RESUMO
Cancer immunotherapy, or the utilization of the body's immune system to attack tumor cells, has gained prominence over the past few decades as a viable cancer treatment strategy. Recently approved immunotherapeutics have conferred remission upon patients with previously bleak outcomes and have expanded the number of tools available to treat cancer. Nanoparticles -including polymeric, liposomal, and metallic formulations - naturally traffic to the spleen and lymph organs and the relevant immune cells therein, making them good candidates for delivery of immunotherapeutic agents. Metallic nanoparticle formulations in particular are advantageous because of their potential for dense surface functionalization and their capability for optical or heat based therapeutic methods. Many research groups have investigated the potential of nanoparticle-mediated delivery platforms to improve the efficacy of immunotherapies. Despite the significant preclinical successes demonstrated by many of these platforms over the last twenty years, few metallic nanoparticles have successfully entered clinical trials with none achieving FDA approval for cancer therapy. In this review, we will discuss preclinical research and clinical trials involving metallic nanoparticles (MNPs) for cancer immunotherapy applications and discuss the potential for clinical translation of MNPs.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Gold-polyamidoamine (AuPAMAM) has previously been shown to successfully transfect cells with high efficiency. However, we have observed that certain cell types are more amenable to Au-PAMAM transfection than others. Here we utilized two representative cell lines-a "difficult to transfect" CT26 cell line and an "easy to transfect" SK-BR3 cell line-and attempted to determine the underlying mechanism for differential transfection in both cell types. Using a commonly established poly-cationic polymer similar to PAMAM (polyethyleneimine, or PEI), we additionally sought to quantify the relative transfection efficiencies of each vector in CT26 and SK-BR3 cells, in the hopes of elucidating any mechanistic differences that may exist between the two transfection vectors. RESULTS: A comparative time course analysis of green fluorescent protein reporter-gene expression and DNA uptake was conducted to quantitatively compare PEI- and AuPAMAM-mediated transfection in CT26 and SK-BR3, while flow cytometry and confocal microscopy were used to determine the contribution of cellular uptake, endosomal escape, and cytoplasmic transport to the overall gene delivery process. Results from the time course analysis and flow cytometry studies revealed that initial complex uptake and cytoplasmic trafficking to the nucleus are likely the two main factors limiting CT26 transfectability. CONCLUSIONS: The cell type-dependent uptake and intracellular transport mechanisms impacting gene therapy remain largely unexplored and present a major hurdle in the application-specific design and efficiency of gene delivery vectors. This systematic investigation offers insights into the intracellular mechanistic processes that may account for cell-to-cell differences, as well as vector-to-vector differences, in gene transfectability.
