The role of surface charge in cellular uptake and cytotoxicity of medical nanoparticles
By Eleonore Fröhlich. International Journal of Nanomedicine, 2012
2,038 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Many types of nanoparticles (NPs) are tested for use in medical products, particularly in imaging and gene and drug delivery. For these applications, cellular uptake is usually a prerequisite and is governed in addition to size by surface characteristics such as hydrophobicity and charge. Although positive charge appears to improve the efficacy of imaging, gene transfer, and drug delivery, a higher cytotoxicity of such constructs has been reported. This review summarizes findings on the role of surface charge on cytotoxicity in general, action on specific cellular targets, modes of toxic action, cellular uptake, and intracellular localization of NPs. Effects of serum and intercell type differences are addressed. Cationic NPs cause more pronounced disruption of plasma-membrane integrity, stronger mitochondrial and lysosomal damage, and a higher number of autophagosomes than anionic NPs. In general, nonphagocytic cells ingest cationic NPs to a higher extent, but charge density and hydrophobicity are equally important; phagocytic cells preferentially take up anionic NPs. Cells do not use different uptake routes for cationic and anionic NPs, but high uptake rates are usually linked to greater biological effects. The different uptake preferences of phagocytic and nonphagocytic cells for cationic and anionic NPs may influence the efficacy and selectivity of NPs for drug delivery and imaging.
Subfields: Biomaterials, Biomedical Engineering, Materials Chemistry
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/444678c97a0a438a02e86e6e258b12d4d206dfd9
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Biomaterials
In Biomedical Engineering
In Materials Chemistry
Citations in the corpus
- Nanoparticle–membrane interactions (2018, neutral): “leads to their rapid internalisation [66,67].”
- In vitro approaches to assess the hazard of nanomaterials (2017, background): “In addition to NM size and hydrophobicity, surface charge has been proposed to be one of the most factors influencing uptake of NMs in cells and their cellular fate (Fröhlich, 2012).”
- DLS and zeta potential - What they are and what they are not? (2016, background): “Surface charge and particle size are the two most commonly mentioned factors that are responsible for a range of biological effects of NPs including cellular uptake [13], toxicity [14] and dissolution [15].”
- Nanomedicine in cancer therapy (2023, background): “However, cationic nanocarriers can be preferentially taken up by tumor cells via electrostatic attraction, and can facilitate endosomal escape through the “proton sponge effect”.(462,465) Moreover, although targeting ligands is crucial for the accurate delivery of nanocarriers into tumor cells or or”
- Impact of Microplastics and Nanoplastics on Human Health (2021, background): “In contrast, the repellent interactions of negatively charged particles will impede endocytosis [103,106].”