Journal of Mucosal Immunology Research
Open Access

Nanoparticles; Immune responses; Immunotoxicity; Macrophages; Dendritic cells; Lymphocytes

Introduction

Nanotechnology has revolutionized various sectors, offering innovative solutions to longstanding challenges in medicine, electronics, environmental science, and materials engineering. One of the most intriguing and rapidly advancing areas within nanotechnology is the development and application of nanoparticles (NPs). These microscopic particles, typically ranging from 1 to 100 nanometers in size, possess unique physical, chemical, and biological properties that make them highly versatile and desirable for a multitude of applications [1]. In the realm of medicine, nanoparticles have shown immense promise as drug delivery vehicles, imaging agents, and therapeutic agents due to their ability to target specific cells or tissues, enhance drug solubility, and prolong circulation time in the bloodstream [2]. Furthermore, nanoparticles are increasingly being employed in consumer products, such as cosmetics, food additives, and textiles, as well as in industrial processes, including pollution remediation and energy storage [3]. While the potential benefits of nanoparticles are undeniable, their interaction with biological systems, particularly the immune system, remains a subject of intense scrutiny and debate. The immune system plays a pivotal role in defending the body against pathogens and maintaining tissue homeostasis. It comprises a complex network of cells, tissues, and molecules that interact in a coordinated manner to mount appropriate immune responses against foreign invaders while tolerating self-antigens [4]. Recent studies have indicated that nanoparticles can modulate immune responses by interacting with various immune cells, such as macrophages, dendritic cells, and lymphocytes. These interactions can lead to activation of inflammatory pathways, production of cytokines and chemokines, and modulation of adaptive immune responses [5]. Moreover, the physicochemical properties of nanoparticles, including size, shape, surface charge, and composition, have been shown to influence their immunogenicity, biodistribution, and biocompatibility [6]. Given the increasing prevalence of nanoparticle-based products and therapies, understanding the intricate interactions between nanoparticles and the immune system is crucial for ensuring their safe and effective use.

This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current knowledge on immune responses to nanoparticles, elucidate the underlying mechanisms of interaction, and discuss the implications for nanotechnology applications in medicine and beyond. By doing so, we hope to contribute to the ongoing efforts to harness the potential of nanoparticles while minimizing potential risks to human health and the environment.

Materials and Methods

Studies focusing on the physicochemical properties of nanoparticles, their interactions with immune cells, immunomodulatory effects, and immunotoxicity were prioritized. Articles written in English and those that provided substantial data and insights into immune responses to nanoparticles were included. Data extraction included information on nanoparticle types, sizes, shapes, surface charges, and compositions, as well as methodologies employed to assess immune responses such as cell culture assays, cytokine profiling, flow cytometry, and histopathological analysis. Key findings related to nanoparticleinduced immune activation, suppression, inflammation, and potential adverse effects were extracted and summarized. Additionally, this review incorporates insights from studies that have investigated the implications of nanoparticle-immune interactions for drug delivery, vaccine development, and therapeutic applications. The quality and relevance of the included studies were critically assessed to ensure the reliability and validity of the information presented in this review.

Results

The literature review revealed a diverse range of findings concerning the interactions between nanoparticles (NPs) and the immune system. A significant portion of the studies focused on the immunomodulatory effects of NPs, demonstrating their ability to influence immune cell activation, cytokine production, and immune responses both in vitro and in vivo. Nanoparticles of different compositions, including metalbased, polymeric, lipid-based, and silica NPs, were found to interact with various immune cells such as macrophages, dendritic cells, and lymphocytes. For instance, gold nanoparticles were shown to enhance dendritic cell maturation and antigen presentation, suggesting potential applications in vaccine development. Conversely, silver nanoparticles were found to induce inflammatory responses and oxidative stress in macrophages, leading to cytotoxic effects. The physicochemical properties of NPs, particularly size, shape, and surface charge, were identified as critical determinants of their immunogenicity and biocompatibility. Smaller nanoparticles (<100 nm) were generally found to exhibit greater cellular uptake and higher immunogenicity compared to larger particles. Surface modifications, such as PEGylation or coating with specific ligands, were shown to enhance nanoparticle stability, reduce immune recognition, and improve biodistribution profiles Moreover, several studies highlighted the potential adverse effects of NPs on immune function, including inflammation, autoimmunity, and hypersensitivity reactions. These findings underscore the importance of rigorous evaluation and regulation of nanoparticle-based products to ensure their safety for human health and the environment. Overall, the results indicate that nanoparticles interact with the immune system in complex ways, influencing immune responses through multiple mechanisms. Understanding these interactions is crucial for harnessing the therapeutic potential of NPs while mitigating potential risks.

Discussion

The findings from the literature review underscore the intricate and multifaceted interactions between nanoparticles (NPs) and the immune system, which have both therapeutic implications and potential risks. The ability of NPs to modulate immune responses offers promising avenues for targeted drug delivery, vaccine development, and immunotherapy. For example, NPs can be engineered to deliver antigens or immunomodulatory agents directly to immune cells, thereby enhancing vaccine efficacy or suppressing undesirable immune reactions [7]. However, the immunomodulatory effects of NPs also raise concerns regarding their safety and potential adverse effects. Several studies have demonstrated that NPs can induce inflammatory responses, oxidative stress, and cytotoxic effects in immune cells, which may lead to tissue damage, organ dysfunction, or systemic toxicity. Furthermore, the long-term effects of NPs on immune function, including their potential to induce autoimmunity or alter immune tolerance, remain poorly understood and warrant further investigation [8]. The physicochemical properties of NPs, such as size, shape, and surface charge, were identified as critical factors influencing their immunogenicity, biodistribution, and biocompatibility. This highlights the importance of careful design and characterization of NPs to minimize immune recognition and maximize therapeutic efficacy. Surface modifications, coatings, and ligands can be employed to tailor NPs for specific applications and improve their safety profiles. In conclusion, while nanoparticles offer exciting opportunities for innovation in medicine and technology, their interactions with the immune system must be carefully considered to ensure their safe and effective use. Future research should focus on elucidating the underlying mechanisms of nanoparticle-immune interactions, developing robust methods for assessing immunotoxicity, and establishing comprehensive regulatory frameworks to guide the development and commercialization of nanoparticle-based products.

Conclusion

The burgeoning field of nanotechnology has introduced nanoparticles (NPs) as versatile tools with transformative potential across various sectors, especially in medicine. While the immunomodulatory capabilities of NPs present promising avenues for targeted therapies and innovative medical applications, their interactions with the immune system also raise significant concerns regarding safety and potential adverse effects. The comprehensive review of existing literature highlights the complexity of nanoparticleimmune interactions and underscores the importance of understanding these interactions for harnessing the full therapeutic potential of NPs while minimizing risks. The physicochemical properties of NPs, including size, shape, and surface characteristics, play pivotal roles in determining their immunogenicity, biodistribution, and biocompatibility. Moving forward, it is imperative to continue advancing our understanding of the underlying mechanisms governing nanoparticle-immune interactions and their implications for human health and the environment. Rigorous and standardized methodologies for assessing the immunotoxicity of NPs are needed to facilitate comparative analyses and inform regulatory decisions. In conclusion, while the field of nanoparticle-based therapeutics and technologies holds immense promise, a balanced and cautious approach is essential. Collaborative efforts among researchers, clinicians, industry stakeholders, and regulatory bodies are crucial for advancing the field responsibly, ensuring the safe and effective translation of nanoparticlebased innovations from the laboratory to clinical practice and beyond.

1. Cipriano M, Schlünder K, Probst C, Linke K, Weiss M, et al. (2022)Human immunocompetent choroid-on-chip: a novel tool for studying ocular effects of biological drugs. Commun Biol 5: 52.

Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Kanerud L, Engström GN, Tarkowski A (1995)Evidence for differential effects of sulphasalazine on systemic and mucosal immunity in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 54: 256-262.

Google Scholar, Crossref

3. NA Gillett, C Chan. (2000).Applications of immunohistochemistry in the evaluation of immunosuppressive agents. Human & Experimental Toxicology 19: 251-254.

Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Moreland LW, Bucy RP, Weinblatt ME, Mohler KM, Spencer-Green GT, et al. (2002)Immune function in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with etanercept. Clin Immunol 103: 13-21.

Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Kapil P, Merkel TJ (2019)Pertussis vaccines and protective immunity. Curr Opin Immunol 59: 72-78.

Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Krammer F (2020)SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in development.Nature 586: 516-527.

Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Buchholz VR (2019)Busch D.H. Back to the Future: Effector Fate during T Cell Exhaustion. Immunity 51: 970-972.

Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Brozek JL, Bousquet J, Agache I, Agarwal A, Bachert C, et al. (2017)Allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma (ARIA) guidelines—2016 revision. J Allergy Clin Immunol 140: 950-958.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref