Nano Research

, Volume 9, Issue 11, pp 3463–3477 | Cite as

Biocompatibility and internalization of molecularly imprinted nanoparticles

  • Francesco Canfarotta
  • Alicia Waters
  • Robyn Sadler
  • Paul McGill
  • Antonio Guerreiro
  • Dmitri Papkovsky
  • Karsten Haupt
  • Sergey Piletsky
Research Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Molecularly imprinted polymers (MIP) are receiving increasing attention thanks to their robustness, stability, and inexpensive manufacture compared with their bio-analogues such as antibodies. The molecular imprinting process can be defined as the generation of molecular recognition sites in a synthetic polymer. The template-derived sites created within a polymeric matrix allow MIPs (often referred as plastic antibodies) to selectively recognize and bind to the target molecule. Therefore, MIPs can be used in sensors and in separation and diagnostics. Owing to their size and functional properties, MIP nanoparticles (NPs) can potentially be used in biomedicine, but comprehensive analysis of their interaction with cells and in vitro toxicological tests must be performed first. Herein, we report the synthesis of bare and core–shell imprinted NPs using an innovative solid-phase approach and the toxicological evaluation of such NPs in different cell lines (HaCaT, MEFs, HT1080, and macrophages). We also evaluated the influence of the protein corona on particle stability, the internalization of NPs in cells, and the influence of various surface coatings. Studies on the metabolic effects of imprinted NPs on fibroblasts showed that bare MIPs do not alter cell metabolism, whereas some issues arise when specific particle coatings are used. Furthermore, in vitro cytokine release studies revealed that macrophages were not activated in the presence of the MIPs evaluated in this study. The results suggest that MIP NPs are biocompatible, paving the way for their in vivo application.

Open image in new window

Keywords

pegylation core–shell toxicology inflammatory response particle uptake metabolism 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

12274_2016_1222_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.6 mb)
Biocompatibility and internalization of molecularly imprinted nanoparticles

References

  1. [1]
    Desai, N. Challenges in development of nanoparticle-based therapeutics. AAPS J. 2012, 14, 282–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Galindo-Rodríguez, S. A.; Puel, F.; Briançon, S.; Allémann, E.; Doelker, E.; Fessi, H. Comparative scale-up of three methods for producing ibuprofen-loaded nanoparticles. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2005, 25, 357–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Canfarotta, F.; Whitcombe, M. J.; Piletsky, S. A. Polymeric nanoparticles for optical sensing. Biotechnol. Adv. 2013, 31, 1585–1599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Ton, X. A.; Acha, V.; Haupt, K.; Tse Sum Bui, B. Direct fluorimetric sensing of UV-excited analytes in biological and environmental samples using molecularly imprinted polymer nanoparticles and fluorescence polarization. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2012, 36, 22–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Basozabal, I.; Guerreiro, A.; Gomez-Caballero, A.; Aranzazu Goicolea, M.; Barrio, R. J. Direct potentiometric quantification of histamine using solid-phase imprinted nanoparticles as recognition elements. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2014, 58, 138–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Chianella, I.; Guerreiro, A.; Moczko, E.; Caygill, J. S.; Piletska, E. V.; De Vargas Sansalvador, I. M. P.; Whitcombe, M. J.; Piletsky, S. A. Direct replacement of antibodies with molecularly imprinted polymer nanoparticles in ELISA—Development of a novel assay for vancomycin. Anal. Chem. 2013, 85, 8462–8468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Korposh, S.; Chianella, I.; Guerreiro, A.; Caygill, S.; Piletsky, S.; James, S. W.; Tatam, R. P. Selective vancomycin detection using optical fibre long period gratings functionalised with molecularly imprinted polymer nanoparticles. Analyst 2014, 139, 2229–2236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Liu, Y. B.; Wang, S. S.; Zhang, C.; Su, X.; Huang, S.; Zhao, M. P. Enhancing the selectivity of enzyme detection by using tailor-made nanoparticles. Anal. Chem. 2013, 85, 4853–4857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Shutov, R. V.; Guerreiro, A.; Moczko, E.; De Vargas- Sansalvador, I. P.; Chianella, I.; Whitcombe, M. J.; Piletsky, S. A. Introducing MINA—The molecularly imprinted nanoparticle assay. Small 2014, 10, 1086–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Hoshino, Y.; Koide, H.; Urakami, T.; Kanazawa, H.; Kodama, T.; Oku, N.; Shea, K. J. Recognition, neutralization, and clearance of target peptides in the bloodstream of living mice by molecularly imprinted polymer nanoparticles: A plastic antibody. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 6644–6645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Poma, A.; Guerreiro, A.; Whitcombe, M. J.; Piletska, E. V.; Turner, A. P. F.; Piletsky, S. A. Solid-phase synthesis of molecularly imprinted polymer nanoparticles with a reusable template–“Plastic Antibodies”. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2013, 23, 2821–2827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Moczko, E.; Poma, A.; Guerreiro, A.; Perez De Vargas Sansalvador, I.; Caygill, S.; Canfarotta, F.; Whitcombe, M. J.; Piletsky, S. Surface-modified multifunctional MIP nanoparticles. Nanoscale 2013, 5, 3733–3741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Moczko, E.; Guerreiro, A.; Piletska, E.; Piletsky, S. PEGstabilized core-shell surface-imprinted nanoparticles. Langmuir 2013, 29, 9891–9896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Rabanel, J. M.; Hildgen, P.; Banquy, X. Assessment of PEG on polymeric particles surface, a key step in drug carrier translation. J. Control. Release 2014, 185, 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Lai, J. C. K.; Ananthakrishnan, G.; Jandhyam, S.; Dukhande, V. V.; Bhushan, A.; Gokhale, M.; Daniels, C. K.; Leung, S. W. Treatment of human astrocytoma U87 cells with silicon dioxide nanoparticles lowers their survival and alters their expression of mitochondrial and cell signaling proteins. Int. J. Nanomedicine 2010, 5, 715–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Aragonés, J.; Fraisl, P.; Baes, M.; Carmeliet, P. Oxygen sensors at the crossroad of metabolism. Cell Metab. 2009, 9, 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    von Kleist-Retzow, J. C.; Hornig-Do, H. T.; Schauen, M.; Eckertz, S.; Dinh, T. A. D.; Stassen, F.; Lottmann, N.; Bust, M.; Galunska, B.; Wielckens, K. et al. Impaired mitochondrial Ca2+ homeostasis in respiratory chain-deficient cells but efficient compensation of energetic disadvantage by enhanced anaerobic glycolysis due to low ATP steady state levels. Exp. Cell Res. 2007, 313, 3076–3089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Hynes, J.; Floyd, S.; Soini, A. E.; O'Connor, R.; Papkovsky, D. B. Fluorescence-based cell viability screening assays using water-soluble oxygen probes. J. Biomol. Screen. 2003, 8, 264–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Canfarotta, F.; Poma, A.; Guerreiro, A.; Piletsky, S. Solidphase synthesis of molecularly imprinted nanoparticles. Nat. Protoc. 2016, 11, 443–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Sheng, H.; Ye, B. C. Different strategies of covalent attachment of oligonucleotide probe onto glass beads and the hybridization properties. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2009, 152, 54–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Guerreiro, A. R.; Chianella, I.; Piletska, E.; Whitcombe, M. J.; Piletsky, S. A. Selection of imprinted nanoparticles by affinity chromatography. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2009, 24, 2740–2743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Zhdanov, A. V.; Favre, C.; O'Flaherty, L.; Adam, J.; O'Connor, R.; Pollard, P. J.; Papkovsky, D. B. Comparative bioenergetic assessment of transformed cells using a cell energy budget platform. Integr. Biol. 2011, 3, 1135–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Zhdanov, A. V.; Ogurtsov, V. I.; Taylor, C. T.; Papkovsky, D. B. Monitoring of cell oxygenation and responses to metabolic stimulation by intracellular oxygen sensing technique. Integr. Biol. 2010, 2, 443–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Poma, A.; Guerreiro, A.; Caygill, S.; Moczko, E.; Piletsky, S. Automatic reactor for solid-phase synthesis of molecularly imprinted polymeric nanoparticles (MIP NPs) in water. RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 4203–4206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Ambrosini, S.; Beyazit, S.; Haupt, K.; Tse Sum Bui, B. Solid-phase synthesis of molecularly imprinted nanoparticles for protein recognition. Chem. Commun. 2013, 49, 6746–6748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Otsu, T. Iniferter concept and living radical polymerization. J. Polym. Sci. A: Polym. Chem. 2000, 38, 2121–2136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Mun, E. A.; Hannell, C.; Rogers, S. E.; Hole, P.; Williams, A. C.; Khutoryanskiy, V. V. On the role of specific interactions in the diffusion of nanoparticles in aqueous polymer solutions. Langmuir 2014, 30, 308–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Carnell, P.; Newell, S. Characterizing nanoparticles in liquids: Protein aggregation studies. Am. Lab. 2013, 45, 48–51.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Anderson, W.; Kozak, D.; Coleman, V. A.; Jämting, Å. K.; Trau, M. A comparative study of submicron particle sizing platforms: Accuracy, precision and resolution analysis of polydisperse particle size distributions. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2013, 405, 322–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Aggarwal, P.; Hall, J. B.; McLeland, C. B.; Dobrovolskaia, M. A.; McNeil, S. E. Nanoparticle interaction with plasma proteins as it relates to particle biodistribution, biocompatibility and therapeutic efficacy. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2009, 61, 428–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Cui, M. H.; Liu, R. X.; Deng, Z. Y.; Ge, G. L.; Liu, Y.; Xie, L. M. Quantitative study of protein coronas on gold nanoparticles with different surface modifications. Nano Res. 2014, 7, 345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Walkey, C. D.; Chan, W. C. W. Understanding and controlling the interaction of nanomaterials with proteins in a physiological environment. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2012, 41, 2780–2799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    Pellegrino, T.; Kudera, S.; Liedl, T.; Javier, A. M.; Manna, L.; Parak, W. J. On the development of colloidal nanoparticles towards multifunctional structures and their possible use for biological applications. Small 2005, 1, 48–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    Natte, K.; Friedrich, J. F.; Wohlrab, S.; Lutzki, J.; von Klitzing, R.; Österle, W.; Orts-Gil, G. Impact of polymer shell on the formation and time evolution of nanoparticle-protein corona. Colloids Surf. B: Biointerfaces 2013, 104, 213–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    Verma, A.; Stellacci, F. Effect of surface properties on nanoparticle-cell interactions. Small 2010, 6, 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    Göppert, T. M.; Müller, R. H. Adsorption kinetics of plasma proteins on solid lipid nanoparticles for drug targeting. Int. J. Pharm. 2005, 302, 172–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    Vroman, L.; Adams, A. L.; Fischer, G. C.; Munoz, P. C. Interaction of high molecular weight kininogen, factor XII, and fibrinogen in plasma at interfaces. Blood 1980, 55, 156–159.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Dmitriev, R. I.; Zhdanov, A. V.; Jasionek, G.; Papkovsky, D. B. Assessment of cellular oxygen gradients with a panel of phosphorescent oxygen-sensitive probes. Anal. Chem. 2012, 84, 2930–2938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    Bernier, M.; Paul, R. K.; Martin-Montalvo, A.; Scheibye-Knudsen, M.; Song, S. M.; He, H. J.; Armour, S. M.; Hubbard, B. P.; Bohr, V. A.; Wang, L. L. et al. Negative regulation of STAT3 protein-mediated cellular respiration by SIRT1 protein. J. Biol. Chem. 2011, 286, 19270–19279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    Fercher, A.; Borisov, S. M.; Zhdanov, A. V.; Klimant, I.; Papkovsky, D. B. Intracellular O2 sensing probe based on cell-penetrating phosphorescent nanoparticles. ACS Nano 2011, 5, 5499–5508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. [41]
    Murray, P. J.; Wynn, T. A. Protective and pathogenic functions of macrophage subsets. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2011, 11, 723–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. [42]
    Sindrilaru, A.; Peters, T.; Wieschalka, S.; Baican, C.; Baican, A.; Peter, H.; Hainzl, A.; Schatz, S.; Qi, Y.; Schlecht, A. et al. An unrestrained proinflammatory M1 macrophage population induced by iron impairs wound healing in humans and mice. J. Clin. Invest. 2011, 121, 985–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. [43]
    Finco, D.; Grimaldi, C.; Fort, M.; Walker, M.; Kiessling, A.; Wolf, B.; Salcedo, T.; Faggioni, R.; Schneider, A.; Ibraghimov, A. et al. Cytokine release assays: Current practices and future directions. Cytokine 2014, 66, 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    Vidal, J. M.; Kawabata, T. T.; Thorpe, R.; Silva-Lima, B.; Cederbrant, K.; Poole, S.; Mueller-Berghaus, J.; Pallardy, M.; Van der Laan, J. W. In vitro cytokine release assays for predicting cytokine release syndrome: The current stateof- the-science. Report of a European Medicines Agency Workshop. Cytokine 2010, 51, 213–215.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Tsinghua University Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Canfarotta
    • 1
  • Alicia Waters
    • 2
  • Robyn Sadler
    • 3
  • Paul McGill
    • 3
  • Antonio Guerreiro
    • 4
  • Dmitri Papkovsky
    • 2
  • Karsten Haupt
    • 5
  • Sergey Piletsky
    • 4
  1. 1.MIP Diagnostics Ltd.University of LeicesterLeicesterUK
  2. 2.School of Biochemistry and Cell BiologyUniversity College CorkCorkIreland
  3. 3.GSKDavid Jack Centre for R&DWare, HertfordshireUK
  4. 4.Chemistry DepartmentUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
  5. 5.CNRS Enzyme and Cell Engineering LaboratoryCompiègne University of TechnologyCompiègne CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations