their structure is composed of specialized endothelial cells as well as pericytes and astrocytes. The endothelial cells display apical–basal polarity, and tight junctions separate the polarized membranes. To reach the brain, NPs will need to interact with the apical membrane, be internalized by the endothelium, and undergo vesicular trafficking and exocytosis.
Figure 2Schematic representation of a polymeric drug delivery system and its tunable properties. This summarizes the main properties of polymer-based nanocarriers for controlling the interaction with biological systems and improving delivery efficacy. Human serum albumin (HSA) protein structure in “Corona” was adapted from the Protein Data Bank (http://www.pdb.org, accessed on 19 October 2021) PDB ID 1AO6.
Figure 3Representative micrographs of anisotropic and non-anisotropic polystyrene nanoparticles prepared by film stretching. Nanoparticles shape are (a) spherical, (b) rectangular discoidal, (c) rod-shaped, (d) worm-like, (e) oblate ellipsoidal, (f) elliptical discoidal, (g) UFO-like, and (h) circular discoidal. Scale bars are 2 µm. Adapted with permission from Reference [37], National Academy of Sciences, 2007.
Figure 4Strategy for the preparation of polymeric NPs with different linker length and ligand density. (A) Synthesis of poly(lactic acid)–poly(ethylene glycol) copolymer with carboxyl end (PLA-PEG-COOH) and different lengths of PEG (2, 3.5 and 5 kDa) and conjugation of the targeting moiety (Cyclo(RGDfK)) by EDC/NHS chemistry. (B) Fluorescent-labeling with CF™647/CF™488A amine dyes to carboxylic acid-terminated PLGA using 4-(4,6-dimethoxy-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)-4-methylmorpholinium chloride (DMTMM). (C) Preparation of polymeric NPs with different PEG linker lengths and ligand densities. EDC: N-(3-dimethylaminopropyl)-N′-ethylcarbodiimide, NHS: N-hydroxysuccinimide, DBU: 1,8-Diazabicyclo[5.4.0]undec-7-ene, BME: beta-mercaptoethanol, DCM: dichloromethane, DMF: dimethylformamide, DIPEA: N,N-diisopropylethylamine. Adapted with permission from Reference [63], American Chemical Society, 2019.
Figure 5Interaction between C6-position glucose-functionalized polymeric micelles containing different glucose densities and the mouse brain. Sections were immunolabelled with (a) anti-PECAM1 antibody for brain capillary endothelial cells, (b) anti-Tuj1 antibody for neurons, (c) anti-Iba1 antibody for microglia, and (d) anti-GFAP antibody for astrocytes (green); DAPI (blue) for nuclei and micelles are labelled with fluorescent dye Cy5 (red). Scale bar: 20 μm (10 μm in insets). Adapted with permission from Reference [12], Springer Nature, 2017.
Figure 6Simulations of the exocytosis of ligand-functionalized nanoparticles with three different densities of ligands (ρab = 2600, 5300 and 6300 μm−2) on the receptor-mediated transcytosis across polarized cells. (a) Number of bonds formed between ligand and receptor. (b) Fusion pore formation with diameter progression. (c) Bottom view of the membrane and pore diameter. (d) Evolution of the vesicle interaction with membrane and fusion pore formation followed by detachment from the membrane for sufficiently low ligand densities. Nanoparticles are considered rigid spheres and ligands are considered pH independent. The last condition guarantees that the number of bonds and receptors that is at the end of endocytosis is the same as the number that is at the beginning of exocytosis. Adapted with permission from Reference [65], Royal Society of Chemistry, 2019.
Summary of the effects of polymeric NPs properties in brain delivery and NPs properties advantages and limitations in application.
| NP Property | Effect on Brain Delivery | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Size | Smaller sizes tend to benefit transport across the BBB. | NP size can be controlled through different methods. | Preparation of smaller polymeric NPs is still challenging, and size population homogeneity is often depreciated. |
| Brain accumulation is shown to be higher for smaller NPs. | Size control may improve brain accumulation. | Loading of molecules may be low for small sized NPs. | |
| Smaller NPs are more prone to clearance by the kidneys, while bigger NPs tend to be cleared by the spleen. | |||
| Shape | Specific interactions may be favored in ligand-functionalized NPs. | Specific NP shapes may increase cell adhesion, e.g., rods. | Synthesis methods are not yet straightforward or broadly applicable. |
| May reduce internalization by cells because more energy is required for wrapping. | |||
| Stiffness | Stiffer NPs usually display increased uptake but are not necessarily more transcytosed. | Softer particles display reduced protein adsorption. | Uptake of softer NPs by cells is most likely reduced, which may limit treatment efficacy. |
| NP brain accumulation is dependent on stiffness. | Variety of methodologies available to control stiffness. | The influence of other physicochemical properties might not allow setting an unequivocal threshold for an extensive range of particles. | |
| Effects are highly dependent on the range of stiffness (often Young’s module). | Softer particles may be used to evade the MPS and enhance brain accumulation. | Stiffness modulation may not be trivial to all systems and all stiffnesses ranges. | |
| NPs stiffness might not be homogeneous through the particle. | |||
| Charge | Negatively charged surface of endothelial cells favors interaction with positively charged particles. | Control over surface charge may be used to diminish accumulation in endothelial cells and improve transport across the BBB. | Higher uptake does not necessarily lead to higher transcytosis, as positively charged particles might remain trapped in the endothelial cells to a larger extent. |
| Positively charged NPs show higher uptake but lower transport across cells barriers compared with negatively charged NPs. | Positively charged particles may induce toxicity, increase ROS, and affect BBB integrity. | ||
| Ligands | May increase targetability | Improves specificity. | Targeting ability may be limited by protein corona formation. |
| May increase transcytosis but also depends on ligand density and affinity. | Versatility of conjugation techniques. | Unspecific-site functionalization strategies may reduce receptor-ligand interaction; additionally, populations heterogeneity is expected. | |
| Variety of ligands. | Specific targets must be previously identified. | ||
| Use of multiple ligands for dual- or multi-targeting. | Size increases due to functionalization. | ||
| Some ligands are costly and hard to produce and purify, e.g., antibodies. | |||
| Avidity | Transcytosis is boosted by tuning ligand density and avoiding enduring attachment of particles to the endothelial cells membrane. | Control of the endocytosis, sorting, and exocytosis in endothelial cells. | Controlled ligand density is not trivial. |
| Avidity regulates the levels and location of NPs in the brain. | Improvement in the therapeutic index of drug delivery systems. | Engineering and production of ligands with different affinities is complex. | |
| Enhance uptake by target cell. | |||
| Corona | Presence of specific proteins, e.g., Apo E, may enhance NPs transport across the BBB and accumulation in the brain. | May reduce particle toxicity. | Alters size, shape, and surface properties. |
| May improve particle targetability. | May hamper targetability of ligand-functionalized NPs by masking the ligands. | ||
| Affects predictability of NPs–biological environment interaction. |