黑料网

Sugar-based biopolymers; Nanomedicine; Cancer imaging; Targeted therapy; Drug delivery; Biocompatibility; Hyaluronic acid; Nanoparticles

Introduction

The emergence of nanomedicine has transformed the landscape of cancer diagnostics and therapeutics, enabling the development of more effective and targeted treatment strategies. Sugar-based biopolymers, derived from renewable sources, offer unique properties that make them ideal candidates for applications in cancer imaging and therapy. These biopolymers possess excellent biocompatibility, biodegradability, and the ability to be chemically modified for specific functionalities, such as drug loading and targeting [1]. In this review, we explore the various sugar-based biopolymers currently being researched and their roles in nanomedicine. We will highlight their applications as carriers for anticancer drugs, contrast agents for imaging, and multifunctional platforms that combine both therapeutic and diagnostic capabilities [2,3]. The aim is to provide a comprehensive overview of the state of research in this emerging area and discuss the challenges and future prospects of sugar-based biopolymers in cancer management.

Methodology

A systematic review of recent publications focusing on sugar-based biopolymers in nanomedicine was conducted using databases such. Keywords included sugar-based biopolymers, nanomedicine, cancer imaging, and drug delivery [4]. Selection criteria studies were included based on their relevance to the applications of sugar-based biopolymers in cancer imaging and therapy. Both in vitro and in vivo studies were considered to provide a comprehensive understanding of the subject [5,6]. Data analysis information regarding the types of sugar-based biopolymers used their methods of synthesis, characterization techniques, and applications in imaging and therapy was extracted and summarized.

Discussion

The discussion highlights the promising potential of sugar-based biopolymers in advancing nanomedicine for cancer applications. Key points include: Versatility of sugar-based Biopolymers polymers like dextran, chitosan, and hyaluronic acid can be functionalized to improve drug loading, release profiles, and targeting capabilities [7]. Their ability to enhance cellular uptake and reduce systemic toxicity is crucial for improving therapeutic outcomes.

Imaging Applications: Sugar-based nanoparticles serve as effective imaging agents due to their ability to encapsulate contrast agents and fluorescent dyes. Their biocompatibility allows for non-invasive imaging techniques, including MRI and fluorescence imaging, which can improve tumor visualization and diagnosis [8].

Targeted Therapy: The incorporation of targeting ligands into sugar-based biopolymer nanocarriers enables selective delivery of anticancer agents to tumor sites, minimizing side effects and enhancing therapeutic efficacy [9]. For example, the use of folate-conjugated dextran nanoparticles has shown improved targeting of folate receptor-positive cancer cells.

Challenges and Limitations: Despite their potential, challenges remain in the scale-up production of sugar-based biopolymer nanoparticles and their stability during storage and in biological environments [10]. Regulatory hurdles and the need for extensive clinical testing are also significant barriers to their widespread clinical application.

Conclusion

Sugar-based biopolymers represent a revolutionary approach in nanomedicine for cancer imaging and therapy. Their unique properties facilitate the development of multifunctional nanoparticles capable of precise drug delivery and effective imaging, thereby improving patient outcomes. Ongoing research efforts should focus on addressing the current challenges, optimizing formulations, and conducting clinical trials to validate their safety and efficacy. As the field of nanomedicine continues to evolve, sugar-based biopolymers hold significant promise for advancing the future of cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

References

1. Tan C, Han F, Zhang S, Li P, Shang N (2021) . Int J Mol Sci 22: 9663-9665.

, ,

2. Sagnelli D, Hooshmand K, Kemmer GC, Kirkensgaard JJK, Mortensen K et al. (2017) . Int J Mol Sci 18: 2075-2078.

, ,

3. Zia KM, Zia F, Zuber M, Rehman S, Ahmad MN, et al.  (2015) . Int J Biol Macromol 79: 377-387.

, ,

4. Raveendran S, Dhandayuthapani B, Nagaoka Y, Yoshida Y, Maekawa T, et al. (2013) . Carbohydr Polym 92: 1225-1233.

, ,

5. Wang H, Dai T, Li S, Zhou S, Yuan X, et al. (2018) . Acta Biomater 72: 206-216.

, ,

6. Lavrič G, Oberlintner A, Filipova I, Novak U, Likozar B, et al. (2021) . Polymers (Basel) 13: 2523-2525.

, ,

7. Inderthal H, Tai SL, Harrison STL (2021) . Trends Biotechnol 39: 12-23.

, ,

8. Ismail AS, Jawaid M, Hamid NH, Yahaya R, Hassan A, et al. (2021) . Molecules 26: 773-775.

, ,

9. Raddadi N, Fava F (2019) . Sci Total Environ 679: 148-158.

, ,

10. Magnin A, Entzmann L, Pollet E, Avérous L (2021) . Waste Manag 132: 23-30.

, ,