中国P站

Chitosan nanoparticles; Targeted delivery; Cancer therapy; Drug encapsulation; Tumor targeting; Biocompatible nanocarriers; Controlled release; Nanomedicine; Cancer treatment; Polymer-based nanoparticles

Introduction

Cancer remains one of the leading causes of death globally, with traditional therapies like chemotherapy often limited by systemic toxicity, poor bioavailability, and lack of specificity toward tumor cells. The emergence of nanotechnology in medicine has opened new avenues for targeted drug delivery, enabling precise delivery of therapeutic agents to malignant cells while minimizing damage to healthy tissues. Among various nanocarriers developed for this purpose, chitosan-based nanoparticles have garnered significant attention due to their biocompatibility, biodegradability, mucoadhesiveness, and ease of chemical modification [1-5]. Chitosan is a natural cationic polysaccharide derived from chitin, abundantly found in crustacean shells. Its ability to form nanoparticles through ionic gelation or polyelectrolyte complexation makes it an excellent platform for drug delivery. Moreover, chitosan can be functionalized with ligands such as folic acid, antibodies, or peptides to achieve active targeting of tumor cells that overexpress specific surface receptors. This paper explores the development, optimization, and therapeutic potential of chitosan-based nanoparticles in enhancing targeted drug delivery for cancer treatment [6-10].

Discussion

Chitosan nanoparticles offer several advantages for cancer therapy, including efficient drug encapsulation, controlled and sustained drug release, and the ability to improve drug solubility and stability. The positively charged surface of chitosan allows strong interaction with negatively charged cellular membranes, promoting endocytosis and improved cellular uptake. Additionally, chitosan’s pH-sensitive nature enables it to release drugs preferentially in the acidic tumor microenvironment, increasing therapeutic efficacy while reducing side effects. Various anticancer drugs such as doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and curcumin have been successfully loaded into chitosan nanoparticles and shown enhanced cytotoxicity against cancer cell lines in vitro and in vivo. Surface modification plays a critical role in the targeting efficiency of these nanoparticles. For instance, folate-conjugated chitosan nanoparticles can bind specifically to folate receptors, which are often overexpressed in ovarian, breast, and lung cancers. Similarly, the attachment of RGD peptides enables the nanoparticles to target integrins involved in tumor angiogenesis. Recent studies also demonstrate the potential of chitosan-based nanoparticles to co-deliver drugs and genes (e.g., siRNA or plasmid DNA), providing a multifunctional platform for combination therapy. Despite their promising properties, challenges such as scale-up production, particle size uniformity, and long-term stability remain. Moreover, comprehensive in vivo toxicity studies and clinical trials are needed to fully assess their safety and therapeutic potential in humans.

Conclusion

Chitosan-based nanoparticles represent a versatile and promising nanoplatform for targeted drug delivery in cancer therapy. Their intrinsic properties, including biocompatibility, biodegradability, mucoadhesion, and pH responsiveness, make them particularly suited for enhancing drug delivery to tumor sites while minimizing off-target effects. By leveraging ligand-mediated targeting and co-delivery strategies, these nanoparticles can address multiple therapeutic challenges simultaneously, including tumor selectivity, drug resistance, and systemic toxicity. Continued research and development are crucial for addressing current limitations and translating laboratory successes into clinical applications. With growing interest from academia and industry alike, chitosan-based nanomedicine holds the potential to revolutionize the future of personalized cancer treatment.

References

1. Nowlin WH, Vanni MJ, Yang H (2008) . Ecology 89: 647-659.

   , ,

2. Kautza A, Sullivan SMP (2016) . Ecology 97: 694-705.

   ,

3. Beasley JC, Olson ZH, DeVault TL (2012) . Oikos 121: 1021-1026.

   , ,

4. Cheng-Di D, Chih-Feng C, Chiu-Wen C (2012) . Int J Environ Res Public Health 9: 2175-2188.

   , ,

5. Nasher E, Heng LY, Zakaria Z, Salmijah S (2013) . ScientificWorldJournal 2013: 858309.

   , ,

6. López GI (2017) . In: Gilbert AS (ed) Encyclopedia of Geoarchaeology. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 341-348.

   , ,

7. Bhatta LD, Sunita CH, Anju P, Himlal B, Partha JD, et al. (2016) . Land 5: 15.

   , ,

8. Dechasa F, Feyera S, Dawit D (2019) . Environ Sustain 2: 355-368.

   , ,

9. Deka S, Om PT, Ashish P (2019) . Geol Ecol Landsc 3: 197-209.

   , ,

10. Achzet B, Helbig C (2013) . Resour Policy 38: 435-447.

    , ,