Multifunctional Nanoplatforms in Photodynamic Therapy and Chemotherapy: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Martin Majerník
,
Rastislav Jendželovský
,
Jana Vargova
,
Zuzana Jendzelovska
,
Peter Fedoročko

Enhanced selectivity for malignant cells with a reduced selectivity for non-malignant cells and good biocompatibility along with the limited occurrence of side effects are considered to be the most significant advantages of photodynamic therapy (PDT) in comparison with conventional therapeutic approaches, e.g., chemotherapy. The phenomenon of multidrug resistance, which is associated with drug efflux transporters, was originally identified in relation to the application of chemotherapy. The concept of a dynamic nanoplatform offers a possible solution to minimize the multidrug resistance effect in cells affected by PDT. 

  • photodynamic therapy
  • multidrug resistance
  • multifunctional nanoplatforms
  • therapeutic synergism
  • chemotherapy

1. Introduction

Cancer is the first or second leading cause of death before the age of 70 years in the majority of countries worldwide [1]. The incidence and mortality of cancer is affected by multiple factors, including lifestyle, the type of cancer and its specificity, stage of cancer, mode of treatment, etc. [2][3]. Thus, the efficacy of treatment varies and the need for personalized therapy [4], the development of a novel therapy development [5][6][7][8], and the search for novel anticancer drugs [9] play a crucial role. One of the most serious problems that significantly reduces the therapeutic effectivity in cancer treatment is the phenomenon of multidrug resistance (MDR). The theory of MDR is not novel; initially it was prevalently associated with the reduction of chemotherapy efficacy [10] but it is now widely known that the phenomenon of MDR can also significantly reduce the therapeutic effectivity of other treatment approaches, even photodynamic therapy (PDT) [11]. The mechanism of MDR is largely associated with the ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters [12] with broad substrate specificity, which includes many therapeutics and photosensitizers (PSs), too [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. Therefore, restricting substrate specificity and bypassing the efflux of target agents represent one of the possible solutions for limiting MDR. The concept of a dynamic nanoplatform using non-biodegradable nanoparticles (NPs) to permanently retain PSs has been established on just this base and it has been progressively developed in the last fifteen years [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. When we talk about nanotechnology, we consider a scale—an order of magnitude—of size, or length. The prefix ‘nano-’ is derived from the Greek word nannos, meaning “very short man”. In scientific units ‘nano’ is used to denote one-billionth of the base unit. Nanotechnology includes the formation and use of materials, structures, devices, and systems that have unique properties because of their small size [37]. The term ‘nanotechnology’ can be dated back to 1974 when it was first used by Norio Taniguschi. Taniguschi described nanotechnology as the technology that forms materials at the nanometer level [38]. Nanomaterials and NPs, the nanometer-sized objects, are the leading edge of the rapidly developing field of nanotechnology and have great applicability in biology and medicine. As NPs are much smaller in size than the cells of living organisms, they are suitable for bio tagging and labeling, drug or gene delivery, diagnosis and detection of specific proteins or pathogens, etc. In general, simple NPs are made from a single material, whereas composite and core/shell NPs are composed of two or more materials. The core itself can consist of several functional layers, allowing the use of nanomaterials in multifunctional approaches. The core particle is usually surrounded and protected by another outer layer or by several layers (a shell) that are composed of some inert material, organic molecules, or biocompatible materials. However, specific linker molecules, ligands, and additional layers are more often conjugated on the surface of NPs in order to improve and add some useful properties, and to increase the biocompatibility of the nanomaterial [39][40]. Technological progress makes it possible to create novel materials, modify the characteristics of currently created materials, or prepare some multimaterial structures. Novel technologies enable multifunctional nanoplatforms to be constructed with enhanced targeting to the particular sites of the tumor mass. In 2015, Yang et al. [41] were the first to introduce multifunctional chemo-PDT and fluorescent imaging systems based on mesoporous silica NPs. Subsequently, many types of NPs and PSs were analyzed for the purpose of improving the therapeutic efficacy of PDT and chemotherapy, not only against the multidrug resistant cancer cells [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57], but also against the cancer stem cell phenotype [58][59][60][61].

2. Nanoparticles—General Systematization

Over the last twenty years, great progress has been made in the field of NP development and their utilization can be found in a huge number of therapeutic approaches [62][63]. Generally, NPs are defined as submicroscopic particles with a size range from 1 to 100 nm [64]. Many refined review papers discussing the systematic classification, description of preparation methods, and their complex physical and biochemical characterization of NPs have been published [64][65]. However, there are several important applications of nanomaterials, and there is no doubt that material engineering represents one of the most progressive scientific areas. The development of novel materials is also substantial [47][48][66][67][68], and the validity and completeness of any systematic nomenclature related to the systematization of NPs is therefore temporary.
Generally, NPs are naturally occurring or chemically prepared synthetic materials. Initially, NPs are very often categorized as active or passive; being active means that they carry active surface moieties [69][70][71].
Lucky et al. (2015) presented a classification system based on the functions or tasks of NPs, namely in PDT. According to the system, NPs are divided into three classes: carriers of PSs, PSs by themselves, and energy transducers of PSs. Currently, the first class of NPs, having the role of PS carriers, is composed of biodegradable and non-biodegradable NPs. The group of biodegradable NPs is represented by polyester and polyacrylamide NPs, liposomal NPs, dendrimer-based NPs, and natural macromolecule-based NPs that are presented by albumin. The class of nonbiodegradable NPs is composed of silica, gold, and magnetic NPs.

3. Problematic Attributes and Limitations of PDT

The era of potential cancer treatment using modern PDT started more than sixty years ago [72]. Since then, research in this field has been developing rapidly and is considered to be a very efficient modality for the treatment of various malignant and non-malignant diseases. The selective destruction of cancer cells with minimal toxicity towards non-cancer cells represents a significant advantage for their successful application in clinical use [73]; however, the improvement of the targeting characteristics of PDT is still crucial [74].
The therapeutic efficacy and success of PDT is based on three fundamental components—the properties of the PS, the spectral characteristics of light and its output power, and finally, the presence of molecular oxygen [75]. In comparison with conventional therapeutic approaches like chemotherapy or radiotherapy, PDT is not an invasive method, which consequently reduces the risk of infections and brings excellent cosmetic results [76].
PDT has also shown its applicability in the treatment of microbial [77] and viral infections [78][79][80]. Moreover, it is possible to use it to treat actinic keratosis, superficial, nodular basal cell carcinoma, Bowen´s disease, and some types of viral skin infections [76].
At the molecular level, the effect of PDT depends mainly on singlet oxygen [75]. The molecules of the PSs must be placed close to the targeted organelles at the time of irradiation as the half-life time of singlet oxygen (<0.04 µs) and the radius of its action (<0.02 nm) are short [81].
The sites that are most preferred for the accumulation of PSs are mitochondria, lysosomes, plasma and intracellular membranes, Golgi apparatus, and the endoplasmic reticulum. Controversially, accumulation in the cell nucleus is very rare [82]. Besides, the cell nucleus is not a preferred target of PDT because it can potentiate mutagenesis under certain conditions as a consequence of genetic material effects [55]. In general, intracellular damage of mitochondria and the endoplasmic reticulum is prevalently associated with apoptosis, whereas PDT targeted on lysosomes or the plasma membrane increases the possibility of necrosis [83]. Thus, the PSs that accumulate close to the mitochondria or endoplasmic reticulum have a higher application potential. It is clear that the allocation of PSs within the tissue and cells has a great impact on the outcome of PDT. Firstly, the distribution of PSs among organelles depends on the transport efficiency of the PS molecules into the intracellular environment. However, the previously mentioned aggregate formation of PS molecules significantly limits its uptake and reduces the efficiency of PDT [84][85]. Thus, the search for novel PS solvents represents one of the essential lines of investigation in PDT research [86]. Furthermore, the systemic administration of drugs leads to their unwanted interaction with the surrounding environment. Therefore, poor penetration is not a terminally limiting factor that restricts the clinical use of many PSs. These interactions could also decrease or even fully reduce a desired pharmaceutical effect [87], which has been observed in the case of neutral leuko-methylene blue molecules, where the cationic reduction of methylene blue molecules resulted from their systematic application [88][89][90].
The higher accumulation rate of PSs observed outside the neoplastic section of the tumor mass or even in healthy tissues and skin is associated with their damage after irradiation and could contribute to tumor development [74]. The distribution kinetics of PS molecules [91][92] or, more precisely, the molecular mechanisms affecting their influx and efflux cell characteristics are probably the fundamental factors modulating the status of PS accumulation in particular tissues or cells [93].
Besides the accumulation of PSs, another important factor affecting the treatment efficacy or failure is the phenomenon of MDR. The concept of MDR is not novel, as it has been very extensively studied over the last few decades [10][94][95][96]. Initially, only the reduction of chemotherapy efficacy was attributed to MDR [10], but since the 1990s, there has been a growing body of evidence highlighting the fact that MDR exceeds the borders of chemotherapy and could affect other therapeutic approaches, even PDT. Currently, the mechanism of MDR is greatly associated with the overexpression of ABC transporters, and MDR-associated protein-1 (MRP1/ABCC1), breast-cancer-resistant protein (BCRP/ABCG2), and P-glycoprotein (P-gp/ABCB1) have been the most extensively studied representatives [5]. In physiological conditions, ABC membrane transporters fulfill an irreplaceable role in the transport of toxic molecules out of the intracellular space using the energy from ATP hydrolysis. This mechanism prevents the intracellular accumulation of toxic compounds and protects the cells from damage [97]. A higher expression of these efflux pumps has been observed for example in the intestine, blood–brain barrier, and blood–testis barrier [98]. ABC transporters have also been observed in other internal organs, such as the liver and kidney, where they take part in detoxification [99]. Their presence in the placenta [100] is associated with the protection of the fetus from toxic factors in the maternal circulation [101]. Interestingly, the significant expression of ABCG2 transporter has been observed in the cell membranes of hematopoietic progenitor cells and other stem cells where their presence is linked with the proliferation and maintenance of the stem cell phenotype. In cancer cells, the expression of ABCG2 is related to the presence of “side population” (SP) phenotype. The SP cells are resistant to certain chemotherapeutic drugs, thanks to their higher efflux activity. Moreover, the SP fraction actively supports tumor formation and its progression [102]. Due to the fact that ABCG2 is standardly expressed in stem cells, it has been suggested that it may also serve as one of the possible, but not universal [103], biomarkers of CSCs [104].
ABC transporters show a broad substrate specificity, including many therapeutic drugs and PSs, too. In 1994, Kessel et al. [12] identified copper benzochlorin iminium salt (CDS1) as a substrate of P-gp, and other PSs molecules have since been confirmed as substrates of P-gp, such as tetrabromorhodamine 123 [13], thiorhodamins, and selenorhodamins [14]. Additionally, protoporphyrin IX [16], hematoporphyrin IX [17], pheophorbide a [17], 2-[1-hexyloxyethyl]-2-devinyl pyropheophorbide-a [16][18], phytoporphyrin (phylloerythrin) [19], chlorin e6 [17], benzoporphyrin derivative monoacid ring A [17], hypericin [20][105], and iminoacridine [21][22] have been identified as substrates of ABCG2.
Besides the fact that many PSs are substrates of ABC transporters, they can also actively modulate the level of certain efflux pumps. Indeed, some recently published papers have detected an increased expression of BCRP in the lung cancer cell line A549 [103] or elevated BCRP and MRP1 levels after hypericin application in dark conditions in colorectal HT-29 [15][20], and ovarian A2780 and A2780cis cell lines [23]. Moreover, Jendželovská et al. [23] observed an enhanced MRP1 expression in A2780 and A2780cis cells only 6 h after treatment with 0.5 µM hypericin. In HT-29 cells, the elevated expression of MRP1 was observed even 16 h after the application of 0.1 µM hypericin concentration [15][20]. Jendželovský et al. (2019) stated that the elimination of hypericin from cancer cells represents one of the essential obstacles affecting the efficacy of PDT with hypericin (HY-PDT). The decreased intracellular level of PSs affected by BCRP were associated with a lower therapeutic efficacy of PDT, which was also observed in other PSs, such as protoporhyrin [17][18][106][107][108], chlorin e6 [17][109], pheophorbide [110], pyropheophorbide a [111], pyropheophorbide a methyl ester [17], pheophorbide a [112], 2-(1-hexyloxethyl)-2-devinil pyropheophorbide-a (HPPH, Photochlor) [18], benzoporphyrin derivative monoacid ring A (BPD-MA, Verteporfin) [18], aminolevulonic acid-protoporhyrin IX (ALA-PpIX) [113], and photofrin (PT) [114].

4. Nanoparticles as a Possible Solution for Reducing the MDR Effect in Cancer Treatment

As mentioned in the section above, the phenomenon of MDR represents a very serious, if not the most important, factor that significantly reduces the efficacy of PDT. However, the problem is even more complex because, as mentioned above, many PSs are not only the substrates of ABC transporters, but could even enhance the MDR effect via upregulating their expression. All things considered, the lower therapeutic effect of PDT is the consequence of cascade reactions, where the enhanced amount of ABC transporters limits the intracellular accumulation of PSs. The lower therapeutic efficacy accompanied by survival of the targeted cell fraction can result in tumor regrowth and higher malignancy, which was observed using in vivo experimental models [74][91][115][116][117]. Finally, the tumorigenic potential, which was characterized by the enhanced ability to repopulate the tumor, is a typical feature of CSCs [118]. Thus, novel medical approaches focusing on the reduction of the MDR mechanism could make significant progress in cancer treatment.
With this in mind, biodegradable natural or synthetic NPs carrying PSs were initially utilized for PDT, with polyester- and polyacrylamide-based NPs; liposomal NPs belong to the most extensively studied representatives of this category.
The analyses with tetanus toxoid prepared in liposomes clearly showed a greater antibody response in comparison with free toxoid. Moreover, after the repeated application of free toxoid, the experimental animals died. In contrast, the animals who were treated with toxoid prepared in liposomes preserved good health [119]. Later, multiple liposome modifications were analyzed to improve the membrane stability [120] and entrapment potential for a wide range of molecules like chemotherapeutics [121], PSs [122][123][124][125][126][127], or mRNA [128][129]. Interestingly, thanks to long-term research, alongside the COVID-19 pandemic situation, liposomes have been used as transporters in officially approved mRNA vaccines [130].
The data have shown that the utilization of biodegradable NPs could significantly improve solubility, the effectivity of PSs delivery [122][123][124], tumoricidal activity [123], wavelength absorption parameters of PSs, the PS accumulation ratio between the skin and the tumor, and the tumor regression potential [125], as well as their long-storing capability [126]. Moreover, Lima et al. (2013) showed that the utilization of lipid NPs with a core, stabilized by the surfactant known as solid lipid NPs (SLNs), significantly reduces the essential deficiencies of the conventional lipid NPs linked with the low entrapment efficiency of the PSs. Importantly, the structural modification did not induce the toxic or phototoxic effect in vitro. In relation to SLNs, the entrapment efficiency of hypericin was more than 80% higher [127][131]. In addition, using HEp-2 human larynx carcinoma cells, B16-F10 mouse melanoma cells [127], and Hep G2 human hepatocellular carcinoma cells [131], a higher absorption effectivity, higher photostability, lower photodegradation [127][131], more effective singlet oxygen production, and about 30% higher hypericin intracellular accumulation and 26% higher phototoxicity (in comparison to the experimental group treated with free hypericin) were detected. Thus, SLNs might help to partially overcome the enhanced efflux of PSs by transporter proteins, which is the typical manifestation of MDR, by increasing the intracellular PS content [127].
On the contrary, there are several pieces of evidence pointing to the fact that the higher PS encapsulation efficiency observed in SLNs [127][131][132] or polyactic acid polymeric NPs (PLA) has a negative effect on their photoactivity. Surprisingly, Zeisser-Labouebe (2006) observed a lowered photocytotoxic effect of encapsulated hypericin when compared to free hypericin on NuTu-19 cells, depending on the increasing encapsulation efficacy of PLA. The influence of drug loading on the phototoxic effect of biodegradable NPs could be explained by multiple parameters. The most likely explanation lies in the NP size, where particles with a diameter higher than 200 nm could significantly lower PDT effectivity as a consequence of their decreased permeability, and thus limit access to the tumor [131][133]. Another potential reason could be that PSs loaded into NPs with a smaller diameter may be closer to the surface of the NPs, and a more rapid release is therefore possible [132]. Observations where a higher drug loading capacity is paradoxically associated with the limited drug release capability of NPs are not only noted in relation to PSs. Mu and Feng (2003) observed a similar trend with the utilization of paclitaxel-loaded poly(DL-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) NPs with a diameter about 400 nm, and Görner et al. (1999) clearly showed that larger NPs exhibit a slower release [134][135]. Using lidocaine loaded in poly(d,l-lactic acid) NPs varying in particle size from about 250 to 820 nm, they also suggested that the release profile of NPs is affected by a combination of the size and drug loading parameters of the NPs. The authors also suggested the creation of a heterogenous matrix with a higher drug loading in the NPs whose presence limits drug release. Therefore, the loaded drug must firstly be dissolved in these highly loaded NPs, which causes its slower release. In relation to PSs, the use of larger NPs (>200 nm) [131] could be associated with a higher rate of aggregate formation in these NPs, which could significantly restrict the photocytotoxic effect of PDT [132].
Naturally, biodegradable NPs are designed to load, deliver, and release particular molecules. Therefore the major drawbacks of biodegradable delivery systems are associated with the risk of PS efflux by the MDR mechanisms [87], and also with the persistence of the post-treatment accumulation of drugs in the skin and eyes, resulting in long-term phototoxic side effects [136].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/pharmaceutics14051075

References

  1. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249.
  2. Bray, F.; Ferlay, J.; Soerjomataram, I.; Siegel, R.L.; Torre, L.A.; Jemal, A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 2018, 68, 394–424.
  3. Slamon, D.J.; Godolphin, W.; Jones, L.A.; Holt, J.A.; Wong, S.G.; Keith, D.E.; Levin, W.J.; Stuart, S.G.; Udove, J.; Ullrich, A.; et al. Studies of the HER-2/ neu Proto-Oncogene in Human Breast and Ovarian Cancer. Science 1989, 244, 707–712.
  4. Pakkala, S.; Ramalingam, S.S. Personalized therapy for lung cancer: Striking a moving target. JCI Insight 2018, 3, e120858.
  5. Majidinia, M.; Mirza-Aghazadeh-Attari, M.; Rahimi, M.; Mihanfar, A.; Karimian, A.; Safa, A.; Yousefi, B. Overcoming multidrug resistance in cancer: Recent progress in nanotechnology and new horizons. IUBMB Life 2020, 72, 855–871.
  6. Rodriguez-Pascual, J.; Ayuso-Sacido, A.; Belda-Iniesta, C. Drug resistance in cancer immunotherapy: New strategies to improve checkpoint inhibitor therapies. Cancer Drug Resist 2019, 2, 980–993.
  7. Liu, J.; Guo, B. RNA-based therapeutics for colorectal cancer: Updates and future directions. Pharmacol. Res. 2020, 152, 104550.
  8. Murayama, T.; Gotoh, N. Drug resistance mechanisms of cancer stem-like cells and their therapeutic potential as drug targets. Cancer Drug Resist. 2019, 2, 457–470.
  9. Babinčák, M.; Jendželovský, R.; Košuth, J.; Majerník, M.; Vargová, J.; Mikulášek, K.; Zdráhal, Z.; Fedoročko, P. Death Receptor 5 (TNFRSF10B) Is Upregulated and TRAIL Resistance Is Reversed in Hypoxia and Normoxia in Colorectal Cancer Cell Lines after Treatment with Skyrin, the Active Metabolite of Hypericum spp. Cancers 2021, 13, 1646.
  10. Keating, P.; Cambrosio, A.; Nelson, N.C.; Mogoutov, A.; Cointet, J.-P. Therapy’s Shadow: A Short History of the Study of Resistance to Cancer Chemotherapy. Front. Pharmacol. 2013, 4, 58.
  11. Tsai, T.; Hong, R.-L.; Tsai, J.-C.; Lou, P.-J.; Ling, I.-F.; Chen, C.-T. Effect of 5-aminolevulinic acid-mediated photodynamic therapy on MCF-7 and MCF-7/ADR cells. Lasers Surg. Med. 2004, 34, 62–72.
  12. Kessel, D.; Woodburn, K.; Skalkos, D. Impaired accumulation of a cationic photosensitizing agent by a cell line exhibiting multidrug resistance. Photochem. Photobiol. 1994, 60, 61–63.
  13. Kessel, D.; Woodburn, K. Selective photodynamic inactivation of a multidrug transporter by a cationic photosensitising agent. Br. J. Cancer 1995, 71, 306–310.
  14. Hill, J.E.; Linder, M.K.; Davies, K.S.; Sawada, G.A.; Morgan, J.; Ohulchanskyy, T.Y.; Detty, M.R. Selenorhodamine Photosensitizers for Photodynamic Therapy of P-Glycoprotein-Expressing Cancer Cells. J. Med. Chem. 2014, 57, 8622–8634.
  15. Kuchárová, B.; Mikeš, J.; Jendželovský, R.; Vargová, J.; Mikešová, L.; Jendželovská, Z.; Kovaľ, J.; Fedoročko, P. Potentiation of hypericin-mediated photodynamic therapy cytotoxicity by MK-886: Focus on ABC transporters, GDF-15 and redox status. Photodiagnosis Photodyn. Ther. 2015, 12, 490–503.
  16. Morgan, J.; Jackson, J.D.; Zheng, X.; Pandey, S.K.; Pandey, R.K. Substrate Affinity of Photosensitizers Derived from Chlorophyll-a: The ABCG2 Transporter Affects the Phototoxic Response of Side Population Stem Cell-like Cancer Cells to Photodynamic Therapy. Mol. Pharm. 2010, 7, 1789–1804.
  17. Robey, R.W.; Steadman, K.; Polgar, O.; Bates, S.E. ABCG2-mediated transport of photosensitizers: Potential impact on photodynamic therapy. Cancer Biol. Ther. 2005, 4, 187–194.
  18. Liu, W.; Baer, M.R.; Bowman, M.J.; Pera, P.; Zheng, X.; Morgan, J.; Pandey, R.A.; Oseroff, A.R. The Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Imatinib Mesylate Enhances the Efficacy of Photodynamic Therapy by Inhibiting ABCG2. Clin. Cancer Res. 2007, 13, 2463–2470.
  19. Robey, R.W.; Fetsch, P.A.; Polgar, O.; Dean, M.; Bates, S.E. The livestock photosensitizer, phytoporphyrin (phylloerythrin), is a substrate of the ATP-binding cassette transporter ABCG2. Res. Vet. Sci. 2006, 81, 345–349.
  20. Jendželovský, R.; Mikeš, J.; Koval’, J.; Souček, K.; Procházková, J.; Kello, M.; Sačková, V.; Hofmanová, J.; Kozubík, A.; Fedoročko, P. Drug efflux transporters, MRP1 and BCRP, affect the outcome of hypericin-mediated photodynamic therapy in HT-29 adenocarcinoma cells. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 2009, 8, 1716–1723.
  21. Goler-Baron, V.; Assaraf, Y.G. Overcoming multidrug resistance via photodestruction of ABCG2-rich extracellular vesicles sequestering photosensitive chemotherapeutics. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e35487.
  22. Bram, E.E.; Adar, Y.; Mesika, N.; Sabisz, M.; Skladanowski, A.; Assaraf, Y.G. Structural determinants of imidazoacridinones facilitating antitumor activity are crucial for substrate recognition by ABCG2. Mol. Pharmacol. 2009, 75, 1149–1159.
  23. Jendželovská, Z.; Jendželovský, R.; Hiľovská, L.; Kovaľ, J.; Mikeš, J.; Fedoročko, P. Single pre-treatment with hypericin, a St. John’s wort secondary metabolite, attenuates cisplatin- and mitoxantrone-induced cell death in A2780, A2780cis and HL-60 cells. Toxicol. Vitr. 2014, 28, 1259–1273.
  24. Roy, I.; Ohulchanskyy, T.Y.; Pudavar, H.E.; Bergey, E.J.; Oseroff, A.R.; Morgan, J.; Dougherty, T.J.; Prasad, P.N. Ceramic-based nanoparticles entrapping water-insoluble photosensitizing anticancer drugs: A novel drug-carrier system for photodynamic therapy. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 7860–7865.
  25. Ross, B.; Rehemtulla, A.; Koo, Y.-E.L.; Reddy, R.; Kim, G.; Behrend, C.; Buck, S.; Schneider, R.J.; Philbert, M.A.; Weissleder, R.; et al. Photonic and magnetic nanoexplorers for biomedical use: From subcellular imaging to cancer diagnostics and therapy. In Nanobiophotonics and Biomedical Applications; Cartwright, A.N., Ed.; SPIE: Bellingham, WA, USA, 2004; p. 76.
  26. Zhu, J.; Wang, H.; Liao, L.; Zhao, L.; Zhou, L.; Yu, M.; Wang, Y.; Liu, B.; Yu, C. Small Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles as Carriers for Enhanced Photodynamic Therapy. Chem. Asian J. 2011, 6, 2332–2338.
  27. Tu, J.; Wang, T.; Shi, W.; Wu, G.; Tian, X.; Wang, Y.; Ge, D.; Ren, L. Multifunctional ZnPc-loaded mesoporous silica nanoparticles for enhancement of photodynamic therapy efficacy by endolysosomal escape. Biomaterials 2012, 33, 7903–7914.
  28. Chen, Z.-L.; Sun, Y.; Huang, P.; Yang, X.-X.; Zhou, X.-P. Studies on Preparation of Photosensitizer Loaded Magnetic Silica Nanoparticles and Their Anti-Tumor Effects for Targeting Photodynamic Therapy. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2009, 4, 400.
  29. Zhou, J.; Zhou, L.; Dong, C.; Feng, Y.; Wei, S.; Shen, J.; Wang, X. Preparation and photodynamic properties of water-soluble hypocrellin A-silica nanospheres. Mater. Lett. 2008, 62, 2910–2913.
  30. Zhou, L.; Liu, J.-H.; Zhang, J.; Wei, S.-H.; Feng, Y.-Y.; Zhou, J.-H.; Yu, B.-Y.; Shen, J. A new sol–gel silica nanovehicle preparation for photodynamic therapy in vitro. Int. J. Pharm. 2010, 386, 131–137.
  31. Qian, J.; Gharibi, A.; He, S. Colloidal mesoporous silica nanoparticles with protoporphyrin IX encapsulated for photodynamic therapy. J. Biomed. Opt. 2009, 14, 014012.
  32. Compagnin, C.; Baù, L.; Mognato, M.; Celotti, L.; Miotto, G.; Arduini, M.; Moret, F.; Fede, C.; Selvestrel, F.; Echevarria, I.M.R.; et al. The cellular uptake of meta-tetra(hydroxyphenyl)chlorin entrapped in organically modified silica nanoparticles is mediated by serum proteins. Nanotechnology 2009, 20, 345101.
  33. Zhao, B.; Yin, J.-J.; Bilski, P.J.; Chignell, C.F.; Roberts, J.E.; He, Y.-Y. Enhanced photodynamic efficacy towards melanoma cells by encapsulation of Pc4 in silica nanoparticles. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2009, 241, 163–172.
  34. Simon, V.; Devaux, C.; Darmon, A.; Donnet, T.; Thiénot, E.; Germain, M.; Honnorat, J.; Duval, A.; Pottier, A.; Borghi, E.; et al. Pp IX Silica Nanoparticles Demonstrate Differential Interactions with In Vitro Tumor Cell Lines and In Vivo Mouse Models of Human Cancers. Photochem. Photobiol. 2010, 86, 213–222.
  35. Kim, S.; Ohulchanskyy, T.Y.; Pudavar, H.E.; Pandey, R.K.; Prasad, P.N. Organically Modified Silica Nanoparticles Co-encapsulating Photosensitizing Drug and Aggregation-Enhanced Two-Photon Absorbing Fluorescent Dye Aggregates for Two-Photon Photodynamic Therapy. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 2669–2675.
  36. He, X.; Wu, X.; Wang, K.; Shi, B.; Hai, L. Methylene blue-encapsulated phosphonate-terminated silica nanoparticles for simultaneous in vivo imaging and photodynamic therapy. Biomaterials 2009, 30, 5601–5609.
  37. Allhoff, F.; Lin, P.; Moore, D. What is Nanotechnology and why does it Matter? Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; ISBN 9781405175456.
  38. Taniguchi, N.; Arakawa, C.; Kobayashi, T. On the Basic concept of Nanotechnology. Proc. ICPE 1974, 2, 18–23.
  39. McNeil, S.E. Nanotechnology for the biologist. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2005, 78, 585–594.
  40. Salata, O. Applications of nanoparticles in biology and medicine. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2004, 2, 3.
  41. Yang, Y.; Yu, M.; Song, H.; Wang, Y.; Yu, C. Preparation of fluorescent mesoporous hollow silica–fullerene nanoparticles via selective etching for combined chemotherapy and photodynamic therapy. Nanoscale 2015, 7, 11894–11898.
  42. Yang, Y.; Wang, A.; Jia, Y.; Brezesinski, G.; Dai, L.; Zhao, J.; Li, J. Peptide p160-Coated Silica Nanoparticles Applied in Photodynamic Therapy. Chem. Asian J. 2014, 9, 2126–2131.
  43. Don, T.-M.; Lu, K.-Y.; Lin, L.-J.; Hsu, C.-H.; Wu, J.-Y.; Mi, F.-L. Temperature/pH/Enzyme Triple-Responsive Cationic Protein/PAA- b -PNIPAAm Nanogels for Controlled Anticancer Drug and Photosensitizer Delivery against Multidrug Resistant Breast Cancer Cells. Mol. Pharm. 2017, 14, 4648–4660.
  44. Ji, Y.; Zhao, J.; Chu, C.-C. Biodegradable nanocomplex from hyaluronic acid and arginine based poly(ester amide)s as the delivery vehicles for improved photodynamic therapy of multidrug resistant tumor cells: An in vitro study of the performance of chlorin e6 photosensitizer. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2017, 105, 1487–1499.
  45. Khdair, A.; Handa, H.; Mao, G.; Panyam, J. Nanoparticle-mediated combination chemotherapy and photodynamic therapy overcomes tumor drug resistance in vitro. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2009, 71, 214–222.
  46. Li, H.; Liu, C.; Zeng, Y.-P.; Hao, Y.-H.; Huang, J.-W.; Yang, Z.-Y.; Li, R. Nanoceria-Mediated Drug Delivery for Targeted Photodynamic Therapy on Drug-Resistant Breast Cancer. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 31510–31523.
  47. Zhen, S.; Yi, X.; Zhao, Z.; Lou, X.; Xia, F.; Tang, B.Z. Drug delivery micelles with efficient near-infrared photosensitizer for combined image-guided photodynamic therapy and chemotherapy of drug-resistant cancer. Biomaterials 2019, 218, 119330.
  48. Li, Z.; Cai, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Yu, H.; Zhou, H.; Chen, M. Polymeric mixed micelles loaded mitoxantrone for overcoming multidrug resistance in breast cancer via photodynamic therapy. Int. J. Nanomed. 2017, 12, 6595–6604.
  49. Luo, Z.; Li, M.; Zhou, M.; Li, H.; Chen, Y.; Ren, X.; Dai, Y. O2-evolving and ROS-activable nanoparticles for treatment of multi-drug resistant Cancer by combination of photodynamic therapy and chemotherapy. Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 2019, 19, 49–57.
  50. Ma, X.; Qu, Q.; Zhao, Y. Targeted Delivery of 5-Aminolevulinic Acid by Multifunctional Hollow Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles for Photodynamic Skin Cancer Therapy. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2015, 7, 10671–10676.
  51. Wang, D.; Li, X.; Li, X.; Kang, A.; Sun, L.; Sun, M.; Yang, F.; Xu, C. Magnetic And pH Dual-Responsive Nanoparticles For Synergistic Drug-Resistant Breast Cancer Chemo/Photodynamic Therapy. Int. J. Nanomed. 2019, 14, 7665–7679.
  52. Yan, T.; Cheng, J.; Liu, Z.; Cheng, F.; Wei, X.; He, J. pH-Sensitive mesoporous silica nanoparticles for chemo-photodynamic combination therapy. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2018, 161, 442–448.
  53. Zhang, W.; Shen, J.; Su, H.; Mu, G.; Sun, J.-H.; Tan, C.-P.; Liang, X.-J.; Ji, L.-N.; Mao, Z.-W. Co-Delivery of Cisplatin Prodrug and Chlorin e6 by Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles for Chemo-Photodynamic Combination Therapy to Combat Drug Resistance. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 13332–13340.
  54. Zhou, Y.; Chang, C.; Liu, Z.; Zhao, Q.; Xu, Q.; Li, C.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, B. Hyaluronic Acid-Functionalized Hollow Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles as pH-Sensitive Nanocarriers for Cancer Chemo-Photodynamic Therapy. Langmuir 2021, 37, 2619–2628.
  55. Sun, J.H.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, D.Y.; Shen, J.; Tan, C.P.; Ji, L.N.; Mao, Z.W. Multifunctional mesoporous silica nanoparticles as efficient transporters of doxorubicin and chlorin e6 for chemo-photodynamic combinatorial cancer therapy. J. Biomater. Appl. 2018, 32, 1253–1264.
  56. Ellahioui, Y.; Patra, M.; Mari, C.; Kaabi, R.; Karges, J.; Gasser, G.; Gómez-Ruiz, S. Mesoporous silica nanoparticles functionalised with a photoactive ruthenium (II) complex: Exploring the formulation of a metal-based photodynamic therapy photosensitiser. Dalt. Trans. 2019, 48, 5940–5951.
  57. Baglo, Y.; Liang, B.J.; Robey, R.W.; Ambudkar, S.V.; Gottesman, M.M.; Huang, H.-C. Porphyrin-lipid assemblies and nanovesicles overcome ABC transporter-mediated photodynamic therapy resistance in cancer cells. Cancer Lett. 2019, 457, 110–118.
  58. Usacheva, M.; Swaminathan, S.K.; Kirtane, A.R.; Panyam, J. Enhanced Photodynamic Therapy and Effective Elimination of Cancer Stem Cells Using Surfactant–Polymer Nanoparticles. Mol. Pharm. 2014, 11, 3186–3195.
  59. Crous, A.; Abrahamse, H. Effective Gold Nanoparticle-Antibody-Mediated Drug Delivery for Photodynamic Therapy of Lung Cancer Stem Cells. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 3742.
  60. Wang, H.; Agarwal, P.; Zhao, S.; Yu, J.; Lu, X.; He, X. Combined cancer therapy with hyaluronan-decorated fullerene-silica multifunctional nanoparticles to target cancer stem-like cells. Biomaterials 2016, 97, 62–73.
  61. Yang, B.; Liu, H.; Yang, H.; Chen, W.; Wu, J.; Feng, X.; Tong, R.; Yu, H.; Chen, Y.; Lv, Z.; et al. Combinatorial photochemotherapy on liver cancer stem cells with organoplatinum (ii) metallacage-based nanoparticles. J. Mater. Chem. B 2019, 7, 6476–6487.
  62. Bayda, S.; Adeel, M.; Tuccinardi, T.; Cordani, M.; Rizzolio, F. The History of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology: From Chemical–Physical Applications to Nanomedicine. Molecules 2019, 25, 112.
  63. Talebian, S.; Rodrigues, T.; das Neves, J.; Sarmento, B.; Langer, R.; Conde, J. Facts and Figures on Materials Science and Nanotechnology Progress and Investment. ACS Nano 2021, 15, 15940–15952.
  64. Lucky, S.S.; Soo, K.C.; Zhang, Y. Nanoparticles in Photodynamic Therapy. Chem. Rev. 2015, 115, 1990–2042.
  65. Couleaud, P.; Morosini, V.; Frochot, C.; Richeter, S.; Raehm, L.; Durand, J.-O. Silica-based nanoparticles for photodynamic therapy applications. Nanoscale 2010, 2, 1083.
  66. Pechanova, O.; Barta, A.; Koneracka, M.; Zavisova, V.; Kubovcikova, M.; Klimentova, J.; Tӧrӧk, J.; Zemancikova, A.; Cebova, M. Protective Effects of Nanoparticle-Loaded Aliskiren on Cardiovascular System in Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats. Molecules 2019, 24, 2710.
  67. Antosova, A.; Bednarikova, Z.; Koneracka, M.; Antal, I.; Marek, J.; Kubovcikova, M.; Zavisova, V.; Jurikova, A.; Gazova, Z. Amino Acid Functionalized Superparamagnetic Nanoparticles Inhibit Lysozyme Amyloid Fibrillization. Chem.—An Eur. J. 2019, 25, 7501–7514.
  68. Antal, I.; Strbak, O.; Khmara, I.; Koneracka, M.; Kubovcikova, M.; Zavisova, V.; Kmetova, M.; Baranovicova, E.; Dobrota, D. MRI Relaxivity Changes of the Magnetic Nanoparticles Induced by Different Amino Acid Coatings. Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 394.
  69. Konan, Y.N.; Gurny, R.; Allémann, E. State of the art in the delivery of photosensitizers for photodynamic therapy. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2002, 66, 89–106.
  70. Bechet, D.; Couleaud, P.; Frochot, C.; Viriot, M.-L.; Guillemin, F.; Barberi-Heyob, M. Nanoparticles as vehicles for delivery of photodynamic therapy agents. Trends Biotechnol. 2008, 26, 612–621.
  71. Paszko, E.; Ehrhardt, C.; Senge, M.O.; Kelleher, D.P.; Reynolds, J.V. Nanodrug applications in photodynamic therapy. Photodiagnosis Photodyn. Ther. 2011, 8, 14–29.
  72. Lipson, R.L.; Baldes, E.J.; Olsen, A.M. The Use of a Derivative of Hematoporphyrin in Tumor Detection. JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1961, 26, 1–11.
  73. Dougherty, T.J.; Gomer, C.J.; Henderson, B.W.; Jori, G.; Kessel, D.; Korbelik, M.; Moan, J.; Peng, Q. Photodynamic Therapy. JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1998, 90, 889–905.
  74. Majerník, M.; Jendželovský, R.; Fedoročko, P. Potentiality, Limitations, and Consequences of Different Experimental Models to Improve Photodynamic Therapy for Cancer Treatment in Relation to Antiangiogenic Mechanism. Cancers 2020, 12, 2118.
  75. Mikeš, J.; Jendželovský, R.; Fedoročko, P. Cellular Aspects of Photodynamic Therapy with Hypericin; Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2013; ISBN 9781624176357.
  76. Rossi, R.; Bruscino, N.; Ricceri, F.; Grazzini, M.; Dindelli, M.; Lotti, T. Photodynamic treatment for viral infections of the skin. G. Ital. Dermatol. Venereol. 2009, 144, 79–83.
  77. Kharkwal, G.B.; Sharma, S.K.; Huang, Y.-Y.; Dai, T.; Hamblin, M.R. Photodynamic therapy for infections: Clinical applications. Lasers Surg. Med. 2011, 43, 755–767.
  78. Harris, F.; Pierpoint, L. Photodynamic therapy based on 5-aminolevulinic acid and its use as an antimicrobial Agent. Med. Res. Rev. 2012, 32, 1292–1327.
  79. Jacobson, J.M.; Feinman, L.; Liebes, L.; Ostrow, N.; Koslowski, V.; Tobia, A.; Cabana, B.E.; Lee, D.-H.; Spritzler, J.; Prince, A.M. Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Antiviral Effects of Hypericin, a Derivative of St. John’s Wort Plant, in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2001, 45, 517–524.
  80. Lim, M.E.; Lee, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Chu, J.J.H. Photodynamic inactivation of viruses using upconversion nanoparticles. Biomaterials 2012, 33, 1912–1920.
  81. Moan, J.; Berg, K. The photodegradation of porphyrins in cells can be used to estimate the lifetime of singlet oxygen. Photochem. Photobiol. 1991, 53, 549–553.
  82. Oleinick, N.L.; Morris, R.L.; Belichenko, I. The role of apoptosis in response to photodynamic therapy: What, where, why, and how. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 2002, 1, 1–21.
  83. Kessel, D.; Luo, Y.; Deng, Y.; Chang, C.K. The role of subcellular localization in initiation of apoptosis by photodynamic therapy. Photochem. Photobiol. 1997, 65, 422–426.
  84. Bánó, G.; Staničová, J.; Jancura, D.; Marek, J.; Bánó, M.; Uličný, J.; Strejčková, A.; Miškovský, P. On the Diffusion of Hypericin in Dimethylsulfoxide/Water Mixtures—The Effect of Aggregation. J. Phys. Chem. B 2011, 115, 2417–2423.
  85. Mesquita, M.Q.; Dias, C.J.; Gamelas, S.; Fardilha, M.; Neves, M.G.P.M.S.; Faustino, M.A.F. An insight on the role of photosensitizer nanocarriers for Photodynamic Therapy. An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 2018, 90, 1101–1130.
  86. Suváková, M.; Majerník, M.; Jendželovský, R.; Hovan, A.; Bánó, G.; Fedoročko, P.; Antalík, M. In vitro study of disodium cromoglicate as a novel effective hydrotrope solvent for hypericin utilisation in photodynamic therapy. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2020, 206, 111855.
  87. Tang, W.; Xu, H.; Kopelman, R.A.; Philbert, M. Photodynamic Characterization and In Vitro Application of Methylene Blue-containing Nanoparticle Platforms. Photochem. Photobiol. 2005, 81, 242.
  88. Williams, J.L.; Stamp, J.; Devonshire, R.; Fowler, G.J.S. Methylene blue and the photodynamic therapy of superficial bladder cancer. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 1989, 4, 229–232.
  89. Orth, K.; Beck, G.; Genze, F.; Rück, A. Methylene blue mediated photodynamic therapy in experimental colorectal tumors in mice. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2000, 57, 186–192.
  90. Wainwright, M.; Phoenix, D.A.; Rice, L.; Burrow, S.M.; Waring, J. Increased cytotoxicity and phototoxicity in the methylene blue series via chromophore methylation. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 1997, 40, 233–239.
  91. Bhuvaneswari, R.; Gan, Y.Y.Y.; Yee, K.K.L.; Soo, K.C.; Olivo, M. Effect of hypericin-mediated photodynamic therapy on the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor in human nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int. J. Mol. Med. 2007, 20, 421–428.
  92. Bhuvaneswari, R.; Gan, Y.K.; Lucky, S.S.; Chin, W.W.L.; Ali, S.M.; Soo, K.C.; Olivo, M. Molecular profiling of angiogenesis in hypericin mediated photodynamic therapy. Mol. Cancer 2008, 7, 1–14.
  93. Petersen, B.; Wiegell, S.R.; Wulf, H.C. Light protection of the skin after photodynamic therapy reduces inflammation: An unblinded randomized controlled study. Br. J. Dermatol. 2014, 171, 175–178.
  94. Nowell, P.C. The Clonal Evolution of Tumor Cell Populations. Science 1976, 194, 23–28.
  95. Kocibalova, Z.; Guzyova, M.; Borovska, I.; Messingerova, L.; Copakova, L.; Sulova, Z.; Breier, A. Development of Multidrug Resistance in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Is Associated with Alterations of the LPHN1/GAL-9/TIM-3 Signaling Pathway. Cancers 2021, 13, 3629.
  96. Gibalová, L.; Sedlák, J.; Labudová, M.; Barancík, M.; Reháková, A.; Breier, A.; Sulová, Z. Multidrug resistant P-glycoprotein positive L1210/VCR cells are also cross-resistant to cisplatin via a mechanism distinct from P-glycoprotein-mediated drug efflux activity. Gen. Physiol. Biophys. 2009, 28, 391–403.
  97. Gottesman, M.M.; Ambudkar, S.V. Overview: ABC transporters and human disease. J. Bioenerg. Biomembr. 2001, 33, 453–458.
  98. Vlaming, M.L.H.; Lagas, J.S.; Schinkel, A.H. Physiological and pharmacological roles of ABCG2 (BCRP): Recent findings in Abcg2 knockout mice. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2009, 61, 14–25.
  99. Tian, Y.; Bian, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Qian, S.; Yu, A.; Zeng, S. Interplay of Breast Cancer Resistance Protein (BCRP) and Metabolizing Enzymes. Curr. Drug Metab. 2015, 16, 877–893.
  100. Halwachs, S.; Kneuer, C.; Gohlsch, K.; Müller, M.; Ritz, V.; Honscha, W. The ABCG2 efflux transporter from rabbit placenta: Cloning and functional characterization. Placenta 2016, 38, 8–15.
  101. Filia, M.F.; Marchini, T.; Minoia, J.M.; Roma, M.I.; De Fino, F.T.; Rubio, M.C.; Copello, G.J.; Evelson, P.A.; Peroni, R.N. Induction of ABCG2/BCRP restricts the distribution of zidovudine to the fetal brain in rats. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2017, 330, 74–83.
  102. Ding, X.; Wu, J.; Jiang, C. ABCG2: A potential marker of stem cells and novel target in stem cell and cancer therapy. Life Sci. 2010, 86, 631–637.
  103. Vargová, J.; Mikeš, J.; Jendželovský, R.; Mikešová, L.; Kuchárová, B.; Čulka, Ľ.; Fedr, R.; Remšík, J.; Souček, K.; Kozubík, A.; et al. Hypericin affects cancer side populations via competitive inhibition of BCRP. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2018, 99, 511–522.
  104. Robey, R.W.; Polgar, O.; Deeken, J.; To, K.W.; Bates, S.E. ABCG2: Determining its relevance in clinical drug resistance. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2007, 26, 39–57.
  105. Jendželovský, R.; Jendželovská, Z.; Kuchárová, B.; Fedoročko, P. Breast cancer resistance protein is the enemy of hypericin accumulation and toxicity of hypericin-mediated photodynamic therapy. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2019, 109, 2173–2181.
  106. Barron, G.A.; Moseley, H.; Woods, J.A. Differential sensitivity in cell lines to photodynamic therapy in combination with ABCG2 inhibition. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2013, 126, 87–96.
  107. Ogino, T.; Kobuchi, H.; Munetomo, K.; Fujita, H.; Yamamoto, M.; Utsumi, T.; Inoue, K.; Shuin, T.; Sasaki, J.; Inoue, M.; et al. Serum-dependent export of protoporphyrin IX by ATP-binding cassette transporter G2 in T24 cells. Mol. Cell. Biochem. 2011, 358, 297–307.
  108. Bebes, A.; Nagy, T.; Bata-Csörgő, Z.; Kemény, L.; Dobozy, A.; Széll, M. Specific inhibition of the ABCG2 transporter could improve the efficacy of photodynamic therapy. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2011, 105, 162–166.
  109. Abdel Gaber, S.A.; Müller, P.; Zimmermann, W.; Hüttenberger, D.; Wittig, R.; Abdel Kader, M.H.; Stepp, H. ABCG2-mediated suppression of chlorin e6 accumulation and photodynamic therapy efficiency in glioblastoma cell lines can be reversed by KO143. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B. 2018, 178, 182–191.
  110. Jonker, J.W.; Buitelaar, M.; Wagenaar, E.; Van Der Valk, M.A.; Scheffer, G.L.; Scheper, R.J.; Kuipers, F.; Plosch, T.; Elferink, R.P.J.O.; Rosing, H.; et al. The breast cancer resistance protein protects against a major chlorophyll-derived dietary phototoxin and protoporphyria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 15649–15654.
  111. Kim, J.H.; Park, J.M.; Roh, Y.J.; Kim, I.-W.; Hasan, T.; Choi, M.-G. Enhanced efficacy of photodynamic therapy by inhibiting ABCG2 in colon cancers. BMC Cancer 2015, 15, 504.
  112. Robey, R.W.; Steadman, K.; Polgar, O.; Morisaki, K.; Blayney, M.; Mistry, P.; Bates, S.E. Pheophorbide a is a specific probe for ABCG2 function and inhibition. Cancer Res. 2004, 64, 1242–1246.
  113. Palasuberniam, P.; Yang, X.; Kraus, D.; Jones, P.; Myers, K.A.; Chen, B. ABCG2 transporter inhibitor restores the sensitivity of triple negative breast cancer cells to aminolevulinic acid-mediated photodynamic therapy. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 13298.
  114. Usuda, J.; Tsunoda, Y.; Ichinose, S.; Ishizumi, T.; Ohtani, K.; Maehara, S.; Ono, S.; Tsutsui, H.; Ohira, T.; Okunaka, T.; et al. Breast cancer resistant protein (BCRP) is a molecular determinant of the outcome of photodynamic therapy (PDT) for centrally located early lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2010, 67, 198–204.
  115. Chen, B.; Delaey, E.; Vandenheede, J.R.; Agostinis, P.; Xu, Y.; de Witte, P.; Roskams, T. Efficacy of antitumoral photodynamic therapy with hypericin: Relationship between biodistribution and photodynamic effects in the RIF-1 mouse tumor model. Int. J. Cancer 2001, 93, 275–282.
  116. Chen, B.; Roskams, T.; Xu, Y.; Agostinis, P.; De Witte, P.A.M. Photodynamic therapy with hypericin induces vascular damage and apoptosis in the RIF-1 mouse tumor model. Int. J. Cancer 2002, 98, 284–290.
  117. Sanovic, R.; Verwanger, T.; Hartl, A.; Krammer, B. Low dose hypericin-PDT induces complete tumor regression in BALB/c mice bearing CT26 colon carcinoma. Photodiagnosis Photodyn. Ther. 2011, 8, 291–296.
  118. Weiswald, L.-B.; Bellet, D.; Dangles-Marie, V. Spherical cancer models in tumor biology. Neoplasia 2015, 17, 1–15.
  119. Gregoriadis, G. Liposomes and mRNA: Two technologies together create a COVID-19 vaccine. Med. Drug Discov. 2021, 12, 100104.
  120. Kirby, C.; Clarke, J.; Gregoriadis, G. Cholesterol content of small unilamellar liposomes controls phospholipid loss to high density lipoproteins in the presence of serum. FEBS Lett. 1980, 111, 324–328.
  121. Børresen, B.; Hansen, A.E.; Kjaer, A.; Andresen, T.L.; Kristensen, A.T. Liposome-encapsulated chemotherapy: Current evidence for its use in companion animals. Vet. Comp. Oncol. 2018, 16, E1–E15.
  122. Jiang, F.; Lilge, L.; Logie, B.; Li, Y.; Chopp, M. Photodynamic therapy of 9L gliosarcoma with liposome-delivered photofrin. Photochem. Photobiol. 1997, 65, 701–706.
  123. Jiang, F.; Lilge, L.; Grenier, J.; Li, Y.; Wilson, M.D.; Chopp, M. Photodynamic therapy of U87 human glioma in nude rat using liposome-delivered photofrin. Lasers Surg. Med. 1998, 22, 74–80.
  124. Takeuchi, Y.; Ichikawa, K.; Yonezawa, S.; Kurohane, K.; Koishi, T.; Nango, M.; Namba, Y.; Oku, N. Intracellular target for photosensitization in cancer antiangiogenic photodynamic therapy mediated by polycation liposome. J. Control. Release 2004, 97, 231–240.
  125. Wang, Z.J.; He, Y.Y.; Huang, C.G.; Huang, J.S.; Huang, Y.C.; An, J.Y.; Gu, Y.; Jiang, L.J. Pharmacokinetics, tissue distribution and photodynamic therapy efficacy of liposomal-delivered hypocrellin A, a potential photosensitizer for tumor therapy. Photochem. Photobiol. 1999, 70, 773–780.
  126. Ma, H.L.; Varanda, L.C.; Perussi, J.R.; Carrilho, E. Hypericin-loaded oil-in-water nanoemulsion synthesized by ultrasonication process enhances photodynamic therapy efficiency. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2021, 223, 112303.
  127. Lima, A.M.; Pizzol, C.D.; Monteiro, F.B.F.; Creczynski-Pasa, T.B.; Andrade, G.P.; Ribeiro, A.O.; Perussi, J.R. Hypericin encapsulated in solid lipid nanoparticles: Phototoxicity and photodynamic efficiency. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B. 2013, 125, 146–154.
  128. Lou, G.; Anderluzzi, G.; Schmidt, S.T.; Woods, S.; Gallorini, S.; Brazzoli, M.; Giusti, F.; Ferlenghi, I.; Johnson, R.N.; Roberts, C.W.; et al. Delivery of self-amplifying mRNA vaccines by cationic lipid nanoparticles: The impact of cationic lipid selection. J. Control. Release 2020, 325, 370–379.
  129. Panigaj, M.; Dobrovolskaia, M.A.; Afonin, K.A. 2021: An immunotherapy odyssey and the rise of nucleic acid nanotechnology. Nanomedicine 2021, 16, 1635–1640.
  130. Tenchov, R.; Bird, R.; Curtze, A.E.; Zhou, Q. Lipid Nanoparticles─From Liposomes to mRNA Vaccine Delivery, a Landscape of Research Diversity and Advancement. ACS Nano 2021, 15, 16982–17015.
  131. Youssef, T.; Fadel, M.; Fahmy, R.; Kassab, K. Evaluation of hypericin-loaded solid lipid nanoparticles: Physicochemical properties, photostability and phototoxicity. Pharm. Dev. Technol. 2012, 17, 177–186.
  132. Zeisser-Labouèbe, M.; Lange, N.; Gurny, R.; Delie, F. Hypericin-loaded nanoparticles for the photodynamic treatment of ovarian cancer. Int. J. Pharm. 2006, 326, 174–181.
  133. Zhu, R.; Cheng, K.-W.; Mackenzie, G.; Huang, L.; Sun, Y.; Xie, G.; Vrankova, K.; Constantinides, P.P.; Rigas, B. Phospho-Sulindac (OXT-328) Inhibits the Growth of Human Lung Cancer Xenografts in Mice: Enhanced Efficacy and Mitochondria Targeting by its Formulation in Solid Lipid Nanoparticles. Pharm. Res. 2012, 29, 3090–3101.
  134. Mu, L.; Feng, S.-S. PLGA/TPGS nanoparticles for controlled release of paclitaxel: Effects of the emulsifier and drug loading ratio. Pharm. Res. 2003, 20, 1864–1872.
  135. Görner, T.; Gref, R.; Michenot, D.; Sommer, F.; Tran, M.N.; Dellacherie, E. Lidocaine-loaded biodegradable nanospheres. I. Optimization Of the drug incorporation into the polymer matrix. J. Control. Release 1999, 57, 259–268.
  136. Dillon, J.; Kennedy, J.C.; Pottier, R.H.; Roberts, J.E. In vitro and in vivo protection against phototoxic side effects of photodynamic therapy by radioprotective agentswr–2721 andwr–77913. Photochem. Photobiol. 1988, 48, 235–238.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback