Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5645_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
15.09.2026
Размер:
14 Мб
Скачать
☆
Smart Drug Delivery Systems – Futuristic Window in Cancer Therapy
81
https://t.me/med1917
[17] Filippi L, Frantellizzi V, Sidrak MMA,
Gorica J, Scippa S, Chiaravalloti A, et al. Radiotheranostic agents targeting neuroblastoma: State-of-the-art and emerging perspectives. Oncology. 2021;(2):123-139
[18] Jaidev LR, Chede LS, Kandikattu HK.
Theranostic nanoparticles for pancreatic cancer treatment. Endocrine, Metabolic & Immune Disorders Drug Targets. 2021;(2):203-214
[19] Eder M, Neels O, Müller M,
Bauder-Wüst U, Remde Y, Schäfer M, et al. Novel preclinical and radiopharmaceutical aspects of [68Ga] Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC: A new PET tracer for imaging of prostate cancer. Pharmaceuticals. 2014;:779-796
[20] Jadvar H, Chen X, Cai W,
Mahmood U. Radiotheranostics in cancer diagnosis and management. Radiology. 2018;:388-400
[21] Harbeck N, Penault-Llorca F,
Cortes J, Gnant M, Houssami N, Poortmans P, et al. Breast cancer (primer). Nature Reviews: Disease Primers. 2019;:66
[22] Signore A, Lauri C, Auletta S,
Varani M, Onofrio L, Glaudemans AW, et al. Radiopharmaceuticals for breast cancer and neuroendocrine tumors: Two examples of how tissue characterization may influence the choice of therapy. Cancers. 2020;:781
[23] Nimmagadda S, Penet MF. Ovarian
cancer targeted theranostics. Frontier in Oncology. 2020;:1537
[24] Zeevaart JR, Wagener J,
Marjanovic-Painter B, Sathekge M, Soni N, Zinn C, et al. Production of high specific activity 195mPt-cisplatinum at South African Nuclear Energy Corporation for Phase 0 clinical
trials in healthy individual subjects. Journal of Labelled Compounds and Radiopharmaceuticals. 2013;(9-10):495-503
[25] Greco A, Miranda C, Borrello MG,
Pierotti MA. Thyroid cancer. Cancer Genomics. 2014;:265-280
[26] Haugen BR, Alexander EK,
Bible KC, Doherty GM, Mandel SJ, Nikiforov YE, et al. American Thyroid Association Management Guidelines for Adult Patients with Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: The American Thyroid Association Guidelines Task Force on Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Thyroid. 2016;:1-133
[27] Yoshinaga K, Abe T,Okamoto S,
Uchiyama Y, Manabe O, Ito YM, et al. Effects of repeated 131I-meta­iodobenzylguanidine radiotherapy on tumor size and tumor metabolic activities in patients with metasatic neuroendocrine tumors. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2020;(5)685-694
[28] Lumbroso J, Guermazi F,
Hartmann O, Coornaert S, Rabarison Y, Lemerle J, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of meta-iodobenzylguanidine (mIBG) scintigraphy in the evaluation of neuroblastoma: Analysis of 115 cases. Bulletin du Cancer. 1988;:97-106
[29] Monsieurs M, Brans B,Bacher K,
Dierckx R, Thierens H. Patient dosimetry for 131I-MIBG therapy for neuroendocrine tumours based on 123I-MIBG scans. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2002;:1581-1587
[30] Jha P, Frölich AMJ,McCarville B,
Navarro OM, Babyn P, Goldsby R, et al. Unusual association of alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma with pancreatic metastasis: Emerging role of PET-CT
Cancer Theranostics: Pharmaceutical View DOI: http://ITexLi.113913
in tumor staging. Pediatric Radiology.
82
https://t.me/med1917
2010;:1380-1386
[31]
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2019;:7-34
[32]
King J, Bouvet M, Singh G, Williams J. Improving theranostics in pancreatic cancer. Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2017;(1):104-113
[33]
Barca C, Griessinger CM, Faust A, Depke D,Essler M, Windhorst AD, et
al. Expanding Theranostic radiopharmaceuticals for tumor diagnosis and therapy. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2021;(1):13
[34]
Pienta KJ, Esper PS. Risk factors for prostate cancer. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1993;(10):793-803
[35]
Rawla P. Epidemiology of prostate cancer. World Journal of Oncology. 2019;(2):63-89
[36]
Walsh PC, Madden JD,Harrod MJ, Goldstein JL, MacDonald PC, Wilson JD. Familial incomplete male pseudohermaphroditism, type 2. Decreased dihydrotestosterone formation in pseudovaginal perineoscrotal hypospadias. The New England Journal of Medicine. 1974;(18):944-949
[37]
Attard G, Belldegrun AS, De Bono JS. Selective blockade of androgenic steroid synthesis by novel lyase inhibitors as a therapeutic strategy for treating metastatic prostate cancer. BJU International. 2005;:1241-1246
[38]
Jang A, Kendi AT, Sartor O. Status of PSMA-targeted radioligand therapy in prostate cancer: Current data and future trials. Therapeutic Advanced Medical Oncology. 2023;:17588359231157632
[39]
Bois F, Noirot C, Dietemann S, Mainta IC, Zilli T, Garibotto V, et al.
[68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 in prostate cancer: A comprehensive review. American Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2020;(6):349-374
[40] Hofman MS, Lawrentschuk N,
Francis RJ, Tang C, Vela I, Thomas P, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): A prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Lancet. 2020;:1208-1216
[41] Scopinaro F, De Vincentis G,
Varvarigou AD, et al. 99mTc-bombesin detects prostate cancer and invasion of pelvic lymph nodes. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2003;:1378-1382
[42] Morris MJ, Loriot Y, Sweeney CJ,
et al. Radium-223 in combination with docetaxel in patients with castration­resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases: A phase 1 dose escalation/ randomised phase 2a trial. European Journal of Cancer. 2019;:107-116
[43] O’Dwyer E, Bodei L, Morris MJ.
The role of theranostics in prostate cancer. Seminars in Radiation Oncology. 2021;(1):71-82
[44] Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A.
Cancer statistics. CA: A Cancer Journal of Clinicians. 2020;:7-30
[45] Nounou MI, ElAmrawy F,
Ahmed N, Abdelraouf K, Goda S, Syed-Sha-Qhattal H. Breast cancer: conventional diagnosis and treatment modalities and recent patents and technologies. Breast Cancer (Auckland). 2015;(Suppl. 2):17-34
[46] Kameswaran M, Pandey U, Gamre N,
Sarma HD, Dash A. Preparation of 177Lu-Trastuzumab injection for treatment of breast cancer.
Smart Drug Delivery Systems – Futuristic Window in Cancer Therapy
83
https://t.me/med1917
Applied Radiation and Isotopes. 2019;:184-190
[47] Jokar N, Velikyan I, Ahma-
dzadehfar H, Rekabpour SJ, Jafari E, Ting HH, et al. Theranostic approach in breast cancer: A treasured tailor for future oncology. Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 2021;(8):e410-e420
[48] Gaykema SB, de Jong JR,
Perik PJ, Brouwers AH, Schröder CP, Munnink THO, et al. (111) In-trastuzumab scintigraphy in HER2­positive metastatic breast cancer patients remains feasible during trastuzumab treatment. Molecular Imaging. 2014;:5
[49] Anthony LB,Woltering EA,
Espenan GD, et al. Indium-111­pentetreotide prolongs survival in gastroenteropancreatic malignancies. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine. 2002;(2):123-132
[50] Das S, Al-Toubah T, El-Haddad G,
Strosberg J. 177Lu-DOTATATE for the treatment of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 2019;(11):1023-1031
[51] Wikberg ML, Edin S, Lundberg IV,
et al. High intratumoral expression of fibroblast activation protein (FAP) in colon cancer is associated with poorer patient prognosis. Tumour Biology. 2013;:1013-1020
[52] Carrasquillo JA, Morris PG,
Humm JL, Smith-Jones PM, Beylergil V, Akhurst T, et al. Copper-64 trastuzumab PET imaging: A reproducibility study. The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2019;(2):191-198
PET imaging of HER2-positive lesions in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2010;:586-592
[54] Beylergil V, Morris PG, Smith-J
ones PM, Modi S, Solit D, Hudis CA, et al. Pilot study of 68Ga-DOTA-F(ab’)2­trastuzumab in patients with breast cancer. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 2013;(12):1157-1165
[55] Guo X, Zhou N, Chen Z, Liu T,
Xu X, Lei X, et al. Construction of 124 I-trastuzumab for noninvasive PET imaging of HER2 expression: From patient-derived xenograft models to gastric cancer patients. Gastric Cancer. 2020;:614-626
[56] Bhusari P, Vatsa R, Singh G,
Parmar M, Bal A, Dhawan DK, et al. Development of Lu-177-trastuzumab for radioimmunotherapy of HER2 expressing breast cancer and its feasibility assessment in breast cancer patients. International Journal of Cancer. 2017;(4):938-947
[57] Sato K, Hanaoka H, Watanabe R,
Nakajima T, Choyke PL, Kobayashi H. Near infrared photoimmunotherapy in the treatment of disseminated peritoneal ovarian cancer. Molecular Cancer Therapeutics. 2015;:141-150
[58] Scholler N, Urban N. CA125 in
ovarian cancer. Biomarkers in Medicine. 2007;:513-523
[59] Sharma SK, Sevak KK, Monette S,
Carlin SD, Knight JC, Wuest FR, et al. Preclinical 89Zr immuno-PET of high­grade serous ovarian cancer and lymph node metastasis. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2016;:771-776
[53] Dijkers E, Oude MT, Kosterink J,
Brouwers A, Jager P, De Jong J, et al. Biodistribution of 89Zr-trastuzumab and
[60] Hallqvist A, Bergmark K,
Bäck T, Andersson H, Dahm-Kähler P, Johansson M, et al. Intraperitoneal
Cancer Theranostics: Pharmaceutical View DOI: http://ITexLi.113913
α-emitting radioimmunotherapy with
84
https://t.me/med1917
211AT in relapsed ovarian cancer: Long­term follow-up with individual absorbed dose estimations. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2019;(8):1073-1079
[68] Choiński J, Łyczko M. Prospects
for the production of radioisotopes andradiobioconjugates for theranostics. Bio-Algorithms and Med-Systems. 2021;(4):241-257
[61]
Pandit-Taskar N. Targeted radioimmunotherapy and theranostics with alpha emitters. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radioactive Science. 2019;(4 Suppl 1):S41-S44
[62]
Staudacher AH, Bezak E, Borysenko A, Brown MP. Targeted alpha­therapy using 227Th-APOMAB and cross-fire antitumour effects: Preliminary in-vivo evaluation. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 2014;:1284-1290
[63]
Drude N, Tienken L, Mottaghy FM. Theranostic and nanotheranostic probes in nuclear medicine. Methods. 2017;:14-22
[64]
Yordanova A, Eppard E, Kürpig S, Bundschuh RA, Schönberger S, Gonzalez-Carmona M, et
al. Theranostics in nuclear medicine practice. Oncotargets and Therapy. 2017;:4821-4828
[65]
Denoyer D, Masaldan S, La Fontaine S, Cater M. Targeting copperin cancer therapy: ‘Copper that Cancer’. Metallomics. 2015;:1459-1476
[66]
Shanbhag VC, Gudekar N, Jasmer K, Papageorgiou C, Singh K, Petris MJ. Copper metabolism as a unique vulnerability in cancer. Biochimica Biophysica Acta Molecular Cell Research. 2021;:118893
[67]
Raj N, Reidy-Lagunes D. The role of 68Ga-DOTATATE positron emission tomography/computed tomography in well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors: A case-based approach illustrates potential benefits and challenges. Pancreas. 2018;:1-5
[69] Silberstein EB. Radioiodine: The
classic theranostic agent. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine. 2012;(3):164-170
[70] Gomes Marin JF, Nunes RF,
Coutinho AM, Zaniboni EC, Costa LB, Barbosa FG, et al. Theranostics in nuclear medicine: Emerging and re-emerging integrated imaging and therapies in the era of precision oncology. Radiographics. 2020;(6):1715-1740
[71] Cal-Gonzalez J,Rausch I,
Shiyam Sundar LK, Lassen ML, Muzik O, Moser E, et al. Hybrid imaging:
Frontier in Physics. 2018;:47
[72] Van Dongen GA, Poot AJ,
Vugts DJ. PET imaging with radiolabeled antibodies and tyrosine kinase inhibitors: Immuno-PET and TKI-PET. Tumour Biology. 2012;:607-615
[73] Andersson KG, Rosestedt M,
Varasteh Z, Malm M, Sandström M, Tolmachev V, et al. Comparative evaluation of 111In-labeled NOTA-conjugated affibody molecules for visualization of HER3 expression in malignant tumors. Oncology Reports. 2015;(2):1042-1048
[74] Kuda-Wedagedara ANW,
Workinger JL, Nexo E, Doyle RP, Viola-Villegas N. 89Zr-cobalamin PET tracer: Synthesis, cellular uptake, and use for tumor imaging. ACS Omega. 2017;(10):6314-6320
[75] Johnson KK,Koshy P,Yang J,
Sorrell CC. Preclinical cancer theranostics—From nanomaterials to clinic: The missing link. Advanced Functional Materials. 2021;(43):1-40
Smart Drug Delivery Systems – Futuristic Window in Cancer Therapy
85
https://t.me/med1917
[76] Nunn AD. The cost of bringing a
radiopharmaceutical to the patient’s bedside. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2007;:169
[77] Dreifuss T, Betzer O, Shilo M,
Popovtzer A, Motiei M, Popovtzer R. A challenge for theranostics: Is the optimal particle for therapy also optimal for diagnostics? Nanoscale. 2015;(37):15175-15184
Chapter 5
86
https://t.me/med1917
Exosome-Based Smart Drug Delivery for Cancer Treatment
ShabnamMalik, MohammedSikander, SheemaKhan, D
anielZubieta, Murali M.Yallapu and Subhash C.Chauhan
Abstract
Advances in nanoscale materials have become indispensable for targeted drug delivery, early detection, and personalized approaches for cancer treatment. Among various nanoscale materials investigated, exosomes hold significant promise in drug delivery. Exosomes are nanoscale vesicles that are usually 30–150nm in size and pro­duced by cells for intercellular communication. Due to their unique composition and inherent tumor-targeting capacity, these particles are well suited for tumor-specific delivery systems. This chapter discusses exosome isolation, therapeutic loading methods, key roles of exosomes in the tumor microenvironment, current applications of exosomes in drug delivery, and possible clinical implications.
Keywords: exosome, tumor microenvironment, drug delivery, miRNAs, lncRNAs
. Introduction
Over the last few decades, there has been a significant increase in the development of innovative therapeutic drug delivery approaches. Although numerous approaches have been identified, exosome-based drug delivery has drawn significant attention. They are generally 30-150nm-sized, membrane-bound nanovesicles with a variety of biologically active compounds [1, 2]. Intraluminal vesicles are generated by endo­cytosing various transmembrane proteins into the cell’s endosomes, which are then sorted and turned into intraluminal vesicles. These vesicles are discharged when an endosome merges with the cell membrane, delivering their contents into the extracel­lular space [3]. Tetraspanins (specifically CD9, CD63, and CD81) are among the most commonly found proteins on the surface of exosomes and are often used as markers specific to exosomes. It has been demonstrated that these proteins interact with other proteins, including integrins and major histocompatibility complexes [4].
Exosomes generally function as carriers for genetic and proteomic information, playing a crucial role in cellular communication [3, 5]. Exosomes have been associated with cellular communication in the tumor microenvironment. As a result, they are currently being studied as potential targets for therapy and as vehicles for delivering treatments [4, 6]. Targeted delivery of therapeutic drugs to cancer cells minimizes cytotoxic effects on healthy cells. Because of their unique composition and ability to
Smart Drug Delivery Systems – Futuristic Window in Cancer Therapy
87
https://t.me/med1917
receive various therapeutic substances, it is possible that exosomes can be used as a more precise targeting system for delivering drugs to tumors.
. An overview of methods and strategies for exosome isolation
Ultracentrifugation is a widely used method for the isolation and purification of exosomes, small extracellular vesicles secreted by cells. This is currently the “gold standard” for isolating exosomes via a variety of centrifugation methods. The technique involves the use of high-speed centrifugation to separate exosomes from other cellular debris and contaminants based on their size and density. Though it is a standard approach for isolating exosomes, it results in a significant sample loss. The vesicles may be damaged by repeated centrifugation, and there is a chance that a highly immunogenic protein aggregate may also co-sediment [7–9]. Repeated ultra­centrifugation operations resulted in decreased particle yields and a reduced total exosome recovery rate [9]. Ultracentrifugation combined with additional isolation techniques can result in a greater yield of exosomes. Payload concentration determi­nation refers to the process of quantifying the concentration or amount of a target molecule or particle present in the sample after ultracentrifugation. Once the sample has been centrifuged and the pellet containing the payload has formed, it is neces­sary to determine the concentration of the payload accurately [10]. There are several methods to determine the payload concentration after ultracentrifugation. One common approach is to resuspend the pellet in a known volume of buffer solution and measure the optical density (OD) or absorbance at a specific wavelength using a spec­trophotometer. By correlating the absorbance measurement with a standard curve generated from known concentrations of the payload, researchers can determine the concentration of the target molecule or particle in the sample. Another method is to measure the mass of the pellet after ultracentrifugation using a sensitive balance. By weighing the pellet and accounting for the resuspension volume, researchers can calculate the concentration of the payload in the sample. In addition to these methods, various analytical techniques such as immunoassays, PCR, or gel electrophoresis can be employed to determine the concentration or purity of specific components within the payload.
Ultrafiltration uses filters or membranes with defined pore sizes to selectively retain particles below a certain size, typically in the range of 10–100 nanometers. The exosomes, being smaller than the retention size, can pass through the membrane, while larger contaminants are retained. This technique allows for efficient separation and concentration of exosomes. Compared to ultracentrifugation, this method is expected to yield more exosomes, but it also has some potential drawbacks [9, 11]. To assess the concentration of payload during this process, the isolated exosomes are typically analyzed using various techniques, such as Western blotting, nanoparticle tracking analysis, or mass spectrometry. These methods allow researchers to assess the presence and abundance of specific cargo molecules within the exosomes, provid­ing insights into their payload concentration [12].
Exosomes or proteins contained in exosomes could adhere to the membrane, which would hinder their retrieval for subsequent analysis [13]. Immunoaffinity capture methods rely on the specific binding between exosomal surface markers and antibodies, allowing for the selective capture of exosomes from a complex biological sample. The sample is typically pre-cleared to remove larger particles and debris, either through centrifugation or by using low-speed filtration. This step helps to
Exosome-Based Smart Drug Delivery for Cancer Treatment DOI: http://ITexLi.113744
eliminate background noise and increase the efficiency of immunoaffinity capture.
88
https://t.me/med1917
Next, specific antibodies targeting exosomal surface markers are immobilized on a solid support, such as magnetic beads or a microplate. Antibodies against common exosome markers like CD9, CD63, CD81, or tissue-specific markers can be used. These antibodies have a high affinity for their respective target, allowing for efficient capture of exosomes. After capturing, the exosomes can be eluted from the solid support, usually with a solution that disrupts the antigen-antibody interaction. The eluted exosomes can then be collected, further purified if needed, and used for downstream applications such as characterization, analysis, or therapeutic purposes. The use of magnetic beads in an immunoisolation technique is one important varia­tion of this strategy for quick isolation of exosomes. Utilizing magnetic beads coated with anti-EpCAM, this procedure was proven using exosomes secreted by LIM1863 colon cancer cells. To identify the concentration of the payload during immunoaf­finity capture, researchers employ various techniques such as ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) or Western blotting. These methods utilize specific antibodies that can selectively bind to the target molecules of interest, allowing for quantifica­tion, and assessment of the payload concentration within the isolated exosomes.
Recent investigations identified a few improved isolation methods than ultracen
­trifugation [9]. Size exclusion chromatography (SEC) separates particles according to their size by using a porous column or resin through which the sample is passed. In SEC, the sample is loaded onto a column or resin composed of a porous material with specific pore sizes. The column is designed to allow smaller particles, such as exosomes, to enter the pores and interact less with the resin, resulting in faster elution. Larger particles, on the other hand, interact more with the resin and are retained longer within the column. It has been observed that this approach offers highly precise and reproducible outcomes when collecting exosomes. Nonetheless, conducting this separation technique takes a considerable amount of time due to the occurrence of gravity flow separation. Consequently, ultracentrifugation is often utilized to further intensify the concentration of the exosome sample [14–16]. In exosome isolation through size exclusion chromatography, the payload concentration of exosomes can be determined by analyzing the eluted fractions collected during the chromatographic process [17]. This can be done by quantifying specific cargo molecules, such as proteins or nucleic acids, present in the collected samples. Various analytical techniques like Western blotting, ELISA, or qPCR can be employed to measure the concentration of these cargo molecules, providing an estimation of the payload concentration in the isolated exosomes.
Polymer-based precipitation methods rely on the addition of polymers, such as
polyethylene glycol, to the sample to precipitate exosomes, thereby facilitating their separation. A method of precipitating substances has been shown to potentially yield higher levels of exosomal RNA and protein purity compared to the widely accepted ultracentrifugation method. Exosomes isolated from ascites are the only source that can prove this, yet [18]. Polymer-based precipitation methods were regarded as a straightforward, quick, and scalable option to isolate and identify exosomes [11]. To determine the payload concentration, additional analysis techniques such as spec­troscopy, mass spectrometry, or ELISA assays can be employed, targeting specific payloads of interest. These techniques can provide quantitative measurements and help to determine the payload concentration in the isolated exosomes. It’s important to note that the efficiency of polymer-based precipitation and the resulting payload concentration can vary depending on the specific experimental conditions and the quality of the starting sample.
Smart Drug Delivery Systems – Futuristic Window in Cancer Therapy
89
https://t.me/med1917
Microfluidics-based devices are designed with nanostructured surfaces or chan­nels that can selectively trap exosomes based on their size or surface markers. This technique allows for the isolation of exosomes without the need for extensive sample preparation, enhancing efficiency and reducing contamination. Additionally, this approach is more compatible with clinical laboratory practices than the exosome isolation practices that are currently in use. Furthermore, exosomes from serum can be separated using microfluidics devices in a single step as opposed to magnetic bead­based techniques [19]. To evaluate the payload concentration, microfluidics devices often utilize techniques such as fluorescence-activated sorting or single-particle analysis [20]. In fluorescence-activated sorting, the exosome sample is passed through a microfluidic channel where fluorescently labeled exosomes are detected and sorted based on their fluorescence intensity. This allows for the quantification of the payload concentration within the isolated exosomes. Single-particle analysis involves imag­ing individual exosomes within the microfluidic device. By capturing images of the exosomes, their cargo can be visually identified and analyzed. This provides insights into the payload concentration and can be used to study the heterogeneity of the cargo within the exosomes. These devices play a crucial role in the study of exosomes and their cargo, opening up exciting possibilities for research and potential applications in various fields such as diagnostics and therapeutics.
. Advancements in drug loading strategies for exosomes
Electroporation (electric pulses to produce transitory pores in the lipid bilayer) facilitates the incorporation of therapeutic cargos such as drugs, nucleic acids, or proteins in exosomes. The electric pulses create temporary openings in the exo­some membrane, enabling the efficient loading of therapeutic molecules into the exosomes. The therapeutic-loaded exosomes generated by electroporation methods have shown promise in various therapeutic applications. For targeted drug delivery applications, the loaded exosomes are engineered to specifically deliver therapeutic cargos to desired cell types or tissues. Additionally, these exosomes can be utilized in gene therapy, where exosomes with loaded nucleic acids can deliver genetic material to target cells for therapeutic purposes. Greco et al., [21] revealed that Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) and Human Embryonic Kidney 293 (HEK293) exosomes were suspended in an electroporation buffer containing several forms of siRNA at a specific concentration. Following that, the exosome-siRNA mixture was put into a cuvette and electroporated with a Bio-Rad® Gene Pulse XCell electroporation equip­ment. The authors were able to measure the exosome loading efficiency using siRNA that was allophycocyanin-labeled. The UMUC3 bladder cancer cells were incubated with the exosomes for 6hours. They observed that the fluorescence intensity was more than 28-fold higher in the siRNA-loaded exosome-containing cell population. The enhanced fluorescence intensity demonstrated that electroporation was effec­tive in transferring siRNA into exosomes, and consequently into the bladder cancer cell. A modified calcium chloride transfection technique is capable of introducing miRNA into exosomes [22]. This technique offers a versatile platform for loading a wide range of therapeutics. However, there is a chance that this approach will result in excessive aggregation or that the exosomes’ membrane integrity could be dam­aged. Electroporation also requires specific equipment to use, such as the Neon® Transfection System [22, 23]. It is important to note that further research is required to optimize electroporation methods for therapeutic loading in exosomes. Factors
Exosome-Based Smart Drug Delivery for Cancer Treatment DOI: http://ITexLi.113744
such as pulse parameters, cargo compatibility, and the impact of electroporation on
90
https://t.me/med1917
exosome stability and functionality need to be carefully investigated.
Incubation methods for therapeutic loading in exosomes are another approach
that researchers have explored to enhance the therapeutic potential of exosomes. This method involves incubating exosomes with therapeutic molecules, allowing for the passive uptake of these molecules by exosomes through diffusion or other mechanisms. The advantage of incubation methods is their simplicity and ease of use. They do not require complicated equipment or specialized techniques, which makes them accessible to a wide range of researchers. However, it is important to consider the limitations of incubation methods. The loading efficiency achieved through diffusion-based uptake can be relatively low, resulting in a fraction of exosomes being loaded with therapeutic cargo [24]. Curcumin-loaded exosomes have been used to demonstrate a simple incubation of exosomes with therapeutic payload. Curcumin and exosomes were mixed in PBS and incubated at 22°C for 5min. The samples were subsequently centrifuged using a sucrose gradient for
1.5hours at 20,000×g, and HPLC analysis was used to determine the curcumin concentration [25].
Incubation of donor cells is often used as a method for packaging therapeutic
cargo into exosomes. To load exosomes with therapeutic cargo, donor cells are first incubated with the desired cargo molecules. This can be achieved by treating the cells with specific drugs or by transfecting them with plasmids or viral vectors encoding the cargo of interest. The uptake and packaging of therapeutic cargo into exosomes occurs during the biogenesis of these vesicles. Mesenchymal stromal cells were treated with low-dose paclitaxel for 24hours and then reseeded in new flasks. Exosomes containing paclitaxel and having a therapeutic effect on pancreatic cancer cells
in
were isolated from media collected after growth [26]. Saponins are natural
vitro
compounds found in certain plants and have been shown to facilitate the loading of therapeutic molecules into exosomes. This loading process involves incubating thera­peutic agents together with exosomes and saponins, allowing them to interact and promote the encapsulation of the cargo inside the exosomes. Since saponin is thought to have a hemolytic impact, its concentration should be reduced to a minimum and, preferably, purified from the final product [24, 27, 28]. In the sonication approach, exosomes and cargo are sonicated using a homogenizer probe which leads to consider­able deformation within the membrane, allowing for increased diffusion of drugs into the exosome [29].
Numerous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of the sonication method; in
some instances, it has resulted in multiple layers of drug encapsulation, some of which incorporate inside the exosome and some within the membrane, resulting in a two­stage drug release, where the membrane-bound portion is released more quickly, and the internalized drug is released over a longer period of time [30]. Despite the fact that this approach may be advantageous for certain drugs, it has been shown to result in the aggregation and/or degradation of nucleic acids [28, 29]. In the extrusion method, exosomes are mixed with a drug, and the resultant mixture is passed through mem­branes ranging in size from 100 to 400nm at a regulated temperature. This leads to a strong mixing of the exosomes and drug, resulting in membrane breakdown and drug loading. The effects of the strong mechanical forces caused by extrusion on exosomes are yet unknown [24, 29]. However, one study determined that exosome extrusion caused an altered zeta potential and cytotoxicity, but other loading methods did not cause cytotoxicity [27] for therapeutic loading in exosomes involve the use of special­ized techniques to package therapeutic agents into exosomes, which are small vesicles