Elsevier

Seminars in Immunology

Volume 34, December 2017, Pages 25-32
Seminars in Immunology

Review
Effects of engineered nanoparticles on the innate immune system

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smim.2017.09.011Get rights and content

Highlights

Abstract

Engineered nanoparticles (NPs) have broad applications in industry and nanomedicine. When NPs enter the body, interactions with the immune system are unavoidable. The innate immune system, a non-specific first line of defense against potential threats to the host, immediately interacts with introduced NPs and generates complicated immune responses. Depending on their physicochemical properties, NPs can interact with cells and proteins to stimulate or suppress the innate immune response, and similarly activate or avoid the complement system. NPs size, shape, hydrophobicity and surface modification are the main factors that influence the interactions between NPs and the innate immune system. In this review, we will focus on recent reports about the relationship between the physicochemical properties of NPs and their innate immune response, and their applications in immunotherapy.

Introduction

Due to their unique physical and chemical properties, Nanoparticles (NPs) are widely used in electronics, cosmetics, textiles and nanomedicine [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. At present, human exposure to engineered NPs is widespread, through environmental routes (inhalation, ingestion, dermal contact and parenteral) or deliberate administration [6], [7]. Interactions between nanoparticles(NPs) and the immune system have become important, and there are foundational questions about the safety of these special materials. NPs can communicate with various biological components (cells, receptors, proteins etc.) of the immune system, trigger cell signaling cascades, and consequently cause unpredictable immune responses (activation or suppression) and even harmful outcomes (autoimmune diseases or cancer) [5], [7], [8]. There is also evidence that NPs can alter the development of immune systems in utero in mouse models. [9]. Therefore, understanding how NPs influence or tune the immune system is critical to better knowing the potential risks in developing new nanomaterials.

The basic concept of the immune system is a biological network that reacts to foreign threats (i.e. antigens) to protect the host and maintain homeostasis [5]. The overall system is divided into two subsystems: innate immunity and adaptive immunity. Innate immunity is the first line of defense, generating a non-specific inflammatory response upon the detection of conserved biological motifs, often associated with bacteria and viruses. The adaptive immune system is a more nuanced defense mechanism that involves the development of antibodies highly-specific to detected antigens, followed by the generation of memory cells for future immunological protection [10]. Components of the innate immune system recognize pathogens mainly via pattern-recognition receptors (PRPs), while antigen presenting cells (APCs) present acquired antigens to T cells for the activation of acquired immune system. When NPs enter the body, they have a high probability of interacting with the innate immune system first, generating an immunomodulatory response based on their physicochemical properties [8], [11]. Hence, understanding how NPs interact with the innate immune system is particularly important, and would provide insight into designing immune-compatible NP technologies.

Engineered NPs can be designed to either specifically interact with or avoid recognition by the immune system. Synthetic NPs have been utilized frequently to generate novel immunotherapy strategies. Immunotherapy involves intentional modulation of the immune system as a therapeutic strategy. One of the primary strengths of immunotherapy is that there can be less negative side effects than those associated with traditional therapies [12], [13]. A frequent use for NPs in immunotherapy contexts has been for developing new vaccines, which has been previously discussed [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Here, we will focus on understanding the interactions between the innate immune system and engineered NPs for other immunomodulatory purposes. First, we will discuss how physicochemical properties of NPs affect the contact of NPs with the innate immune system and the resulting immune response. Then, we will demonstrate how to take advantage of NPs immunomodulatory properties for biological applications. At last, we will discuss remaining challenges that need to be considered for NP applications.

Section snippets

Innate immune system

The innate immune system is a broad, less-specific defense mechanism, which includes molecular (complement system, cytokines) and cellular (phagocytes and leukocytes) components that recognize classes of molecules particular to frequently encountered pathogens. Most components of the innate immune system are present before the onset of the infection and rapidly respond to invasion within minutes. In conjunction with this system is the highly organized complement system, which involves a set of

Physicochemical properties of nanoparticles modulate innate immune response

NPs have been prepared with a variety of controlled structures and functionalities for delivery, therapeutic, and diagnostic purposes. Once inside the body, engineered NPs as foreign substance are immediately encounter the innate immune system and generate specific immune response based on their properties. The physicochemical properties (e.g. size, charge, shape, hydrophobicity, and stiffness) of NPs determine their interactions with soluble proteins, APCs and neutrophils, in particular effect

Therapeutic immune modulation by engineered nanoparticles

Engineered NPs acting as delivery vehicles or direct immunomodulation agents can manipulate the innate immune system for therapeutic purposes. The main two applications areas are vaccination and cancer immunotherapy, which both “train” the immune system to detect and eliminate foreign entities or tumors. The key to these therapeutic strategies is to induce the desired immune response (stimulation or suppression) through the recognition of engineered NPs by the innate immune system, especially

Current challenges and perspective

Despite the potential benefits of using NPs in industry and medicine, concerns about the biosafety of these materials have not abated. Interactions between engineered NPs and different subsets of the innate immune system have become critical questions that need to be answered. These interactions can generate varied immunological responses to modulate the immune system and may cause immunotoxicity. For example, NPs create more ROS in cells in a pro-inflammatory state, which can induce protein,

Conclusion

Studies have shown that nanoparticles can interact with components of the innate immune system to various immunological endpoints. These interactions are fast, complex, and not well understood. It has been established that NPs’ physicochemical properties (size, shape, hydrophobicity and surface modification) are key to determining their interactions with plasma proteins and immune cells, especially APCs. NPs can absorb proteins on their surfaces once they enter the bloodstream, and these

Acknowledgment

V.M.R. acknowledges support from the NIH (GM077173 and EB022641).

References (107)

  • C.A. Fromen et al.

    Nanoparticle surface charge impacts distribution, uptake and lymph node trafficking by pulmonary antigen-presenting cells nanomedicine nanotechnology

    Biol. Med.

    (2016)
  • A.L. Siefert et al.

    Artificial bacterial biomimetic nanoparticles synergize pathogen-associated molecular patterns for vaccine efficacy

    Biomaterials

    (2016)
  • D.R. Weilhammer et al.

    The use of nanolipoprotein particles to enhance the immunostimulatory properties of innate immune agonists against lethal influenza challenge

    Biomaterials

    (2013)
  • L.K. Petersen et al.

    Activation of innate immune responses in a pathogen-mimicking manner by amphiphilic polyanhydride nanoparticle adjuvants

    Biomaterials

    (2011)
  • A.I. Camacho et al.

    Poly(methyl vinyl ether-co-maleic anhydride) nanoparticles as innate immune system activators

    Vaccine

    (2011)
  • L. Foit et al.

    Biomaterials Synthetic high-density lipoprotein-like nanoparticles potently inhibit cell signaling and production of inflammatory mediators induced by lipopolysaccharide binding toll-like receptor 4

    Biomaterials

    (2016)
  • M. Giovanni et al.

    Pro-inflammatory responses of RAW264.7 macrophages when treated with ultralow concentrations of silver titanium dioxide, and zinc oxide nanoparticles

    J. Hazard. Mater.

    (2015)
  • R. Suzuki et al.

    A novel strategy utilizing ultrasound for antigen delivery in dendritic cell-based cancer immunotherapy

    J. Control. Release.

    (2009)
  • J. Unga et al.

    Ultrasound induced cancer immunotherapy

    Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev.

    (2014)
  • S. Warashina et al.

    A lipid nanoparticle for the efficient delivery of siRNA to dendritic cells

    J. Controlled Release

    (2016)
  • Q. Pan et al.

    Corticosteroid-loaded biodegradable nanoparticles for prevention of corneal allograft rejection in rats

    J. Controlled Release

    (2015)
  • J.S. Park et al.

    The use of anti-COX2 siRNA coated onto PLGA nanoparticles loading dexamethasone in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

    Biomaterials

    (2012)
  • L. Zhang et al.

    Nanoparticles in medicine therapeutic applications and developments

    Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.

    (2008)
  • A. Kamyshny et al.

    Conductive nanomaterials for printed electronics

    Small

    (2014)
  • B. Ssneha

    Application of nanotechnology in dentistry

    Res. J. Pharm. Technol.

    (2014)
  • J.M. Kreitinger et al.

    Environmental immunology lessons learned from exposure to a select panel of immunotoxicants

    J. Immunol.

    (2016)
  • C. Petrarca et al.

    Engineered metal based nanoparticles and innate immunity

    Clin. Mol. Allergy

    (2015)
  • V. Kononenko et al.

    Nanoparticle interaction with the immune system

    Arch. Ind. Hyg. Toxicol.

    (2015)
  • R. Shimizu et al.

    Effect of maternal exposure to carbon black nanoparticle during early gestation on the splenic phenotype of neonatal mouse

    J. Toxicol. Sci.

    (2014)
  • E. Vivier et al.

    Innate and adaptive immunity: specificities and signaling hierarchies revisited

    Nat. Immunol.

    (2005)
  • Y.H. Luo et al.

    Metal-based nanoparticles and the immune system: activation, inflammation, and potential applications

    BioMed Res. Int.

    (2015)
  • K. Palucka et al.

    Cancer immunotherapy via dendritic cells

    Nat. Rev. Cancer

    (2012)
  • K. Shao et al.

    Nanoparticle-based immunotherapy

    ACS Nano

    (2015)
  • V. Fievez et al.

    Nanoparticles as potential oral delivery systems of proteins and vaccines: a mechanistic approach

    J. Controlled Release

    (2006)
  • D.M. Smith et al.

    Applications of nanotechnology for immunology

    Nat. Rev. Immunol.

    (2013)
  • D.J. Irvine et al.

    Synthetic nanoparticles immunotherapy

    Chem. Rev.

    (2015)
  • G.L. Szeto et al.

    Materials design at the interface of nanoparticles and innate immunity

    J. Mater. Chem. B Mater. Biol. Med.

    (2016)
  • J.V. Sarma et al.

    The complement system

    Cell Tissue Res.

    (2011)
  • C.B. Coyne et al.

    PAMPs and DAMPs: signal 0 s that spur autophagy and immunity

    Immunol. Rev.

    (2012)
  • D.F. Moyano et al.

    Modulation of immune response using engineered nanoparticle surfaces

    Small

    (2016)
  • N. Oh et al.

    Endocytosis and exocytosis of nanoparticles in mammalian cells

    Int. J. Nanomed.

    (2014)
  • C. Buono et al.

    Fluorescent pegylated nanoparticles demonstrate fluid-phase pinocytosis by macrophages in mouse atherosclerotic lesions

    Tech. Adv.

    (2009)
  • G.U. Ning et al.

    The internalization pathway, metabolic fate and biological effect of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles in the macrophage-like RAW264.7 cell

    Sci. China Life Sci.

    (2011)
  • D.A. Kuhn et al.

    Different endocytotic uptake mechanisms for nanoparticles in epithelial cells and macrophages

    Beilstein J. Nanotechnol.

    (2014)
  • S. Tomić et al.

    Size-dependent effects of gold nanoparticles uptake on maturation and antitumor functions of human dendritic cells in vitro

    PLoS One

    (2014)
  • W.K. Oh et al.

    Cytotoxicity, and innate immune response of silica – titania hollow nanoparticles based on size and surface functionality

    ACS Nano

    (2010)
  • W.K. Kim et al.

    Cytotoxicity of, and innate immune response to, size-controlled polypyrrole nanoparticles in mammalian cells

    Biomaterials

    (2011)
  • M. Hirn et al.

    Particle size-dependent and surface charge-dependent biodistribution of gold nanoparticles after intravenous administration

    Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm.

    (2011)
  • V. Manolova et al.

    Nanoparticles target distinct dendritic cell populations according to their size

    Eur. J. Immunol.

    (2008)
  • B. Mostaghaci et al.

    Transfection system of amino-functionalized calcium phosphate nanoparticles: in vitro efficacy, biodegradability, and immunogenicity study

    ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces

    (2015)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text