Toward a general physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model for intravenously injected nanoparticles

International Journal of Nanomedicine

Volumn 11, Issue , 2016, Pages 625-640

  Carlander, Ulrika ^a   Li, Dingsheng ^b   Jolliet, Olivier ^b   Emond, Claude ^c,d   Johanson, Gunnar ^a  

^a KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c BioSimulation Consulting Inc   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Gold; Intravenous administration; Nanorods; Nondegradable; PBPK; Phagocytosis; Polyacrylamide; Polyethylene glycol coating; Rats; Titanium dioxide

Indexed keywords

GOLD NANOPARTICLE; NANOPARTICLE; PEGYLATED POLYACRYLAMIDE NANOPARTICLE; POLYACRYLAMIDE; TITANIUM DIOXIDE NANOPARTICLE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; ACRYLIC ACID RESIN; GOLD; TITANIUM; TITANIUM DIOXIDE;

ANIMAL CELL; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; BODY WEIGHT; HEART OUTPUT; MATERIAL COATING; NANOTECHNOLOGY; NONHUMAN; ORGAN BLOOD FLOW; ORGAN WEIGHT; PARTICLE SIZE; PHAGOCYTE; PHARMACOKINETIC PARAMETERS; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; RAT; SIMULATION; SURFACE PROPERTY; ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CELL MEMBRANE PERMEABILITY; CHEMISTRY; INTRAVENOUS DRUG ADMINISTRATION; PHAGOCYTOSIS; TISSUE DISTRIBUTION;

ACRYLIC RESINS; ANIMALS; CELL MEMBRANE PERMEABILITY; GOLD; INJECTIONS, INTRAVENOUS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; NANOPARTICLES; PHAGOCYTOSIS; RATS; SURFACE PROPERTIES; TISSUE DISTRIBUTION; TITANIUM;

EID: 84958042179     PISSN: 11769114     EISSN: 11782013     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/IJN.S94370     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Johanson G. Modeling of disposition. In: Charlene A, McQueen A, editors. Comprehensive Toxicology, Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford Academic Press; 2014.
2. Krishnan K, Andersen ME. Quantitative Modeling in Toxicology. 1st ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2010.
3. Mork AK, Johanson G. Chemical-specific adjustment factors for intraspe-cies variability of acetone toxicokinetics using a probabilistic approach. Toxicol Sci. 2010;116(1):336–348.
4. rd, Gargas ML, Smith FA, Reitz RH. Physiologically based pharmacokinetics and the risk assessment process for methylene chloride. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1987;87(2):185–205.
5. Verner MA, McDougall R, Johanson G. Using population physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling to determine optimal sampling times and to interpret biological exposure markers: the example of occupational exposure to styrene. Toxicol Lett. 2012;213(2):299–304.
6. Li M, Al-Jamal KT, Kostarelos K, Reineke J. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of nanoparticles. ACS Nano. 2010;4(11):6303–6317.
7. rd, Peppas NA. Opsonization, biodistribution, and pharmacoki-netics of polymeric nanoparticles. Int J Pharm. 2006;307(1):93–102.
8. Saba TM. Physiology and physiopathology of the reticuloendothelial system. Arch Intern Med. 1970;126(6):1031–1052.
9. Sarin H. Physiologic upper limits of pore size of different blood capillary types and another perspective on the dual pore theory of microvascular permeability. J Angiogenes Res. 2010;2:14.
10. Lankveld DP, Oomen AG, Krystek P, et al. The kinetics of the tissue distribution of silver nanoparticles of different sizes. Biomaterials. 2010;31(32):8350–8361.
11. Balogh L, Nigavekar SS, Nair BM, et al. Significant effect of size on the in vivo biodistribution of gold composite nanodevices in mouse tumor models. Nanomedicine. 2007;3(4):281–296.
12. Huang X, Li L, Liu T, et al. The shape effect of mesoporous silica nanoparticles on biodistribution, clearance, and biocompatibility in vivo. ACS Nano. 2011;5(7):5390–5399.
13. Hirn S, Semmler-Behnke M, Schleh C, et al. Particle size-dependent and surface charge-dependent biodistribution of gold nanoparticles after intra-venous administration. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2011;77(3):407–416.
14. Niidome T, Yamagata M, Okamoto Y, et al. PEG-modified gold nano-rods with a stealth character for in vivo applications. J Control Release. 2006;114(3):343–347.
15. Keene AM, Peters D, Rouse R, Stewart S, Rosen ET, Tyner KM. Tissue and cellular distribution of gold nanoparticles varies based on aggregation/ agglomeration status. Nanomedicine(Lond). 2012;7(2):199–209.
16. Lin Z, Monteiro-Riviere NA, Riviere JE. Pharmacokinetics of metallic nanoparticles. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol. 2015; 7(2):189–217.
17. Fallon MS, Varshney M, Dennis DM, Chauhan A. A physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model of drug detoxification by nanoparticles. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2004;31(5):381–400.
18. Lin P, Chen JW, Chang LW, et al. Computational and ultrastructural toxicology of a nanoparticle, Quantum Dot 705, in mice. Environ Sci Technol. 2008;42(16):6264–6270.
19. Lee HA, Leavens TL, Mason SE, Monteiro-Riviere NA, Riviere JE. Comparison of quantum dot biodistribution with a blood-flow-limited physiologically based pharmacokinetic model. Nano Lett. 2009;9(2): 794–799.
20. Opitz AW, Wickstrom E, Thakur ML, Wagner NJ. Physiologically based pharmacokinetics of molecular imaging nanoparticles for mRNA detection determined in tumor-bearing mice. Oligonucleotides. 2010; 20(3):117–125.
21. Mager DE, Mody V, Xu C, et al. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for composite nanodevices: effect of charge and size on in vivo disposition. Pharm Res. 2012;29(9):2534–2542.
22. Li M, Panagi Z, Avgoustakis K, Reineke J. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of PLGA nanoparticles with varied mPEG content. Int J Nanomedicine. 2012;7:1345–1356.
23. Bachler G, von Goetz N, Hungerbuhler K. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for ionic silver and silver nanoparticles. Int J Nanomedicine. 2013;8:3365–3382.
24. Li D, Johanson G, Emond C, Carlander U, Philbert M, Jolliet O. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of polyethylene glycol-coated polyacrylamide nanoparticles in rats. Nanotoxicology. 2014;8(S1):128–137.
25. Lin Z, Monteiro-Riviere NA, Riviere JE. A physiologically based phar-macokinetic model for polyethylene glycol-coated gold nanoparticles of different sizes in adult mice. Nanotoxicology. 2015:1–11.
26. Elgrabli D, Beaudouin R, Jbilou N, et al. Biodistribution and clearance of TiO2 nanoparticles in rats after intravenous injection. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0124490.
27. Gilkey MJ, Krishnan V, Scheetz L, Jia X, Rajasekaran AK, Dhurjati PS. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of fluorescently labeled block copolymer nanoparticles for controlled drug delivery in leukemia therapy. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2015;4(3): e00013.
28. Bachler G, von Goetz N, Hungerbuhler K. Using physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling for dietary risk assessment of titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles. Nanotoxicology. 2015;9(3):373–380.
29. nd, Reddy GR, Kopelman R, Jolliet O, Philbert MA. Tissue distribution and pharmacokinetics of stable poly-acrylamide nanoparticles following intravenous injection in the rat. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2011;251(3):181–190.
30. Wang L, Li YF, Zhou L, et al. Characterization of gold nanorods in vivo by integrated analytical techniques: their uptake, retention, and chemical forms. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2010;396(3):1105–1114.
31. Shinohara N, Danno N, Ichinose T, et al. Tissue distribution and clear-ance of intravenously administered titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanopar-ticles. Nanotoxicology. 2014;8(2):132–141.
32. Brown RP, Delp MD, Lindstedt SL, Rhomberg LR, Beliles RP. Physi-ological parameter values for physiologically based pharmacokinetic models. Toxicol Ind Health. 1997;13(4):407–484.
33. Eriksson E, Royo F, Lyberg K, Carlsson HE, Hau J. Effect of metabolic cage housing on immunoglobulin A and corticosterone excretion in fae-ces and urine of young male rats. Exp Physiol. 2004;89(4):427–433.
34. Yokel R, Grulke E, MacPhail R. Metal-based nanoparticle interactions with the nervous system: the challenge of brain entry and the risk of retention in the organism. Wiley Interdiscip Rev. Nanomed Nanobio-technol. 2013;5(4):346–373.
35. Frigell J, Garcia I, Gomez-Vallejo V, Llop J, Penades S. (68)Ga-labeled gold glyconanoparticles for exploring blood-brain barrier permeabil-ity: preparation, biodistribution studies, and improved brain uptake via neuropeptide conjugation. J Am Chem Soc. 2014;136(1):449–457.
36. Sonavane G, Tomoda K, Makino K. Biodistribution of colloidal gold nanoparticles after intravenous administration: effect of particle size. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2008;66(2):274–280.
37. Kolhar P, Anselmo AC, Gupta V, et al. Using shape effects to target antibody-coated nanoparticles to lung and brain endothelium. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(26):10753–10758.
38. Geraets L, Oomen AG, Krystek P, et al. Tissue distribution and elimi-nation after oral and intravenous administration of different titanium dioxide nanoparticles in rats. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2014;11:30.
39. Alpini G, Phillips JO, Vroman B, LaRusso NF. Recent advances in the isolation of liver cells. Hepatology. 1994;20(2):494–514.
40. Mirfazaelian A, Kim KB, Lee S, Kim HJ, Bruckner JV, Fisher JW. Organ growth functions in maturing male Sprague-Dawley rats. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2007;70(5):429–438.
41. Krishnan K, Haddad S, Pelekis M. A simple index for representing the dis-crepancy between simulations of physiological pharmacokinetic models and experimental data. Toxicol Ind Health. 1995;11(4): 413–422.
42. Khlebtsov N, Dykman L. Biodistribution and toxicity of engineered gold nanoparticles: a review of in vitro and in vivo studies. Chem Soc Rev. 2011;40(3):1647–1671.
43. Halpern BN, Benacerraf B, Biozzi G. Quantitative study of the granu-lopectic activity of the reticulo-endothelial system. I. The effect of the ingredients present in India ink and of substances affecting blood clot-ting in vivo on the fate of carbon particles administered intravenously in rats, mice and rabbits. Br J Exp Pathol. 1953;34(4):426–440.
44. Panagi Z, Beletsi A, Evangelatos G, Livaniou E, Ithakissios DS, Avgoustakis K. Effect of dose on the biodistribution and pharmacoki-netics of PLGA and PLGA-mPEG nanoparticles. Int J Pharmaceut. 2001;221(1–2):143–152.
45. Gordon S, Taylor PR. Monocyte and macrophage heterogeneity. Nat Rev Immunol. 2005;5(12):953–964.
46. Sahay G, Alakhova DY, Kabanov AV. Endocytosis of nanomedicines. J Control Release. 2010;145(3):182–195.
47. Chithrani BD, Ghazani AA, Chan WC. Determining the size and shape dependence of gold nanoparticle uptake into mammalian cells. Nano lett. 2006;6(4):662–668.
48. Jiang W, Kim BY, Rutka JT, Chan WC. Nanoparticle-mediated cellular response is size-dependent. Nat Nanotechnol. 2008;3(3):145–150.
49. Luciani N, Gazeau F, Wilhelm C. Reactivity of the monocyte/ macrophage system to superparamagnetic anionic nanoparticles. J Mater Chem. 2009;19(35):6373–6380.
50. Lesniak A, Fenaroli F, Monopoli MP, Aberg C, Dawson KA, Salvati A. Effects of the presence or absence of a protein corona on silica nanopar-ticle uptake and impact on cells. ACS Nano. 2012;6(7):5845–5857.
51. Alkilany AM, Murphy CJ. Toxicity and cellular uptake of gold nano-particles: what we have learned so far? J Nanopart Res. 2010;12(7): 2313–2333.
52. Ferrari R, Lupi M, Colombo C, Morbidelli M, D’Incalci M, Moscatelli D. Investigation of size, surface charge, PEGylation degree and concentration on the cellular uptake of polymer nanoparticles. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2014;123:639–647.
53. Jin H, Heller DA, Sharma R, Strano MS. Size-dependent cellular uptake and expulsion of single-walled carbon nanotubes: single particle tracking and a generic uptake model for nanoparticles. ACS Nano. 2009;3(1):149–158.
54. Gref R, Luck M, Quellec P, et al. ‘Stealth’ corona-core nanoparticles surface modified by polyethylene glycol (PEG): influences of the corona (PEG chain length and surface density) and of the core composition on phagocytic uptake and plasma protein adsorption. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2000;18(3–4):301–313.
55. Nel AE, Madler L, Velegol D, et al. Understanding biophysicochemical interactions at the nano-bio interface. Nat Mater. 2009;8(7):543–557.
56. Lundqvist M, Stigler J, Cedervall T, et al. The evolution of the pro-tein corona around nanoparticles: a test study. ACS Nano. 2011;5(9): 7503–7509.
57. Sahneh FD, Scoglio CM, Monteiro-Riviere NA, Riviere JE. Predicting the impact of biocorona formation kinetics on interspecies extrapola-tions of nanoparticle biodistribution modeling. Nanomedicine (Lond). 2015;10(1):25–33.
58. Praetorius A, Tufenkji N, Goss KU, Scheringer M, von der Kammer F, Elimelech M. The road to nowhere: equilibrium partition coefficients for nanoparticles. Environ-Sci Nano. 2014;1(4):317–323.
59. Johanson G. Modeling of disposition. In: Reference Module in Biomedi-cal Sciences. Elsevier 2015.
60. Lin IC, Liang M, Liu TY, Monteiro MJ, Toth I. Cellular transport pathways of polymer coated gold nanoparticles. Nanomedicine. 2012; 8(1):8–11.
61. Praetner M, Rehberg M, Bihari P, et al. The contribution of the capil-lary endothelium to blood clearance and tissue deposition of anionic quantum dots in vivo. Biomaterials. 2010;31(26):6692–6700.
62. Gratton SE, Ropp PA, Pohlhaus PD, et al. The effect of particle design on cellular internalization pathways. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008; 105(33):11613–11618.
63. Bernareggi A, Rowland M. Physiologic modeling of cyclosporin kinet-ics in rat and man. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1991;19(1):21–50.
64. Travlos GS. Normal structure, function, and histology of the bone marrow. Toxicol Pathol. 2006;34(5):548–565.