Select Page ::

Nanomedicine Market Forecast to 2026 : How it is Going to Impact on Global Industry to Grow in Near Future – Gazette Quest

Posted on December 11, 2019 by Prof Baldwin

Global Nanomedicine Market is forecast to bring about a fairly desirable remuneration portfolio by the end of the forecast period 2019-2025. Certainly, the report not only includes a modest growth rate over the forecast time frame but also contains a reliable overview of this business. The study involves overall growth opportunities and valuation currently this market is holding. Additionally, the report involves classified segmentation of Nanomedicine market.

The global Nanomedicine Market report comprises a thorough outline and upcoming view. Get sample copy of Nanomedicine Market Report at https://www.stratagemmarketinsights.com/sample/9943

Some of key competitors or manufacturers included in the study are:

Regional analysis covers:

Market Scenario:

The report further highlights the development trends in the global Nanomedicine market. Factors that are driving the market growth and fueling its segments are also analyzed in the report. The report also highlights on its applications, types, deployments, components, developments of this market.

Additionally, the report quotes worldwide certainties and countenance of Nanomedicine industry along with downstream and upstream analysis of leading players. Numerous research findings and conclusions stated in the report will help decision-makers to take imperative decisions in the near future.

Ask more details or request a custom report sample to our experts at https://www.stratagemmarketinsights.com/quiry/9943

The Nanomedicine Market report is a compilation of first-hand information, qualitative and quantitative assessment by industry analysts, inputs from industry experts and industry participants across the value chain. The report provides an in-depth analysis of parent market trends, macro-economic indicators, and governing factors along with market attractiveness as per segments. The report also maps the qualitative impact of various market factors on market segments and geographies.

Nanomedicine Market report Segmented By Product Type:

Nanomedicine Market report Applications:

Chapters involved in Nanomedicine market report:

Chapter 1: Market Overview, Drivers, Restraints and Opportunities, Segmentation overviewChapter 2: Market Competition by ManufacturersChapter 3: Production by RegionsChapter 4: Consumption by RegionsChapter 5: Production, By Types, Revenue and Market share by TypesChapter 6: Consumption, By Applications, Market share (%) and Growth Rate by ApplicationsChapter 7: Complete profiling and analysis of ManufacturersChapter 8: Manufacturing cost analysis, Raw materials analysis, Region-wise manufacturing expensesChapter 9: Industrial Chain, Sourcing Strategy and Downstream BuyersChapter 10: Marketing Strategy Analysis, Distributors/TradersChapter 11: Market Effect Factors AnalysisChapter 12: Market ForecastChapter 13: Nanomedicine Research Findings and Conclusion, Appendix, methodology and data source

Hurry Up limited period offer to get discount on the report: https://www.stratagemmarketinsights.com/cart/9943

About Us:

Stratagem Market Insights is a management consulting organization providing market intelligence and consulting services worldwide. We bring the expertise of consultants with an cumulative industry experience of more than 70 years. The firm has been providing quantified B2B research and currently offers services to over 350+ customers worldwide. Our reports cover various end-use industries such as Aerospace and Defense, Agriculture, Food and Beverages, Automotive, Chemicals and Materials, Consumer Goods and Retail, Electronics, Energy, Mining, and Utilities, Pharmaceuticals, Manufacturing and Construction, Services, and Healthcare, and ICT.

Get in touch @ https://healthcareinsights786.blogspot.com/

NanoViricides to Participate in Panel Discussion at the B. Riley FBR Virtual Infectious Disease Summit Today, July 21, 2020 – BioSpace

Posted on July 21, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

SHELTON, CT / ACCESSWIRE / July 21, 2020 / NanoViricides, Inc. (NYSE American:NNVC) (the "Company") a global leader in the development of highly effective antiviral therapies based on a novel nanomedicines platform, today announced that Anil R. Diwan, PhD, President and Executive Chairman of the Company, will participate in the "B. Riley FBR Virtual Infectious Disease Summit - Therapeutics Day" on Tuesday, July 21, 2020. The Conference is organized by B. Riley FBR, Inc. (https://brileyfbr.com/).

Dr. Diwan is invited to participate in Panel #3 at 2020 at 2:10 p.m. ET, entitled "Taming the Severe Disease Presentations". He will briefly discuss the Company's novel nanomedicines platform and the Company's progress in the lead IND-ready candidate for the treatment of shingles rash, NV-HHV-101, as well as in developing a drug candidate against SARS-CoV-2, the cause of COVID-19 global pandemic.

The Company believes that it is close to selecting a clinical candidate worthy of advancing into human clinical trials for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection, based on (i) cell culture effectiveness studies against multiple circulating coronaviruses that employ different cell surface receptors, (ii) a lethal lung infection animal model effectiveness study using hCoV-NL63 infection (a coronavirus that uses the same receptor, ACE2, as SARS-CoV-2, and produced similar disease in the animal model), and (iii) preliminary safety studies in animal model at maximum feasible dosage levels. The Company has disclosed its findings from these studies in previous press releases.

Prior to filing for human clinical trials, NanoViricides plans on conducting studies, towards clinical candidate selection, to further determine the effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2, perform additional drug development studies as may be necessary, and request a pre-IND Meeting with the US FDA for regulatory guidance.

The Company is also working with its regulatory consultants on completing an IND with the US FDA to advance its lead drug candidate NV-HHV-101 into human clinical trials for topical dermal treatment of Shingles rash as the initial indication. In particular, the Company is working on finalizing the clinical trials plan for the anticipated human clinical trials for shingles rash treatment. The Company is also in the process of finalizing clinical trial sites. This process has been adversely affected by the current global COVID-19 pandemic, and in particular, its effects across the USA.

Importantly, nanoviricides are designed to act by a novel mechanism of action, trapping the virus particle like the "Venus-fly-trap" flower does for insects. Antibodies, in contrast, only label the virus for other components of the immune system to take care of. It is well known that the immune system is not functioning properly at least in severe COVID-19 patients.

Additionally, it is well known that viruses escape antibody-drugs via mutations. The Company's "nanoviricide" drug candidates, in contrast, are designed to be broad-spectrum, and therefore virus escape by mutations is expected to be unlikely.

The market size for the treatment of shingles is estimated at approximately one billion dollars by various estimates. These estimates take into account the Shingrix vaccine as well as existing vaccines. About 500,000 to 1 million cases of shingles occur in the USA alone every year.

The market size for our immediate target drugs in the HerpeCide program is variously estimated at billions to tens of billions of dollars. The Company believes that its dermal topical cream for the treatment of shingles rash will be its first drug heading into clinical trials. The Company believes that additional topical treatment candidates in the HerpeCide program, namely, HSV-1 "cold sores" treatment, and HSV-2 "genital ulcers" treatment are expected to follow the shingles candidate into IND-enabling development and then into human clinical trials. These additional candidates are based on NV-HHV-101, thereby maximizing return on investments and shareholder value.

The Company develops its class of drugs, that we call nanoviricides, using a platform technology. This approach enables rapid development of new drugs against a number of different viruses. A nanoviricide is a "biomimetic" - it is designed to "look like" the cell surface to the virus. The nanoviricide technology enables direct attacks at multiple points on a virus particle. It is believed that such attacks would lead to the virus particle becoming ineffective at infecting cells. Antibodies in contrast attack a virus particle at only a maximum of two attachment points per antibody.

In addition, the nanoviricide technology also simultaneously enables attacking the rapid intracellular reproduction of the virus by incorporating one or more active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) within the core of the nanoviricide. The nanoviricide technology is the only technology in the world, to the best of our knowledge, that is capable of simultaneously (a) attacking extracellular virus to break the reinfection cycle, and (b) disrupting intracellular production of the virus, thus enabling complete control of a virus infection.

About NanoViricidesNanoViricides, Inc. (www.nanoviricides.com) is a development stage company that is creating special purpose nanomaterials for antiviral therapy. The Company's novel nanoviricide class of drug candidates are designed to specifically attack enveloped virus particles and to dismantle them. Our lead drug candidate is NV-HHV-101 with its first indication as dermal topical cream for the treatment of shingles rash. The Company is in the process of completing an IND application to the US FDA for this drug candidate. The Company cannot project an exact date for filing an IND because of its dependence on a number of external collaborators and consultants, and the effects of recent COVID-19 restrictions.

The Company is also developing drugs against a number of viral diseases including oral and genital Herpes, viral diseases of the eye including EKC and herpes keratitis, H1N1 swine flu, H5N1 bird flu, seasonal Influenza, HIV, Hepatitis C, Rabies, Dengue fever, and Ebola virus, among others. NanoViricides' platform technology and programs are based on the TheraCour nanomedicine technology of TheraCour, which TheraCour licenses from AllExcel. NanoViricides holds a worldwide exclusive perpetual license to this technology for several drugs with specific targeting mechanisms in perpetuity for the treatment of the following human viral diseases: Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV/AIDS), Hepatitis B Virus (HBV), Hepatitis C Virus (HCV), Rabies, Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV-1 and HSV-2), Varicella-Zoster Virus (VZV), Influenza and Asian Bird Flu Virus, Dengue viruses, Japanese Encephalitis virus, West Nile Virus and Ebola/Marburg viruses. The Company has executed a Memorandum of Understanding with TheraCour that provides a limited license for research and development for drugs against human coronaviruses. The Company intends to obtain a full license and has begun the process for the same. The Company's technology is based on broad, exclusive, sub-licensable, field licenses to drugs developed in these areas from TheraCour Pharma, Inc. The Company's business model is based on licensing technology from TheraCour Pharma Inc. for specific application verticals of specific viruses, as established at its foundation in 2005.

This press release contains forward-looking statements that reflect the Company's current expectation regarding future events. Actual events could differ materially and substantially from those projected herein and depend on a number of factors. Certain statements in this release, and other written or oral statements made by NanoViricides, Inc. are "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements since they involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which are, in some cases, beyond the Company's control and which could, and likely will, materially affect actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements. The Company assumes no obligation to publicly update or revise these forward-looking statements for any reason, or to update the reasons actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements, even if new information becomes available in the future. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the company's expectations include, but are not limited to, those factors that are disclosed under the heading "Risk Factors" and elsewhere in documents filed by the company from time to time with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory authorities. Although it is not possible to predict or identify all such factors, they may include the following: demonstration and proof of principle in preclinical trials that a nanoviricide is safe and effective; successful development of our product candidates; our ability to seek and obtain regulatory approvals, including with respect to the indications we are seeking; the successful commercialization of our product candidates; and market acceptance of our products. FDA refers to US Food and Drug Administration. IND application refers to "Investigational New Drug" application. CMC refers to "Chemistry, Manufacture, and Controls". ]

Contact:NanoViricides, Inc.info@nanoviricides.com

Public Relations Contact:MJ ClyburnTraDigital IRclyburn@tradigitalir.com

SOURCE: NanoViricides, Inc.

View source version on accesswire.com:https://www.accesswire.com/598261/NanoViricides-to-Participate-in-Panel-Discussion-at-the-B-Riley-FBR-Virtual-Infectious-Disease-Summit-Today-July-21-2020

See the original post:
NanoViricides to Participate in Panel Discussion at the B. Riley FBR Virtual Infectious Disease Summit Today, July 21, 2020 - BioSpace

Aviceda Therapeutics Announces Formation of Scientific Advisory Board – BioSpace

Posted on October 29, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

Oct. 27, 2020 12:00 UTC

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Aviceda Therapeutics, a late-stage, pre-clinical biotech company focused on developing the next generation of immuno-modulators by harnessing the power of glycobiology to manipulate the innate immune system and chronic, non-resolving inflammation, is announcing the members of its Scientific Advisory Board who will help shape ongoing development efforts.

The Aviceda Scientific Advisory Board includes Pamela Stanley, PhD; Ajit Varki, MD; Christopher Scott, PhD; Geert-Jan Boons, PhD; Salem Chouaib, PhD; and Peng Wu, PhD.

Aviceda has assembled an extraordinary multi-disciplinary team of world-class scientists and renowned researchers to join our efforts in developing the next generation of glyco-immune therapeutics for the treatment of immune-dysfunction conditions, said Mohamed A. Genead, MD, Founder, CEO & President of Aviceda Therapeutics. Each individual offers a fresh perspective and unique strategic acumen that complements and strengthens the insights of our in-house leadership development team.

Prof. Scott, Aviceda Scientific Co-Founder, is Director of the Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology at Queens University Belfast. He is internationally renowned for his work in development of novel approaches in the field of antibody and nanomedicine-based therapies for the treatment of cancer and other conditions. Prof. Scott has a background in both the pharmaceutical industry and academia and was a founding scientist of Fusion Antibodies Plc. Research in his laboratory is funded by agencies such as Medical Research Council, UK charities and various industrial sources. He also held a Royal Society Industrial Fellowship with GSK from 2012 to 2015 and won the Vice Chancellors Prize for Innovation in 2015 with his groups work on developing a novel Siglec targeting nanomedicine for the treatment of sepsis and other inflammatory conditions.

The novelty of Avicedas platform technology is its potential to affect immune responses associated with a wide range of disease states, many of which are currently unmet or underserved needs. I look forward to the continued development of Avicedas core technology and moving forward to clinical trials that will pave the way for truly disruptive therapeutic strategies to enter the clinic that will significantly impact and improve patients lives in the not-too-distant future, said Prof. Scott.

Avicedas Scientific advisory chairwoman, Prof. Stanley, is the Horace W. Goldsmith Foundation Chair; Professor, Department of Cell Biology; and Associate Director for Laboratory Research of the Albert Einstein Cancer Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. She obtained a doctorate degree from the University of Melbourne, Australia, for studies of influenza virus, and was subsequently a postdoctoral fellow of the Medical Research Council of Canada in the laboratory of Louis Siminovitch, University of Toronto, where she studied somatic cell genetics. Prof. Stanleys laboratory is focused on identifying roles for mammalian glycans in development, cancer and Notch signaling. Among her many varied contributions, Prof. Stanleys laboratory has isolated a large panel of Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) glycosylation mutants; characterized them at the biochemical, structural and genetic levels; and used them to identify new aspects of glycan synthesis and functions. She serves on the editorial boards of Scientific Reports, Glycobiology and FASEB Bio Advances; she is an editor of the textbook Essentials of Glycobiology; and her laboratory is the recipient of grants from the National Institutes of Health. Prof. Stanley has received numerous awards, including a MERIT award from the National Institutes of Health, an American Cancer Society Faculty Research Award, the Karl Meyer Award from the Society for Glycobiology (2003) and the International Glycoconjugate Organization (IGO) Award (2003).

Working with Aviceda represents a unique opportunity to contribute to science at the cutting edge. Its pipeline contains a broad range of candidates that represents numerous first-in-class opportunities, said Prof. Stanley.

Prof. Varki is currently a distinguished professor of medicine and cellular and molecular medicine, Co-director of the Glycobiology Research and Training Center and Executive Co-director for the UCSD/Salk Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny at the University of California, San Diego; and an Adjunct Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. Dr. Varki is also the executive editor of the textbook Essentials of Glycobiology. He received basic training in physiology, medicine, biology and biochemistry at the Christian Medical College, Vellore, The University of Nebraska, and Washington University in St. Louis, as well as formal training and certification in internal medicine, hematology and oncology. Dr. Varki is the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions, including election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the US National Academy of Medicine, a MERIT award from the National Institutes of Health, an American Cancer Society Faculty Research Award, the Karl Meyer Award from the Society for Glycobiology and the International Glycoconjugate Organization (IGO) Award (2007).

The Aviceda team is already building on the foundational work in the emerging field of glycobiology to develop potential therapeutics and interventional strategies. Their work could be critically important for growing the understanding of how glycobiology and glycochemistry are applicable to immunology, and more broadly, to the field of drug and therapeutic development, said Prof. Varki.

Prof. Boons is a Distinguished Professor in Biochemical Sciences at the Department of Chemistry and the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center (CCRC) of the University of Georgia (USA) and Professor and Chair of the Department of Medicinal and Biological Chemistry of Utrecht University (The Netherlands). Prof. Boons directs a research program focused on the synthesis and biological functions of carbohydrates and glycoconjugates. The diversity of topics to which his group has significantly contributed includes the development of new and better methods for synthesizing exceptionally complex carbohydrates and glycoconjugates. Highlights of his research include contributions to the understanding of immunological properties of complex oligosaccharides and glycoconjugates at the molecular level, which is being used in the development of three-component vaccine candidates for many types of epithelial cancer; development of convergent strategies for complex oligosaccharide assembly, which make it possible to synthesize large collections of compounds with a minimal effort for structure activity relationship studies; and creation of a next generation glycan microarray that can probe the importance of glycan complexity for biological recognition, which in turn led to identification of glycan ligands for various glycan binding proteins that are being further developed as glycomimetics for drug development for various diseases. Among others, Prof. Boons has received the Creativity in Carbohydrate Science Award by the European Carbohydrate Association (2003), the Horace Isbell Award by the American Chemical Society (ACS) (2004), the Roy L. Whistler International Award in Carbohydrate

Chemistry by the International Carbohydrate Organization (2014), the Hudson Award (2015) and the Cope Mid-Career Scholar Award from ACS (2016).

Aviceda is leading the field of glycoimmunology in exciting new directions. I look forward to working with the company as it pursues multiple lines of development efforts that will someday transform the way immune-inflammatory conditions are treated in the clinic, said Prof. Boons.

Prof. Chouaib is the Director of Research, Institute Gustave Roussy, Paris, where he is active in research in tumor biology. Previously, Prof. Chouaib worked at the French National Institute of Health and Biomedical Research (INSERM) where he led a research unit focused on the investigation of the functional cross talk between cytotoxic cells and tumor targets in the context of tumor microenvironment complexity and plasticity. His research was directed at the transfer of fundamental concepts in clinical application in the field of cancer vaccines and cancer immunotherapy. Prof. Chouaib is a member of the American Association of Immunologists, New York Academy of Sciences, French Society of Immunologists, International Cytokine Society, American Association for Cancer Research, International Society for Biological Therapy of Cancer and American Association of Biological Chemistry. He was awarded the cancer research prize of the French ligue against cancer in 1992 and in 2004 the presidential prize in biotechnology. He was awarded for translational research and scientific excellency by INSERM. His research has resulted in more than 310 scientific articles and several reviews in the field of human immunology, tumor biology and cancer immunotherapy; he has also been an editor for several textbooks.

Dr. Wu is an Associate Professor in the Department of Molecular Medicine at Scripps Research. The current research in the Wu laboratory integrates synthetic chemistry with glycobiology to explore the relevance of protein glycosylation in human disease and cancer immunotherapy. In 2018, Dr. Wu developed a platform to construct antibody-cell conjugates for cancer immunotherapy, which does not require genetic engineering. Previously, while working as a postdoctoral fellow in the group of Professor Carolyn R. Bertozzi at the University of California, Berkeley, Dr. Wu developed an aldehyde-tag (SMARTag) based technology for site-specific labeling of monoclonal antibodies, which served as the foundation for Redwood Biosciences Inc., a biotech company co-founded by Bertozzi. In 2014, Redwood Bioscience Inc. and the SMARTag Antibody-Drug Conjugate technology platform was acquired by Catalent Pharma Solutions.

About Aviceda Therapeutics

Founded in 2018 and based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Aviceda Therapeutics is a late-stage, pre-clinical biotechnology company with a mission to develop the next generation of glyco-immune therapeutics (GITs) utilizing a proprietary technology platform to modulate the innate immune system and chronic, non-resolving inflammation. Aviceda has assembled a world-class, cross-disciplinary team of recognized scientists, clinicians and drug developers to tackle devastating ocular and systemic degenerative, fibrotic, oncologic and immuno-inflammatory diseases. At Aviceda, we exploit a unique family of receptors found expressed on all innate immune cells and their associated glycobiological interactions to develop transformative medicines. Combining the power of our biology with our innovative cell-based high-throughput screening platform and proprietary nanoparticle technology, we can modulate the innate immune response specifically and profoundly. Aviceda is developing a pipeline of GITs that are delivered via biodegradable nanoparticles and which safely and effectively target numerous immune-inflammatory conditions. Avicedas lead ophthalmic optimized nanoparticle, as an intravitreal formulation, AVD-104, is being developed to target various immune system responses that contribute to pathology associated with age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201027005101/en/

Read the original:
Aviceda Therapeutics Announces Formation of Scientific Advisory Board - BioSpace

Nanomedicine Market Growth Is Boosted By Increasing Healthcare Applications And Medical Device Sales – News Succeed

Posted on April 8, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

A report on the Nanomedicine Market added by Reports and Data, features the current and future growth trends of this industry in addition to significant details regarding the geographies that comprise the regional spread of the Nanomedicine market. Also, the report simplifies complex information about the supply-demand analysis, market share, growth statistics, and participation of prominent players in the Nanomedicine market.

An extensive analysis of the Nanomedicine market has been provided through this research report, which also includes a detailed evaluation of the business space. Moreover, the Nanomedicine market segmentation given in this report covers the market extensively, in addition to a general overview of this Nanomedicine market in the context of its present scenario.

Request a Sample Report of the Nanomedicine Market @ https://www.reportsanddata.com/sample-enquiry-form/1048

The influential players of the Nanomedicine market that are included in the report are:

Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Nanospectra Biosciences, Inc., AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Bio-Gate AG, Celgene and Johnson & Johnson

Market segmentation of the Nanomedicine market by Application (Value and Volume from 2020 to 2027):

Oncology

Infectious diseases

Cardiology

Orthopedics

Others

Market segmentation of the Nanomedicine market by Type (Value and Volume from 2020 to 2027):

Therapeutics

Regenerative Medicine

In-vitro diagnostics

In-vivo diagnostic

Vaccines

The study assesses the important and crucial data concerning the geographical extent of this market and as well as the companies that have successfully established their positions in the Nanomedicine market.

How far does the scope of the Nanomedicine market traverse?

Get a Discount on the Nanomedicine Market Report @ https://www.reportsanddata.com/discount-enquiry-form/1048

An overview of the competitive landscape:

A detailed outline of the regional spread:

A summary of the segmentation:

Purchase this Report @ 4590$, Visit:https://www.reportsanddata.com/checkout-form/1048

Some of the Major Highlights of TOC covers:

Chapter 1: Methodology & Scope

Chapter 2: Executive Summary

Chapter 3: Nanomedicine Industry Insights

Chapter 4: Nanomedicine Market, By Region

Chapter 5: Company Profiles

Read Full Report details @ https://www.reportsanddata.com/report-detail/nanomedicine-market

Thank you for reading this article. You can also get chapter-wise sections or region-wise report coverage for North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Middle East & Africa.

Larry Norris is a journalism graduate with keen interest in covering news specifically top trending. He has as a keen eye for technologies and has predicted quite a few successful startups over the last couple of years. Larry goal with this website is to report accurately on all kinds of stock news, and have a great deal of passion for technical and active reporting. Larry is diligent and proactive when it comes to news reporting.

Email: [emailprotected]

Address: 1083 Republic Avenue East, Monroe, IA 50170, USA

Contact number: 641-741-7672

See the article here:
Nanomedicine Market Growth Is Boosted By Increasing Healthcare Applications And Medical Device Sales - News Succeed

Nanomedicine Market Size Analysis, Top Manufacturers, Shares, Growth Opportunities and Forecast to 2026 – Science In Me

Posted on April 8, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

New Jersey, United States: Market Research Intellect has added a new research report titled, Nanomedicine Market Professional Survey Report 2020 to its vast collection of research reports. The Nanomedicine market is expected to grow positively for the next five years 2020-2026.

The Nanomedicine market report studies past factors that helped the market to grow as well as, the ones hampering the market potential. This report also presents facts on historical data from 2011 to 2019 and forecasts until 2026, which makes it a valuable source of information for all the individuals and industries around the world. This report gives relevant market information in readily accessible documents with clearly presented graphs and statistics. This report also includes views of various industry executives, analysts, consultants, and marketing, sales, and product managers.

Market Segment as follows:

The global Nanomedicine Market report highly focuses on key industry players to identify the potential growth opportunities, along with the increased marketing activities is projected to accelerate market growth throughout the forecast period. Additionally, the market is expected to grow immensely throughout the forecast period owing to some primary factors fuelling the growth of this global market. Finally, the report provides detailed profile and data information analysis of leading Nanomedicine company.

Nanomedicine Market by Regional Segments:

The chapter on regional segmentation describes the regional aspects of the Nanomedicine market. This chapter explains the regulatory framework that is expected to affect the entire market. It illuminates the political scenario of the market and anticipates its impact on the market for Nanomedicine .

The Nanomedicine Market research presents a study by combining primary as well as secondary research. The report gives insights on the key factors concerned with generating and limiting Nanomedicine market growth. Additionally, the report also studies competitive developments, such as mergers and acquisitions, new partnerships, new contracts, and new product developments in the global Nanomedicine market. The past trends and future prospects included in this report makes it highly comprehensible for the analysis of the market. Moreover, The latest trends, product portfolio, demographics, geographical segmentation, and regulatory framework of the Nanomedicine market have also been included in the study.

Ask For Discount (Special Offer: Get 25% discount on this report) @ https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/ask-for-discount/?rid=201321&utm_source=SI&utm_medium=888

Table of Content

1 Introduction of Nanomedicine Market1.1 Overview of the Market1.2 Scope of Report1.3 Assumptions

2 Executive Summary

3 Research Methodology3.1 Data Mining3.2 Validation3.3 Primary Interviews3.4 List of Data Sources

4 Nanomedicine Market Outlook4.1 Overview4.2 Market Dynamics4.2.1 Drivers4.2.2 Restraints4.2.3 Opportunities4.3 Porters Five Force Model4.4 Value Chain Analysis

5 Nanomedicine Market, By Deployment Model5.1 Overview

6 Nanomedicine Market, By Solution6.1 Overview

7 Nanomedicine Market, By Vertical7.1 Overview

8 Nanomedicine Market, By Geography8.1 Overview8.2 North America8.2.1 U.S.8.2.2 Canada8.2.3 Mexico8.3 Europe8.3.1 Germany8.3.2 U.K.8.3.3 France8.3.4 Rest of Europe8.4 Asia Pacific8.4.1 China8.4.2 Japan8.4.3 India8.4.4 Rest of Asia Pacific8.5 Rest of the World8.5.1 Latin America8.5.2 Middle East

9 Nanomedicine Market Competitive Landscape9.1 Overview9.2 Company Market Ranking9.3 Key Development Strategies

10 Company Profiles10.1.1 Overview10.1.2 Financial Performance10.1.3 Product Outlook10.1.4 Key Developments

11 Appendix11.1 Related Research

Complete Report is Available @ https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/product/nanomedicine-market-size-and-forecast/?utm_source=SI&utm_medium=888

We also offer customization on reports based on specific client requirement:

1-Freecountry level analysis forany 5 countriesof your choice.

2-FreeCompetitive analysis of any market players.

3-Free 40 analyst hoursto cover any other data points

About Us:

Market Research Intellect provides syndicated and customized research reports to clients from various industries and organizations with the aim of delivering functional expertise. We provide reports for all industries including Energy, Technology, Manufacturing and Construction, Chemicals and Materials, Food and Beverage and more. These reports deliver an in-depth study of the market with industry analysis, market value for regions and countries and trends that are pertinent to the industry.

Mr. Steven FernandesMarket Research IntellectNew Jersey ( USA )Tel: +1-650-781-4080

Email: [emailprotected]

Get Our Trending Report

https://www.marketresearchblogs.com/

https://www.marktforschungsblogs.com/

Tags: Nanomedicine Market Size, Nanomedicine Market Growth, Nanomedicine Market Forecast, Nanomedicine Market Analysis, Nanomedicine Market Trends, Nanomedicine Market

Read this article:
Nanomedicine Market Size Analysis, Top Manufacturers, Shares, Growth Opportunities and Forecast to 2026 - Science In Me

Global Nanomedicine Market Executive Summary and Analysis by Top Players 2020 – 2025 : GE Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson – Stock Market Herald

Posted on March 20, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

A market study dependent on the Nanomedicine Market over the globe, as of late added to the storehouse of Market Research, is titled Worldwide Nanomedicine Market 2019. The exploration report examinations the chronicled just as present execution of the overall Nanomedicine industry and makes expectations on the future status of Nanomedicine advertise based on this investigation.

Get Free Sample Copy of Report Here:https://www.marketresearchstore.com/report/global-nanomedicine-market-status-trend-report-2018-2023-260464#RequestSample

Top Companies Include (from a broad pool of working players over the globe):GE Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson, Mallinckrodt plc, Merck & Co. Inc., Nanosphere Inc., Pfizer Inc., Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals Inc., Smith & Nephew PLC, Stryker Corp, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., UCB (Union chimique belge) S.A

The report reads the business for Nanomedicine over the globe taking the current business chain, the import and fare measurements in Nanomedicine advertise and elements of interest and supply of Nanomedicine into thought. The Nanomedicine examine study covers every single part of the Nanomedicine showcase comprehensively, which begins from the meaning of the Nanomedicine business and creates towards Nanomedicine advertise divisions. Further, every fragment of the Nanomedicine advertise is grouped and broke down based on item types, applications, and the end-use businesses of the Nanomedicine showcase. The land division of the Nanomedicine business has likewise been canvassed finally in this report.

Market Size Segmentation by Type (Customizable):Regenerative Medicine, In-vitro & In-vivo Diagnostics, Vaccines, Drug Delivery

Market Size Segmentation by Application (Customizable):Clinical Cardiology, Urology, Genetics, Orthopedics, Ophthalmology

The focused scene of the overall market for Nanomedicine is controlled by assessing the different business members, creation limit, Nanomedicine markets creation chain, and the income produced by every producer in the Nanomedicine advertise around the world.

Enquire Here:https://www.marketresearchstore.com/report/global-nanomedicine-market-status-trend-report-2018-2023-260464#InquiryForBuying

The worldwide Nanomedicine showcase 2020is additionally examined based on item evaluating, Nanomedicine creation volume, information with respect to request and Nanomedicine supply, and the income accumulated by the item. Different precise instruments, for example, speculation returns, plausibility, and market engaging quality investigation has been utilized in the exploration to introduce a far-reaching investigation of the business for Nanomedicine over the globe.

About Us:

MarketResearchStore.comis a single destination for all the industry, company and country reports. We feature large repository of latest industry reports, leading and niche company profiles, and market statistics released by reputed private publishers and public organizations.

Joel JohnSuite #8138, 3422 SW 15 Street,Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442United StatesToll Free: +1-855-465-4651 (USA-CANADA)Tel: +1-386-310-3803Web:http://www.marketresearchstore.comEmail:sales@marketresearchstore.com

The rest is here:
Global Nanomedicine Market Executive Summary and Analysis by Top Players 2020 - 2025 : GE Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson - Stock Market Herald

Nanoparticle interactions with immune cells dominate tumor retention and induce T cellmediated tumor suppression in models of breast cancer – Science…

Posted on March 25, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

INTRODUCTION

Nanoparticles provide unique opportunities and challenges for cancer therapy and diagnosis. They have the potential to interact with the immune system and solid tumor microenvironment (TME) in unexpected ways to ultimately and critically affect performance and tumor response (13). The premise that nanoscale materials can be engineered to selectively detect and destroy cancer cells in solid tumors is undergoing a critical reevaluation (411). Yet, relatively little analysis of nanoparticle fate and intratumor accumulation across biological models and immune cell or tumor compartments has been completed, particularly with histology or flow cytometry (6).

As with many cancer drug development scenarios, nanotechnology-based formulations are often tested and optimized using a specific mouse model of human cancer. These xenograft tumor studies rely on immunodeficient animal models, which provide a permissive environment for cross-species tissue grafting. Therefore, how well these models predict the potential and mechanisms for nano-targeting becomes a relevant question when the construct itself demonstrates strong interactions with the recipients immune system (13, 6).

Polysaccharide (starch or dextran)coated iron oxide nanoparticles have been used for decades in biomedicine as agents for parenteral anemia therapy, magnetic resonance contrast, cancer hyperthermia, drug delivery, cell sorting, and most recently for inducing ferroptosis in cancer cells (4, 5, 1219). Thus, they present an interesting and important class of nanoparticles for applications in medicine.

Here, we show that host immune status and the immune components of the TME are key factors influencing retention of 100-nm hydroxyethyl starchcoated iron oxide nanoparticles in orthotopic mammary tumors. When labeled with an antibody, the nanoparticles were retained by tumors regardless of the presence of the target antigen, whereas retention of the unlabeled counterpart was not substantial. Additional experiments demonstrated that systemic exposure of tumor-bearing immune competent mice to the nanoparticles induced immune-mediated tumor growth inhibition with evidence of later infiltration by CD8+ T cells. Both plain and antibody-labeled nanoparticles initiated similar immune responses with similar tumor growth inhibition and T cell infiltration into tumors, despite different tumor retention. This suggests that complex interdependencies exist between host and tumor immune responses to nanoparticle exposure. Together, these results offer intriguing possibilities to explore nanoparticle targeting of the tumor immune microenvironment, and they demonstrate an exciting potential to develop nanoparticles as cancer immune therapy platforms.

We used amine-functionalized starch-coated bionized nanoferrite (BNF) nanoparticles with trastuzumab (BH), a humanized antihuman epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2/neu) monoclonal antibody approved for clinical use in the management of HER2+ breast cancer (Fig. 1A). The ability of trastuzumab to target HER2+ cancer cells in tumors has been validated and well documented, as has its use for nanoparticle-targeting studies (20, 21). The precursor BNF-Plain (BP) nanoparticles comprise a magnetic iron oxide core that is coated with hydroxyethyl starch (core shell) to provide biocompatibility and colloid stability in biological media (1519).

(A) Schematic of particle chemistry showing amine functionalization of BP nanoparticles using maleimide precursors for conjugation with thiol moieties of the antibody (trastuzumab). (B) Western blot analysis showing HER2 protein expression by human breast cancer cell lines used in the study. (C) Immunofluorescence results showing HER2 protein surface expression in six human breast cancer cell lines. MDA-MB-231 is a triple-negative ER/PR/HER2- cell line. MCF7/neo and MCF7/HER2 are an isogenic pair with HER2-expressing (MCF7/HER2) variant having a single copy of HER2 gene and HER2- (MCF7/neo), which received a scrambled gene. Other cell lines are wild type and express varying amounts of HER2 protein. (D) In vitro iron content analysis (ferene-s assay) after exposure of cells to BP and BH nanoparticles shows a positive correlation with HER2 protein level and iron uptake in the breast cancer cells. For the assay, cells were incubated at 37C for 3 hours with BP or BH nanoparticles (0.5 mg/ml) and evaluated for total iron content after washing unbound particles. Untreated cells, Herceptin alone, and BNF-IgG were used as controls. The average of three independent experiments is shown. Statistical differences among BP, BH, and BNF-IgG were obtained by two-tailed Students t test (*P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01). (E) Schematic of the overall study design using mouse models of human breast cancers. See text for details.

The choice of 100-nm BNF nanoparticles was motivated from our previous study, which demonstrated higher accumulation by the 100-nm nanoparticles to tumors than with 30-nm nanoparticles, despite the longer blood circulation time of the latter construct (1519). When measured by dynamic light scattering, BP nanoparticles had a mean measured (z average) hydrodynamic diameter of 99 nm (3) with a mean polydispersity index of 0.07 (0.02) (table S1). Zeta potential, a measure of surface charge density, was slightly negative (2.2 0.2 mV) at pH 7.4. Overall, addition of trastuzumab to the BP nanoparticles had only a modest effect on the measured physical properties of the nanoparticles. Several of antibody-labeled nanoparticles were prepared and assayed using a modified in vitro test to confirm selective binding of the BH construct. In all cases, successful binding of antibody was confirmed by a modified bicinchoninic acid assay (BCA) and immunofluorescence (tables S2 to S5 and fig. S1, A and B). A BNFimmunoglobulin G (IgG) construct was synthesized with a nonspecific human polyclonal antibody, as an additional control. The measured physical properties of the BNF-IgG nanoparticles were similar to those of BH nanoparticles (tables S2 and S4).

We limited our selection of cancer models to those for which a stable transmembrane protein/marker is well documented and for which multiple cell lines and mouse models are readily available. In general, HER2+ breast cancer biology has been extensively studied, providing numerous human and mouse cell lines to yield xenograft, syngeneic, and spontaneous models (22, 23). For in vitro and xenograft studies, we selected six human breast cancer cell lines (Fig. 1, B and C, and table S3). HER2 protein expression was verified by Western blotting (Fig. 1B). We used an isogenic pair derived from a HER2- MCF7 parental line, MCF7/HER2 (+), and MCF7/neo () (Fig. 1, B and C). The variable total protein and surface expression of HER2 were evident in three HER2+ lines: HCC1954, BT474, and SKBR3 from both Western blotting and immunofluorescence, whereas MDA-MB-231 cells showed no HER2 expression.

Residual iron concentration was measured in cells using a modified ferene-s assay (24) and correlated with HER2/neu expression following exposure to BH nanoparticles. Both iron concentration and HER2/neu expression followed the same progression: MCF7/HER2 < HCC1954 < BT474 < SKBR3 (Spearman correlation coefficient, = 0.89, P = 0.03; Fig. 1D, inset, and fig. S1C), confirming that in vitro targeting occurred via the expected antibody-antigen binding.

We used two immunodeficient strains of mice [athymic nude and nonobese diabetic/severe combined immunodeficiency (NOD/scid) gamma (NSG)] engrafted with five human breast cancer cell lines: two HER2- cell lines (MDA-MB-231 and MCF7/neo) and three HER2+ lines (MCF7/HER, HCC1954, and BT474). The xenograft study design is illustrated in Fig. 1E, and details are provided in Materials and Methods and table S6. Visibly evident 24 hours after injection by discoloration of tumors, BH nanoparticles were retained by tumors to a greater extent than were BP nanoparticles (Fig. 2A).

(A) Gross morphology of tumors following intravenous injection with BP or BH nanoparticles shows different tissue color. Darker (black) color indicates greater particle uptake. Tumors from NOD/scid (NSG) mice show more BH than BP. Photo credit: Preethi Korangath, Johns Hopkins University. (B) Representative images of HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) from breast xenografts showing that expression correlates with in vitro expression. (C and D) Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) of Fe recovered from tumors excised from mice injected with BH nanoparticles demonstrates consistently higher Fe content than tumors from mice injected with BP nanoparticles regardless of HER2 status of the tumor. Recovered iron was higher in tumors excised from NSG mice (D) than that from athymic nude mice (C) (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001). (E and F) Prussian bluestained tissue slides recovered from the same tumors as in (C) and (D) and digitally analyzed for percent positive area that showed a similar trend as observed with ICP-MS. (G and H) ICP-MS analysis of Fe from the livers showed higher iron content in mice injected with BP nanoparticles than mice injected with BH nanoparticles, mirroring the results of Fe recovered from tumors (**P 0.01 and ***P < 0.0001).

Volumetric analysis of iron by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) recovered from tumors grown in nude mice corroborated our observations of gross tumor presentation. HER2 status/expression of tumors was confirmed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) (Fig. 2B). Higher iron concentrations were present in tumors of mice injected with BH relative to phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) or BP-injected mice (P < 0.001) irrespective of HER2 status (Fig. 2C). In contrast, intratumor iron concentrations measured from mice receiving BP was only slightly higher than PBS-injected controls (MCF7/HER, HCC1954, and BT474; P > 0.05; see Fig. 2C). Iron recovered from nude mice bearing MCF7/neo tumors injected with BH was comparable to those recovered from MCF7/HER tumors. Comparable iron recovery in these two isogenic (HER2+/) tumor models following injection with BH, which was higher than either PBS- or BP-injected controls, suggests that biological factors other than antibody-antigen binding were responsible for nanoparticle retention. In other words, the BH nanoparticle targeting observed in vitro was not evident in vivo.

This pattern of retention was also measured in tumors recovered from NSG mice (Fig. 2D and fig. S2); however, HER2 expression by the tumor slightly correlated more with BH retention in NSG mice than in nude mice (Fig. 3, A and B). In contrast to results obtained from nude mice, iron recovered from HCC1954 and BT474 tumors in NSG mice was slightly higher than in MCF7/HER, consistent with higher HER2/neu protein expression in these cell lines (Fig. 1, B and C).

(A) Analysis of Prussian bluepositive (nanoparticle-rich) areas of tumors from nude mice injected with BH nanoparticles reveals only weak correlation with HER2 expression. (B) Conversely, this correlation is stronger in tumors from NSG mice. (C and D) Weak or no correlation was observed between BH nanoparticle presence and CD31+ (vascular endothelium) regions. (E) Representative histology images of sequential sections showing IBA-1+ cells associated with Prussian bluepositive areas in HCC1954 (HER2+) tumors grown in NSG mice and treated with BH (a) hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), (b) Prussian blue, (c) HER2 IHC, (d) IBA-1 IHC, (e) CD-31 IHC, (f) H&E of another area from same tumor, (g) sequential section stained for Prussian blue shows positive staining for iron nanoparticles, and (h) immunofluorescence (IF) staining for IBA-1 shows positivity in the nanoparticle accumulated region. (F and G) Iron recovery from HER2+ (HCC1954) or HER2 (MDA-MB-231) tumors is similar whether BNF nanoparticles have trastuzumab (anti-HER2) or human IgG (polyclonal), suggesting that antibody-antigen binding does not drive intratumor nanoparticle accumulation. ns, not statistically significant.

We analyzed tumor tissue sections stained with Perls reagent (also known as Prussian blue) to visualize the nanoparticle-rich regions across all models (Fig. 2, E and F, and fig. S3). The trends observed with gross presentation and ICP-MS were consistent with tumor histopathology (Fig. 2, C to F, and fig. S2) and also revealed notable spatial heterogeneity of iron localization. Nevertheless, all tumor models studied showed significantly more nanoparticle retention when mice were injected with BH, but localization to cancer cells was not evident.

As previously observed, a substantial amount of systemically injected nanoparticles will accumulate in the liver (611, 2527). It is widely held that resident macrophages (liver) and circulating macrophages along with other phagocytic immune cells will sequester nanoparticles of about 100 nm in diameter, clearing them from blood circulation and depositing them into the liver and other organs. Our ICP-MS analysis of iron recovered from the livers showed that all mice injected with nanoparticles exhibited higher iron concentration in the liver than PBS-injected controls. However, the livers of mice injected with BP had higher iron content than the livers of mice injected with BH (Fig. 2, G and H). We conclude that BH retention in tumors (and perhaps other tissues not assayed) contributed to the reduced liver content when compared with BP-injected mice.

Higher tumor retention of Herceptin (Her/trastuzumab)labeled nanoparticles having varied composition and sizes (15 to 500 nm) following systemic delivery into nude female mice bearing MCF7 tumors has been noted (2831). It is worth emphasizing, however, that MCF7 cancer cells express no HER2 antigen on their membranes, begging the question of the mechanisms of targeting observed in these previous studies. Together, results reported here and elsewhere indicate that retention of nanoparticles in (xenograft human-mouse) tumors may depend on complex biological responses that are intertwined with the host immune system. We note in our results that immune status of the mouse seemed to play a role in nanoparticle retention in tumors, whereas antigen expression by cancer/tumor cells seemed to have very little influence, especially in nude mice (Fig. 2 and fig. S2). Further study was needed to determine nanoparticle association with cell type.

We analyzed comparable regions of stained serial tissue sections in detail by scoring to determine whether intratumor nanoparticle localization correlated with tumor-specific factors. Digitally scored Prussian bluestained sections were compared with manual scoring of the corresponding HER2-stained tumor sections using Spearmans rank correlation coefficient from mice injected with BH nanoparticles (Materials and Methods). A positive but weak correlation was found between BH localization and HER2/neu protein expression in nude mice ( = 0.3827; Fig. 3A). We measured a stronger, positive correlation between BH localization with HER2+ sections in tumors from NSG mice ( = 0.8462; Fig. 3B). These results were consistent with both ICP-MS and digital scoring of Prussian bluestained slides among all tumor models (Fig. 2, C to F) further supporting our observations that immune status of the host animal was an important factor determining BH retention in tumors but not for BP (fig. S4A).

To test whether BH nanoparticle retention in tumors correlated with the tumor microvascular network, we compared Prussian bluestained areas with corresponding sections stained with CD31 for visualizing the vascular endothelium (32). No correlation was found between BH score and CD31+ score in sections obtained from nude mice ( = 0.018; Fig. 3C), but a weak positive correlation was measured in sections obtained from NSG mice ( = 0.3241; Fig. 3D). By contrast, slight positive correlations were found with CD31+ regions in both nude and NSG mice injected with BP (fig. S4A).

Both athymic nude and NSG mice lack mature T cells, but NSG mice, in addition, also lack functional components of their innate immune system (table S6) (33). We speculated that subpopulations of innate immune cells in the TME contributed to BH retention. We compared Prussian bluestained sections with corresponding sections stained for ionized calcium-binding adapter molecule 1 (IBA-1), a pan-(murine) macrophage marker that also labels other myeloid cells including subpopulations of dendritic cells, monocytes, activated neutrophils, and some types of endothelial cells (Fig. 3E) (34). Comparing IBA-1+ tissue sections with Prussian bluepositive regions revealed that antibody-labeled nanoparticles were found in similar locations as IBA-1+ regions within the TME in both nude and NSG mice (HCC1954 tumor grown in NSG mice, Fig. 3E; BT474 tumor grown in NSG mice, fig. S4B). However, we found no significant differences in the content (number) of IBA-1+ cells among any of the tumor models or treatment (fig. S4C).

Next, we tested the notion that antibody-antigen binding to cancer cells does not determine tumor localization of BH to tumors by using BNF nanoparticles labeled with a nonspecific human polyclonal IgG. BNF-IgG nanoparticles were intravenously injected into cohorts of both nude and NSG mice bearing HER2+ (HCC1954) and HER2 (MDA-MB-231) tumors. ICP-MS analysis of tissue iron content of tumors extracted from mice injected with BNF-IgG was similar to that measured from mice injected with BH in both tumor models and immune backgrounds of mice (Fig. 3, F and G, and fig. S5, A and B). These results support that retention of antibody-labeled nanoparticles (i.e., BH or BNF-IgG) was independent of antibody-antigen binding.

From the results obtained across the five human tumor xenograft models in two immunodeficient mouse strains and with two antibody nanoparticle types (trastuzumab and nonspecific IgG), we hypothesized that BNF nanoparticle retention by tumors was determined by active biological processes influenced (or directed) by cells of the innate immune system, residing within the TME and reacting to the presence of an antibody on the nanoparticle surface. Our analysis of xenograft tumors of the IBA-1stained tissue sections provided no evidence of measurable (aggregate innate) immune cell infiltration into or depletion from the tumors following nanoparticle exposure. To the contrary, the area of IBA-1+ regions among PBS- and nanoparticle-injected cohorts was comparable (fig. S4C), indicating that tumor-associated immune cell subpopulations internalized antibody-labeled nanoparticles (trastuzumab or IgG; see Fig 3, F and G). To test whether macrophages were responsible for these observations, we depleted macrophages by treatment with clodronate liposomes in athymic nude mice growing HCC1954 tumors and injected with BH (35). Unexpectedly, macrophage depletion alone failed to decrease the amount of BH nanoparticles retained in tumors (fig. S5C), suggesting involvement by other immune cells.

BNF nanoparticle localization in tumors across multiple xenograft mouse models suggested that immune status contributed to, and perhaps dominated, nanoparticle retention. To test this concept further, we used a syngeneic tumor model derived from the transgenic huHER2 mouse (Fig. 4A) and transplanted to NSG, nude, and immune competent FVB/N mice. HER2 protein expression in the tumors was confirmed by IHC (Fig. 4B).

(A) Schema of transgenic huHER2 tumor allograft development and IHC confirmation of HER2 protein expression on cancer cells in tumors. (B) IHC analysis demonstrates that HER2 protein expression in syngeneic huHER2 allografts is comparable among the range of immune strains of mice tested: FVB/N, athymic nude, and NSG mice. (C) Gross appearance of huHER2 allograft tumors grown to 150 to 200 mm3 in FVB/N, athymic nude, or NSG mice 24 hours after they were injected via tail vein with BP or BH nanoparticles shows that BH accumulation is greatest in tumors growing in immune competent host(s). Photo credit: Preethi Korangath, Johns Hopkins University. (D) ICP-MS results showing absolute iron recovery from tumors grown in all mice reveals highest accumulation of BH nanoparticles in FVB/N mice (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.005, and ***P 0.0001). (E) Histology analysis revealed that Prussian bluepositive area was seen in stromal area and colocalized more with IBA-1+ cells than HER2+ tumor cells.

The intensity of coloration, 24 hours after injection by BH nanoparticles into FVB/N mice, was visibly greater than that displayed by tumors in either NSG or nude mice (Fig. 4C). Iron content analysis by ICP-MS and analysis of Prussian bluestained slides demonstrated a notable uptake of BH by huHER2 allograft tumors grown in FVB/N mice (Fig. 4D and fig. S6, A and B). Similar to results obtained from xenograft models (Fig 2), FVB/N mice showed retention of less BH in the liver than BP, and higher iron content was detected in the lymph nodes and spleens of both BP- and BH-injected mice (fig. S6, C to E). Prussian bluepositive areas appeared more prominently in stromal regions associated with IBA-1+ areas than in the HER2+ regions (Fig. 4E and fig. S7). These results provided strong evidence that immune status of mouse models is a critical biological variable for nanoparticle targeting studies; however, the nature of this interaction was unclear.

Across all models studied, the presence of immune cells within tumors was detected. Colocalization of nanoparticles and IBA-1+ cells occurred at the tumor periphery (Fig. 3E and fig. S3) in xenograft tumors and in tumor-stromal interfaces in the immune competent huHER2 allograft model (Fig. 4E and fig. S7). It has been well documented that the cancer tissue boundary of tumors often exhibits proinflammatory features (36). We hypothesized that tumor-associated immune cells exhibiting an inflammatory phenotype preferentially sequestered and retained antibody-labeled nanoparticles.

To test this hypothesis and to further elucidate the mechanism of nanoparticle retention in the TME, we performed tests in vitro with murine macrophages and neutrophils. Macrophages were activated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and interferon- (IFN-) to mimic a T helper 1 (TH1)type induction (M1) or with interleukin-4 (IL-4) to mimic a TH2-type induction (M2). When exposed to either BP or BH, macrophages always sequestered more BH than BP; however, M1 macrophages sequestered significantly more nanoparticles, especially BH (Fig. 5A). Uninduced neutrophils showed no preference for either construct; however, when activated with LPS (TH1-type induction), neutrophils demonstrated significantly greater preference for BH (Fig. 5B).

(A) Undifferentiated RAW 264.7 (M0) or differentiated M1 or M2 (LPS + IFN- or IL-4, respectively) macrophages were incubated for 24 hours with BP or BH, and ferene-s assay was conducted to measure the total amount of iron uptake per cell. As a control, BP and Her, added together, were also used. As shown in the figure, BH nanoparticles were taken up more significantly than BP by macrophages irrespective of their phenotype. The uptake was significantly higher in M1 macrophages than either M0 or M2, which indicates that proinflammatory macrophages take up more BP and BH nanoparticles with preference toward BH. (B) Likewise, LPS-activated neutrophils (induced) preferentially sequestered BH over BP, whereas no difference in uptake was observed with nave bone marrow neutrophils (uninduced). (C) Total cell count obtained from magnetically separated BP- or BH-injected tumors shows significant difference. Immune competent FVB/N mice (n = 3 per group, two tumors each) bearing huHER2 tumors were intravenously injected with BP or BH. After 24 hours, tumors were harvested and digested to isolate single cells and were magnetically separated to collect nanoparticle-associated cells to determine the total cell count. (D) Analysis of magnetically sorted cells obtained from in vivo tumors showed that nanoparticles were associated with immune cells, not tumor cells. Immune competent FVB/N mice (n = 5 to 8 per group) bearing huHER2 tumors were intravenously injected with PBS, BP, or BH. After 24 hours, tumors were harvested and digested to isolate single cells and were magnetically separated to collect nanoparticle-associated cells for analysis by flow cytometry. Gating strategy is provided in fig. S8. Cell numbers measured from BP- and BH-injected mice are shown as change in ratio relative to PBS-injected mice (PBS ratio = 1). (a) Populations of cancer cells were not changed in nanoparticle-associated cancer cells. Ratios of NK cells (b), monocytes (c), TAMs (d), neutrophils (e), and dendritic cells (f) are increased in nanoparticle fractions, suggesting uptake of nanoparticles by immune cells rather than tumor cells. (*P 0.05, **P 0.01, and ***P < 0.001).

Magnetic nanoparticles provide a unique tool to query biological responses because they enable magnetic sorting to isolate specific cell populations containing the nanoparticles. To further elucidate the in vivo tumor immune response to BNF nanoparticle exposure, tumor digests were placed on a permanent magnet. Cells containing nanoparticles were sedimented, whereas cells devoid of nanoparticles remained suspended. Sedimented (nanoparticle-associated) cells were collected and analyzed for total number (Fig. 5C). Consistent with in vitro results, the total number of cells containing iron was higher in tumors of mice injected with BH than in those injected with BP. To distinguish among tumor-associated cell populations that sequestered nanoparticles, both sedimented (nanoparticle associated) and suspended (supernatant, no nanoparticle) cells were collected and analyzed by polychromatic flow cytometry. Figures S8 and S9 provide graphical gating strategy and complete results of analysis, respectively. Results of magnetic sorting of equal (initial) numbers of tumor-derived cell populations are displayed in Fig. 5D (a to f) as ratios of cell number by type and fraction relative to cell numbers obtained from PBS-injected mice. PBS ratios are expressed as unity and all others as <1 or >1 depending on the number of cells detected in each fraction. Among cancer cells, it is notable that for either BP or BH, numbers were lower than from PBS-injected controls, indicating little nanoparticle association with the HER2+ cancer cells (Fig. 5D, a). This is consistent with histopathology (Fig. 3E). Following intravenous delivery, evidence indicates that nanoparticle association with cancer cells was minimal regardless of HER2+ expression, further confirming the different performance of antibody-labeled nanoparticles in vivo versus in vitro.

On the basis of the evidence, nanoparticle retention in the studied models was likely determined by tumor-associated leukocytes, but what effect did systemic exposure to nanoparticles have on the tumor immune microenvironment? We used polychromatic flow cytometry to identify changes of individual tumor immune cell populations in huHER2 allograft tumors growing in FVB/N mice following injection with nanoparticle or free antibody (Fig. 6A and fig. S8, A and B). Twenty-four hours after intravenous injection, we measured a slight decrease of live cell populations in tumors derived from mice receiving either BP or BH relative to PBS-injected controls. No measurable differences were detected in cancer cell populations among the four cohorts, but a significant decrease in CD45+ population was noted (fig. S9B, a to c).

Immune competent FVB/N mice (n = 5 to 8 per group) bearing huHER2 tumors were intravenously injected with PBS, BP, BH, or Herceptin (Her). After 24 hours, tumors were harvested and digested to isolate single cells and evaluated by polychromatic fluorescence-activated cell sorter (FACS). Gating strategy is provided in fig. S8. (A) Relative decreases in T cell (a) and B cell (b) populations were observed following injection of nanoparticles. By contrast, relative increases were measured in many innate immune cell populations within the TME: NK cells (c), neutrophils (d), TAMs (e), and monocytes (f) 24 hours after nanoparticle exposure. Except for TAMs, no significant increase was seen in any other immune cell population after Her injection. (*P 0.05 and **P 0.01). (B) Graphic representation of distributions of nanoparticle-associated CD45+ immune cells among the cohorts.

Nanoparticle exposure induced many changes across a number of tumor immune cell lineages, with a notable decrease in T cells and an increase in the relative fraction (i.e., ratio) of innate immune cells initiating a restructuring of the immune compartment of the TME (Fig. 6A, a). B cell populations also decreased in BH- and Her-treated groups (Fig. 6A, b). Relative to PBS controls, natural killer (NK) cell and monocyte fractions increased following BH injection but not in mice receiving BP or Her (Fig. 6A, c and f). Populations of other phagocytic innate immune cells, specifically neutrophils, and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) increased with either BP or with BH injection relative to controls (Fig. 6A, d and e, and fig. S9B), but dendritic cell populations remained relatively unchanged 24 hours after injection (fig. S9B, d) as did the fraction of T cells (GD T cells) (fig. S9B, e). However, we found no evidence in histology data indicating that depletion or infiltration of innate immune cells carrying nanoparticles to or from tumors occurred after nanoparticle injection, suggesting capture of nanoparticles by the resident population(s) of innate immune cells in the TME (Fig. 3 and fig. S4C) (37). Nevertheless, for conclusive quantification of this process, further study is needed. Exposure to free trastuzumab (Her) elevated TAMs, reflecting a specific interaction (Fig. 6A, e).

Trastuzumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody with a human IgG1 (hIgG1) that can elicit a response in murine macrophages (38). Furthermore, it is recognized that Fc receptors on murine macrophages can recognize hIgG1 (38), and the response observed in our flow cytometry with free trastuzumab (Her) is consistent with this observation (Fig. 6A, e). Note that, however, macrophages were the only tumor immune population that elevated within 24 hours following injection with free trastuzumab, whereas multiple immune cell subpopulations responded to BP and BH exposure (Fig. 6, A and B, and fig. S9B). The tumor immune response to BH was more complex than that to free trastuzumab (Her)including T cells, NK cells, monocytes, neutrophils, dendritic cells, and macrophagesand it was similar to that of BP. Thus, while the potential exists for specific interactions between murine macrophages and hIgG1-containing nanoparticles, our evidence demonstrates that labeling the surface of a nanoparticle with a hIgG1 monoclonal antibody alters the immune response to recognize the nanoparticle-antibody construct as an entity distinguishable from free antibody.

The data indicate that, in addition to macrophages (TAMs), many other lineages of phagocytic innate immune cellsNK cells, monocytes, neutrophils, and dendritic cellsreside in the TME sequestered nanoparticles (Fig. 5D, b to f, and fig. S9A, b to i). It seemed that an intact immune system is a critical component in determining the retention of nanoparticles in solid tumors. To challenge this notion, we pretreated tumor-bearing mice with a pan-leukocyte inhibitor, azathioprine (39, 40), before injecting with BH. Iron recovered from tumors in azathioprine-treated mice was significantly reduced and similar to BP-injected mice (fig. S10, A and B), confirming the role of a wider immune involvement in nanoparticle retention.

These results support a model that tumor-associated phagocytic immune cells significantly influence the degree of retention of systemically delivered nanoparticles within the TME. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that an intact host immune system can manifest decidedly different tumor retention when compared with comparable immunodeficient models, raising an important question about clinical relevance of studies performed in the latter. Depending on environmental chemical cues, tumor-associated leukocytes may display a greater sensitivity to the chemical signatures of nanoparticles than their counterparts residing in other tissues. This offers potential for tumor targeting with nanomedicines.

In a complex manner, while the restructuring of the immune compartment of the TME, likely mirroring a systemic immune response to nanoparticle exposure, was similar for both BH and BP nanoparticles, it is only the BH nanoparticles that were significantly retained within the TME. These complex and seemingly contradictory immune responses may indicate potential for anticancer effects.

To explore the potential clinical relevance of our findings, we used the huHER2 allograft tumor model to ascertain effects of nanoparticle exposure on tumor growth in FVB/N and athymic nude mice. Five days after implantation of huHER2 tumors, FVB/N or athymic nude mice received a single intravenous injection of PBS, BP, BH, or Her as previously described. Exposure to either BP or BH significantly delayed tumor growth in FVB/N mice but not in athymic nude mice (Fig. 7, A to C, and fig. S11, A to C). As expected, trastuzumab alone was effective to significantly inhibit tumor growth in both FVB/N and athymic nude mice, however, its mode of action involves direct binding via HER2 antigen to cancer cell membranes. Our evidence shows that neither BP nor BH nanoparticles associated appreciably with cancer cells in vivo; thus, the therapeutic effect seen only in FVB/N mice due to nanoparticle exposure must involve an alternate mechanism that we hypothesized was mediated by the adaptive immune system. To gain further insight, we repeated the experiment in FVB/N mice and conducted flow cytometry analysis of immune populations in tumors 3, 7, and 14 days after injection. Beginning at 7 days after injection, significant increases in activated T cells (CD3+/CD4+/CD8+) were measured in tumors, reversing the depletion observed at 24 hours and 3 days and supporting a model of immune-mediated tumor suppression induced by systemic exposure to nanoparticles (Fig. 7, D and E, and figs. S11D to S14). Immune cells known to be involved in adaptive immune signaling, i.e., dendritic and T cells, displayed a complex time-dependent patternincreasing to day 3 and decreasing thereafterconsistent with adaptive immune signaling response (Fig. 6 and figs. S9 and S13) (41, 42). On the other hand, phagocytic effector immune cells, i.e., macrophages and monocytes, initially displayed relatively elevated numbers at day 1 but displayed no such increases afterward relative to PBS controls (Fig. 6 and fig. S9 and S14). These complex and time-dependent immune cell responses observed in the TME resemble systemic responses observed in mice following acute and nonlethal infection by some pathogens, i.e., Listeria monocytogenes, which can also lead to anticancer immune stimulation (41, 42). Note that both BH and BP nanoparticles induced similar effects on tumor immune cell populations and on tumor growth, despite the fact that BP nanoparticles were not significantly retained within the tumor. This suggests that exposure to nanoparticles has the potential to induce both systemic and local (tumor) effects, which bear further study and offer potential for developing another paradigm in cancer nanomedicine (fig. S15).

(A) Female FVB/N mice bearing huHER2 allograft tumors (n = 7 to 18 per group) were intravenously injected with either PBS, BP, BH (5 mg per mouse), or Herceptin (175 g per mouse) 5 days after tumor implantation (day 0). Growth of the tumors was monitored by caliper measurements twice per week for 4 weeks (means SEM). Final tumor weight is given in inset (**P < 0.005 and &P 0.0001). (B) On day 28, all mice were euthanized, and representative images of tumors are shown. Photo credit: Preethi Korangath, Johns Hopkins University. [C (a and b)] Female athymic nude mice bearing huHER2 allograft tumors (n = 6 to 7 per group) were similarly treated as above, and 3 weeks of tumor growth and tumor weight is reported (means SEM, *P < 0.05). [D (a and b) and E (a and b)] Flow analysis of tumors: As in (A), mice (n = 5 per group) were intravenously injected with either PBS, BP, BH (5 mg per mouse), or Herceptin (175 g per mouse) on the 10th day after tumor implantation. Seven days after injection, mice were euthanized; tumors were harvested, and single cells were isolated and evaluated by FACS. Infiltration of CD3+ T cells with increases in CD8+ T cells was measured following nanoparticle exposure, likely leading to growth inhibition observed in (A) (*P < 0.05). FITC, fluorescein isothiocyanate.

In summary, targeting nanoparticles has been a topic of considerable debate, even controversy, in the cancer nanomedicine community (17, 16, 2531). In most previous studies, the biology of tumor and/or host was not studied in detail with analysis of tissue histology and flow cytometry, thus motivating our efforts to understand the role of host biology in nanoparticle-tumor interactions (610). Across all models studied, we found strong evidence pointing to immune status of the host as a key factor determining the retention of antibody-labeled nanoparticles in tumors. Using an immune intact model, we discovered that the retention of nanoparticles in tumors was dominated by multiple lineages of tumor-associated immune cells when the nanoparticles included an antibody and found no in vivo evidence supporting a mechanism of antibody-antigen binding (i.e., the mechanism operating in vitro) to cancer cells in the tumor. Yet, the amount of nanoparticle retained by the tumor within 24 hours was most pronounced in an immune intact model, further emphasizing the significance of an intact immune system in studies of nanoparticle delivery to solid tumors. Our results demonstrate that the host immune system can be a substantial factor in studies of cancer nanomedicine and that macrophages are only one among many immune cell lineages that determine nanoparticle fate. It was only when we pharmacologically inhibited the entire host immune system that we measured a reduced retention of the BH nanoparticles. While these findings reveal new insights, they also raise many questions regarding complexities of nanoparticleimmune cell interactions in vivo across the many biological models used in cancer research and how immune cell receptors distinguish among nanoparticle coatings.

Related to this, but in a different manner, we observed that the immune response to nanoparticle exposure measured in tumors was equally profound and seemed insensitive to nanoparticle composition (BP or BH). As measured by population changes of immune cells in the TME, the immune response included an initial T cell depletion and later T cell infiltration into the tumor with significant tumor growth inhibition.

The presence of immune cells within an established solid tumor implies that immune cells are performing surveillance and homeostasis functions to support the growth and maintenance of the tumor. Our results show that exposure to nanoparticles can disrupt this delicate balance, potentially enabling a transient immune recognition of the tumor. In an immune-intact model of cancer, the systemic delivery of a nanoparticle construct can initiate a complex immune response, which can affect tumor growth regardless of retention. These results highlight the notion that the biology of the host and cancer tumor forms an interconnected and inextricably linked biological network that interacts in complex ways to determine the biological fate and retention of nanoparticles. Host immune status and, consequently, composition of the immune compartment(s) within the TME are critical variables in developing and testing the performance of cancer nanomedicines. Results presented here motivate more questions of mechanism of host and tumor immune cell interactions with nanoparticles. They also point to new possibilities for nanoparticle anticancer immunotherapy technologies.

MDA-MB-231 [ER/PR/HER2 () negative], MCF7 [ER/PR (+) positive/HER2 () negative], and BT474 [ER/PR/HER2 (+) positive] were purchased from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC; Manassas, VA) and maintained according to the suppliers recommendations. They were grown in Dulbeccos modified Eagles medium (DMEM) containing 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS). HCC1954 [ER/PR () negative/HER2 (+) positive] was grown in RPMI containing 10% FBS. MCF/neo and MCF7/HER were provided by K. Osborne (University of Texas Health Science Center). All cell lines were authenticated using short tandem repeat analysis (data provided upon request) and matched against ATCC and Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen databases to ensure the genetic origins.

The nanoparticles used for this study are commercially available aqueous suspensions of hydroxyethyl starchcoated magnetite (Fe3O4) core-shell particles (BNF; Micromod Partikeltechnologie GmbH, Rostock, Germany). The synthesis and physical characterization of the BNF particles have been extensively documented (1519). Briefly, BNF particles were produced by precipitating ferric and ferrous sulfate salts from solution at high pH in a high-pressure homogenization reaction vessel, which controls both crystal formation and aggregation. According to the manufacturer, they have a mean hydrodynamic diameter of ~100 nm and an iron content of >50% (w/w) [or iron oxide of >70% (w/w)].

The mean hydrodynamic diameter of the magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (BNF) and their zeta potential were measured in 1 mM PBS buffer (pH 7.4) with a Zetasizer Nano ZS90 (Malvern Instruments Limited, UK) at an iron concentration of 0.1 mg/ml. The mean particle diameter Z(Ave) is given as a result of the cumulative analysis of the autocorrelation function. The polydispersity index is a measure of the quality of the size distribution. Monodisperse suspensions have a polydispersity index of <0.25.

The monoclonal anti-HER2/neu antibody (Her), or trastuzumab (trade name) (Genentech, South San Francisco, CA), was purchased from Johns Hopkins Pharmacy and was shipped to micromod for conjugation with BNF particles to form BH. The Her was formulated according to the prescribing information. The lyophilized powder that contained 440 mg of Her was dissolved in 20 ml of bacteriostatic water for injection (provided). The Her solution was purified by washing with PBS buffer (pH 4) using a desalting column (PD-10, GE Healthcare, UK) to remove the stabilizing agents. The obtained Her solution was thiolated with Trauts reagent (2-iminothiolane) as follows: The antibody solution (390 l, 1.7 mg/ml in PBS buffer) was mixed with 160 l of 1.4 mM 2-iminothiolane in 450 l of PBS-EDTA buffer. After shaking for 1 hour at room temperature, the excess of 2-iminothiolane was removed by washing with PBS-EDTA buffer (PBS buffer, 1 mM EDTA) in a desalting column (G-25, GE Healthcare, UK). In parallel, an aqueous suspension of 80-nm BNF-starch nanoparticles with amino groups on the surface (2.25 ml, [Fe] = 8.0 mg/ml; product code: 10-01-801, micromod Partikeltechnologie GmbH) was mixed with 250 l of 10 PBS-EDTA buffer. Sulfosuccinimidyl 4-(N-maleimidomethyl) cyclohexane-1-carboxylate (sulfo-SMCC) (3.6 mg) was dissolved in 100 l of dimethyl sulfoxide and added to the BNF-starch suspension. After 1 hour of shaking at room temperature, the excess of sulfo-SMCC was removed by washing with PBS-EDTA buffer in a PD-10 desalting column. The maleimide-functionalized nanoparticles were mixed with the thiolated antibody solution and shaken for 3 hours at room temperature. Then, 200 l of 20 mM cysteine solution was added to quench the remaining maleimide groups on the nanoparticle surface. Last, the nanoparticles were washed by magnetic separation in a high-gradient magnetic field column (QuadroMACS with LD columns, Miltenyi Biotec GmbH, Bergisch-Gladbach, Germany) with 5 ml of PBS-Tween buffer (pH 7.4, 0.05% Tween 20) and 5 ml of PBS buffer (pH 7.4) per column filling. The magnetic column was removed from the magnet, and the nanoparticles were eluted with 2 ml of water per column filling. The high gradient magnetic field (HGMF) wash was repeated until the suspension was completely washed. The suspension was filtered using 0.22-m polyethersulfone filter (Carl Roth GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany).

After conjugation, BH nanoparticles were rigorously characterized for their physical and biological properties in vitro to ensure nanoparticle stability, and BNF-Her binding was successful and retained sufficient protein. Antibody immunoreactivity of the BH construct was separately tested using a cell culturebased assay (see below).

The iron content of the antibody-conjugated nanoparticles (BH) was determined after the digestion of a 20 l of sample with 80 l of concentrated HCl. After addition of 4.9 ml of a citrate phosphate buffer (pH 3.6), the iron concentration was calorimetrically determined with the Spectroquant Kit (Merck, Germany) against a Titrisol Iron Standard (Merck, Germany).

The amount of the conjugated antibody in the sample was measured by a modified BCA method. The BCA reagents were obtained from Thermo Fisher Scientific (Germany). The calibration curve was obtained by adding increasing amounts of an albumin standard solution to aminated BNF-starch particles (without antibody on the surface) at a constant iron concentration of 0.25 mg/ml. The antibody-conjugated nanoparticles were adjusted to the same iron concentration of 0.25 mg/ml and developed with the BCA reagent together with the calibration curve for 2 hours at 37C.

Polyclonal normal hIgG was purchased from R&D Systems (Minneapolis, MN) for conjugation with BNF nanoparticles for BNF-IgG nanoparticles. Methods to conjugate the IgG antibody to BNF nanoparticles were same as for trastuzumab, except that proportions of reagents were altered to accommodate differences between the antibodies. The lyophilized hIgG (2 mg) was dissolved in 1 ml of PBS buffer (pH 7.4) and purified by washing with PBS buffer (pH 4) using a desalting column (G-25, GE Healthcare, UK). The antibody solution used was 510 l (1.3 mg/ml) in PBS buffer and was mixed with 160 l of 1.4 mM 2-iminothiolane in 330 l of PBS-EDTA buffer. After shaking for 1 hour at room temperature, the excess 2-iminothiolane was removed by washing with PBS-EDTA buffer in a desalting column. In parallel, BP nanoparticles with amino groups on the surface were prepared as described above. The maleimide-functionalized nanoparticles were mixed with the thiolated antibody solution, reacted, washed, and purified as above.

The detailed protocol for conducting the modified ferene-s measurement of iron associated with cells after exposure to BNF nanoparticles has been previously described (24). Briefly, cells were trypsinized and washed with PBS thoroughly and were incubated at 37C with BP (0.5 mg/ml), BH, or trastuzumab (Her 2 g/ml) alone for 3 hours in growth media (DMEM + 10% FBS) with occasional shaking/tapping of tubes to maximize distribution and prevent settling of cells. After incubation, cells were pelleted by centrifugation and washed with PBS to remove unbounded particles and again pelleted by centrifugation. This washing with PBS was repeated three more times. The final cell pellet was resuspended in PBS and counted using a Cellometer (Nexcelom Bioscience, Lawrence, MA) to obtain the total number of cells. The cells in the tubes were then centrifuged, and the supernatant was removed to add working solution (acetate buffer with ascorbic acid). Cell pellets were digested in working solution by incubating at room temperature for at least 20 hours before reading in a colorimeter. A known quantity of ferene-s was used along with other external standard reference materials to quantify the iron concentration of the test samples according to previously described procedures (24). For the entire study, we used only those batches of BH showing more than fourfold retention by SKBR3 cells, as measured by iron concentration with the ferene-s assay when compared to BP (table S5). In addition, we used MDA-MB-231 (HER2-, control) to confirm that nonspecific binding of BH particles by those cells was minimal (<1 pg of Fe per cell).

Cells were trypsinized and washed in PBS and incubated in DMEM + 10% FBS at 37C with trastuzumab (2 g/ml) for 3 hours with occasional shaking/tapping of tubes to maximize distribution and prevent settling of cells. After incubation, cells were washed four times with PBS and plated on poly-lysinecoated coverslips in six-well plates. After overnight incubation, they were washed with PBS, fixed with methanol for 10 min, and blocked with 1% bovine serum albumin for 30 min at 37C. Dye-labeled secondary antibody (anti-human Alexa Fluor 488, Life Technologies, Eugene, OR) was added and incubated for 1 hour in the dark at room temperature, followed by washing three times in PBS and mounting with mounting media containing DAPI (4,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole). They were then visualized and photographed using a fluorescent microscope (Zeiss Axioimager Z1, Carl Zeiss Microscopy GmbH, Jena, Germany). To visualize BNF-HER nanoparticles alone, 30 l of BNF-HER or BP nanoparticles was separated on a magnet for 2 hours at 4C. The particles suspended in 1 ml of PBS volume and the concentration of BH nanoparticle suspensions were incubated with anti-human Alexa Fluor 488 secondary antibody (1:1000) for 1 hour at room temperature. The particles were then separated on a magnet for 1 hour, washed with PBS, and dropped on a clean slide to mount and visualize with a fluorescent microscope.

Cells were lysed with radioimmunoprecipitation assay buffer (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) containing protease and phosphatase inhibitors on ice for 30 min. The lysates were centrifuged at 13,000 rpm for 15 min. The supernatant was collected and quantified by BCA (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) assay. Thirty to 50 g of total protein were used for SDSpolyacrylamide gel electrophoresis gel after being heated with sample buffer. The proteins were then transferred to nitrocellulose membranes. After blocking with 5% milk solution in PBS-T (1% Tween 20) for 30 min, the membranes were blotted with primary antibody (anti-human HER2 antibody, 1:1000; Cell Signaling Technology, 29D8) overnight and with secondary horseradish peroxidase (HRP)conjugated antibody (GE Healthcare, UK) for 1 hour. The membranes were developed using chemiluminescence reagent (Amersham Biosciences, Marlborough, MA).

RAW264.7 cells were purchased from the ATCC (Manassas, VA) and maintained in DMEM with 10% heat-inactivated FBS. Low-passage cells were used for the study (P3 to P5). For M1 macrophage activation, cells were treated with LPS (100 ng/ml; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) and IFN- (50 ng/ml; Miltenyi Biotech, Germany) for 24 hours. To differentiate cells into M2, phenotype cells were treated with IL-4 (10 ng/ml; Miltenyi Biotech, Germany) for 24 hours (43). Induced and uninduced cells (1 million) were collected and treated with either BP or BH nanoparticles (0.5 mg/ml) or cotreated with BP and Her (16.3 g/ml; equivalent to protein content of BH) for 24 hours. After incubation, cells were washed thoroughly with PBS four times and processed for iron content analysis with the ferene-s assay as described above. Experiments were repeated three times.

Neutrophils were activated in vivo with LPS by the method described by Rnnefarth et al. (44). Briefly, 50 g of LPS was intraperitoneally injected into FVB/N mice (n = 3). After 18 hours, activated peritoneal neutrophils were collected by injecting 5 ml of PBS to peritoneum, cells were harvested, and red blood cells (RBCs) were lysed with ammonium-chloride-potassium (ACK) lysis buffer and thoroughly washed. Nave neutrophils were prepared using methods described by Mcsai et al. (45). For this, bone marrow cells were collected to Hanks balanced salt solution (HBSS) from femur and tibia of FVB/N mice (n = 3). RBCs were lysed from bone marrow cells with ACK lysis buffer, and cells were passed through a 70-m strainer. These cells were then centrifuged after layering on 62.5% freshly prepared Percoll in HBSS for 30 min at 1000g without brake. The cloudy pellet of neutrophils was collected. Uninduced bone marrowderived neutrophils and activated peritoneal-derived neutrophils were incubated with BP or BH nanoparticles (0.5 mg/ml) for 24 hours, and ferene-s assay was conducted to measure the amount of iron uptake per cell as described above.

All animal studies were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Johns Hopkins University and were conducted using female mice. All mice were fed normal diet and water ad libitum. They were maintained in the normal 12-hour light/12-hour dark cycle. All animals were closely monitored for any distress or pain throughout the study period. The weight range of animals during the study was 20 to 30 g. Strains of mice used in all studies were athymic nude (Charles River Laboratories, Frederick, MD), NSG (Sydney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center colony, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD), and FVB/N (Jackson laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME); all mice were aged 6 to 8 weeks. The characteristics of cell lines and mice used are provided above and in tables S3 and S6. A schematic of the xenograft tumor study design is provided in Fig. 1E. An overview of the numbers of mice divided by strain and group used for the studies is provided in table S10. Depending on cohort, 3 106 MDA-MB-231 or HCC1954 or 5 106 MCF-7(HER/neo) or BT474 cells were suspended in 50 l of PBS and Matrigel (1:1) and injected into the fourth mammary gland on either side of female mice under anesthesia. For MCF-7(HER/neo) and for BT474 xenograft studies, mice received estrogen by implanting a 60-day release estrogen pellet (0.72 mg per pellet; Innovative Research of America, Sarasota, FL) 5 days before cell line injection on the dorsal neck region through a small subcutaneous insertion made using sterile scissors while mice were under ketamine/xylazine anesthesia[ketamine (10 mg/ml) Vedco Inc., St. Joseph, MO] and xylazine (2 mg/ml; Lloyd Inc., Shenandoah, IA) mixed in sterile PBS and intraperitoneally injected at 0.01 ml/g body weight. Tumor volume was monitored by caliper measurements twice weekly when tumors became palpable. When the measured tumor volume was 125 to 200 mm3, mice were randomly assigned into cohorts containing five animals in each group. Group I received intravenous (tail vein) injections of PBS and served as (negative) control. Group II received intravenous injections to tail vein of BP (5 mg of Fe per animal), and group III received intravenous tail vein injections of BH (5 mg of Fe per animal). Group IV received injections of BNF-IgG (intravenous tail vein injections; 5 mg of Fe per animal) only for mice bearing either MDA-MB-231 or HCC1954 xenografts. The total volume of injection was 150 l in all cases. Twenty-four hours after injection, all mice were euthanized to collect tumors and liver for analysis.

Athymic nude mice growing HCC1954 tumors (n = 3 with two tumors each) were treated with two consecutive doses of clodronate liposome (CL) (Liposoma, Netherlands) via intraperitoneal (300 l per animal) injection. After the second dose of CL, BH nanoparticles were injected (5 mg of Fe per mouse intravenously) and euthanized 24 hours later to harvest tumors for ICP-MS.

The second half of each tumor and whole livers were weighed, lyophilized, and stored at 20C until analysis by ICP-MS using methods previously described (46). Briefly, each tissue sample was transferred to a 7-ml Teflon microwave digestion vessel (Savillex Corporation, Eden Prairie, MN) to which 1 ml of optima-grade HNO3 (Fisher Scientific, Columbia, MD) was added. The vessel was sealed and placed into a 55-ml Teflon microwave digestion vessel (CEM Corporation, Matthews, NC) to which 10 ml of ultrapure H2O (Millipore Corporation, Billerica, MA), and samples were digested in a MARS5 Xpress microwave (CEM Corporation, Matthews, NC) using a single-stage ramp-to-temperature of 15-min ramp to 130C with a hold of 30 min. After cooling, each sample was diluted: 35 l of sample digest and 300 l of HNO3 were added to 14.665 ml of ultrapure H2O to achieve a final HNO3 concentration of 2% (w/v). External reference standards scandium (CPI Incorporated, Santa Rosa, CA) and Seronorm Trace Elements Whole Blood (SERO AS, Billingstad, Norway) were added to normalize instrument counts and sample iron content, respectively. In addition, four reagent blanks were digested and analyzed in each run to correct for background iron content.

An Agilent 7500ce ICP-MS (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA) was used to measure iron content of each sample. Measurements were blank-corrected using the average iron value of the reagent blanks and corrected using external standard reference materials. An eight-point calibration curve (0, 1, 5, 10, 50, 100, 500, and 1000 g/liter) was obtained from Standard Reference Material (SRM) measurements. The analytical limit of detection (LOD) was calculated by multiplying the SD of the lowest detectable calibration standard (1 g/liter) by three. For samples with values below the analytical LOD, one-half of the LOD was substituted (46).

Fresh tumors were fixed in 10% formalin and sectioned on positively charged slides. For HER2 staining, a VECTASTAIN ABC kit (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA) was used to perform IHC. After hydration with serial dilutions of ethanol, antigen retrieval was performed using 10 mM citrate buffer. The sections were then treated with 3% hydrogen peroxide for 10 min and incubated with normal serum to block nonspecific binding. The sections were later incubated overnight with anti-human HER2 antibody (1:400; Cell Signaling Technology, 29D8). Secondary antibody (provided in the kit) was added the next day after washing, followed by incubation with ABC reagent and developed with 3,3-Diaminobenzidine (DAB) (DAB peroxidase substrate kit, Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA) reagent and counterstained with hematoxylin (Dako North America Inc., Carpinteria, CA.) as specified by the manufacturer. For CD31 (Dianova, DIA 310), and IBA-1 (Wako, 019-19741), after deparaffinization and hydration, the slides were steamed in HTTR or EDTA buffer for 45 min in a steamer followed by washing in PBS containing Tween. They were then blocked in peroxidase solution and incubated with CD31 (1:40) or IBA-1 (1:2500) antibody for 45 min at room temperature. After washing, sections were incubated with secondary antibody (PowerVision Poly-HRP anti-Rabbit IHC Detection Systems Novocastra, Leica Biosystems, Buffalo Grove, IL) for 30 min at room temperature followed by washing. The slides were then washed and developed with DAB fast (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) for 20 min at room temperature and counter stained with hematoxylin.

One-half of each tumor was fixed with 10% formalin and submitted for paraffin embedding and sectioning for hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining, Prussian blue (also known as Perls reagent) staining to visualize nanoparticle (iron oxide) distributions, and IHC (HER2, CD31, and IBA-1). All stained slides were evaluated by a pathologist (B.W.S.) and quantitated in a blinded study. For manual analysis, HER2 immunostains were semiquantiatively scored to determine the percentage of tumor cells with positive, membranous staining. For automated image analysis, whole slides were digitized using the Aperio ScanScope At or CS system (Aperio, Vista CA) at 40 magnification. Analysis was performed using Aperio ImageScope software (version 12.3.0.5056) with the included Positive Pixel Count algorithm. Images were manually annotated to select a region of interest representing a full cross section of each graft and a 50-m border of surrounding subcutaneous tissue. Artifacts and necrotic regions of the tumor were excluded from analysis. Default hue values (brown, positive; blue, negative) were used for immunostains (DAB Chromogen) and were adjusted for Prussian blue (blue, positive; pink, negative). Digital analysis settings that were used are provided in tables S7 and S8. One slide per condition per tumor was analyzed, and results represent as percent positive pixels over negative pixels in region of interest.

Transgenic (huHER2) mice (FVB/N background) that develop mouse mammary tumor virusdriven mammary-specific human HER2overexpressing tumors were provided under a material transfer agreement (Genentech, South San Francisco, CA). These mice are well characterized for their tumor development and response to trastuzumab as described elsewhere (22, 23). The primary tumor from a donor mouse was collected in normal media and finely minced. Approximately 3 to 4 mm3 of the mash were implanted into the fourth mammary gland on either side of FVB/N females (Jackson laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME) at 6 to 8 weeks of age under anesthesia. Tumor growth was monitored twice weekly by caliper measurements. When the measured tumor volume was ~1000 mm3, tumors were collected and minced to repeat the transplantation into other FVB/N recipient mice for expansion by serial transplantation for up to six generations. At each generation, a section of tumor was fixed in formalin and was analyzed for tumor morphology by H&E and (human) HER2/neu expression by IHC. Nanoparticle uptake studies commenced when a sufficient number of tumors was established to ensure completion of the huHER2 study design. To establish tumors for the nanoparticle studies, huHER2 tumors were collected from five to eight FVB/N donor mice and minced. Portions of the mashes (3 to 4 mm3) were implanted into the fourth mammary gland on either side of female recipient mice comprising immune strains FVB/N, athymic nude, or NSG (18 to 24 animals in each group) under anesthesia. When the measured tumor volume reached 150 to 200 mm3, animals were randomly assigned into cohorts comprising five to nine animals in each group and treated according to their cohort as described for the xenograft studies (see above). For tumor growth delay, huHER2 allografts were implanted in either FVB/N or athymic nude mice and intravenously treated with PBS, BP, BH (5 mg per animal, or Her 175 g/ml, equivalent dose of Her on BH particles) 5 days after implantation (day 0). Tumors were measured and recorded twice weekly up to 28 days. On day 28, all animals were euthanized, tumors were collected, and weight was recorded.

FVB/N female mice (five to eight animals per group) growing single huHER2 allograft tumors of 150 to 200 mm3 received intravenous (tail vein) injections of PBS, BP, or BH (5 mg of Fe per mouse) or trastuzumab (Her; 175 g per mouse). Mice were euthanized 24 hours after injection. For the later time point (14 day after injection) flow analysis, mice bearing huHER2 allograft tumors were injected with PBS, BP, BH, or Her (same concentrations as above) 10 days after tumor implantation. Tumors were minced with a sterile blade in a petri dish and transferred to a 50-ml conical tube containing digestion media [DMEM + 10% FBS (heat inactivated) and 0.1% collagenase + 0.005% hyaluronidase]. The tubes were rotated at 37C for 30 min, and the dissociated tissue was filtered through a 100-m filter. After centrifugation at 1400 rpm for 10 min, the pellets were washed with 30 ml of DMEM with 10% serum and centrifuged again for 10 min. Supernatant was discarded, and RBCs were lysed with ACK lysis buffer at room temperature for 3 to 5 min. An additional 30 ml of media was added, and the mixture was centrifuged at 1400 rpm for 10 min. The supernatant was discarded, and 500 l of media was added to resuspend the pellet. An aliquot of this whole tumor was removed and labeled with the panel of flow cytometry antibodies (see table S9 for list). The remaining single cells were incubated on a rare-earth permanent magnet at 37C for 30 min. After incubation, the supernatant was carefully separated to a fresh tube for flow cytometry. Three milliliters of media was added to the adhered (remaining) fraction cells, which contained magnetic (nanoparticle) material. Media was added to all sample tubes to make up a final volume of 3 ml, and they were then centrifuged at 1400 rpm for 10 min. The supernatant was discarded, and pellets were suspended in PBS and counted to measure the total number of cells. Cells (1 106 to 2 106) were collected and treated with Fc blocker (2 l of 100 l of PBS; anti-CD16/32, BioLegend, San Diego, CA) and incubated on ice for 10 min. Samples were then centrifuged at 1400 rpm for 3 min, after which the cells were incubated with LIVE/DEAD solution (1 l of 100 l of PBS; Zombie Aqua, BioLegend, San Diego, CA) at room temperature in the dark for 30 min and then centrifuged. After centrifugation, cells were washed with 100 l of PBS with 5% heat-inactivated FBS and again centrifuged. Cells were then stained with 50 l of the solution of panel of antibodies (table S9) in appropriate dilution and incubated at room temperature in the dark for 30 min, centrifuged at 1400 rpm for 3 min, washed with 100 l of PBS and 5% heat-inactivated FBS, and again centrifuged. Cells were then fixed with 50 l of fix/perm solution and incubated at room temperature in the dark for 30 min, centrifuged, and washed. Two hundred microliters of PBS with 5% heat-inactivated FBS was added, and the suspensions were stored at 4C until they were measured by polychromatic flow cytometry (LSR-II, BD Biosciences, San Jose, CA). The gating and selection of quadrants were based on fluorescence minus one controls. Analysis of data was done using FlowJo (version 10) software. Gating strategy is provided in figs. S8 and S11.

FVB/N female mice (three animals per group with two tumors each) growing huHER2 allograft tumors at ~100 mm3 received intravenous (tail vein) injections of BP or BH (5 mg of Fe per mouse). Mice were euthanized 24 hours after injection. Tumors were processed as above for flow cytometry and placed on permanent magnet for 30 min. After discarding supernatant, total numbers of magnetically attached cells were counted in a cell counter (Nexcelom, MA).

huHER2 allograft tumors were grown in FVB/N female mice (n = 4). When the tumor volumes reached ~150 mm3, mice were treated with subcutatneous injections of azathioprine (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO), a pan leukocyte inhibitor at a dose of 200 mg/kg body weight for three consecutive days (39, 40). On the third day and 4 hours after azathioprine injection, mice were intravenously injected with BH (5 mg of Fe per animal). Mice were euthanized 24 hours after BH injection to collect tumor for ICP-MS analysis.

Results of all statistical analyses are provided in tables S11 to S33. ICP-MS and Prussian blue Aperio scored data were modeled as following log-normal distributions on the basis of proper exploratory analyses. Generalized mixed-effect models were used, with treatment, strain, and cell line as the fixed effects and mice as the random effect (intercept), such that the ratios between any two levels of fixed effects may be reported directly from the mixed-effect models. Models with fixed effect only and with two-way and three-way interactions were considered. Multiple comparison adjustments were made using the Bonferroni method to strongly control the overall family-wise type I error at 0.05.

Flow cytometry and tumor growth analysis. For flow cytometry and tumor growth data, it seemed unreasonable to assume commonly used parametric distributions. Therefore, pure nonparametric comparisons were made across all comparisons with Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner procedure for the pairwise comparisons to properly adjust for the potential inflation of family-wise type I errors.

In vitro cell count and ferene-s assay. All in vitro cell count and ferene-s assay data were analyzed by Students t test.

Correlation analysis. Rank-based, nonparametric Spearman correlation was performed using SAS 9.4, R, and Graphpad software.

Supplementary material for this article is available at http://advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/6/13/eaay1601/DC1

Supplementary Materials and Methods

Table S1. Summary of analytical data of (80 nm) BP nanoparticles.

Table S2. Summary of analytical data of all BNF-HER nanoparticles prepared.

Table S3. Characteristics of breast cancer cell lines used in the study.

Table S4. Summary of analytical data of BNF-IgG nanoparticles.

Table S5. Summary of analytical data of BNF-HER nanoparticles that passed in vitro qualification testing.

Table S6. Summary of immune modifications in mouse strains used for study.

Table S7. Summary of Aperio imaging settings used for digital analysis of tissue sections.

Table S8. Definitions of parameters used for Aperio imaging settings.

Table S9. Antibodies used for flow cytometry and their dilutions.

Table S10. Summary of numbers and strains of mice used in the study.

Table S11. Summary of one-factor model statistical analysis of iron measurements in xenograft models.

Table S12. Summary of two-factor model statistical analysis of iron measurements in xenograft models.

Table S13. Summary of three-factor model statistical analysis of iron measurements in xenograft models.

Table S14. Summary of one-factor model statistical analysis of Prussian blue histopathology analyses in xenograft models.

Table S15. Summary of two-factor model statistical analysis of Prussian blue histopathology analyses in xenograft models.

Table S16. Summary of three-factor model statistical analysis of Prussian blue histopathology analyses in xenograft models.

Table S17. Summary of statistical analysis of whole tumor digests flow cytometry in huHER2 allograft model.

Table S18. Summary of statistical analysis of nanoparticle-associated fractions (magnetic-sorted sediment) from flow cytometry in huHER2 allograft model.

Table S19. Summary of statistical analysis of nanoparticle-depleted fractions (magnetic-sorted supernatant) from flow cytometry in huHER2 allograft model.

Table S20. Summary of statistical analysis of iron measurements (ICP-MS) obtained from the livers of xenograft models.

Table S21. Ratio of Fe level between groups (treatment).

Table S22. Ratio of Fe level between groups (strains).

Table S23. Statistical analysis of ICP-MS huHER2-FVB/N lymph node data.

Table S24. Statistical analysis of ICP-MS huHER2-FVB/N spleen data.

Table S25. Statistical analysis of ICP-MS huHER2-FVB/N liver data.

Table S26. Ratio of percent positive between groups.

Table S27. Statistical analysis of tumor weight in huHER2-FVB/N.

Table S28. Statistical analysis of tumor growth in huHER2-FVB/N.

Table S29. Statistical analysis of whole tumor flow data third day.

Visit link:
Nanoparticle interactions with immune cells dominate tumor retention and induce T cellmediated tumor suppression in models of breast cancer - Science...

Children’s cancer researcher named Woman of the Year – UNSW Newsroom

Posted on March 5, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

Professor Maria Kavallaris, a leading childhood cancer researcher and a pioneer of nanomedicine in Australia, is the 2020 NSW Premier's Woman of the Year.

Professor Kavallaris is Head of Translational Cancer Nanomedicine at Childrens Cancer Institute and Founding Director of the Australian Centre for NanoMedicine at UNSW Sydney.

The prestigious award, announced a ceremony in Sydney this morning,recognises NSW women who have excelled in their chosen career, field or passion; are exceptional achievers who have made a significant contribution to NSW; and whose accomplishments make them a strong role model for other women.

I am truly honoured to have received this award and I hope it inspires young women to do what they love, grow and learn, and to lead with generosity and respect, Professor Kavallaris said.

Professor Kavallaris is internationally renowned for her research in cancer biology and therapeutics. She has been widely recognised for the innovation and impact of her research, her leadership as well as her mentoring of talented young scientists. She is passionate about training the next generation of research leaders.

Her personal journey with cancer began at the age of 21 and has driven her research to develop effective and less toxic cancer treatments.

As one of the original three scientists appointed at the Childrens Cancer Institute when its laboratories first opened in 1984, she has made important discoveries in relation to the mechanisms of clinical drug resistance and tumour aggressiveness in childhood cancer.

Her studies have not only identied how some tumours can grow and spread;she has also applied this knowledge to develop eective, less toxic cancer therapies using nanotechnology.

To be able to make a difference to the lives of children with cancer and their families by developing better treatments and improving survival rates is very humbling. Even if you can save one childs life, thats an incredible feat, Professor Kavallaris said.

As a conjoint professor in the UNSW Faculty of Medicine, Professor Kavallaris relishes her role of mentor and has supervised many Honours and PhD students, several of whom have become research leaders.

Professor Kavallariss extensive research and leadership contributions have been recognised withnumerous awards including the NSW Premiers Prize for Science and Engineering (Leadership in Innovation in NSW) in 2017, the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biologys Lemberg Medal in 2019 and she was made aMember of the Order of Australia (AM) for significant service to medicine, and to medical research, in the field of childhood and adult cancerson Australia Day 2019.

The rest is here:
Children's cancer researcher named Woman of the Year - UNSW Newsroom

In vivo Comparison of the Biodistribution and Toxicity of InP/ZnS Quan | IJN – Dove Medical Press

Posted on March 20, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

Li Li,1,2 Yajing Chen,1 Gaixia Xu,2,3 Dongmeng Liu,1 Zhiwen Yang,1 Tingting Chen,1 Xiaomei Wang,1 Wenxiao Jiang,1 Dahui Xue,1 Guimiao Lin1

1Base for International Science and Technology Cooperation: Carson Cancer Stem Cell Vaccines R&D Center, Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Synthetic Biology, Department of Physiology, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518055, Peoples Republic of China; 2Key Laboratory of Optoelectronics Devices and Systems of Ministry of Education/Guangdong Province, College of Optoelectronic Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, Peoples Republic of China; 3Guangdong Key Laboratory for Biomedical Measurements and Ultrasound Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering, Health Science Center, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518055, Peoples Republic of China

Correspondence: Guimiao LinSchool of Basic Medical Sciences, Shenzhen University Health Sciences Center, Shenzhen 518060, Peoples Republic of ChinaTel/ Fax +86-755-86671903Email gmlin@szu.edu.cn

Introduction: Indium phosphide (InP) quantum dots (QDs) have shown a broad application prospect in the fields of biophotonics and nanomedicine. However, the potential toxicity of InP QDs has not been systematically evaluated. In particular, the effects of different surface modifications on the biodistribution and toxicity of InP QDs are still unknown, which hinders their further developments. The present study aims to investigate the biodistribution and in vivo toxicity of InP/ZnS QDs.Methods: Three kinds of InP/ZnS QDs with different surface modifications, hQDs (QDs-OH), aQDs (QDs-NH2), and cQDs (QDs-COOH) were intravenously injected into BALB/c mice at the dosage of 2.5 mg/kg BW or 25 mg/kg BW, respectively. Biodistribution of three QDs was determined through cryosection fluorescence microscopy and ICP-MS analysis. The subsequent effects of InP/ZnS QDs on histopathology, hematology and blood biochemistry were evaluated at 1, 3, 7, 14 and 28 days post-injection.Results: These types of InP/ZnS QDs were rapidly distributed in the major organs of mice, mainly in the liver and spleen, and lasted for 28 days. No abnormal behavior, weight change or organ index were observed during the whole observation period, except that 2 mice died on Day 1 after 25 mg/kg BW hQDs treatment. The results of H&E staining showed that no obvious histopathological abnormalities were observed in the main organs (including heart, liver, spleen, lung, kidney, and brain) of all mice injected with different surface-functionalized QDs. Low concentration exposure of three QDs hardly caused obvious toxicity, while high concentration exposure of the three QDs could cause some changes in hematological parameters or biochemical parameters related to liver function or cardiac function. More attention needs to be paid on cQDs as high-dose exposure of cQDs induced death, acute inflammatory reaction and slight changes in liver function in mice.Conclusion: The surface modification and exposure dose can influence the biological behavior and in vivo toxicity of QDs. The surface chemistry should be fully considered in the design of InP-based QDs for their biomedical applications.

Keywords: InP/ZnS quantum dots, surface chemistry, in vivo, biodistribution, nanotoxicology

This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License.By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

View original post here:
In vivo Comparison of the Biodistribution and Toxicity of InP/ZnS Quan | IJN - Dove Medical Press

Phase 2 Remyelination Trial Yields ‘Intriguing’ Interim Results – Medscape

Posted on March 2, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

WEST PALM BEACH, FL Among patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) and visual impairment who received a potential remyelinating treatment or placebo for as long as 36 weeks, median low-contrast letter acuity improved in the population overall, according to an interim, blinded analysis.

Exploratory outcome measures of cognition, gait, and upper extremity function also improved.

The results do not mean that the treatment works. "We know that placebo works. I'm not here to tell you that the drug works. I'm just here to tell you that we have intriguing data," said Robert Glanzman, MD, chief medical officer of Clene Nanomedicine, the developer of the drug.

The patients in the interim analysis represent about 25% of the target study population of 150 patients, Glanzman said. The phase 2, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, VISIONARY-MS, is assessing the efficacy and safety of CNM-Au8, a suspension of clean-surfaced gold nanocrystals that may support intracellular biologic processes. Patients are randomly assigned to receive low-dose CNM-Au8, high-dose CNM-Au8, or placebo taken orally once daily.

Neuroprotective or remyelinating agents are an unmet need in MS, Glanzman said. VISIONARY-MS has enrolled patients at centers in Australia and recently expanded the trial sites in North America. He presented the interim data during a joint symposium of the North American Imaging in MS Cooperative and the International Multiple Sclerosis Visual System Consortium at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

VISIONARY-MS is enrolling participants with chronic optic neuropathy, defined as visual impairment with no episodes of acute optic neuritis within the 6 months prior to enrollment, and nonactive disease, defined as no MS relapses within the prior 3 months. Patients may take concomitant immunomodulatory disease-modifying MS therapies during the trial.

The primary endpoint is improvement in low-contrast letter acuity (LCLA) from baseline to week 24. Secondary endpoints are change in amplitude and latency of multifocal visual evoked potential. Other functional measures are exploratory endpoints. Participants remain in the trial through week 48 or until the last participant completes week 24.

Among the first 34 enrolled participants, median LCLA improved by about five letters, Glanzman said.

Patients also had median improvement on other subscales of the modified Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) that assess cognition (Symbol Digit Modalities Test), upper extremity function (9-Hole Peg Test), and gait (Timed 25-foot Walk).

CNM-Au8 has been well tolerated, and no serious adverse events related to the study drug have been reported. The most frequent adverse events include headache, upper respiratory infection, and sore throat. Full unblinded results are anticipated in 2021.

About 60% of patients in the interim analysis were female, and the mean Expanded Disability Status Scale score was less than 2, Glanzman said.

"These data add to the growing body of clinical evidence demonstrating that CNM-Au8, a suspension of catalytic, clean-surfaced, faceted gold nanocrystals, has the unique ability to improve remyelination and provide axonal neuroprotection," Glanzman said in a news release. "The consistent median improvements observed across the MSFC functional domains in the population of participants in VISIONARY-MS are exciting."

At previous meetings, research has described data from studies that have provided evidence of efficacy in animal models of MS. An overview of the preclinical studies "Nanocatalytic activity of clean-surfaced, faceted nanocrystalline gold enhances remyelination in animal models of multiple sclerosis" was published recently in Scientific Reports. Preclinical studies in animal models of diseases other than MS also have shown evidence of neuroprotection, Glanzman said.

"We are studying the visual system in order to interrogate the nervous system as a whole," he said. "The visual system is by far the most sensitive to change." The design of VISIONARY-MS was informed by a trial of clemastine fumarate as a potential remyelinating agent in patients with chronic optic neuropathy, Glanzman added.

Glanzman is an employee of Clene Nanomedicine, and receives salary and stock options.

Source: 5th annual Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) Forum 2020. Abstract.

This story originally appeared on MDedge.com.

Read the original:
Phase 2 Remyelination Trial Yields 'Intriguing' Interim Results - Medscape

Global Nanowires Market 2020 is Anticipated to Reach US$ XX% by 2023 – The KPM News

Posted on March 5, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

Nanowires Market(2020 2023) report provides the newest industry data and industry future trends, allowing you to identify the products and end users driving Revenue growth and profitability. The Nanowires market report lists the leading competitors and provides the insights strategic industry Analysis of the key factors influencing the market.

Nanowires Marketreport is anticipated to register aCAGR ofXX%over a five years forecast period (2020 2023).

Get a Sample PDF of Report @https://www.360marketupdates.com/enquiry/request-sample/12884845

List of Major Key playersoperating in the Global Nanowires Market are

The global nanowires market is expected to grow at a significant rate during the forecast period (2020 2023), majorly driven by the emerging applications of nanowires in LEDs, nano-medicines, and consumer electronics. Nanowires are the building blocks for the next generation of consumer electronics, photonics, sensors (both biological and chemical), and renewable energy applications.

Emerging Applications of Nanowires in LEDs, Nano-medicines, and Consumer Electronics Drive the Market

Nanowires, due to properties, such as, high crystallinity, high surface to volume to ratio, and high resistance, nanowires are increasingly being used in nanomedicines, biomedicine, consumer electronics, bioelectronics, etc. Their use has helped to propel the field of nanomedicine. Nanomedicine is defined as the application of nanotechnology for diagnosis, monitoring, drug delivery, treatment, and control of biological systems. In the United States, the Food & Drug Administrator (FDA) approved over 100 nanodrugs for use in medicinal trials and clinical treatment. Also, nanowires are now increasingly being used in LEDs. They allows for faster communication between devices and microchips. These emerging applications of nanowires in LEDs, consumer electronics, and nano medicines are expected to contribute to the growth of the global nanowires market during the forecast period.

Metal Nanowires to Dominate the Market

Metals have unique thermal, mechanical, electrical, and catalytic properties. On the other hand, metallic nanowires are promising materials for a variety of applications, such as, transparent conductive films for photovoltaic devices, electrodes for batteries, and nano-reinforcement for composite materials. Electronics is one of the major end-user applications of nanowires. They are used in transistors as they are very good conductors or semiconductors. They are also expected to play a significant role in quantum computers in the near future. Moreover, new applications of metal nanowires are also being developed in the field of energy.

China dominates the nanowires Market

China is expected to be the largest market for nanowires, as the country has been engaging in R&D activities for the development of nanotechnology. Nanomaterial regulations in China have helped develop advanced nanomaterial, for the development of environment-friendly products, which are expected to reduce exhaust emissions. The country has a higher usage of nanowires in applications, such as, electrical & electronics, construction, healthcare, and aerospace. In China, about 2,570 jets are used commercially. It is one of the fastest growing aviation industries with a consistent increase in passenger traffic at about 6.6% per year. These advanced technological developments in numerous applications are expected to boost the growth of the nanowires market, during the forecast period.

Share your query before purchasing this report @https://www.360marketupdates.com/enquiry/pre-order-enquiry/12884845

Scope of the Report:

The report analyses Nanowires market, which includes

Highlighted points of Nanowires Market Report:

Purchase this report (Price 4250 USD for a single-user license)@https://www.360marketupdates.com/purchase/12884845

Reasons to Purchase Nanowires Market Report:

In this study, the years considered to estimate the market size of Nanowires:

History Year: 2013-2017Base Year: 2017Estimated Year: 2020Forecast Year 2020 to 2023

Look into Table of Content of Nanowires Market Report @https://www.360marketupdates.com/TOC/12884845#TOC

Contact Info:

360 Market Updates

Mr. Ajay More

USA: +1 424 253 0807

UK: +44 203 239 8187

[emailprotected]

Tags:-Nanowires, Nanowires Market, Nanowires Europe Market, Nanowires APAC Market, Nanowires Market By Application, Nanowires Market By Rising Trends, Nanowires Market Development, Nanowires Market Forecast, Nanowires Market Future, Nanowires Market Growth, Nanowires Market In Key Countries, Nanowires Market Latest Report, Nanowires Market Swot Analysis, Nanowires Market Top Manufacturers, Nanowires Sales Market, Nanowires United States Market, Nanowires Market share, Nanowires Market Size, Nanowires market Trends, Nanowires Market 2020, Nanowires market 2019

OUR OTHER REPORTS:-

Global Barcode Label Printer Market 2020 Industry Price Trend, Size Estimation, Industry Outlook, Business Growth, Report Latest Research, Business Analysis and Forecast 2024 Analysis Research | 360 Market Updates

Release Liners Market 2020 by Top Countries Data: Industry Analysis by Regions, Revenue, Share, Development, Tendencies and Forecast to 2024 360 Market Updates

Medical Tourism Market 2020: Emerging Technologies, Sales Revenue, Key Players Analysis, Development Status, Opportunity Assessment and Industry Expansion Strategies 2024 | 360 Market Updates

Power Sunroof Market 2020: New Project SWOT Analysis, Market Size, Investment Feasibility Analysis, Future Forecast 2024 360 Market Updates

Pharmaceutical Autoclaves Market 2020 to 2024 Production and Market Share by Type and Top Companies 360 Market Updates

Disposable Laparoscopic Trocar Market Report 2020: Market Analysis by Raw Materials Sources, Major Manufacturers, Export and Import by Regions 360 Market Updates

Barcode Label Printer Market: Global Industry Research, Size, Share, Growth, Trends, and Forecast, 20202024 360 Market Updates

Here’s how nanoparticles could help us get closer to a treatment for COVID-19 – News@Northeastern

Posted on March 5, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

There is no vaccine or specific treatment for COVID-19, the disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, or SARS-CoV-2.

Since the outbreak began in late 2019, researchers have been racing to learn more about SARS-CoV-2, which is a strain from a family of viruses known as coronavirus for their crown-like shape.

Northeastern chemical engineer Thomas Webster, who specializes in developing nano-scale medicine and technology to treat diseases, is part of a contingency of scientists that are contributing ideas and technology to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to fight the COVID-19 outbreak.

Professor and chair of the Department of Chemical Engineering Tom Webster. Photo by Adam Glanzman/Northeastern University

The idea of using nanoparticles, Webster says, is that the virus behind COVID-19 consists of a structure of a similar scale as his nanoparticles. At that scale, matter is ultra-small, about ten thousand times smaller than the width of a single strand of hair.

Webster is proposing particles of similar sizes that could attach to SARS-CoV-2 viruses, disrupting their structure with a combination of infrared light treatment. That structural change would then halt the ability of the virus to survive and reproduce in the body.

You have to think in this size range, says Webster, Art Zafiropoulo Chair of chemical engineering at Northeastern. In the nanoscale size range, if you want to detect viruses, if you want to deactivate them.

Finding and neutralizing viruses with nanomedicine is at the core of what Webster and other researchers call theranostics, which focuses on combining therapy and diagnosis. Using that approach, his lab has specialized in nanoparticles to fight the microbes that cause influenza and tuberculosis.

Its not just having one approach to detect whether you have a virus and another approach to use it as a therapy, he says, but having the same particle, the same approach, for both your detection and therapy.

SARS-CoV-2 spreads mostly through tiny droplets of viral particlesfrom breathing, talking, sneezing, coughingthat enter the body through the eyes, mouth, or nose. Preliminary research also suggests that those germs may survive for days when they attach themselves to countertops, handrails, and other hard surfaces.

Thats one reason to make theranostics with nanoparticles the focus of the COVID-19 outbreak, Webster says.

Nanoparticles can disable these pathogens even before they break into the body, as they hold on to different objects and surfaces. His lab has developed materials that can be sprayed on objects to form nanoparticles and attack viruses.

Even if it was on a surface, on someones countertop, or an iPhone, he says. It doesnt mean anything because its not the active form of that virus.

That same technology can be fine-tuned and tweaked to target a wide range of viruses, bacteria, and other pathogens. Unlike other novel drugs with large molecular structures, nanoparticles are so small that they can move through our body without disrupting other functions, such as those of the immune system.

Almost like a surveyor, they can go around your bloodstream, Webster says. They can survey your body much easier and under much longer times and try and detect viruses.

To do all that, the CDC needs to know the specifics about what kind of structure is needed to neutralize SARS-CoV-2, Webster says. That information isnt public yet.

You have to identify what we need to put in our nanoparticle to attract it to that virus, he says. The CDC must know that, because theyve developed a kit that can determine if you have [COVID-19], versus influenza, or something else.

An alternative to nanomedicine is producing synthetic molecules. But Webster says that tactic presents some challenges. In the case of chemotherapies used to treat cancer cells, such synthetic drugs can cause severe side effects that kill cancer cells, as well as other cells in the body.

The same thing could be happening with synthetic chemistry to treat a virus, where molecules are killing a lot more than just that virus, Webster says.

Still, Webster acknowledges that there arent many researchers focusing on nanoparticles to kill viruses.

One of the main reasons for the lack of those solutions is that the same benefits that make nanoparticles ideal to fight infectious diseases also make them a concern for the U.S. Federal Drug Administration.

Because of their size, nanoparticles are pervasive (too pervasive, maybe) to seep through other parts of the body. To reduce that risk, Websters lab has focused on using iron oxide. Particles of that make up entail chemistry that is already natural to our bodies and diets.

Even if you have a viral infection, you need more iron, because you could be anemic depending on how bad the infection is, Webster says. Were actually developing these nanoparticles out of chemistries that can help your health.

And, he says, iron-based nanoparticles could be directed with magnetic fields to target specific organs in the body, such as lungs and other areas susceptible to respiratory complications after contracting viral infections. That too, Webster says, is something that you couldnt do with a novel synthetic molecule.

Really, what this all means is that we just have to do the studies to show those iron nanoparticles are not going into the brain or the kidney, Webster says, that these nanoparticles are going exactly where you want them to go to the virus.

For media inquiries, please contact Shannon Nargi at s.nargi@northeastern.edu or 617-373-5718.

Go here to read the rest:
Here's how nanoparticles could help us get closer to a treatment for COVID-19 - News@Northeastern

MS News that Caught My Eye Last Week: Remyelination Research in… – Multiple Sclerosis News Today

Posted on March 2, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

In this column, Ill be highlighting some of the research presented at this years Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) Forum, held last week in West Palm Beach, Florida.

Youll need to read to the end of this news story to get to the most interesting information. The researchers data indicate that human glial progenitor cells can be transplanted into areas of the central nervous systems of mice where myelin has been damaged, to remyelinate them. Its worth a long read to see how the researchers support their conclusions.

Transplanting humanglial progenitor cells (GPCs) brain cells able to generate myelin-producing cells effectively led to remyelination in the brains of adult mice with myelin disorders, a study found.

These results were presented atthe Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) Forum 2020, running Feb 2729 in Florida,by John Mariani, PhD, with the University of Rochester.

His presentation was titled Human Glial Progenitor Cells Effectively Remyelinate The Demyelinated Adult Brain.

Click here to read the full story.

***

Heres another early study about myelin. This one involves an agent thats designed to increase energy reserves within neurons and myelin-producing cells, or oligodendrocytes, while decreasing toxic metabolic byproducts. Its expected that the process will improve the survival and function of those neurons and support the ability of oligodendrocytes to create new myelin.

Clene Nanomedicine shared early results of the VISIONARY-MS trial, suggesting that CNM-Au8 an investigational remyelinating therapy leads to notable trends in better vision, as well as benefits in mobility and manual function in relapsing multiple sclerosis(MS) patientswith chronic vision problems.

These findings were presented during the Joint NAIMS-IMSVISUAL Symposium at Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) Forum 2020, running Feb. 2729 in Florida, by Robert Glanzman, MD, Clenes chief medical officer.

Preclinical tests in mice demonstrated that CNM-Au8 stimulatesthe production of new myelin, and increases the number of myelin-wrapped nerve fibers in the brain and spinal cord, allowing animals to recover motor skills.

Click here to read the full story.

***

Id expect that worsening neurological function would result in depression, but Im surprised to read that it may also be the other way around that depression may cause neurological function to decline. These researchers found that individuals who began their study being depressed had a 20 percent or greater chance than others of having one or more of their neurological performance scores worsen a year later.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with depression are more likely to have worsening neurological function compared with those who do not have the mood disorder, results from a real-world study show.

The findings were presented Feb. 27 by Jenny Feng, MD, in an oral presentation titled Depression In MS Is Associated With Worsening Neuroperformance, Relapses, And New Brain Lesions at the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) Forum 2020, taking place Feb. 27-29 in West Palm Beach, Florida.

Click here to read the full story.

***

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is expected to decide by June whether to approve the disease-modifying therapy ofatumumab, while the European Medicines Agencys decision is expected sometime in 2021. Ofatumumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to the CD20 marker on certain B-cells, depleting those cells a process similar to the way Ocrevus (ocrelizumab) works.

Both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) will review Novartis applications seeking regulatory approval of ofatumumab, aninvestigational B-cell therapy for the treatment of relapsing forms ofmultiple sclerosis(MS) in adults.

Novartis applications for ofatumumab which has the potential to become a first-choice treatment for relapsing MS patients, easily self-administered using an autoinjector pen were accepted by both the U.S. and EU regulatory agencies.

Click here to read the full story.

***

Note: Multiple Sclerosis News Today is strictly a news and information website about the disease. It does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. This content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website. The opinions expressed in this column are not those of Multiple Sclerosis News Today or its parent company, BioNews Services, and are intended to spark discussion about issues pertaining to multiple sclerosis.

Ed Tobias is a retired broadcast journalist. Most of his 40+ year career was spent as a manager with the Associated Press in Washington, DC. Tobias was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis in 1980 but he continued to work, full-time, meeting interesting people and traveling to interesting places, until retiring at the end of 2012.

Excerpt from:
MS News that Caught My Eye Last Week: Remyelination Research in... - Multiple Sclerosis News Today

Nanomedicine Market 2020: by Top Manufactures, Production, Consumption, Trade Statistics, Growth Analysis, Industry Share and Forecast to 2026 – Daily…

Posted on March 2, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

Nanomedicine Market Global Industry Report 2020 offer target audience with the fresh outlook on market and fill in the knowledge gaps with the help of processed information and opinions from industry experts. The information in the research report is well-processed and a report is accumulated by industry professionals and seasoned experts in the field to ensure of the quality of research.

Get a Sample Copy of this Report at https://www.orianresearch.com/request-sample/1035385

Development policies and plans are discussed as well as growth rate, manufacturing processes, economic growth are analyzed. This research report also states import/export data, industry supply and consumption figures as well as cost structure, price, industry revenue (Million USD) and gross margin by regions.

Nanomedicine Market Important Factors:

Global Nanomedicine Market: Regional Analysis:

The report offers in-depth assessment of the growth and other aspects of the Nanomedicine market in important regions, including the U.S., Canada, Germany, France, U.K., Italy, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Southeast Asia, Mexico, and Brazil, etc. Key regions covered in the report are North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific and Latin America.

For competitor segment, the report includes global key players of Nanomedicine Market as well as some small players. The information for each competitor includes:

Global Nanomedicine Market: Competitive Landscape

This section of the report identifies various key manufacturers of the market. It helps the reader understand the strategies and collaborations that players are focusing on combat competition in the market. The comprehensive report provides a significant microscopic look at the market. The reader can identify the footprints of the manufacturers by knowing about the global revenue of manufacturers, the global price of manufacturers, and production by manufacturers during the forecast period 2020-2026

Inquire more or share questions if any before the purchase on this report @ https://www.orianresearch.com/enquiry-before-buying/1035385

Market segment by Type, the product can be split into

Market segment by Application, split into

A thorough evaluation of the restrains included in the report portrays the contrast to drivers and gives room for strategic planning. Factors that overshadow the Nanomedicine market growth are pivotal as they can be understood to devise different bends for getting hold of the lucrative opportunities that are present in the ever-growing market. Additionally, insights into market experts opinions have been taken to understand the Nanomedicine market better.

The report has been curated after observing and studying various factors that determine regional growth such as economic, environmental, social, technological, and political status of the particular region. Analysts have studied the data of revenue, production, and manufacturers of each region. This section analyses region-wise revenue and volume for the forecast period of 2015 to 2026. These analyses will help the reader to understand the potential worth of investment in a particular region.

Get Full Copy of This Report @ https://www.orianresearch.com/checkout/1035385

In this study, the years considered to estimate the market size of Nanomedicine are as follows:

History Year: 2015-2019

Base Year: 2019

Estimated Year: 2020

Forecast Year 2020 to 2026

Table of Contents Nanomedicine Market Research Report is:

1 Nanomedicine Market Report Overview

2 Global Nanomedicine Market Growth Trends

3 Nanomedicine Market Share by Key Players

4 Nanomedicine Market Breakdown Data by Type and Application

5 United States

6 Europe

7 China

8 Japan

9 Southeast Asia

10 India

11 Central & South America

12 International Players Profiles

13 Nanomedicine Market Forecast 2020-2026

14 Analysts Viewpoints/Conclusions

15 Appendix

Note: If you have any special requirements, please let us know and we will offer you the report as you want.

About Us

Orian Research is one of the most comprehensive collections of market intelligence reports on the World Wide Web. Our reports repository boasts of over 500000+ industry and country research reports from over 100 top publishers. We continuously update our repository so as to provide our clients easy access to the worlds most complete and current database of expert insights on global industries, companies, and products. We also specialize in custom research in situations where our syndicate research offerings do not meet the specific requirements of our esteemed clients.

Ruwin Mendez

Vice President Global Sales & Partner Relations

Orian Research Consultants

US: +1 (415) 830-3727 | UK: +44 020 8144-71-27

Email: [emailprotected]

Read the rest here:
Nanomedicine Market 2020: by Top Manufactures, Production, Consumption, Trade Statistics, Growth Analysis, Industry Share and Forecast to 2026 - Daily...

Nanomedicine Biology Summative – Video

Posted on May 2, 2015 by Prof Baldwin

Nanomedicine Biology Summative

By: Marshaye Francis

Read the rest here:
Nanomedicine Biology Summative - Video

3D printing and nanomedicine combined to combat HIV – TheRecord.com

Posted on February 10, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

WATERLOO A University of Waterloo researcher is combining 3D printing and his expertise in nanomedicine to create a novel way to protect women from getting HIV.

Emmanuel Ho, an associate professor in UW's School of Pharmacy, is developing an intra-vaginal ring that would provide precise doses of medication that could stop HIV infection at the site of transmission.

"This will empower women to protect themselves," Ho said.

The ring is made of medical-grade plastic with hollow tubing and tiny pores. Medicine loaded into the ring, which is placed in the vagina, is slowly released and absorbed by the body.

Ho is testing a combination of anti-HIV and anti-inflammatory drugs. Inflammation in the vagina increases the risk of acquiring HIV because inflammation draws the immune cells that are infected by the virus.

"If a woman has high levels of inflammation in the genital tract, then the probability of HIV infection is much higher," said Ho's collaborator Keith Fowke, professor and head of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the University of Manitoba.

Releasing anti-inflammation medication directly could reduce the risk, and then the anti-HIV medication could combat the virus if a woman is infected.

"It's kind of like a two-pronged approach," Ho said.

Intra-vaginal rings with a similar shape and design, such as NuvaRing, have been approved for birth control and hormone replacement therapy.

However, Ho said a 3D printed model allows for more precise design and drug delivery. It's also cheaper and avoids the waste from traditional manufacturing where melted polymers are poured into a mould.

Ho's ring could be used for a variety of medications, including hormonal contraceptives. Delivering it to the site would reduce the amount of medication needed, which would mean fewer side-effects.

Condoms and anti-HIV treatment are available to prevent HIV infection. But social and cultural factors can impede condom use, no to mention availability in developing countries, and oral medications need to be taken daily.

The ring would offer a discrete, effective and convenient approach.

"This would be a new option," Ho said.

The research recently got a grant from the Canadian government to move onto animal testing with the University of Manitoba and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States, bringing it one step closer to reality from concept.

Globally, infection rates are on the rise for HIV the virus that causes AIDS and kills one million people globally each year, according to UNAIDS.

"There's a definite need," Ho said.

jweidner@therecord.com

Twitter: @WeidnerRecord

jweidner@therecord.com

Twitter: @WeidnerRecord

Read more from the original source:
3D printing and nanomedicine combined to combat HIV - TheRecord.com

#2 Cutting Edge of Science, Homeopathy & Nanomedicine – Video

Posted on October 9, 2014 by Prof Baldwin

#2 Cutting Edge of Science, Homeopathy Nanomedicine
Part 2: A presentation at San Francisco #39;s prestigious Commonwealth Club (September 17, 2014). The body of evidence for homeopathy and nanopharmacology is so much larger than most people ...

By: Dana Ullman

More here:
#2 Cutting Edge of Science, Homeopathy & Nanomedicine - Video

The Nanomedicine Toolkit – Video

Posted on February 8, 2015 by Prof Baldwin

The Nanomedicine Toolkit
https://store.theartofservice.com/the-nanomedicine-toolkit.html This innovative set of documents and ready-to-use templates will provide you with a head star...

By: TheArtofService

Excerpt from:
The Nanomedicine Toolkit - Video

Meticulous Report on Nanomedicine Market 2021-2027 | GE Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson, Mallinckrodt plc, Merck & Co. Inc., Nanosphere Inc.,…

Posted on January 4, 2021 by Prof Baldwin

To provide the global outlook of the Nanomedicine Market a new statistical study has added by HealthCare Intelligence Markets to its massive database. During the analysis of this market the existing industries, as well as upcoming start-ups, have been considered. It helps to make informed decisions in the businesses. Well explained Porters five analysis and SWOT analysis have been used by a researcher of the report. The research report is comprised market trends and holistic business information that can pinpoint market pinpoint analysis along with revenue, growth, and profit over a predictable period. This provides a complete analysis of driver, paper and market opportunities.

Ask for sample copy of this [emailprotected]https://www.healthcareintelligencemarkets.com/request_sample.php?id=24150

Profiling Key players: GE Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson, Mallinckrodt plc, Merck & Co. Inc., Nanosphere Inc., Pfizer Inc., Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals Inc., Smith & Nephew PLC, Stryker Corp, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

It relates to new Nanomedicine Market competitors and recognized players. This report includes the Nanomedicine Market situation and forecasts of global and key regions, with the introduction of vendors, regions, product types and end enterprises and this report calculates product types and final industry in the world and major regions.

This market report includes analysts, managers, Nanomedicine Market industry experts, and access research that is designed to help key people view graphs and tables, as well as data that records the resources needed to conduct their own analysis. This report, which deals with information integration and research potential with results, predicted a strong rise in this market in the product section and in all regions.

Ask for a discount on this [emailprotected]https://www.healthcareintelligencemarkets.com/ask_for_discount.php?id=24150

Highlights of the Report:

Lastly, this report provides market intelligence in the most comprehensive way. The report structure has been kept such that it offers maximum business value. It provides critical insights on the market dynamics and will enable strategic decision making for the existing market players as well as those willing to enter the market.

For more information ask our experts @https://www.healthcareintelligencemarkets.com/enquiry_before_buying.php?id=24150

If you have any special requirements, please let us know and we will offer you the report as per your requirements.

About Us:

HealthCare Intelligence Markets Reports provides market intelligence & consulting services to a global clientele spread over 145 countries. Being a B2B firm, we help businesses to meet the challenges of an ever-evolving market with unbridled confidence. We craft customized and syndicated market research reports that help market players to build game-changing strategies. Besides, we also provide upcoming trends & future market prospects in our reports pertaining to Drug development, Clinical & healthcare IT industries. Our intelligence enables our clients to make decisions with which in turn proves a game-changer for them. We constantly strive to serve our clients better by directly allowing them sessions with our research analysts so the report is at par with their expectations.

Contact Us:Address: 90, State Office Center,90, State Street Suite 700,Albany, NY 12207Email:[emailprotected]Website:www.healthcareintelligencemarkets.comPhone:+1 (888) 616-2766

https://farmingsector.co.uk/

See the original post:
Meticulous Report on Nanomedicine Market 2021-2027 | GE Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson, Mallinckrodt plc, Merck & Co. Inc., Nanosphere Inc.,...