Statins anticancer targeted delivery systems: re-purposing an old molecule

Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology

Volumn 69, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 613-624

  Safwat, Sally ^a   Ishak, Rania A ^a   Hathout, Rania M ^a,b   Mortada, Nahed D ^a  

^a African Union Organization St Abbassia   (Egypt)

^b LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

cancer; nanoparticles; statins; targeted delivery

Indexed keywords

ALPHA TOCOPHEROL; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; ATORVASTATIN; CHITOSAN; DOXORUBICIN; FLUINDOSTATIN; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR; LIPOSOME; MEVINOLIN; NANOCAPSULE; NANOPARTICLE; NANOROD; POLYGLACTIN; PRAVASTATIN; SIMVASTATIN;

ANTINEOPLASTIC ACTIVITY; ANTIPROLIFERATIVE ACTIVITY; BREAST ADENOCARCINOMA; COLON CARCINOMA; DRUG CYTOTOXICITY; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM; DRUG REPOSITIONING; DRUG RESISTANCE; DRUG SELECTIVITY; DRUG STRUCTURE; DRUG TARGETING; GLIOMA CELL; HUMAN; IC50; LIVER CELL CARCINOMA; MICROEMULSION; NANOEMULSION; NONHUMAN; PARTICLE SIZE; REVIEW; DRUG EFFECTS; NEOPLASM; PROCEDURES;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS; DRUG RESISTANCE, NEOPLASM; HUMANS; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL-COA REDUCTASE INHIBITORS; NANOPARTICLES; NEOPLASMS;

EID: 85014676634     PISSN: 00223573     EISSN: 20427158     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jphp.12707     Document Type: Review

References (165)

1. Takara K et al. An update on overcoming MDR1-mediated multidrug resistance in cancer chemotherapy. Curr Pharm Des 2006; 12: 273–286.
2. Shapiro CL, Recht A. Drug therapy - Side effects of adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 1997–2008.
3. Borowski E et al. Strategies for overcoming ABC-transporters-mediated multidrug resistance (MDR) of tumor cells. Acta Biochim Polonica 2005; 52: 609–627.
4. Riganti C et al. Nitric oxide reverts the resistance to doxorubicin in human colon cancer cells by inhibiting the drug efflux. Cancer Res 2005; 65: 516–525.
5. Riganti C et al. Statins revert doxorubicin resistance via nitric oxide in malignant mesothelioma. Int J Cancer 2006; 119: 17–27.
6. Istvan ES, Deisenhofer J. Structural mechanism for statin inhibition of HMG-CoA reductase. Science 2001; 292: 1160–1164.
7. Fraga-Silva RA et al. Emerging pharmacological treatments to prevent abdominal aortic aneurysm growth and rupture. Curr Pharm Des 2015; 21: 4000–4006.
8. Ungaro R et al. Statins associated with decreased risk of new onset inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 1416–1423.
9. Maheshwari RA et al. Protective effect of simvastatin and rosuvastatin on trinitrobenzene sulfonic acid-induced colitis in rats. Indian J Pharmacol 2015; 47: 17–21.
10. Honore PM et al. Statins and the kidney: Friend or foe? Blood Purif 2016;43:91–96.
11. Kimura G et al. Effects of atorvastatin on renal function in patients with dyslipidemia and chronic kidney disease: assessment of clinical usefulness in CKD patients with atorvastatin (ASUCA) trial. Clin Exp Nephrol 2016; 2: 211–217.
12. Park IH et al. Effect of simvastatin on transforming growth factor beta-1-induced myofibroblast differentiation and collagen production in nasal polyp-derived fibroblasts. Am.J Rhinol. Allergy 2012; 26: 7–11.
13. Benakanakere I et al. Targeting cholesterol synthesis increases chemoimmuno-sensitivity in chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells. Exp Hematol Oncol 2014; 3: 24.
14. Chow S et al. A link between hypercholesterolemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma 2016; 57: 797–802.
15. Zolnierczyk JD et al. Promising anti-leukemic activity of atorvastatin. Oncol Rep 2013; 29: 2065–2071.
16. Friedman DR et al. Statin use and need for therapy in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma 2010; 51: 2295–2298.
17. Ichihara K., Satoh K. Disparity between angiographic regression and clinical event rates with hydrophobic statins. Lancet 2002; 359: 2195–2198.
18. Dalenc F et al. Farnesyl-transferase inhibitor R115,777 enhances tamoxifen inhibition of MCF-7 cell growth through estrogen receptor dependent and independent pathways. Breast Cancer Res 2005; 7: R1156–R1167.
19. Fernandez C et al. Cholesterol is essential for mitosis progression and its deficiency induces polyploid cell formation. Exp Cell Res 2004; 300: 109–120.
20. Van de Donk NW et al. New treatment strategies for multiple myeloma by targeting BCL-2 and the mevalonate pathway. Curr Pharm Des 2006; 12: 327–340.
21. Mo HB, Elson CE. Studies of the isoprenoid-mediated inhibition of mevalonate synthesis applied to cancer chemotherapy and chemoprevention. Exp Biol Med 2004; 229: 567–585.
22. Laufs U, Liao JK. Direct vascular effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. Trends Cardiovasc Med 2000; 10: 143–148.
23. Chan KK et al. The statins as anticancer agents. Clin Cancer Res 2003; 9: 10–19.
24. Wright RS et al. Statin lipid-lowering therapy for acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina: efficacy and mechanism of benefit. Mayo Clin Proc 2002; 77: 1085–1092.
25. Denoyelle C et al. Molecular mechanism of the anti-cancer activity of cerivastatin, an inhibitor of HMG-CoA reductase, on aggressive human breast cancer cells. Cell Signal 2003; 15: 327–338.
26. Greenwood J et al. Statin therapy and autoimmune disease: from protein prenylation to immunomodulation. Nat Rev Immunol 2006; 6: 358–370.
27. Thurnher M et al. Regulation of mevalonate metabolism in cancer and immune cells. Biochim Biophys Acta 2013; 1831: 1009–1015.
28. Pedersen TR et al. Follow-up study ofpatients randomized in the Scandinavian simvastatin survival study (4S) of cholesterol lowering. Am J Cardiol 2000; 86: 257–262.
29. Downs JR et al. Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men and women with average cholesterol levels - Results of AFCAPS/TexCAPS. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 1998; 279: 1615–1622.
30. Ghosh-Choudhury N et al. Simvastatin induces derepression of PTEN expression via NFkappaB to inhibit breast cancer cell growth. Cell Signal 2010; 22: 749–758.
31. Katz MS. Therapy insight: potential of statins for cancer chemoprevention and therapy. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2005; 2: 82–89.
32. Alupei MC et al. Liposomal simvastatin inhibits tumor growth via targeting tumor-associated macrophages-mediated oxidative stress. Cancer Lett 2015; 356: 946–952.
33. Bagwe RP et al. Improved drugdelivery using microemulsions: rationale, recent progress, and new horizons. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carr Syst 2001; 18: 77–140.
34. Patel AR, Velikov KP. Colloidal delivery systems in foods: a general compar-ison with oral drug delivery. LWT-Food Sci Technol 2011; 44: 1958–1964.
35. Vrignaud S et al. Strategies for the nanoen-capsulation of hydrophilic molecules in polymer-based nanoparticles. Biomaterials 2011; 32: 8593–8604.
36. Bertrand N et al. Cancer nanotechnology: the impact of passive and active targeting in the 2 era of modern cancer biology. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2014; 66: 2–25.
37. Cabral H et al. Accumulation of sub-100 nm polymeric micelles in poorly permeable tumours depends on size. Nat Nanotechnol 2011; 6: 815–823.
38. Huo SD et al. Superior penetration and retention behavior of 50 nm gold nanoparticles in tumors. Cancer Res 2013; 73: 319–330.
39. Ho EA et al. Characterization of cationic liposome formulations designed to exhibit extended plasma residence times and tumor vasculature targeting properties. J Pharm Sci 2010; 99: 2839–2853.
40. Meng H et al. Use of size and a copolymer design feature to improve the biodistribution and the enhanced permeability and retention effect of doxorubicin-loaded mesoporous silica nanoparticles in a murine xenograft tumor model. ACS Nano 2011; 5: 4131–4144.
41. Nomura T et al. Pharmacokinetic characteristics and therapeutic effects of mitomycin C dextran conjugates after intratumoural injection. J Controlled Release 1998; 52: 239–252.
42. Lieleg O et al. Selective filtering of particles by theextracellular matrix: an electrostatic bandpass. Biophys J 2009; 97: 1569–1577.
43. Nomura T et al. Effect of particle sizeand charge on the disposition of lipid carriers after intratumoral injection into tissue-isolated tumors. Pharm Res 1998; 15: 128–132.
44. Bertrand N, Leroux JC. The journey of a drug-carrier in the body: an anatomo-physiological perspective. J Controlled Release 2012; 161: 152–163.
45. Champion JA, Mitragotri S. Role of target geometry in phagocytosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006; 103: 4930–4934.
46. Champion JA, Mitragotri S. Shape Induced Inhibition of Phagocytosis of Polymer Particles. Pharm Res 2009; 26: 244–249.
47. Geng Y et al. Shape effects of filaments versus spherical particles in flow and drug delivery. Nat Nanotechnol 2007; 2: 249–255.
48. Ruggiero AH et al. Paradoxical glomerular filtration of carbon nanotubes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010; 107: 12369–12374.
49. Chauhan VP et al. Fluorescent nanorods and nanospheres for real-time in vivo probing of nanoparticle shape-dependent tumor penetration. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2011; 50: 11417–11420.
50. Murakami Y et al. Tumor accumulation of poly(ethylene glycol) with different molecular weights after intravenous injection. Drug Delivery 1997; 4: 23–31.
51. Noguchi Y et al. Early phase tumor accumulation of macromolecules: a great difference inclearance rate between tumor and normal tissues. Jpn J Cancer Res 1998; 89: 307–314.
52. Bangham AD et al. Diffusion of univalent ions across the lamellae of swollen phospholipids. J Mol Biol 1965; 13: 238–252.
53. Banciu M et al. Antitumor activity of liposomal prednisolone phosphate depends on the presence of functional tumor-associated macrophages in tumor tissue. Neoplasia 2008; 10: 108–117.
54. Gabizon AA. Stealth liposomes and tumor targeting: one step further in the quest for the magic bullet. Clin Cancer Res 2001; 7: 223–225.
55. Maeda H et al. Mechanism of tumor-targeted delivery of macromolecular drugs, including the EPR effect in solid tumor and clinical overview of the prototype polymeric drug SMANCS. J Controlled Release 2001; 74: 47–61.
56. Banciu M et al. Antitumor activity and tumor localization of liposomal glucocorticoids in B16 melanoma-bearing mice. J Controlled Release 2008; 127: 131–136.
57. Schiffelers RM et al. Liposome-encapsulated prednisolone phosphate inhibits growth of established tumors in mice, Neoplasia 7 (2005) 118–127. Neoplasia 2005; 7: 118–127.
58. Brown GC. Reversible binding and inhibition of catalase by nitric-oxide. Eur J Biochem 1995; 232: 188–191.
59. Ratajczak-Wrona W et al. Levels of biological markers of nitric oxide in serum of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity. Int J Oral Sci 2013; 5: 141–145.
60. Huang KC et al. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors inhibit inducible nitric oxide synthase gene expression in macrophages. J Biomed Sci 2003; 10: 396–405.
61. Yilmaz MI et al. Effects of statins on oxidative stress. Biol Trace Elem Res 2004; 98: 119–127.
62. Alupei MC et al. Cytotoxicity of lipophilic statins depends on their combined actions on HIF-1alpha expression and redox status in B16.F10 melanoma cells. Anticancer Drugs 2014; 25: 393–405.
63. Mills CN et al. Expression and function of hypoxia inducible factor-1 alpha in human melanoma under non-hypoxic conditions. Mol Cancer 2009; 8: 104–115.
64. Semenza GL. HIF-1 and mechanisms of hypoxia sensing. Curr Opin Cell Biol 2001; 13: 167–171.
65. Coimbra M et al. Liposomal pravastatin inhibits tumor growth by targeting cancer-related inflammation. J Controlled Release 2010; 148: 303–310.
66. Prabhu RH et al. Polymeric nanoparticles for targeted treatment in oncology: current insights. Int J Nanomedicine 2015; 10: 1001–1018.
67. Deepa N et al. Versatile carboxymethyl chitin and chitosan nanomaterials: a review. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2014; 6: 574–598.
68. Sultana S et al. Nanoparticles-mediated drug delivery approaches for cancer targeting: a review. J Drug Target 2013; 21: 107–125.
69. Bhattarai N et al. Chitosan-based hydrogels for controlled, localized drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2010; 62: 83–99.
70. Prabaharan M. Chitosan-based nanoparticles for tumor-targeted drug delivery. Int J Biol Macromol 2015; 72: 1313–1322.
71. Anitha A et al. Chitin and chitosan in selected biomedical applications. Prog Polym Sci 2014; 39: 1644–1667.
72. Lifeng Q, Zirong X. In vivo antitumor activity of chitosan nanoparticles. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2006; 16: 4243–4245.
73. Zhou SH et al. Preparation, characterization and anticancer effect of chitosan nanoparticles. J Clin Rehabil Tissue Eng Res 2007; 11: 9688–9691.
74. Kangde Y et al. Chitosan-Based Hydrogels: Functions and Applications. USA: CRC Press Taylor&Francis group, 2012: 154–170.
75. Badran MM et al. Pravastatin-loaded chitosan nanoparticles: formulation, characterization and cytotoxicity studies. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol 2016; 32: 1–9.
76. Graf H et al. Chemoembolization combined with pravastatin improves survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Digestion 2008; 78: 34–38.
77. Harisa GI et al. Pravastatin chitosan nanogels-loaded erythrocytes as a new delivery strategy for targeting liver cancer. Saudi Pharm J 2016; 24: 74–81.
78. Kawata S et al. Effect of pravastatin on survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. A randomized controlled trial. Br J Cancer 2001; 84: 886–891.
79. Kivisto KT, Niemi M. Influence of drug transporter polymorphisms on pravastatin pharmacokinetics in humans. Pharm Res 2007; 24: 239–247.
80. Yokoi K et al. Serum biomarkers for personalization of nanotherapeutics-based therapy in different tumor and organ microenvironments. Cancer Lett 2014; 345: 48–55.
81. Mekhail GM et al. Anticancer effect of atorvastatin nanostructured polymeric micelles based on stearyl-grafted chitosan. Int J Biol Macromol 2012; 51: 351–363.
82. Torchilin VP et al. Immunomicelles: targeted pharmaceutical carriers for poorly soluble drugs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003; 100: 6039–6044.
83. Farid MM et al. Silencing of the scavenger receptor (Class B - Type 1) gene using siRNA-loaded chitosan nanaoparticles in a HepG2 cell model. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 2014;1:123.
84. Suarato G et al. Role of pH-responsiveness in the design of chitosan-based cancer nanotherapeutics: a review. Biointerphases 2016; 11: 04B201.
85. Heurtault B et al. A novel phase inversion-based process for the preparation of lipid nanocarriers. Pharm Res 2002; 19: 875–880.
86. Safwat S et al. Augmented simvastatin cytotoxicity using optimized lipid nanocapsules: a potential for breast cancer treatment. J Liposome Res 2016; 12: 1–12.
87. Laine AL et al. Inhibition of ectopic glioma tumor growth by a potent ferrocenyl drug loaded into stealth lipid nanocapsules. Nanomedicine 2014; 10: 1667–1677.
88. Paillard A et al. The importance of endo-lysosomal escape with lipid nanocapsules for drug subcellular bioavailability. Biomaterials 2010; 31: 7542–7554.
89. Huynh NT et al. Lipid nanocapsules: a new platform for nanomedicine. Int J Pharm 2009; 379: 201–209.
90. Ishak RA, Osman R. Lecithin/TPGS-based spray-dried self-microemulsifying drug delivery systems: in vitro pulmonary deposition and cytotoxicity. Int J Pharm 2015; 485: 249–260.
91. Narang AS et al. Stable drug encapsulation in micelles and microemulsions. Int J Pharm 2007; 345: 9–25.
92. Hathout RM, Woodman TJ. Applications of NMR in the characterization of pharmaceutical microemulsions. J Control Release 2012; 161: 62–72.
93. Metwally AA, Hathout RM. Replacing microemulsion formulations experimental solubility studies with in-silico methods comprising molecular dynamics and docking experiments. Chem Eng Res Des 2015; 104: 453–456.
94. Lawrence MJ, Rees GD. Microemulsion-based media as novel drug delivery systems. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2000; 45: 89–121.
95. Mitra R et al. Enhanced pulmonary delivery of insulin by lung lavage fluid and phospholipids. Int J Pharm 2001; 217: 25–31.
96. Yuan JS et al. Linker-based lecithin microemulsions for transdermal delivery of lidocaine. Int J Pharm 2008; 349: 130–143.
97. Pooja D et al. Dendrimer–TPGS mixed micelles for enhanced solubility and cellulartoxicity of taxanes. Colloid Surf B Biointerfaces 2014;121:461–468.
98. Holtzman CW et al. Role of P-glycoprotein in statin drug interactions. Pharmacotherapy 2006; 26: 1601–1607.
99. Dintaman JM, Silverman JA. Inhibition of P-glycoprotein by D-tocopheryl polyethylene glycol 1000 succinate (TPGS). Pharm Res 1999; 16: 1550–1556.
100. Jiang L et al. Thiolated chitosan-modified PLA-PCL-TPGS nanoparticles for oral chemotherapy of lung cancer. Nanoscale Res Lett 2013; 8: 66–76.
101. Junping W et al. Pharmacokinetics and antitumor effects of vincristine carried by microemulsions composed of PEG-lipid, oleic acid, vitamin E and cholesterol. Int J Pharm 2003; 251: 13–21.
102. Hörmanna K, Zimmer A. Drug delivery and drug targeting with parenteral lipid nanoemulsions: A review. J Control Release 2016; 2: 85–98.
103. Alayoubi AY et al. Concurrent delivery of tocotrienols and simvastatin by lipid nanoemulsions potentiates their antitumor activity against human mammary adenocarcinoma cells. Eur J Pharm Sci 2013; 48: 385–392.
104. Wali VB, Sylvester PW. Synergistic antiproliferative effects of gammatocotrienol and statin treatment on mammary tumor cells. Lipids 2007; 42: 1113–1123.
105. Lacroix M et al. Gene regulation by phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate in MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231, two breast cancer cell lines exhibiting highly different phenotypes. Oncol Rep 2004; 12: 701–707.
106. Wang KZ et al. Characterizing breast cancer xenograft epidermal growth factor receptor expression by using near-infrared optical imaging. Acta Radiol 2009; 50: 1095–1103.
107. Aggarwal BB et al. Tocotrienols, the vitamin E of the 21st century: its potential against cancer and other chronic diseases. Biochem Pharmacol 2010; 80: 1613–1631.
108. Aggarwal S et al. EGFR targeted PLGA nanoparticles using gemcitabine for treatment of pancreatic cancer. J Biomed Nanotechnol 2011; 7: 137–138.
109. Yang C et al. Intravitreal administration of dexamethasone-loaded PLGA-TPGS nanoparticles for the treatment of posterior segment diseases. J Biomed Nanotechnol 2013; 9: 1617–1623.
110. Ouyang YM et al. Fabrication of seamless electrospun collagen/PLGA conduits whose walls comprise highly longitudinal aligned nanofibers for nerve regeneration. J Biomed Nanotechnol 2013; 9: 931–943.
111. Vert M. Degradable and bioresorbable polymers in surgery and in pharmacology: beliefs and facts. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2009; 20: 437–446.
112. Ouyang CP et al. Synthesis and characterization of star-shaped poly (lactideco-glycolide) and its drug-loaded microspheres. Polym Bull 2012; 68: 27–36.
113. Park W et al. Multi-arm histidine copolymer for controlled release of insulin from poly(lactideco-glycolide) microsphere. Biomaterials 2012; 33: 8848–8857.
114. Cao J et al. Novel pH-sensitive micelles generated by star-shape copolymers containing zwitterionic sulfobetaine for efficient cellular internalization. J Biomed Nanotechnol 2013; 9: 1847–1861.
115. Qiu LY, Bae YH. Polymer architecture and drug delivery. Pharm Res 2006; 23: 1–30.
116. Li ZB et al. Multicompartment micelles from ABC miktoarm stars in water. Science 2004; 306: 98–101.
117. Wu YP et al. Novel simvastatin-loaded nanoparticles based on cholic acid-core star-shaped PLGA for breast cancer treatment. J Biomed Nanotechnol 2015; 11: 1247–1260.
118. Lammers T et al. Drug targeting to tumors: principles, pitfalls and (pre-) clinical progress. J Controlled Release 2012; 161: 175–187.
119. Taurin S et al. Anticancer nanomedicine and tumor vascular permeability; Where is the missing link? J Controlled Release 2012; 164: 265–275.
120. Mori A et al. Influence of the steric barrier activity of amphiphatic poly(ethylene glycol) and ganglioside GM1 on the circulation time of the liposomes and on the target binding of immunoliposomes in vivo. FEBS Lett 1991; 284: 263–266.
121. Stefanick JF et al. A systematic analysis of peptide linker length and liposomal polyethylene glycol coating on cellular uptake of peptide-targeted liposomes. ACS Nano 2013; 7: 2935–2947.
122. Koshkaryev A et al. Immunoconjugates and longcirculating systems: origins, current state of the art and future directions. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2013; 65: 24–35.
123. Peer D et al. Nanocarriers as anemerging platform for cancer therapy. Nat Nanotechnol 2007; 2: 751–760.
124. Kamaly N et al. Targeted polymeric therapeutic nanoparticles: design, development and clinical translation. Chem Soc Rev 2012; 41: 2971–3010.
125. Shi JJ et al. Self-assembled targeted nanoparticles: evolution of technologies and bench to bedside translation. Acc Chem Res 2011; 44: 1123–1134.
126. Alexis F et al. Factors affecting the clearance and biodistribution of polymeric nanoparticles. Mol Pharm 2008; 5: 505–515.
127. Byrne JD et al. Active targeting schemes for nanoparticle systems in cancer therapeutics. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2008; 60: 1615–1626.
128. Monopoli MP et al. Biomolecular coronas provide the biological identity of nanosized materials. Nat Nanotechnol 2012; 7: 779–786.
129. Gu F et al. Precise engineering of targeted nanoparticles by using self-assembledbiointegrated block copolymers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008; 105: 2586–2591.
130. Jiang W et al. Nanoparticle-mediated cellular response is size-dependent. Nat Nanotechnol 2008; 3: 145–150.
131. Valencia PM et al. Effects of ligands with different water solubilities on self-assembly and properties of targeted nanoparticles. Biomaterials 2011; 32: 6226–6233.
132. Mukherjee S et al. Endocytosis. Physiol Rev 1997; 77: 759–803.
133. Rieux AD et al. Targeted nanoparticles with novel non-peptidic ligands for oral delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2013; 65: 833–844.
134. Saha RN et al. Nanoparticulate drug delivery systems for cancer chemotherapy. Mol Membr Biol 2010; 27: 215–231.
135. Yu B et al. Receptor-targeted nanocarriers for therapeutic delivery to cancer. Mol Membr Biol 2010; 27: 286–298.
136. Bartlett DW et al. Impact of tumor-specific targeting on the biodistribution and efficacy of siRNA nanoparticles measured by multimodality in vivo imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007; 104: 15549–15554.
137. Kirpotin DB et al. Antibody targeting of long-circulating lipidic nanoparticles does not increase tumor localization but does increase internalization in animal models. Cancer Res 2006; 66: 6732–6740.
138. Brennan FR et al. Preclinical safety testing of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals – Understanding the issues and addressing the challenges. Mol Biotechnol 2004; 27: 59–74.
139. Weinberg WC et al. Development and regulation of monoclonal antibody products: challenges and opportunities. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2005; 24: 569–584.
140. Allen TM. Ligand-targeted therapeutics in anticancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer 2002; 2: 750–763.
141. Simard P, Leroux JC. In vivo evaluation of pH-sensitive polymer-based immunoliposomes targeting the CD33 antigen. Mol Pharm 2010; 7: 1098–1107.
142. Bendele A et al. Renal tubular vacuolation in animals treated with polyethylene-glycol-conjugated proteins. Toxicol Sci 1998; 42: 152–157.
143. Webster R et al. PEGylated proteins: evaluation of their safety in the absence of definitive metabolism studies. Drug Metab Dispos 2007; 35: 9–16.
144. Pinheiro VB et al. Synthetic genetic polymers capable of heredity and evolution. Science 2012; 336: 341–344.
145. Xiao ZY, Farokhzad OC. Aptamer-functionalized nanoparticles for medical applications: challenges and opportunities. ACS Nano 2012; 6: 3670–3676.
146. Gao J et al. Antibody engineering promotes nanomedicine for cancertreatment. Nanomedicine 2010; 5: 1141–1145.
147. Fischer MJ. Amine coupling through EDC/NHS: a practical approach. Methods Mol Biol 2010; 627: 55–73.
148. Park JH et al. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2010; 62: 28–41.
149. Kopecka J et al. A LDL-masked liposomal-doxorubicin reverses drug resistance in human cancer cells. J Controlled Release 2011; 149: 196–205.
150. Lavie Y et al. Changes in membrane microdomains and caveolae constituents in multidrug-resistant cancer cells. Lipids 1999; 34: S57–S63.
151. Kimura Y et al. Modulation of drug-stimulated ATPase activity of human MDR1/P-glycoprotein by cholesterol. Biochem J 2007; 401: 597–605.
152. Eckford PDW, Sharom FJ. Interaction of the P-glycoprotein multidrug efflux pump with cholesterol: effects on ATPase activity. Drug Binding Transp Biochem J 2008; 47: 13686–13698.
153. Gayet L et al. Control of P-glycoprotein activity by membrane cholesterol amounts and their relation to multidrug resistance in human CEM leukemia cells. Biochemistry 2005; 44: 4499–4509.
154. Troost J et al. Modulation of cellular cholesterol alters P-glycoprotein activity in multidrug-resistant cells. Mol Pharmacol 2004; 66: 1332–1339.
155. Liao JK, Laufs U. Pleiotropic effects of statins. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2005; 45: 89–118.
156. Nikanjam M et al. Synthetic nano-low density lipoprotein as targeted drug delivery vehicle for glioblastoma multiforme. Int J Pharm 2007; 328: 86–94.
157. Keawchaoon L, Yoksan R. Preparation, characterization and in vitro release study of carvacrol-loaded chitosan nanoparticles. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 2011; 84: 163–171.
158. Xia WS et al. Biological activities of chitosan and chitooligosaccharides. Food Hydrocolloids 2011; 25: 170–179.
159. Fan W et al. Erythrocytes load of low molecular weight chitosan nanoparticles as a potential vascular drug delivery system. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 2012; 95: 258–265.
160. Hamidi M et al. Encapsulation of valproate-loaded hydrogel nanoparticles in intact human erythrocytes: a novel nano-cell composite for drug delivery. J Pharm Sci 2011; 100: 1702–1711.
161. Kostic IT et al. Erythrocyte membranes from slaughterhouse blood as potential drug vehicles: isolation by gradual hypotonic hemolysis and biochemical and morphological characterization. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 2014; 122: 250–259.
162. Yew NS et al. Erythrocytes encapsulated with phenylalanine hydroxylase exhibit improved pharmacokinetics and lowered plasma phenylalanine levels in normal mice. Mol Genet Metab 2013; 109: 339–344.
163. Shen KT et al. Inhibitory effects of chitooligosaccharides on tumor growth and metastasis. Food Chem Toxicol 2009; 47: 1864–1871.
164. Cheng Z et al. Multifunctional nano-particles: cost versus benefit of adding targeting and imaging capabilities. Science 2012; 338: 903–910.
165. Ong FS et al. Personalized medicine and phar macogenetic biomarkers: progress in molecular oncology testing. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2012; 12: 593–602.