Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26772430›Full record

ArticleNanomedicine : nanotechnology, biology, and medicine2016

Subtumoral analysis of PRINT nanoparticle distribution reveals targeting variation based on cellular and particle properties.

Luke E Roode, Hailey Brighton, Tao Bo, Jillian L Perry, Matthew C Parrott, Farrell Kersey, J Chris Luft, James E Bear, Joseph M DeSimone, Ian J Davis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nanomedicine : nanotechnology, biology, and medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. MicroRNA delivery through nanoparticles.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2019
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Nanoparticles and radiotracers: advances toward radionanomedicine.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Luke E RoodeDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Hailey BrightonDepartment of Cell Biology and Physiology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Tao BoCarolina Center for Nanotechnology Excellence, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Jillian L PerryLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Matthew C ParrottCarolina Center for Nanotechnology Excellence, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Biomedical Research Imaging Center, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Farrell KerseyDepartment of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
J Chris LuftDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
James E BearCarolina Center for Nanotechnology Excellence, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Department of Cell Biology and Physiology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Joseph M DeSimoneDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Carolina Center for Nanotechnology Excellence, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Department of Chemistry, College of Arts and Sciences, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Ian J DavisLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Departments of Genetics and Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Electronic address: ian_davis@med.unc.edu.

Funding

Virology Research Program (Program 4)P30CA016086 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Deborah F. Tate · 1985 to 2026
$201.5M
Translational Nanosystems for Improved Lung Cancer Treatment with Small MoleculesU54CA151652 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DESIMONE, JOSEPH M. · 2010 to 2014
$12.1M
Delivery of Biological Therapeutics: Using Engineered Particles and Novel DeliverDP1OD006432 · OD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DESIMONE, JOSEPH M. · 2009 to 2011
$2.2M
Chromatin organization and transcription factor targeting in cancerR01CA166447 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DAVIS, IAN J · 2012 to 2016
$1.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016086NCI NIH HHS R01 CA166447NCI NIH HHS R01CA166447NCI NIH HHS U54 CA151652NIH HHS DP1 OD006432
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The biological activity of nanoparticle-directed therapies critically depends on cellular targeting. We examined the subtumoral fate of Particle Replication in Non-Wetting Templates (PRINT) nanoparticles in a xenografted melanoma tumor model by multi-color flow cytometry and in vivo confocal tumor imaging. These approaches were compared with the typical method of whole-organ quantification by radiolabeling. In contrast to radioactivity based detection which demonstrated a linear dose-dependent accumulation in the organ, flow cytometry revealed that particle association with cancer cells became dose-independent with increased particle doses and that the majority of the nanoparticles in the tumor were associated with cancer cells despite a low fractional association. In vivo imaging demonstrated an inverse relationship between tumor cell association and other immune cells, likely macrophages. Finally, variation in particle size nonuniformly affected subtumoral association. This study demonstrates the importance of subtumoral targeting when assessing nanoparticle activity within tumors. FROM THE CLINICAL EDITOR: Particle Replication in Non-Wetting Templates (PRINT) technology allows the production of nanoparticles with uniform size. The authors in the study utilized PRINT-produced nanoparticles to investigate specific tumor uptake by multi-color flow cytometry and in vivo confocal tumor imaging. This approach allowed further in-depth correlation between nanoparticle properties and tumor cells and should improve future design.

Indexed as

Flow CytometryNanomedicineAnimalsCell Line, TumorDisease Models, AnimalHumansMacrophagesMelanomaNanoparticlesParticle SizeTissue DistributionXenograft Model Antitumor AssaysCancerFlow cytometryNanomedicineNanoparticlePRINT

Identifiers

PMID26772430
PMCPMC4836989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.