Independent education resourceInformation here does not replace care from a qualified health professional.
Peptide Therapy GuideClear peptide education

Educational guide

Engineered Nanoparticles Target Various Biological Targets

Engineers at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) have developed modular nanoparticles that can be easily customized to target different biological entities such as tumors, viruses, or toxins. The surface of the nanoparticles is engineered to host an

Written by Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team
For education only

This guide cannot diagnose a condition or recommend a personal treatment plan. Discuss medical questions with a qualified professional.

Engineers at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) have developed modular nanoparticles that can be easily customized to target different biological entities such as tumors, viruses, or toxins. The surface of the nanoparticles is engineered to host any biological molecules of choice, making it possible to tailor the nanoparticles for a wide array of applications, ranging from targeted drug delivery to neutralizing biological agents.

The findings are published in Nature Nanotechnology in an article titled,

“Since their initial development, cell membrane-coated nanoparticles (CNPs) have become increasingly popular in the biomedical field,” wrote the researchers. “Despite their inherent versatility and ability to enable complex biological applications, there is considerable interest in augmenting the performance of CNPs through the introduction of additional functionalities. Here we demonstrate a genetic-engineering-based modular approach to CNP functionalization that can encompass a wide range of ligands onto the nanoparticle surface.”

“This is a plug-and-play platform technology that allows for rapid modification of a functional biological nanoparticle,” said Liangfang Zhang, PhD, a professor of nanoengineering at the UCSD Jacobs School of Engineering.

The modular nanoparticles consist of biodegradable polymer cores coated with genetically modified cell membranes. The key to their modular design is a pair of synthetic proteins, known as SpyCatcher and SpyTag, that are specifically designed to spontaneously—and exclusively—bind with each other.

SpyCatcher is embedded onto the nanoparticle surface, while SpyTag is chemically linked to a protein of interest, such as one targeting tumors or viruses. When SpyTag-linked proteins come into contact with SpyCatcher-decorated nanoparticles, they bind to each other, enabling proteins of interest to be effortlessly attached to the nanoparticle surface.

“It’s a very simple, streamlined, and straightforward approach to functionalizing nanoparticles for any biological application,” said Zhang.

To create the modular nanoparticles, the researchers first genetically engineered human embryonic kidney (HEK) 293 cells—a commonly used cell line in biological research—to express SpyCatcher proteins on their surface. The cell membranes were then isolated, broken into smaller pieces, and coated onto biodegradable polymer nanoparticles.

These nanoparticles were subsequently mixed with SpyTag-linked proteins. In this study, the researchers used two different proteins: one targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and the other targeting human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), both of which are prevalent on the surface of various cancer cells.

As a proof of concept, the researchers tested these nanoparticles in mice with ovarian tumors. The nanoparticles were loaded with docetaxel, a chemotherapy medication, and administered to mice via intravenous injection every three days for a total of four injections. Treatment with these nanoparticles suppressed tumor growth while improving survival rate. Treated mice had a median survival of 63 to 71 days, while the median survival of untreated mice was 24 to 29 days.

The researchers are looking to further improve the modular nanoparticle platform for targeted drug delivery.

“Because we have a modular nanoparticle base, we can easily attach a neutralizing agent on the surface to neutralize viruses and biological toxins,” Zhang added. “There is also potential for creating vaccines by attaching an antigen on the nanoparticle surface using this modular platform. This opens the door to a variety of new therapeutic approaches.”

Connected reading

Helpful context for this guide

Source-derived material selected through this article’s indexed topics.

Related questions

01Undruggable or unscreenable?

Another obstacle to discovering new PPI inhibitors is the lack of libraries designed to hunt for them, points out Philippe Roche, PhD, senior scientist at the Integrative Structural and Chemical Biology team at the Cancer Research Center of Marseilles, France. “If you screen PPIs using libraries that were designed for kinases or GPCRs, that’s why you don’t get a lot of good results,” he says. To that end, his group began assembling a library focused on orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs. The result was 2P2Idb, a hand-curated, structural database cataloguing orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs for which the interface had been 3D characterized. From analyzing these known PPI inhibitors, and what structures they had in common, Roche and his colleagues developed a model to predict whether compounds would likely inhibit PPIs. Using this method, 2P2Idb creates an enriched screening library that dramatically increases the hit rate compared to standard libraries. Having proven their success with a small library of 1600 compounds, they are in the process of expanding the library to 10,000 compounds. Once that’s published, “the idea is to make this library available to labs around the world,” Roche says. “We will provide the library free of charge for people to be able to screen PPI targets.”

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
02How stable is the antibody?

A crucial question often addressed during preclinical development focuses on the in vivo stability of therapeutic antibodies. Increasing the half-life of a therapeutic antibody has several benefits ranging from higher treatment efficacy to increased advantages for the patients who will have a fewer number of therapy sessions and a reduced cost. Given these compelling benefits, following the identification of therapeutic antibodies with the desired specificity, developers usually subject them to a refinement step to increase their stability. This process is often hindered by the lack of reliable experimental tools to predict the half-life of antibodies in patients. The major hurdle of using mouse models to predict antibody stability in the serum lies in the way immunoglobulin proteins are processed by the organism. In mammals, most proteins circulating in the serum undergo constant uptake by endothelial cells and are routed through the endosomes to the lysosomal compartment for degradation. In the endosomes, immunoglobulin G (IgG) proteins are recognized and bound by a transmembrane protein, called the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which mediates their recycling to the plasma membrane and subsequent release back into the serum. As a result, the half-life of IgGs are significantly extended by this mechanism. Since most therapeutic antibodies belong to the IgG class, this recycling system is very relevant for their relative stability in the body. Remarkably, the relative affinity between IgGs and FcRn is extremely disparate between different species, with the mouse receptor showing a much higher affinity than its human counterpart.

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
P

About the author

Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team

Editorial team for Peptide Therapy Guide.

View all articles →