Journal of Nanomedicine & Nanotechnology

Advances of Disease Treatment by Nanotechnology

Robert Allen^* Department of Cancer Nanotechnology, Canada
^*Correspondence: Robert Allen, Department of Cancer Nanotechnology, Canada, Email:

Received: 03-Apr-2023, Manuscript No. jnmnt-23-21178; Editor assigned: 05-Apr-2023, Pre QC No. jnmnt-23-21178 (PQ); Reviewed: 19-Apr-2023, QC No. jnmnt-23-21178; Revised: 22-Apr-2023, Manuscript No. jnmnt-23-21178 (R); Published: 29-Apr-2023, DOI: 10.35248/2157-7439.23.14.682.

INTRODUCTION

Significant complications can result from non-specific drug delivery, which is a significant obstacle to the development of an efficient treatment for cancer. Additionally, the occurrence of resistance phenomena decreases cancer treatment effectiveness [1]. To defeat the absence of explicitness of traditional chemotherapeutic medications, a few ligated-designated remedial procedures, including immunoglobulin radioimmunotherapeutics and drug immunoconjugates, are being created. The delivery efficiency of these conjugated agents is still limited, despite their promising efficacy in comparison to conventional chemotherapy drugs. New possibilities for specific drug delivery have emerged as a result of recent advancements in cancer nanotechnology [2]. As a new class of cancer treatment, nano particles, particularly those between 10 and 100 nm, are emerging. Small molecule drugs, peptides, proteins, and nucleic acids are just a few examples of the many functional molecules that can be present in nanoparticles at the same time [3]. Nanoparticles can increase the intercellular concentration of drugs in cancer cells while minimizing toxicity in normal cells by employing both passive and active targeting strategies; when compared to the therapeutic entities they contain, these results in simultaneous enhancement of anticancer effects and reduction of systemic toxicity. Additionally, nanoparticles have the ability to bypass the P-glycoprotein efflux pump, which is one of the primary mechanisms of drug resistance, resulting in greater intracellular accumulation. As a result, nanoparticles offer the potential to overcome drug resistance [4]. The objective of this review article is to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of therapeutic nanoparticles and to provide a summary of the outcomes of their application in clinical settings. As a result, the primary characteristics of therapeutic nanoparticles and their effects on their effectiveness and specificity as a drug delivery system will be the focus of the first section [5]. Then, we will sum up current clinical purposes of the original restorative nanoparticles and the advances in new age of helpful nanoparticles right now under preclinical and clinical examination.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Polymeric nanoparticles

Numerous natural polymers, including chitosan, heparin, dextran albumin, gelatin, alginate, and collagen, have been the subject of extensive research [6]. Manufactured polymers including polyethylene glycol (Stake), polyglutamic corrosive (PGA), polylactic corrosive (PLA), polycaprolactone (PCL) and N-(2-hydroxypropyl)- met acrylamide copolymer (HPMA) have been taken advantage of also. These polymers must be biocompatible, biodegradable, and able to be functionalized as general requirements. A number of review articles have provided a summary of the formation of polymeric nanoparticles. The polymeric Nano particle typically consists of two components: a hydrophilic shell that stabilizes the Nano particle in aqueous environments and a hydrophobic core that houses anticancer agents [7]. There are two ways the drug can be loaded into polymeric nanoparticles: through chemical conjugation or physical entrapment. A hydrophobic communication between the center of the polymeric Nano molecule and the medication atom permit the medication to be entangled in the Nano molecule center. When the drug molecule is covalently conjugated onto the polymer, the chemical properties of the linker between the drug and polymer are crucial [8]. For instance, deoxychilic acid modified heparin can self-assemble into nanoparticles of 100 to 200 nm in size, and its hydrophobic core can be used to entrap 4 to 12 percent of the drug's total weight. In the event that the linker is excessively steady, drug delivery might be postponed, while if the linker is excessively unsteady, medication might be delivered before the Nano molecule arrives at the cancer. Thusly, a legitimate linker is vital to the medication polymer form. Hydrosome and cis-aconity are two examples of linkers that have been developed that are sensitive to ph. [9]. These chemical bonds are stable in the circulation system of the blood, but they quickly break down and release drug molecules into the tumor, where the pH typically falls below a certain threshold. Glutathione can cleave disulfide bonds, making them particularly appealing. Because glutathione levels inside cells are much higher than outside cells, the disulfide linker stays relatively stable in the blood but becomes unstable once inside cells, releasing the drug molecules. Dendrimers, synthetic super macromolecules with highly branched repeated three-dimensional structures, have emerged as important materials for biological applications due to their unique characteristics, such as the precise control of size and shape, uncommon physical properties, controlled degradation, and the capacity to place numerous functional groups on their periphery or core [10]. It is important to note that dendrimers have emerged as important materials for biological applications. Dendrimers come in more than fifty different varieties.

CONCLUSION

Angiogenesis is the process by which tumors release cytokines and other signaling molecules to recruit new blood vessels to the tumor as they grow and begin to exceed the oxygen and nutrients they have available. Androgenic blood vessels in tumor tissues have gaps between adjacent endothelial cells of up to 600 to 800 nm, in contrast to the tight blood vessels found in normal tissues. Permeability and retention increase as a result of poor lymphatic drainage and a deficient vascular architecture. Nanoparticles can selectively accumulate within the tumor interstitium through these gaps. For tumor accumulation, it is thought that nanoparticles between 10 and 100 nm will be ideal. It has been demonstrated, for instance, that smaller polymeric micelles (20 nm) accumulate in tumors more quickly than larger liposomes. As previously mentioned, proper surface characteristics and longer nanoparticle circulation times can also enhance tumor uptake. The mononuclear phagocytic system (MPS) can quickly remove liposomes from the circulation due to the attraction of plasma proteins to their unmodified phospholipid surface. Lissome-associated drugs can't get to solid tumors because of this property. Stealth liposomes with a significantly longer half-life in the blood are the result of surface-modified stealth liposomes, which have solved the issue of rapid circulation clearance. Emphatically decreased leeway rates have likewise been acquired with other nanoparticles like Abraxane. Growth vascularization likewise influences nanoparticle amassing; normally nanoparticles aggregate inadequately in inadequately vascularized growths, little pre-antigenic cancers, or enormous necrotic growths. Nanoparticles have demonstrated the capacity to enhance pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, and reduce the toxicity of associated drugs as drug delivery systems. For instance, Abraxane egg whites bound nanoparticle of paclitaxel Taxol which has been supported for the therapy of metastatic bosom disease, showed huge more noteworthy viability than free paclitaxel in a stage III facility preliminary. Regardless of the expanded portion of paclitaxel in the Abraxane bunch, the frequency of grade 4 neutropaenia was essentially lower than in patients treated with free paclitaxel.

REFERENCES

1. Nahrendorf M. Nanoparticle PET-CT imaging of macrophages in inflammatory atherosclerosis. Circulation. 2008; 117(3): 379-387.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Kao CY. Long-residence-time nano-scale liposomal iohexol for X-ray-based blood pool imaging. Acad Radiol. 2003; 10(5): 475-483.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Corot C. Recent advances in iron oxide nanocrystal technology for medical imaging. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2006; 58(14): 1471-1504.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Lanza GM. In vitro characterization of a novel, tissue-targeted ultrasonic contrast system with acoustic microscopy. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998; 104(6): 3665-3672.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Montes-Burgos I, Walczyk D, Hole P, Smith J, Lynch I. Characterisation of nanoparticle size and state prior to nanotoxicological studies. J Nanoparticle Res. 2010; 12(1): 47-53.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Picollo M, Aceto M, Vitorino T. UV-Vis spectroscopy. Phys Sci Rev. 2019; 4(4): 1-14.

Google Scholar

7. Diffey BL. Sources and measurement of ultraviolet radiation. Methods. 2002; 28(1): 4-13.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Chen R, Qiao J, Bai R, Zhao Y, Chen C. Intelligent testing strategy and analytical techniques for the safety assessment of nanomaterials. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2018; 410(24): 6051-6066.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Levecke B, Montresor A, Albonico M, Ame SM, Behnke JM, Bethony JM, et al. Assessment of anthelmintic efficacy of mebendazole in school children in six countries where soil-transmitted helminths are endemic. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8(10):e3204. 

Indexed at, Googlescholar, Crossref

10. Tine RCK, Faye B, Ndour CT, Sylla K, Sow D, Ndiaye M, et al. Parasitic infections among children under five years in Senegal: Prevalence and effect on anaemia and nutritional status. Isrn Parasitol. 2013.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref