Recent progress in cancer cell membrane-based nanoparticles for biomedical applications

Abstract

Immune clearance and insufficient targeting have limited the efficacy of existing therapeutic strategies for cancer. Toxic side effects and individual differences in response to treatment have further limited the benefits of clinical treatment for patients. Biomimetic cancer cell membrane-based nanotechnology has provided a new approach for biomedicine to overcome these obstacles. Biomimetic nanoparticles exhibit various effects (e.g., homotypic targeting, prolonging drug circulation, regulating the immune system, and penetrating biological barriers) after encapsulation by cancer cell membranes. The sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic methods will also be improved by utilizing the properties of cancer cell membranes. In this review, different properties and functions of cancer cell membranes are presented. Utilizing these advantages, nanoparticles can exhibit unique therapeutic capabilities in various types of diseases, such as solid tumors, hematological malignancies, immune system diseases, and cardiovascular diseases. Furthermore, cancer cell membrane-encapsulated nanoparticles show improved effectiveness and efficiency in combination with current diagnostic and therapeutic methods, which will contribute to the development of individualized treatments. This strategy has promising clinical translation prospects, and the associated challenges are discussed.

Keywords: cancer cell biomimetics; nanoparticles; precision medicine; targeted therapy; theranostic nanomedicine.

Figure 1

Application of biomimetic cancer cell membrane-coated nanoparticles in different types of diseases: therapeutic and diagnostic methods. Figure 1 was drawn using Figdraw (https://www.figdraw.com), export ID PSWIPb05cf. The materials contained in the image are copyrighted by Home for Researchers. This content is not subject to CC BY 4.0.

Figure 2

Different roles of the cancer cell membrane. Figure 2 was drawn by Figdraw (https://www.figdraw.com), export ID SWOTY96667. The materials contained in the image are copyrighted by Home for Researchers. This content is not subject to CC BY 4.0.

Figure 3

Schematic representation of the distribution of cancer cell membrane-encapsulated NPs in a tumor-bearing mouse model. (A) UM-SCC-7 tumor-bearing mice were injected with Dox (d) and different types of NPs via tail vein (a: UM-SCC-7; b: COS7; c: Hela). (B) Distribution of different NPs with equivalent doses of DOX 24 h after entering UM-SCC-7 tumor-bearing mice. (C) Distribution of iron from NPs in UM-SCC-7 tumor-bearing mice. (D) Biomimetic NPs showed high accumulation only in the same tumor tissue in the dual-type tumor model. (E, F) Fluorescence signal distribution of H22 and UM-SCC-7 membrane-encapsulated NPs. Figure 3 was adapted with permission from [14]. Copyright 2016, American Chemical Society. This content is not subject to CC BY 4.0.

Figure 4

Characterization of membrane-encapsulated NPs. (A) Gel electrophoresis analysis showed that liver cancer biomimetic nanoparticles (a) basically retained and transferred the extracted cancer cell membrane protein components (b), which were similar to the cell lysate (c). (B) The box plot shows that the dimensional stability of cancer cell membrane biomimetic nanoparticles in water and PBS is significantly higher than that of bare nanoparticles. Adapted from [31]. (© 2019 Liu X et al., published by Ivyspring International Publisher, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Figure 5

Antitumor efficacy of cancer cell membrane-coated NPs in a hepatocarcinoma mouse model. Hepatoma HepG2 cell membrane-encapsulated PLGA nanospheres loaded with doxorubicin (Dox-HepM-PLGA) yielded smaller tumor volumes than the bare nanoparticles and the PBS control group. (a) Fluorescence imaging eleven days after intravenous injection of biomimetic nanoformulations. (b) Tumor volume. (c) Tumor weight. (d) Relative tumor volume. (e) Changes in mouse body weight. Adapted from [31]. (© 2019 Liu X et al., published by Ivyspring International Publisher, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Figure 6

In vivo MRI assay in transient middle cerebral artery occlusion rats. The infarct area of rats treated with 4T1 breast cancer membrane-coated pH-sensitive polymeric nanoparticles loaded with succinobucol (MPP/SCB) was significantly reduced on T2W MRI compared with bare nanoparticles (PP/SCB) and saline (tMCAO). (a) Experimental procedure for rats. (b) MRI visualization of the infarcted regions. Adapted with permission from [26]. Copyright 2021 American Chemical Society. This content is not subject to CC BY 4.0.

Figure 7

Distribution of K7M2 cell membrane-coated hollow manganese dioxide nanoparticles loaded with alendronate and the fluorescent dye Cy5.5 (Cy5.5@HMnO2-AM) in mice. (A) In vivo fluorescence imaging. (B) Statistical analysis of the fluorescence intensity of tumors in different treatment groups. (C) Mouse image. (D) Ex vivo fluorescence imaging of major organs. (E) T1-weighted MR image of the biomimetic nanoparticles. (F) T1-MRI of mice. Reproduced from [83]. (© 2022 Fu L et al., published by Elsevier, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). This content is not subject to CC BY 4.0.