Next Article in Journal
Improving Lurasidone Hydrochloride’s Solubility and Stability by Higher-Order Complex Formation with Hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin
Next Article in Special Issue
One-Step Phytofabrication Method of Silver and Gold Nanoparticles Using Haloxylon salicornicum for Anticancer, Antimicrobial, and Antioxidant Activities
Previous Article in Journal
Curcumin-Based Nanomedicines in the Treatment of Inflammatory and Immunomodulated Diseases: An Evidence-Based Comprehensive Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparing the Variants of Iron Oxide Nanoparticle-Mediated Delivery of miRNA34a for Efficiency in Silencing of PD-L1 Genes in Cancer Cells
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Genetically Encoded Self-Assembling Protein Nanoparticles for the Targeted Delivery In Vitro and In Vivo

by
Anastasiia S. Obozina
1,
Elena N. Komedchikova
1,
Olga A. Kolesnikova
1,
Anna M. Iureva
1,
Vera L. Kovalenko
1,
Fedor A. Zavalko
1,
Tatiana V. Rozhnikova
1,
Ekaterina D. Tereshina
1,
Elizaveta N. Mochalova
1,2 and
Victoria O. Shipunova
1,2,*
1
Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, 141701 Dolgoprudny, Russia
2
Nanobiomedicine Division, Sirius University of Science and Technology, 354340 Sochi, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pharmaceutics 2023, 15(1), 231; https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics15010231
Submission received: 25 November 2022 / Revised: 30 December 2022 / Accepted: 5 January 2023 / Published: 10 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Novel Metal-Based Drugs for Anticancer and Antiviral Applications)

Abstract

:
Targeted nanoparticles of different origins are considered as new-generation diagnostic and therapeutic tools. However, there are no targeted drug formulations within the composition of nanoparticles approved by the FDA for use in the clinic, which is associated with the insufficient effectiveness of the developed candidates, the difficulties of their biotechnological production, and inadequate batch-to-batch reproducibility. Targeted protein self-assembling nanoparticles circumvent this problem since proteins are encoded in DNA and the final protein product is produced in only one possible way. We believe that the combination of the endless biomedical potential of protein carriers as nanoparticles and the standardized protein purification protocols will make significant progress in “magic bullet” creation possible, bringing modern biomedicine to a new level. In this review, we are focused on the currently existing platforms for targeted self-assembling protein nanoparticles based on transferrin, lactoferrin, casein, lumazine synthase, albumin, ferritin, and encapsulin proteins, as well as on proteins from magnetosomes and virus-like particles. The applications of these self-assembling proteins for targeted delivery in vitro and in vivo are thoroughly discussed, including bioimaging applications and different therapeutic approaches, such as chemotherapy, gene delivery, and photodynamic and photothermal therapy. A critical assessment of these protein platforms’ efficacy in biomedicine is provided and possible problems associated with their further development are described.

1. Introduction

Nanoparticles of different origins, possessing unique intrinsic properties, open up endless possibilities in the diagnosis and treatment of socially significant diseases [1,2,3]. A large number of nanoparticles of different compositions, including organic (liposomes, exosomes, polymer particles, dendrimers, carbon nanomaterials, polymeric micelles) and inorganic (iron oxide, gold, silver, TiN, quantum dots), have been developed and thoroughly studied [4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. However, only a limited number of drug formulations within the composition of nanoparticles have reached clinical applications. At the same time, more than three hundred protein-based medications have been approved for clinical use [11] (there are more than one hundred medications of therapeutic antibodies only [12,13,14]; a great variety of diagnostic antibodies, including those for COVID-19 diagnostics [15]; therapeutic proteins such as different enzymes [16]; and therapeutic peptides [11]), which indicates that proteins are easier to translate into clinical practice in comparison with nanoparticles. The issues of entering the biomedical market of protein medications, concerning the standardization techniques and batch-to-batch reproducible synthesis methods, are much less pronounced in comparison with solid nanoparticles. The protein sequence is encoded in DNA, which results in the protein being produced in only one possible way. Along with globular proteins, protein-based self-assembling nanoparticles are reproducibly generated in bacterial producers with high yields [17]. To date, many types of protein self-assembling nanoparticles are known and many of them have confirmed their efficacy as targeted drug carriers in vitro and in vivo (Figure 1).
Moreover, using genetic engineering manipulations, such self-assembling protein nanoparticles can be modified with targeted recognizing molecules such as antibodies and their derivatives, namely, antibody mimetics—DARPins or affibodies, as well as various targeted peptides [18,19,20,21]. Such methods make it possible to obtain self-assembled nanoparticles for targeted delivery to cancer cells in order to minimize side effects, reduce administered doses of chemotherapeutic drugs, and minimize systemic toxicity, thus realizing a “magic bullet” concept. Since the “magic bullet” idea was initially formulated by Paul Ehrlich [22,23], a number of approaches have been designed for targeted drug delivery (TDD), and most of them are based on nanoparticle carriers [24]. However, despite the endless number of studies directed toward the development of TDD systems, only a limited number of targeted particle-based candidates have entered clinical trials, with no FDA-approved targeted nanoparticles existing today [25]. Insufficient efficiency and low bath-to-batch biotechnological reproducibility hamper the development of targeted solid nanoparticle-based TDD systems.
We believe that the combination of the huge biomedical potential of protein carriers as nanoparticles and the standardized protocols of protein purification will make significant progress in magic bullet creation possible, bringing modern biomedicine to a new level.
In this review, we are focused on the currently existing platforms for self-assembling protein nanoparticles for creating new-generation nanomedicines based on transferrin, lactoferrin, casein, lumazine synthase, albumin, ferritin, and encapsulin proteins, as well as on proteins from magnetosomes and virus-like particles (Figure 1). The mentioned self-assembling proteins were used for the design of TDD systems for bioimaging purposes and different therapeutic approaches, such as chemotherapy, gene delivery, photodynamic therapy, or photothermal therapy.

2. Protein-Based Targeting Self-Assembling Nanoparticles for Biomedical Applications

2.1. Targeted Ferritin Nanoparticles

Ferritin is a 450 kDa self-assembled spherical protein that has been frequently used for bioimaging and as a platform for targeted drug delivery [26,27,28,29,30]. It was shown that 24 protein subunits assemble into nanoparticles with an outer diameter of 12 nm [31,32,33]. The inner diameter of the ferritin nanoparticle was found to be 8 nm, which allows a significant number of therapeutic molecules to be loaded inside. The most common chemotherapeutic drugs loaded into ferritin nanoparticles are doxorubicin [34,35], paclitaxel [36,37], cisplatin [38,39,40], and curcumin [41,42,43,44,45]. Mammalian ferritin is composed of an H-chain (21 kDa) and an L-chain (19 kDa), which are self-assembled with each other in various proportions into nanoparticles. Currently, ferritins derived from various species are used for targeted drug delivery, for instance, horse spleen ferritin, human ferritin, and ferritin from Archaeoglobus fulgidus [46]. One of the most widely used types of ferritin nanoparticles for targeted drug delivery is H-chain ferritin (HFn) consisting of only the H-chain. Since ferritin is present in almost all living organisms, including humans, for iron storage, and does not contain toxic elements, ferritin nanoparticles do not provoke any immune responses [33,47].
H-chain ferritin has been shown to specifically recognize and bind to the transferrin 1 receptor (TfR1) on the surface of cells [48]. TfR1 is frequently overexpressed on cancer cells, and consequently, to achieve specific binding to this receptor, the surface of ferritin nanoparticles does not require any modifications. Another subunit of ferritin, the L-chain, has been found to specifically interact with scavenger receptor class A member 5 (SCARA5) which is upregulated in breast cancer stem cells [43,49]. This feature makes ferritin a convenient platform for targeted drug delivery to TfR1- or SCARA5-overexpressing cancer cells.
The natural targeting ability of ferritin has been successfully applied in the development of targeted drug delivery systems for cancer treatment. HFn loaded with doxorubicin (HFn-Dox) was used for in vitro delivery to TfR1-overexpressed HT-29 human colon cancer cells. HFn-Dox was labeled with Cy5.5 and incubated with HT-29 cells. At 72 h post-incubation, tumor cell apoptosis was revealed by employing fluorescence microscopy. A single-dose injection of HFn-Dox into HT-29 tumor-bearing mice resulted in tumor growth inhibition: the tumor volume was reduced below 100 mm3 within 20 days. Compared to groups treated with Dox, HFn, and PBS, tumor volume exceeded 1000 mm3 by day 18 [34]. In a series of works, ferritin nanoparticles with unmodified surfaces were used to treat breast cancer [41,43,50,51,52]. For example, horse spleen apoferritin delivered 97 µg/mL of encapsulated curcumin to the MCF-7 cell line through the interaction of L-chain with SCARA5. Aside from curcumin, nanoparticles were also loaded with the MRI contrast agent (Gd-HPDO3A), allowing the determination of the amount of delivered curcumin [45]. In the succeeding work, the nanoparticles inhibited the growth of breast tumors in mice in 62.5% of cases [43]. Alongside breast cancer treatment, ferritin nanoparticles are used to specifically deliver drugs to gastric cancer cells. For example, doxorubicin-loaded HFn treatment led to a tumor growth inhibition (TGI) of 91.1% in TfR1-positive patient-derived xenograft models of gastric cancer [53].
Nonetheless, the surface of ferritin nanocages could be modified through either genetic engineering or chemical conjugation techniques to enhance their ability to specifically target cells or provide dual-targeting ability. Particularly, using genetic engineering, different proteins such as antibodies or peptides could be introduced on the surface of nanoparticles. For example, the dual-targeting ability was achieved in HFn nanoparticles genetically fused with an integrin α2β1 targeting ligand (2D-HFn). Unlike most drug platforms, HFn can cross the blood–brain barrier (BBB), whereas the integrin α2β1 targeting ligand specifically binds to integrin α2β1 overexpressed in glioma (Figure 2) [54,55,56]. As a result, the flow cytometry test demonstrated that fluorescently labeled with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) 2D-HFn particles traversed the BBB and bound to U-87MG cells. The same effect was achieved in vivo, which was analyzed by MRI and IVIS imaging of IRDye-800-2D-HFn injected into orthotopic tumor-bearing animals. Doxorubicin-loaded 2D-HFn caused the death of 69% of U-87MG cells compared to 29% of cells that died from free doxorubicin. After three weeks of Dox-loaded 2D-HFn treatment on U-87MG tumor-bearing mice, the average tumor weight was less than 0.2 g. In the orthotopic glioma brain tumor model, tumor volume after treatment with Dox-loaded 2D-HFn reached 7.53 ± 3.16 mm3 [57].
Glucose-regulated protein (GRP78) is a cell surface receptor on tumor cells, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cells. GRP78 overexpression is associated with tumor resistance to apoptosis and chemotherapeutical drugs [58,59]. Genetically modified Pyrococcus furiosus ferritin Fn (HccFn) exposing the SP94 peptide that specifically binds to GRP78 on HCC cells was found to accumulate up to 400 doxorubicin molecules per HccFn (HccFn-Dox). FITC-labeled HccFn-Dox specifically bound to HCC cells, which was indicated by confocal laser scanning microscopy. The flow cytometry test confirmed the binding efficiency of this protein to cells with an affinity constant of less than 1 nM. In vivo studies showed that tumors were eliminated in four of six HccFn-Dox-treated mice with HCC tumors [35].
Photothermal therapy (PTT) involves using photosensitizer agents that initially absorb irradiated light and then convert it into heat. Generated heat destroys cancer cells by inducing apoptosis [60]. PTT has been successfully combined with ferritin nanoparticles carrying photothermal agents to prevent the damaging of normal cells. HFn carrying ultrasmall CuS (HFn-CuS) under 808 nm laser irradiation caused the death of about 70% of human glioblastoma U87MG cells. HFn-CuS was injected into human glioblastoma U87MG-bearing Nu/Nu mice with subsequent 808 nm laser exposure. It resulted in 100% tumor elimination without obvious systemic toxicity [61]. PTT could also be used with photodynamic therapy (PDT). PDT involves photosensitizing agents activated by light to produce reactive oxygen species, e.g., singlet oxygen that damages tumor cells. For example, sinoporphyrin sodium-loaded HFn was functionalized with RGB peptide (R-HFn-DVDMS) that can specifically bind to integrin αvβ3. In vitro studies showed that the relative cell viability of 4T1 cells was less than 40% at 40 µg/mL of DVDMS from R-Fn-DVDMS induced PTT + PDT. In 4T1 tumor-bearing mice, R-HFn-DVDMS treatment with 630 nm laser exposure fully eliminated the tumor in 2 weeks [62], thus confirming the great biomedical potential of ferritin nanoparticles for cancer treatment.

2.2. Targeted Transferrin Nanoparticles

Transferrin (Tf) is a 75.2 kDa glycoprotein. Tf can bind to its receptor TfR, thus triggering cellular endocytosis. TfR is abundantly expressed in several human tumors, therefore, Tf has been widely used as a targeting molecule exposed on the surface of drug carriers over the past 20 years [63,64,65,66]. Transferrin nanoparticles (Tf NPs) were reported to be synthesized through a self-assembling method in the range of 5 to 200 nm [67]. Hence, with the advantage of natural targeting ability, Tf NPs can specifically deliver drugs to TfR-overexpressed tumors. Transferrin is not immunogenic because it is naturally present in the human body for iron delivery [68]. The main disadvantage of this targeted drug delivery system is that glycoprotein production in prokaryotes is limited. As a result, the production of genetically modified Tfs will require the involvement of more complex producers.
The low immunogenicity and high biocompatibility of Tf NPs allow the effective use of them as nano-cargo for targeted drug delivery. Thus, paclitaxel-loaded Tf NPs were delivered to MCF-7 cells in vitro, with the cell viability reaching 26.5% at 9000 ng/mL, which meant high cytotoxicity compared to non-targeted nanoparticles (paclitaxel-loaded human serum albumin NPs). Treatment of murine hepatic H22-transplanted tumor-bearing mice with paclitaxel-loaded Tf NPs led to the greatest tumor growth inhibition among all treated groups; specifically, the final tumor volume was only 4528 mm3 compared to the saline group (12,691 mm3) and paclitaxel group (8152 mm3) [67]. Like ferritin, Tf NPs have been successfully exploited as agent carriers for PTT/PDT. Wang et al. used IR-780-loaded Tf NPs for the treatment of colon cancer by phototherapy [69]. To measure relative cell viability in vitro, they compared the percentages of survived and untreated cells. In vitro phototherapy of IR-780-loaded Tf NPs in colon cancer cells (CT26) resulted in relative cell viability of less than 0.2 at 7.5 µg/mL of Tf NPs under laser exposure in contrast to ≥0.6 of the control group. The tumor growth was significantly inhibited in CT26-bearing mice treated with these nanoparticles under light irradiation, because for 16 days tumor volume remained almost the same as before treatment [69]. Another research group demonstrated IC50 of hypericin-loaded Tf NPs equal to 5 µM for treated HCT116 cells under light irradiation [70].
In recent years, such nanoparticles were used as nanocarriers capable of penetration through the BBB, which is possible because of the abundance of TfR on the brain capillary endothelial cells and tumor cells [71]. A high anticancer effect was achieved by combining Tf NP-mediated delivery and PTT (Figure 3). In vitro cell viability of U87 cells reached less than 20% after incubation with indocyanine green-loaded Tf NPs combined with laser irradiation (irradiation time is 10 min). In vivo treatment resulted in significant tumor growth inhibition with tumor volume less than 250 mm3 compared to nearly 2000 mm3 of the control group [72].

2.3. Targeted Encapsulin Nanoparticles

Encapsulin in a self-assembling protein nanocompartment originating from prokaryotes. Encapsulin from Thermotoga maritima (31 kDa monomer) has been used as a targeted drug vehicle. In 2008, T. maritima encapsulin, for the first time, was shown to form 24 nm spherical nanoparticles consisting of 60 monomers [73].
Successful use of encapsulin for in vitro targeted drug delivery and imaging has been recently demonstrated [74,75,76,77]. Encapsulin has a flexible surface loop and this loop can be used for the insertion of small peptides using genetic engineering techniques. The loop can be genetically modified to display a peptide tag (such as SpyTag) for a post-translational protein ligation reaction with its protein partner (SpyCatcher). The SpyTag/SpyCatcher ligation system is further discussed in detail in Section 2.12.2. With the desired modification of SpyCatcher and Encapsulin-SpyTag, such “molecular superglue” would find versatile applications: two-step targeted drug delivery, targeted bioimaging, enzyme immobilization, etc. [75]. The encapsulin’s loop can be genetically modified, e.g., to display SP94, a target peptide binding to hepatocellular carcinoma cells (Figure 4). These nanoparticles were conjugated with a prodrug, aldoxorubicin (SP94-Encap-AlDox). To confirm targeting ability, SP94-modified encapsulin was conjugated with fluorescein-5-maleimide possessing fluorescent properties. Confocal microscopy showed that these nanoparticles were specifically bound to HepG2 cells. In vitro cytotoxicity of SP94-Encap-AlDox was found to be, in a dose-dependent manner, as free Dox [74]. In another work, the encapsulin surface was functionalized with the anti-HER2 designed ankyrin repeat protein (DARPin9.29). Obtained nanoparticles were loaded with a mini Singlet Oxygen Generator (miniSOG) that produces the cytotoxic reactive oxygen species under blue light irradiation [78]. After incubation of the nanoplatforms with SK-BR-3 cells in the presence of light, 48% of apoptotic cells were identified by flow cytometry [76]. Considering all applications mentioned above, encapsulin as a targeted drug delivery platform anticipates highly promising efficacy in vivo.

2.4. Targeted Casein Nanoparticles

Casein is the collective name for milk proteins. It has four components: αs1-, αs2-, β-, and κ-casein, which vary in amino acids, location of hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions, and phosphorus and carbohydrate content. Normally, casein molecules are insoluble in water and, due to their amphiphilic properties, in suitable conditions, self-assemble into spherical micelles from 50 nm to 5 µm in diameter. To obtain soluble acid casein, it is converted into salt–caseinate.
The first works on the encapsulation of drugs in casein microparticles were performed in the late 1980s [79,80]. Casein has hydrophobic regions that make it a prospective agent for encapsulating other hydrophobic substances. The first report using casein micelles as a nanocapsule for lipophilic nutraceuticals was published in 2007 [81]. Since then, a series of studies concerning the encapsulation of hydrophobic compounds in reassembled casein micelles using different approaches have been published, including the following concepts of targeted casein-based drug delivery systems. Since no casein nanoparticles with genetically encoded recognizing modules have been created to date, here we highlight casein nanoparticles with a chemically modified surface for targeted drug delivery.
Many anti-cancer drugs are hydrophobic; hence, casein micelles are a prospective platform for the enhancement of drug accumulation in tumors and lowering of side effects. For example, alginate-coated caseinate NPs doubled doxorubicin delivery to the tumor site compared to freely administered doxorubicin and improved survival of Ehrlich ascites carcinoma-bearing mice by 20% compared to the control group [82]. In another study, menthol-modified casein nanoparticles loaded with 10-hydroxycamptothecin were used for glioma targeting therapy. Confocal microscopy showed a significant increase in the penetration of menthol-modified casein nanoparticles into tumor spheroids of the C6 cell line compared with bovine serum albumin nanoparticles. The in vivo efficacy of such nanoparticles was confirmed with C6 glioma treatment, and the survival time of treated mice was two times better than that of the control group [83].
Glutamic acid functionalized casein–calcium ferrite magnetic NPs co-loaded with thymoquinone were used to target U87 cancer cells. Cytotoxicity assay exhibited a 60-fold increase in the efficacy against U87 cells of nanoformulation in comparison to free thymoquinone [84].
Along with amphiphilicity and availability, casein is a biocompatible protein and is widely used for oral drug delivery [85,86,87,88]. Although casein is a prospective agent for targeted drug delivery, it is more often used for non-targeted delivery of drugs, especially anti-cancer hydrophobic chemotherapeutics and smaller degradable nanoparticles such as iron oxide NPs. Casein micelles prolong their lifetime and improve the bioavailability of encapsulated substances, thus making this protein a very promising platform for the creation of new generation drug formulations [89,90,91,92].

2.5. Targeted Albumin Nanoparticles

Albumin-based nanoparticles have been demonstrated to be an effective drug delivery system [93]. Albumin from different sources is used commercially for an incredibly large number of applications. Human serum albumin (HSA) is a protein with a molecular weight of 66.5 kDa. It is produced in the human liver at 10–15 g per day and its average half-life in blood serum is 19 days. Bovine serum albumin (BSA) is a protein with a molecular weight of 69 kDa, which is widely commercially available and demonstrates a high capacity to bind various substances. Although BSA is easier and cheaper in production than HSA, it can induce unfavorable immunogenic reactions after IV injection. Albumin demonstrates unique stability under a wide range of conditions including pH, high temperatures, and organic solvents. It can form nanoparticles from 20 to 1000 nm and encapsulate hydrophobic drugs prolonging its half-life time which makes it a prospective carrier of anti-cancer drugs. For instance, Abraxane, the paclitaxel-HSA nanoformulation with an average particle size of 130 nm, which was prepared through high-pressure homogenization technology, has already been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of several types of cancer [94,95].
Albumin itself can bind to receptors overexpressed by cancer cells of particular types, such as the 60 kDa glycoprotein (gp60) receptor and secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine (SPARC) [96,97]. For example, nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel is shown to prolong retention of the drug in SPARC-expressing sarcoma xenografts. Nab-paclitaxel accumulation in the tumor after 6 h was 3-fold higher compared to free paclitaxel and the time of survival of mice was doubled [98].
From the late 1980s, when HSA was, for the first time, obtained from bacteria [99], many works on genetic fusions of albumin with drugs and/or targeting molecules were carried out, but no self-assembling nanoparticles were reported [100,101,102,103]. In 2020, a research group focused on the expression of fusion proteins in methylotrophic yeast Pichia pastoris and obtained self-assembling NPs from genetically modified HSA. Albumin was modified by introducing polyhistidine (pHis), matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) digestion, and Arg-Gly-Asp (RGD) peptide at the separated end of HSA, using standard genetic engineering manipulations. The resulting NPs were successfully loaded with the hydrophobic drug paclitaxel and actively targeted the tumor through ανβ3-integrin up-regulated on tumor vasculature endothelium. At the tumor site, MMP-2 cutting occurs and a positively charged histidine micelle with paclitaxel penetrates deeper inside the tumor tissue. Finally, the drug is released in response to pH, as illustrated in Figure 5. The tumor growth inhibition curve for mice treated with such albumin-based NPs was similar to that of Abraxane, showing significant tumor growth inhibition efficacy with, respectively, 97.5% and 93.7% reduction of the tumor volume on day 21 [104].
Along with genetic modifications, a wide range of targeted albumin nanoparticles loaded with anti-cancer drugs are designed using the chemical modifications of amino- and carboxylic groups. For instance, the self-assembly of chemically modified albumins was shown. Namely, HSA modified with RGD peptide or photosensitizer chlorin e6 was shown to form nanoparticles capable of encapsulating paclitaxel [105]. HSA nanoparticles were conjugated with anti-αv integrin antibodies and these modified nanoparticles were loaded with doxorubicin for selective targeting of αvβ3 integrin-positive melanoma cells [106]. Folate was used to obtain targeted gemcitabine-BSA [107], bexarotene-BSA [108], and artemether-HSA nanoparticles [109] for breast cancer treatment. Brain-targeted delivery of temozolomide was performed by hyaluronic acid conjugated albumin nanoparticles. The accumulation of temozolomide loaded into NPs in the brain was 8-fold greater than that of the free drug [110]. Summarizing the above, albumin is one of the prospective proteins for biomedical applications because of its availability, biocompatibility, long circulation time, capability of the encapsulation of lipophilic drugs, and potential for genetic or chemical modifications [96,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118].

2.6. Self-Assembling Immunoglobulin Nanoparticles

Immunoglobulins (antibodies) are proteins used by the human immune system to neutralize different toxins and other foreign objects. Immunoglobulin G consists of four polypeptide chains and has a molecular weight of about 150 kDa. There are many commercially available IgG antibodies to various antigens. One of the best-known antibodies is trastuzumab, which recognizes the receptor HER2 which is overexpressed in some breast cancer cells [119,120]. Due to their ability to target malignant cells or pathogenic agents, immunoglobulins could be a well-suitable platform for the design of targeted nanoparticles in case the protein’s targeting abilities remain intact during NP formation.
The swift thermal formation method enables the synthesizing of NPs from immunoglobulins retaining their specificity and affinity. These nanoparticles are biocompatible and capable of encapsulating other substances, such as nanosized magnetite. Using this method, nanoparticles with various portions of trastuzumab (from 10 to 100%) were obtained [121]. Imaging flow cytometry assay showed that even NPs with 10% of trastuzumab specifically bind SKBR-3 cells overexpressing receptor HER2 [121].

2.7. Targeted Lactoferrin Nanoparticles

Lactoferrin (LF), a natural 77–80 kD iron(III)-binding cationic glycoprotein, consists of a single-chain backbone folded into two globular domains. It was first discovered in human milk and later reported to be found in other exocrine fluids as a regulator of free Fe(III) concentration [122]. Lactoferrin nanoparticles are considered to be promising nanocarriers for drug delivery owing to their net positive charge in physiological conditions (pI ~ 8.0–8.5) and pH-dependent release profile [123]. LF nanoparticles demonstrate a great potential for active targeting of tumor by binding to LF receptors (LFR) overexpressed on cancer cells [124]. High lactoferrin affinity to LFR also facilitates overcoming several physiological barriers such as the gastrointestinal barrier and blood–brain barrier via receptor-mediated transcytosis.
The formation of lactoferrin nanoparticles for doxorubicin targeted delivery to hepatocellular carcinoma cells was first reported in 2012 [125]. Oral administration of LF-Dox nanoparticles in hepatocellular carcinoma-bearing rats resulted in a significant decrease (>70%) of neoplastic nodules in the liver of the group treated with Dox-LF nanoparticles compared to free Dox-treated rats. Dox-LF nanoparticles also showed enhanced specificity and circulation time: area under curve (AUC) for a drug concentration in the tissue vs. time graph was enhanced in the case of blood (>100%) and liver (>50%) when administered with nanoformulations, but was drastically reduced by 4–10 fold in all the remaining tissues.
Along with cancer cells, LF receptors are overexpressed on the surface of the brain endothelial cells, allowing LF nanocarriers to pass across the BBB via receptor-mediated transcytosis. Kumari et al. demonstrated the advantages of an LF nanocarrier-based approach in overcoming the BBB for efficient brain delivery [126]. In that study, LF nanoparticles loaded with temozolomide (TMZ) were constructed for effective glioma treatment. LFRs are known to be overexpressed in glioma cells, thus allowing LF nanocarriers to accumulate in the brain tumor. LF-TMZ nanoformulations exhibited higher cytotoxicity compared to free TMZ, showing a 10-fold decreased IC50 value for GL261 cells (94.3 ± 2.3 and 9.3 ± 1.3 μg/mL, respectively). LF-TMZ also exhibited higher transcytosis rates across BBB in both healthy as well as glioma-bearing mice (in healthy mice, LF-TMZ concentration was more than 3 times higher compared to free TMZ 24 h post IV injection). Survival analysis has shown an increase in median survival in the mice treated with TMZ-LF NPs compared to TMZ-treated mice (25 and 18 days, respectively).
In another approach, LF-coated nanomaterials were used for targeted drug delivery to brain cells. In particular, LF-coated nanoparticles exhibited a high preference in treating Parkinson’s disease (PD) in comparison to other nanoformulations, such as PEG-PLGA nanoparticles [127]. Dopamine-loaded borneol and lactoferrin co-modified nanoparticles (LF-BNPs) prepared for this study have shown more than 4 times higher brain concentration at 0.25 h post intranasal administration compared to dopamine-loaded PEG-PLGA nanoparticles. A pharmacodynamics study has shown that the number of apomorphine-induced contralateral rotations per 15 min in 6-hydroxydopamine-lesioned rats was significantly decreased on day 20 in LF-BNPs-treated rats compared to dopamine-loaded PEG-PLGA-treated rats (>30% decrease). These facts reveal enhanced dopamine delivery with LF-BNPs into the brain for the treatment of PD. Authors explain the increased efficiency of LF and borneol co-modified nanoparticles by three different routes: an absorption pathway with subsequent crossing of the BBB, the direct pathway from nasal mucosa epithelium into the brain mainly along the trigeminal or olfactory nerves that bypass the blood–brain barrier. Since the mechanisms of substance transport through the BBB via the intranasal route of administration are not as effective as expected [128,129,130,131], the most possible mechanism of the enhanced efficiency of LF-BNPs is related to targeting of the nasal mucosa epithelium, since LFRs are overexpressed on the apical surface of respiratory epithelial cells and in the capillaries and neurons related to neurodegenerative diseases [127].
In another study, LF nanoparticles were designed for targeted delivery to inflammatory macrophages. LF nanocarriers were loaded with disulfiram (DSF) for treating inflammatory diseases [132]. LF itself possesses anti-inflammatory activity and, in combination with disulfiram, exhibits remarkable therapeutic effects on lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced sepsis and ulcerative colitis. Moreover, LF specifically binds with the low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein, LRP-1, thus being a suitable targeting molecule for drug delivery to inflammatory macrophages overexpressing LRP-1. Notably, C57BL/6 mice pre-treated with DSF-LF nanoparticles before intraperitoneal injection of a lethal dose of LPS injection survived with a 100% survival rate, while two of ten mice pretreated with free DSF died after 88 h. Next, the therapeutic efficacy of DSF-LF nanoparticles against dextran sulfate sodium salt (DSS)-induced colitis was studied. DSF-LF showed higher efficiency in hampering weight decrease compared to free DSF (~92% and ~97% on day 9, respectively). This proof-of-concept study allows for considering of lactoferrin nanoparticles for the treatment of inflammatory diseases after a thorough optimization of these nanoformulations with increased therapeutic capabilities.
Narayana et al. showed the increased uptake of LF nanoparticle-encapsulated drugs in retinoblastoma cancer cells compared to the free molecular drug [133]. LF nanocarriers were loaded with carboplatin (CPT) and etoposide (ETP) for targeting cancer stem cells in retinoblastoma. LF-ETP has shown 2 times higher uptake in Rb Y79 CSCs compared to free ETP; LF-CPT has shown >1.5 times higher uptake compared to free CPT.
To date, no genetically modified approaches have been used for surface modification of LF nanoparticles, albeit certain chemical modifications have shown high efficiency in targeted delivery, e.g., Senapathi et al. prepared 2-mercaptoethanesulfonate (MES)-modified LF-nanoparticles loaded with zidovudine (AZT) for specific targeting of HIV-1 infected cells [134]. Notably, LF-MES-AZT nanoparticles (IC50 is 15.2 nM) demonstrated significantly greater HIV-1 inhibition in SupT1 cells when compared to free AZT (IC50 is 46.7 nM) and LF-AZT (IC50 is 34.2 nM). LF-MES-AZT nanoparticles exhibited reduced toxicity to SupT1 cells (35% difference in cell survival between LF-MES-AZT nanoparticles and free AZT after 16 h incubation), which indicates pronounced biocompatibility of AZT loaded into lactoferrin-based nanoparticles of LF-MES-AZT in comparison to free AZT.

2.8. Targeted Lumazine Synthase Nanoparticles

Lumazine synthase (LS) is a cage protein found in plants, fungi, and various microorganisms and is involved in riboflavin (vitamin B2) synthesis [135,136]. Depending on the organism from which it is extracted, LS may exist in different quaternary states, including pentamers and decamers, but LS derived from hyperthermophile bacteria Aquifex aeolicus is of the greatest interest because it forms an icosahedral capsid-like quaternary structure composed of 60 subunits (for the first time shown in 2001) with 15.4 nm outer and 9 nm inner diameters and can be used as a platform for targeted delivery (Figure 6) [135,137,138,139].
Ra et al. suggested using LS as an antigen delivery system. LS was genetically modified to carry OT-1 and OT-2 antigenic peptides and induced antigen-specific proliferation of CD4+ and CD8+ cells in vitro and in vivo [138].
Min et al. demonstrated the versatility of LS as a platform for targeted delivery. Specifically, two different targeted peptides (RGD4C and SP94 specific to pathologically activated endothelial cells and hepatocellular carcinoma cells, respectively) were genetically incorporated into the structure of LS, and which then were loaded with aldoxorubicin and bortezomib anticancer drugs. The resulting nanostructures selectively bind to target cells and cause their death, which was confirmed by fluorescence microscopy and MTT test [137]. Further, Kim et al. confirmed the versatility of LS by creating a universal antibody-binding nanoplatform consisting of LS fused with a polyvalent antibody. Such nanoplatforms were able to display different targeting antibodies on demand [140]. Levasseur et al. used a similar approach for the LS-13 variant (forming 360-subunits structure) fused to a polyvalent antibody for targeted delivery. The versatility of lumazine synthase as a drug carrier was also confirmed with the displaying of both TRAIL (TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand [141]) and anti-EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor) affibodies on the particle surface [142]. However, despite specific recognition of target cells in vitro, immunogenicity experiments showed the formation of an antibody immune response to cage proteins in vivo [143].
Thus, lumazine synthase represents a promising platform for targeted delivery, however, immunogenicity issues need to be thoroughly addressed in further studies.

2.9. Targeted E2 Nanoparticles

The E2 protein (dihydrolipoyl transacetylase or dihydrolipoamide acetyltransferase or DLAT) is part of the pyruvate dehydrogenase multienzyme complex. It was first obtained from the bacterium Geobacillus stearothermophilus [144]. The E2 protein (41 kDa) [145] forms nanoparticles with a diameter of 26.6 ± 0.6 nm [146], which consist of 60 subunits. The spherical structure of the E2 protein was first demonstrated in 2005 [145].
This protein has relatively recently begun to be considered as a platform for therapeutic applications [147]. Namely, the possibilities of using these protein nanoparticles as a vaccine vehicle and in antibody-mediated responses against HIV antigens were investigated, and the ability of nanoparticles to induce antigen-specific cytotoxic T-lymphocyte (CTL) responses in vivo to model antigens was found [148,149].
Such nanoparticles have been used for targeted delivery to inflammatory breast cancer cells SUM149 in vitro [150]. To achieve the targeted delivery of nanoparticles, two components were designed to perform self-assembly through the SpyTag/SpyCatcher system. The GE11 peptide, capable of selectively binding the EGFR receptor, was used as the targeting molecule [151]. Thus, the cells were pre-targeted with GE11-mCherry-SpyCatcher fusion protein and then labeled with E2 nanoparticles fused with SpyTag with subsequent confocal microscopy study. The particles were loaded with doxorubicin and the cytotoxicity tests confirmed that doxorubicin loading into the nanoparticles is more efficient than the delivery of free doxorubicin [152].

2.10. Targeted Magnetosomes

Magnetotactic bacteria are gram-negative motile bacteria with the ability to form specific organelles—magnetosomes, consisting of magnetic nanoparticles enclosed in a membrane. Bacterial magnetosomes were first identified by Richard P. Blakemore in 1974 [153]. The average size of magnetosomes is 35–120 nm. The shape size and structure of magnetosome crystals varies depending on the type of bacteria [154]. Magnetosomes contain magnetic nanocrystals surrounded by a biological membrane [155,156]. The main components of the magnetosome membrane are lipids (mainly phospholipids) and various proteins.
The molecular mechanisms of magnetosome formation have not been fully addressed, but proteins associated with magnetite crystals have already been found. Mms5, Mms6, Mms7, and Mms13 are proteins that are specifically localized on the magnetic particles in the AMB-1 strain of Magnetospirillum magneticum. These proteins are of special interest because they play a major role in magnetosome formation, as well as in the regulation of their growth and formation rate. In particular, Mms6 is a small amphiphilic protein that self-assembles into protein micelles with N-terminal domains packed into a hydrophobic core, while hydrophilic C-terminal domains remain free and participate in nuclei formation of magnetite crystals [157,158].
Previously, molecular modeling and NMR spectroscopy showed that the DEEVE motif of the C-terminal region of Mms6 efficiently binds iron ions [159]. Thus, Mms6 is a key protein involved in the initiation of magnetosome formation by magnetotactic bacteria.
The main application of the Mms6 protein is the regulation of the growth rate and size of formed magnetite particles in biomedical applications [160]. For example, by changing the kinetics of magnetite crystal formation it is possible to obtain particles with different magnetic moments, which can be used for MRI imaging [161,162]. In addition, the use of Mms6 makes it possible to obtain magnetite of the required size without organic solvents and high temperatures, unlike conventional chemical synthesis [163]. Moreover, it was shown that Mms6 mediates the formation of cobalt ferrite nanoparticles (CoFe2O4), which are not found in living organisms [164].
Such unique properties of Mms6 allow for utilizing this protein for the creation of self-assembling targeted nanoparticles with a magnetite core without chemical conjugation steps. For example, Mms6 mediated the formation of HER2-targeted magnetite nanoparticles through the two-step delivery to HER2-overexpressing cancer cells through the proteinaceous barnase*barstar interface. Biocompatible magnetite nanoparticles were synthesized by the addition of a Bs-C-Mms6 conjugate to uncoated magnetite [165,166]. Bs-C-Mms6 contains the C-terminal part of Mms6 fused with barstar. Next, the authors used the fusion protein of barnase (binds to Barstar) and DARPin9.29 (recognizes the HER2 oncomarker) for targeted self-assembly of modified magnetic nanoparticles on the cancer cell surface. Such particles have been shown to bind effectively to the HER2 oncomarker and can be used to detect HER2-positive cancer cells in vitro.
Together with targeted delivery, magnetosomes are currently used without any specific modifications or using chemical conjugation techniques to target cancer cell surfaces. For example, magnetosomes were incubated with MDA-MB-231 cancer cells and it was shown that magnetic hyperthermia, namely, the irradiation of the cell suspension with an alternating magnetic field (at 183 kHz and field strengths of 20, 40 or 60 mT), destroyed up to 100% of cancer cells [167]. Moreover, the treatment of a xenotransplanted mouse subcutaneous tumor showed complete remission after intratumoral injection of 1 mg of magnetosomes and irradiation with an alternating magnetic field.
In another study [154], the authors compared the anticancer efficacy of two types of nanoparticles: iron oxide nanoparticles and bacterial magnetosomes coated with human serum albumin. Two types of nanoparticles were conjugated with fluorescently labeled antibodies against the EGFR receptor for targeting the MDA-MB-231 cancer cell line. It was shown that magnetosomes were more effective in terms of cancer cell binding compared to iron nanoparticles. In particular, the cellular binding rate was 92 ± 0.2% for 250 μg/mL of magnetosomes and 65 ± 5% for the same concentration of iron oxide nanoparticles. The authors also showed that magnetosomes are more effective for tumor imaging than in vivo iron oxide nanoparticles.
Magnetosomes were also successfully modified with anthracycline molecules, showing a pronounced anti-cancer effect for tumor treatment in vivo. The anticancer efficacy of doxorubicin-bacterial magnetosomes (Dox-BM) and daunorubicin-bacterial magnetosomes (Dau-BM) was evaluated using BALB/c nude mice bearing HepG2 tumor xenografts [168]. The average tumor size in the control group was >1000 mm3, while in mice treated with Dox-BM and Dau-BM the average tumor volume was 583 mm3 and 475 mm3, respectively. In another study [169] magnetosomes were modified with immune molecules, TGF-β inhibitor and PD-1 antibody. The resulting nanoparticles were used for the induction of ferroptosis and immunomodulation synergism in vivo on B16F10-xenograft tumor models in mice.
Currently, magnetosomes are mainly used for passive delivery to tumors. The magnetosome membrane protein Mms6 is a promising agent in anticancer therapy: modification of the C-terminal region of Mms6 makes it possible to insert polypeptide sequences of targeted anticancer molecules. In addition, the magnetosome assembling process could be regulated using Mms6. Thus, genetically encoded magnetosomes have many biotechnological applications for targeted cancer therapy, including localized drug delivery, tumor monitoring, and even magnetic hyperthermia.

2.11. Targeted Virus-like Nanoparticles

Virus-like particles (VLP) are 20–500 nm non-infectious nanostructures with a capsid-like morphology built from viral structural proteins. This type of nanoparticle structure was first identified in 1968 in the sera of patients with Down’s syndrome, leukemia, and hepatitis [170,171,172].
There are different approaches to the classification of VLPs, depending on the presence of lipid envelopes (enveloped and non-enveloped) and on the form (helical, icosahedral, spherical, and complex) and the number of capsid layers (1, 2, and more). Small size, wide possibilities of surface modification, high biocompatibility, various ways of VLP production, the possibility of incorporating various chemicals inside—all these factors open up wide possibilities for the application of the virus-like particles, including the creation of vaccines, delivery of drugs, genes, proteins, and other chemicals [171,172,173,174].
Currently, a wide range of virus-based vaccines have been developed and FDA-approved, including vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but they are outside the focus of this review, and therefore will not be discussed here. However, there are many excellent reviews shedding light on this subject [175,176,177,178,179].
In addition to the aforementioned advantages of virus-like particles for biological applications, it was shown that VLPs are capable of escaping lysosomal degradation. Together, this makes virus-like particles promising candidates for targeted delivery [173].
Thus, Hagen et al. demonstrated successful usage of a recombinant adeno-associated virus (AAV) fused with DARPin or an affibody against EGFR equipped with prodrug converting enzymes for targeting and killing EGFR-overexpressed A431 cancer cells in vitro [180]. Moreover, Münch et al. showed effective tumor targeting in vivo using AAV VP2 protein fused with DARPin against HER2 [181]. Fang et al., using JC polyomavirus virus-like particles containing the HSV-tk suicide gene, demonstrated significant inhibition of bladder cancer growth in vivo [182]. Besides artificial VLPs, using oncolytic viruses in cancer therapy was proposed. These are naturally existing or genetically modified viruses that can specifically replicate in cancer cells and kill them without affecting healthy cells [183,184].
Together with anti-cancer activities, different VLPs were developed for anti-bacterial applications. Thus, Yacoby et al. reported that A12C phages loaded with chloramphenicol retarded Staphylococcus aureus growth 20 times more efficiently than free drug in vitro [185].
These and other studies demonstrate the versatility of VLPs as vectors for targeted delivery. The natural origin of VLPs and the possibility of loading them with genetic material allow them to be considered one of the most advanced and effective systems for the targeted delivery of DNA, RNA, and other molecules to certain areas of an organism. However, biosafety issues are still under investigation and should be taken into consideration during the development of novel targeting systems and vaccine candidates [186]. There were certain critical negative cases in the initiation period of the virus therapy, such as leukemia-like symptoms [187], high fever, multiorgan fever, and even death [188,189]. Moreover, several virus-like particles are not suitable for multiple injections due to the enhanced immune response after repeated injections [190]. However, during past decades there have been significant improvements in the development of virus-based medications, directed toward the extensive research of the biosafety issues, which strongly increased their safety and allowed effective application in healthcare, especially in vaccine use during the COVID-19 pandemic [191,192].

2.12. Protein-Assisted Self-Assembly of Hybrid Nanostructures

Along with self-assembling protein nanoparticles, various proteins and peptides can act as “molecular glue” to create hybrid self-assembled nanostructures. Here, we briefly describe the most common protein-assisted systems for obtaining hybrid self-assembling nanostructures.

2.12.1. Streptavidin*Biotin

Historically, the most popular pair for the creation of hybrid superstructures is the streptavidin*biotin system. Biotin is a water-soluble vitamin H with a size of 244 Da. Streptavidin is a 56 kDa homotetramer from the actinobacterium Streptomyces avidinii that can bind up to four biotin molecules [193]. Streptavidin*biotin binding is one of the strongest non-covalent biological interactions with Kaff = 1015 M−1. The streptavidin*biotin complex exhibits extremely fast kinetics of binding which is stable over a wide range of pH and temperature [194]. These features made this system one of the most popular in molecular and cell biology. Thus, e.g., Ming-HanChen et al. developed a liposome-mediated drug delivery system, which consists of streptavidin-tagged liposome and biotin-tagged immune molecules (G-CSF, CD33, CD7) [195]. The efficacy of this system was demonstrated by targeting six lines of leukemia cells in vitro and a mouse xenograft model in vivo. Namely, flow cytometry in vitro tests showed that the fluorescence intensity of cell populations labeled with anti-G-CSF, CD33, and CD7 molecules through the streptavidin*biotin system proportionally depends on the expression of G-CSF receptors, CD33, or CD7 on the cell surface, respectively. Moreover, in vivo tests showed that this binding ability was maintained in mice: a biotinylated anti-CD33 antibody was injected into the bloodstream with subsequent injections of streptavidin-tagged liposomes. These liposomes were loaded with calcein and the fluorescence of only CD33-positive cells was observed during the analysis of peripheral blood, spleen, and bone marrow. The authors of another study reported the tumor targeting of radiolabeled DOTA-biotin in TAG-72-expressing tumor xenograft models [196]. The two-step delivery system based on the fusion protein of streptavidin and the scFv of the mAb CC49 and radiolabeled DOTA-biotin was used for targeted delivery to TAG-72 adenocarcinoma cancer cells. Using this approach, the authors showed that it is possible to reduce the kidney uptake of the radiolabeled compound by 30% through succinylation of the scFv-CC49-streptavidin construct [196].
Despite the described advantages of this system, some problems, such as the steric hindrance in interaction due to the difference in components’ sizes, as well as the presence of biotin in the blood of mammals, which can interfere with the formation of streptavidin/biotin pairs, prevents the widespread development of this system for in vivo applications.

2.12.2. SpyTag*SpyCatcher

Another protein self-assembly system is the SpyTag*SpyCatcher complex. It consists of a modified Streptococcus pyogenes surface protein domain (SpyCatcher) that binds to a cognate 13-amino acid peptide (SpyTag). Upon recognition, an isopeptide covalent bond is formed between the side chains of lysine in SpyCatcher and aspartate in SpyTag [197]. The covalent interaction of peptides is a simple and powerful tool for bioconjugation and the creation of new protein architectures and biomaterials. This system is universal since the peptide label can be genetically linked to sites in target proteins [198].
Changkyu Lee and Sebyung Kang used the SpyTag*SpyCatcher ligation system to modify albumin nanoparticles for targeted delivery to cancer cells [199]. The authors encapsulated indocyanine green into nanoparticles and conjugated the HER2-recognizing affibody molecule for cancer cell targeting using SpyTag*SpyCatcher. The delivery efficiency of the obtained nanoparticles was shown in vivo on the NIH3T6.7-allografted mice model. Furthermore, the obtained nanoparticles were used for PTT [199].
A more advanced system, namely, the third generation SpyTag003/SpyCatcher003 pair with a kon = 5.5 × 105 × M−1·s−1 close to the diffusion limit, has been further developed. The reaction proceeds in a few minutes even at nanomolar concentrations of both peptides [200]. In one of the latest works, the authors used the SpyTag003/SpyCatcher003 system for adenovirus genetic engineering with a plug-and-display technology based on SpyTag003/SpyCatcher003 coupling chemistry [201]. Most applications of the SpyTag003/SpyCatcher003 system are currently focused on in vitro studies, however, SpyTag003/SpyCatcher003 is a promising platform for the self-assembly of targeted peptide nanoagents in vivo.

2.12.3. Barnase*Barstar

Another two-step system for creating hybrid nanostructures is the barnase*barstar complex. Barnase (12 kDa extracellular RNase from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens) and its 10 kDa inhibitor barstar form a complex with high affinity (Kaff = 1014 × M−1) [202,203,204]. At the same time, the N- and C-terminal parts remain available for further interaction with other molecules. This system is actively used for the creation of modular targeting molecules, in particular, various nanoparticles that can be functionally attached to barstar or barnase. In addition, these proteins proved to be highly biocompatible in vivo [205], thus giving rise to the development of a whole range of studies on two-step delivery.
The barnase*barstar complex is widely used for the two-step targeted delivery of nanomaterials to cancer cells in vitro and in vivo [206,207,208]. Namely, HER2- and EGFR-targeting was realized with quantum dots [206], magnetic particles [207,208], and polymer particles [208] in vitro, as well as CAR-T cells in vivo [209]. Barnase*barstar is the all-protein pre-targeting system suitable for E. coli production, which is extremely stable under severe conditions, such as high temperature and high concentration of the chaotropic agents [210]. N- and C-terminals of both proteins are available for chemical conjugation and genetic manipulations, thus making this pair universal for different self-assembling nanostructures for a plethora of oncotargets.

2.12.4. Antibody*Hapten

Antibodies are proteins that can bind their antigen specifically and with high affinity. Dissociation constants of IgG*antigen complexes are in the nanomolar range [211], sometimes reaching picomolar regions (e.g., anti-interleukin 6 antibody towards the interleukin 6 Kd is 5 pM [212]). The high affinity of antibody*hapten complexes, as well as antibody molecule stability, allows for obtaining supramolecular structures possessing a combination of properties based on nanoparticles of different origins that are extremely stable under severe conditions [210]. The antibody*hapten complex is widely used in molecular and cell biology, ELISA assays [213], in nanomedicine for targeted delivery applications, as well as for the creation of smart nanoagents acting as biorobots according to Boolean logic sensing molecules in the microenvironment [3].

2.12.5. Lectin*Glycoprotein

Lectins are naturally occurring proteins capable of specific and reversible binding to carbohydrates and their residues and thus are promising molecules for the targeted delivery of therapeutic agents into cancer cells, as their glycosylation profile may differ from that of normal cells [214,215]. Although currently known lectin*glycoprotein complexes, such as protein pairs mediating nanoparticle self-assembly, are not very popular among researchers, these protein interactions represent a promising tool for the effective and reversible assembly of nanoparticle-based superstructures. Namely, we earlier synthesized gold and magnetic nanoparticles, which were then modified with lectins or glycoproteins by adsorbing protein to the particle surface at a pH corresponding to the isoelectric point of the protein [216]. The comprehensive study on the lectin*glycoprotein interaction within the composition of nanoparticles of different origins was carried out. The specificity of the binding of nanoparticles modified by different lectins (or glycoproteins) to a wide range of glycoproteins (or lectins, respectively) was shown, thus demonstrating the most effective lectin*glycoprotein pairs for nanoparticle self-assembly, such as bovine lactoferrin and concanavalin A, or porcine gastric mucin with wheat germ agglutinin [216].

2.12.6. Antibody*Protein A/G/L

Protein A is a 42 kDa cell wall protein of Staphylococus aureus, consisting of five homologous domains and having the ability to bind to the Fc fragment of IgG of some species (e.g., human and rabbit) with high affinity [217]. Thereby, staphylococcus protein A (SpA) is widely used in affinity chromatography and biosensors. In addition, it has an application in various immunological assays, such as radioimmunoassay, immunoprecipitation, and ELISA, due to its ability to interact with a wide range of mammalian IgG with different specificities [218]. Along with ELISA applications, SpA*IgG interaction is widely used for the development of two-step targeted systems due to the ability of oriented modification of nanoparticles with IgG molecules making Fc fragments bound to the nanoparticle surface and Fab fragments available for target binding. Namely, Gayong Shim and Dongyoon Kim developed a nanoparticle with a controlled orientation of antibodies specific to the HER2 receptor [219]. First, a PEGylated lipid was conjugated with a peptide, which is a fragment protein A that recognizes the Fc portion of an IgG, and then liposomes were obtained based on the modified lipid. These liposomes were then modified to the anti-HER2 antibody with high efficiency. The effective accumulation of targeted liposomes with non-covalently attached antibodies was confirmed in vivo using Nu/Nu mice.
Along with protein A, protein G is widely used. This 60 kDa protein was isolated from the cell wall of Streptococcus sp. group G and was shown to possess increased avidity for rabbit IgG in comparison with protein A. Protein G, as well as protein A, is used for sterically oriented non-covalent immobilization of tumor-targeting antibodies on the surface of various nanoparticles. Thus, Liuen Liang and Andrew Care designed upconverting nanoparticles (UCNPs) with a silica coating and encapsulated Rose Bengal photosensitizer [220]. Silica-coated UCNPs were modified with a silica-binding peptide fused with protein G and then functionalized with anti-EpCAM antibodies, thus realizing targeted delivery. Selective killing of cancer cells by generation of reactive oxygen species and NIR-triggered phototoxicity was demonstrated in vitro in human colorectal adenocarcinoma HT-29 cells, thus proving the efficacy of the designed nanoparticle self-assembly protocol [220].
Slightly less popular is protein L, which was first derived from the cell wall of Peptostreptococcus magnus. In contrast to Protein A and Protein G, which bind the Fc region of IgG, Protein L was shown to bind the light chain of IgG [221]. Protein L binds a wider range of IgGs than Protein A or G, but this protein is not the best choice for the mediation of two-step targeted delivery. Because it cannot provide Fc-oriented binding or recognizing proteins, and steric hindrance occurs during the target recognition, this protein is applied more widely in affinity chromatography for Fab fragments purification [222].

3. Discussion

The advantages of protein self-assembling nanoplatforms for biomedical applications include long blood circulation, evasion of immune responses, the absence of the accelerated blood clearance phenomenon, high biocompatibility, biodegradability, and some others. Standard genetic engineering techniques make possible simple manipulation in order to design targeted protein self-assembling nanostructures directed to different oncomarkers, such as EGFR, HER2, EpCAM, and others. The loading capacity of several types of nanoparticles allows them to be equiped with either diagnostic or therapeutic capabilities, thus realizing bioimaging and therapeutic applications, including chemotherapy, gene delivery, and photodynamic and photothermal therapy.
The field of targeted self-assembling nanoparticles is still relatively new, and today there are only a limited number of studies demonstrating targeted diagnostics and therapy for socially significant diseases with the use of such platforms and the most interesting of them are summarized in Table 1.
We believe that biocompatible and non-immunogenic self-assembling nanoparticles, such as encapsulin-based protein structures, are one of the most prospective targeted drug delivery platforms due to their thermostability and pH- and proteolysis-resistance [223,224,225]. Moreover, different genetic modifications of the encapsulin surface enabling oriented functionalization with targeted molecules have already been discovered and demonstrated for in vitro applications, which makes us believe in the development of encapsulin-based smart delivery systems over the next two decades [225,226].
However, despite the obvious advantages of protein-based systems in terms of translation into clinical practice, there are a number of significant limitations that must be taken into account during the development of new targeted delivery systems. In particular, the large-scale industrial production of protein medications is an expensive process that requires careful selection of an effective host for the protein production, which will provide proper post-translational modifications, thorough optimization of cultivation and extraction processes, as well as the development of proper purification systems and quality control tests.
The transition of protein biosynthesis and purification protocols from the standard biochemical laboratory to large-scale biotechnological production is hampered by many difficulties, however, the development of continuous bioreactors and chromatography systems within high-throughput systems allows us to establish reproducible techniques for the production of protein- and peptide-based medications. Recent developments in the industrial production of proteins have given rise to several types of protein-based drugs in the clinic, such as monoclonal antibodies (e.g., anti-HER2 IgG, trastuzumab, marketed under the trade name Herceptin, Roche, or anti-CD20 IgG, rituximab, marketed under the trade name Rituxan, MabThera), different enzymes (e.g., bovhyaluronidase azoximer marketed as Longidaze, Petrovaks), peptides (e.g., glucagon-like-1 peptide marketed as Levemir, Novo Nordisk), and human serum albumin nanoparticles (paclitaxel-loaded albumin nanoparticles Abraxane, Sanofi-Aventis), thus proving the efficiency of protein-based medications and the possibility of their large-scale production [227,228,229,230]. Moreover, several complex organic nanoparticles, such as extracellular vesicles and protein particles are already undergoing clinical trials, thus confirming the achievability of large-scale production and purification of protein, lipid, and protein/lipid nanoparticles for clinical applications [231,232,233].
However, scaling up the biotechnological production of chemically synthesized nanoparticles often leads to poor batch-to-batch reproducibility and an increased polydispersity index. Nevertheless, this problem is minimized for self-assembling protein nanoparticles: since the amino acid sequence is synthesized in a unique way according to the DNA sequence, and the self-assembly of nanoparticles is definitely controlled by external conditions, such as temperature, pressure, and pH, it is worth believing that the biotechnological production of self-assembling protein nanoparticles will lead to much more reproducible nanocarriers compared to chemically synthesized particles, such as, for example, iron oxide nanoparticles for MRI imaging.
Despite the fact that protein nanocarriers can be synthesized in bacterial producers with high reproducibility, a number of problems arise in their purification for final administration to humans. Notably, lipopolysaccharides (LPS) from bacterial cell walls can cause significant hypersensitivity reactions in humans, up to anaphylaxis-like shock, and careful removal of LPS is a serious biotechnological problem. This problem is solved by affinity chromatography, e.g., with poly(ε-lysine) derived cellulose beads, or microfiltration and ultrafiltration based on membrane adsorbers with subsequent chromogenic tests, e.g., LAL-test based on LPS measurement via the clotting reaction of the hemolymph of the horseshoe crab, Limulus amebocyte lysate [234].
As natural carriers, self-assembled protein nanoparticles exhibit unique properties for drug delivery in vivo—the therapeutic capabilities can be incorporated into the protein structure, e.g., by the creation of self-assembling proteins fused with truncated genetically encoded fragments of bacterial toxins (such as, e.g., fragments of Pseudomonas aeruginosa exotoxin A [119,235,236]) or cytotoxic properties can be incorporated into the nanoparticle structure via loading with a chemotherapeutic drug, such as doxorubicin or paclitaxel. The drug loading process is an additional serious obstacle in the creation of novel medical nanoformulations. Currently, different techniques are utilized for the loading of therapeutic substances into protein or lipid nanoparticles, such as the pH gradient method, mixing, freeze–thaw cycles, hypotonic dialysis, and other methods [237]. Some of these methods, such as electroporation and sonication, are very efficient but suitable only for small-scale laboratory applications. Other methods, such as hypotonic dialysis, thermal shock, and extrusion techniques, are more suitable for large-scale production, but require expensive equipment and specific consumables, thus the development of effective drug loading systems is one of the top priorities in the development of protein delivery systems for chemotherapeutic drugs [237].
Moreover, the methods of drug loading that have a physical effect on nanoparticles, such as sonication, electroporation, or freeze–thaw cycles, can lead to nanoparticle aggregation which is not acceptable for intravenous administration. One of the most important challenges is the development protein drug delivery systems that are stable after the loading with the chemotherapeutic drug and do not aggregate after this process, and it is critical for such systems to remain stable for a long time, ideally in lyophilized form at room temperature.
We do believe that lyophilization for further storage and reconstitution in aqueous buffer systems is necessary for the creation of new protein nanomedications. For most nanocarriers loaded with low molecular weight compounds, there is an effect of so-called “burst-release”, when, usually, from 5% to 30% of the loaded substance is released from the nanocarrier within a short time period through diffusion [238,239,240]. This process can be significantly slowed down by modifying the nanocarrier surface with various stabilizing polymers, such as, for example, chitosan oligosaccharide lactate, or by using a specific matrix for loading [236,239,241]. It is critical to note that “burst-release” still cannot be fully avoided but can be reduced only by completely drying the sample for further storage.
Table 1. Characteristics and application of targeted protein self-assembling nanoparticles.
Table 1. Characteristics and application of targeted protein self-assembling nanoparticles.
ProteinNP SizeTargeting MoleculeLoaded MoleculeIn Vitro/In Vivo Applications, the Main Result of the StudyRefs
Ferritin12 nmRGB
peptide
Sinoporphyrin sodium (DVDMS)In vitro—4T1 cell culture, in vivo—4T1 tumors. The relative cell viability of 4T1 cells was less than 40% and 100% tumor elimination under light irradiation is shown in 2 weeks.[62]
Transferrin5–200 nmTransferrin is the targeted molecule itself binding to TfRIR780In vitro—CT26 cell culture, in vivo—CT26 tumors. Laser-induced CT26 cell death and tumor growth inhibition were shown.[69]
Casein50–500 nm Menthol10-hydroxycamptothecinIn vitro—C6 cell culture, in vivo—C6 glioma tumors. Cell toxicity with IC50 = 0.0397 µg/mL, increased mice survival rate with C6 glioma.[83,242]
LactoferrinDiffers significantlyLactoferrin binds to Lf receptorsTemozolomideIn vitro—GL261 mouse cell culture, in vivo—glioma tumors.
Cell toxicity with IC50 = 9.3  ±  1.3  µg/mL, tumor growth inhibition, and a high portion of apoptotic cells in the tumor.
[243]
Albumin100 nmRGD
peptide
PaclitaxelIn vivo—mice with MGC-803 tumors. Tumor growth inhibition = 97.5%.[104]
Immunoglobulin84–150 nmTrastuzumabCy3In vitro—SKBR3 и CHO cell lines. HER2-specific cell targeting is demonstrated.[121]
Encapsulin24 nmDARPin9.29miniSOGIn vitro—SKBR3 cell line. 48% of cells treated were eliminated through the apoptosis induction.[73,76]
Lumazine synthase15.4 nmanti-EGFR affibody TRAILIn vitro—A431 cell line, in vivo—A431 tumors. Cell toxicity with IC50 = 6.62 nM; two-step targeted delivery resulted in tumor growth inhibition = 70%.[142,139]
Magnetosomes35–120 nm DARPin9.29MagnetiteIn vitro—SKBR3 и CHO cell lines. HER2-specific cell targeting is demonstrated.[165,166,244]
E226.6 ± 0.6 nm GE11
peptide
DoxorubicinIn vitro—breast cancer cell line SUM149. Cytotoxicity of doxorubicin loaded into the nanoparticles is more efficient than the delivery of free doxorubicin.[145]
Bacteriophage MS227 nm SP94
peptide
Doxorubicin, cisplatin and 5-FUIn vitro—hepatocellular carcinoma cells HCC. SP94-targeted MS2 nanoparticles allow the elimination of cancer cells with IC50 = 10–15 nM.[245]

4. Conclusions

We believe that the rapidly developing field of nanotechnology will make it possible to apply all the achievements of nanomedicine to protein nanoparticle design, while standardized protocols for the production and purification of proteins will make it possible to obtain batch-to-batch reproducible samples of targeted self-assembling protein nanoparticles, which will significantly speed up the process of approving such particles for clinical applications for personalized medicine.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.O.S.; methodology, A.S.O.; software, V.O.S.; validation, V.O.S. and A.S.O.; formal analysis, A.S.O.; investigation, V.O.S.; resources, V.O.S.; data curation, V.O.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.S.O., E.N.K., O.A.K., A.M.I., V.L.K., F.A.Z., T.V.R., E.D.T. and V.O.S.; writing—review and editing, E.N.M. and V.O.S.; visualization, A.S.O.; supervision, V.O.S.; project administration, V.O.S.; funding acquisition, E.N.M. and V.O.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially supported by Russian Science Foundation, grant number 22-73-10141 (encapsulin, immunoglobulin, casein nanoparticles), the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Russia, strategic academic leadership program “Priority 2030”, agreement 075-02-2021-1316, 30 September 2021 (ferritin, lactoferrin nanoparticles), the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Russia, agreement 075-03-2022-107/10, project FSMG-2022-0016 (albumin, transferrin, virus-like particles), and agreement 075-03-2022-107, project 0714-2020-0004 (lumazine synthase, E2 particles, self-assembly of hybrid nanostructures).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Figure 1 and TOC are created with BioRender.com.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sokolov, I.L.; Cherkasov, V.R.; Tregubov, A.A.; Buiucli, S.R.; Nikitin, M.P. Smart materials on the way to theranostic nanorobots: Molecular machines and nanomotors, advanced biosensors, and intelligent vehicles for drug delivery. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Gen. Subj. 2017, 1861, 1530–1544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Tregubov, A.A.; Nikitin, P.I.; Nikitin, M.P. Advanced Smart Nanomaterials with Integrated Logic-Gating and Biocomputing: Dawn of Theranostic Nanorobots. Chem. Rev. 2018, 118, 10294–10348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Nikitin, M.P.; Shipunova, V.O.; Deyev, S.M.; Nikitin, P.I. Biocomputing based on particle disassembly. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2014, 9, 716–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Egorova, E.A.; Nikitin, M.P. Delivery of Theranostic Nanoparticles to Various Cancers by Means of Integrin-Binding Peptides. IJMS 2022, 23, 13735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Shipunova, V.O.; Kovalenko, V.L.; Kotelnikova, P.A.; Sogomonyan, A.S.; Shilova, O.N.; Komedchikova, E.N.; Zvyagin, A.V.; Nikitin, M.P.; Deyev, S.M. Targeting Cancer Cell Tight Junctions Enhances PLGA-Based Photothermal Sensitizers’ Performance In Vitro and In Vivo. Pharmaceutics 2021, 14, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Shipunova, V.O.; Belova, M.M.; Kotelnikova, P.A.; Shilova, O.N.; Mirkasymov, A.B.; Danilova, N.V.; Komedchikova, E.N.; Popovtzer, R.; Deyev, S.M.; Nikitin, M.P. Photothermal Therapy with HER2-Targeted Silver Nanoparticles Leading to Cancer Remission. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ukrainskaya, V.; Rubtsov, Y.; Pershin, D.; Podoplelova, N.; Terekhov, S.; Yaroshevich, I.; Sokolova, A.; Bagrov, D.; Kulakovskaya, E.; Shipunova, V.; et al. Antigen-Specific Stimulation and Expansion of CAR-T Cells Using Membrane Vesicles as Target Cell Surrogates. Small 2021, 17, e2102643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nikitin, M.P.; Zelepukin, I.V.; Shipunova, V.O.; Sokolov, I.L.; Deyev, S.M.; Nikitin, P.I. Enhancement of the blood-circulation time and performance of nanomedicines via the forced clearance of erythrocytes. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2020, 4, 717–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zelepukin, I.V.; Mashkovich, E.A.; Lipey, N.A.; Popov, A.A.; Shipunova, V.O.; Griaznova, O.Y.; Deryabin, M.S.; Kurin, V.V.; Nikitin, P.I.; Kabashin, A.V.; et al. Direct photoacoustic measurement of silicon nanoparticle degradation promoted by a polymer coating. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 430, 132860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zelepukin, I.V.; Yaremenko, A.V.; Shipunova, V.O.; Babenyshev, A.V.; Balalaeva, I.V.; Nikitin, P.I.; Deyev, S.M.; Nikitin, M.P. Nanoparticle-based drug delivery via RBC-hitchhiking for the inhibition of lung metastases growth. Nanoscale 2019, 11, 1636–1646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Usmani, S.S.; Bedi, G.; Samuel, J.S.; Singh, S.; Kalra, S.; Kumar, P.; Ahuja, A.A.; Sharma, M.; Gautam, A.; Raghava, G.P.S. THPdb: Database of FDA-approved peptide and protein therapeutics. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0181748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Rodgers, K.R.; Chou, R.C. Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies and derivatives: Historical perspectives and future directions. Biotechnol. Adv. 2016, 34, 1149–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kaplon, H.; Muralidharan, M.; Schneider, Z.; Reichert, J.M. Antibodies to watch in 2020. MAbs 2020, 12, 1703531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Manis, J.P.; Feldweg, A.M. Overview of Therapeutic Monoclonal Antibodies; UpToDate Inc.: Waltham, MA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  15. El Abd, Y.; Tabll, A.; Smolic, R.; Smolic, M. Mini-review: The market growth of diagnostic and therapeutic monoclonal antibodies—SARS CoV-2 as an example. Hum. Antibodies 2022, 30, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Robertson, J.G. Enzymes as a special class of therapeutic target: Clinical drugs and modes of action. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2007, 17, 674–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lee, E.J.; Lee, N.K.; Kim, I.-S. Bioengineered protein-based nanocage for drug delivery. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2016, 106, 157–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Novoselova, M.; Chernyshev, V.S.; Schulga, A.; Konovalova, E.V.; Chuprov-Netochin, R.N.; Abakumova, T.O.; German, S.; Shipunova, V.O.; Mokrousov, M.D.; Prikhozhdenko, E.; et al. Effect of Surface Modification of Multifunctional Nanocomposite Drug Delivery Carriers with DARPin on Their Biodistribution In Vitro and In Vivo. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 2022, 5, 2976–2989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Proshkina, G.M.; Shramova, E.I.; Shilova, M.V.; Zelepukin, I.V.; Shipunova, V.O.; Ryabova, A.V.; Deyev, S.M.; Kotlyar, A.B. DARPin_9-29-Targeted Gold Nanorods Selectively Suppress HER2-Positive Tumor Growth in Mice. Cancers 2021, 13, 5235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shramova, E.; Proshkina, G.; Shipunova, V.; Ryabova, A.; Kamyshinsky, R.; Konevega, A.; Schulga, A.; Konovalova, E.; Telegin, G.; Deyev, S. Dual Targeting of Cancer Cells with DARPin-Based Toxins for Overcoming Tumor Escape. Cancers 2020, 12, 3014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shipunova, V.O.; Deyev, S.M. Artificial Scaffold Polypeptides As an Efficient Tool for the Targeted Delivery of Nanostructures In Vitro and In Vivo. Acta Nat. 2022, 14, 54–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bosch, F.; Rosich, L. The contributions of Paul Ehrlich to pharmacology: A tribute on the occasion of the centenary of his Nobel Prize. Pharmacology 2008, 82, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Strebhardt, K.; Ullrich, A. Paul Ehrlich’s magic bullet concept: 100 years of progress. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2008, 8, 473–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. De Jong, W.H.; Borm, P.J.A. Drug delivery and nanoparticles: Applications and hazards. Int. J. Nanomed. 2008, 3, 133–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Halwani, A.A. Development of Pharmaceutical Nanomedicines: From the Bench to the Market. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Lee, N.K.; Cho, S.; Kim, I.-S. Ferritin—A multifaceted protein scaffold for biotherapeutics. Exp. Mol. Med. 2022, 54, 1652–1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mohanty, A.; Parida, A.; Raut, R.K.; Behera, R.K. Ferritin: A Promising Nanoreactor and Nanocarrier for Bionanotechnology. ACS Bio Med Chem Au 2022, 2, 258–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Olshefsky, A.; Richardson, C.; Pun, S.H.; King, N.P. Engineering Self-Assembling Protein Nanoparticles for Therapeutic Delivery. Bioconjug. Chem. 2022, 33, 2018–2034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sun, X.; Hong, Y.; Gong, Y.; Zheng, S.; Xie, D. Bioengineered Ferritin Nanocarriers for Cancer Therapy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 7023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xu, X.; Tian, K.; Lou, X.; Du, Y. Potential of Ferritin-Based Platforms for Tumor Immunotherapy. Molecules 2022, 27, 2716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Banyard, S.H.; Stammers, D.K.; Harrison, P.M. Electron density map of apoferritin at 2.8—A resolution. Nature 1978, 271, 282–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Andrews, S.C. Iron Storage in Bacteria; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1998; pp. 281–351. ISBN 9780120277407. [Google Scholar]
  33. Harrison, P.M.; Arosio, P. The ferritins: Molecular properties, iron storage function and cellular regulation. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA) Bioenerg. 1996, 1275, 161–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Liang, M.; Fan, K.; Zhou, M.; Duan, D.; Zheng, J.; Yang, D.; Feng, J.; Yan, X. H-ferritin-nanocaged doxorubicin nanoparticles specifically target and kill tumors with a single-dose injection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 14900–14905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Jiang, B.; Zhang, R.; Zhang, J.; Hou, Y.; Chen, X.; Zhou, M.; Tian, X.; Hao, C.; Fan, K.; Yan, X. GRP78-targeted ferritin nanocaged ultra-high dose of doxorubicin for hepatocellular carcinoma therapy. Theranostics 2019, 9, 2167–2182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Li, R.; Ma, Y.; Dong, Y.; Zhao, Z.; You, C.; Huang, S.; Li, X.; Wang, F.; Zhang, Y. Novel Paclitaxel-Loaded Nanoparticles Based on Human H Chain Ferritin for Tumor-Targeted Delivery. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 5, 6645–6654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Liu, W.; Lin, Q.; Fu, Y.; Huang, S.; Guo, C.; Li, L.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, L. Target delivering paclitaxel by ferritin heavy chain nanocages for glioma treatment. J. Control. Release 2020, 323, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yang, Z.; Wang, X.; Diao, H.; Zhang, J.; Li, H.; Sun, H.; Guo, Z. Encapsulation of platinum anticancer drugs by apoferritin. Chem. Commun. 2007, 3453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Xing, R.; Wang, X.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Q.; Yang, Z.; Guo, Z. Characterization and cellular uptake of platinum anticancer drugs encapsulated in apoferritin. J. Inorg. Biochem. 2009, 103, 1039–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Falvo, E.; Tremante, E.; Fraioli, R.; Leonetti, C.; Zamparelli, C.; Boffi, A.; Morea, V.; Ceci, P.; Giacomini, P. Antibody–drug conjugates: Targeting melanoma with cisplatin encapsulated in protein-cage nanoparticles based on human ferritin. Nanoscale 2013, 5, 12278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Pandolfi, L.; Bellini, M.; Vanna, R.; Morasso, C.; Zago, A.; Carcano, S.; Avvakumova, S.; Bertolini, J.A.; Rizzuto, M.A.; Colombo, M.; et al. H-Ferritin Enriches the Curcumin Uptake and Improves the Therapeutic Efficacy in Triple Negative Breast Cancer Cells. Biomacromolecules 2017, 18, 3318–3330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Cutrin, J.C.; Crich, S.G.; Burghelea, D.; Dastrù, W.; Aime, S. Curcumin/Gd loaded apoferritin: A novel “theranostic” agent to prevent hepatocellular damage in toxic induced acute hepatitis. Mol. Pharm. 2013, 10, 2079–2085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Conti, L.; Lanzardo, S.; Ruiu, R.; Cadenazzi, M.; Cavallo, F.; Aime, S.; Geninatti Crich, S. L-Ferritin targets breast cancer stem cells and delivers therapeutic and imaging agents. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 66713–66727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Mansourizadeh, F.; Alberti, D.; Bitonto, V.; Tripepi, M.; Sepehri, H.; Khoee, S.; Geninatti Crich, S. Efficient synergistic combination effect of Quercetin with Curcumin on breast cancer cell apoptosis through their loading into Apo ferritin cavity. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2020, 191, 110982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Geninatti Crich, S.; Cadenazzi, M.; Lanzardo, S.; Conti, L.; Ruiu, R.; Alberti, D.; Cavallo, F.; Cutrin, J.C.; Aime, S. Targeting ferritin receptors for the selective delivery of imaging and therapeutic agents to breast cancer cells. Nanoscale 2015, 7, 6527–6533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Song, N.; Zhang, J.; Zhai, J.; Hong, J.; Yuan, C.; Liang, M. Ferritin: A Multifunctional Nanoplatform for Biological Detection, Imaging Diagnosis, and Drug Delivery. Acc. Chem. Res. 2021, 54, 3313–3325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Romagnani, S. Immunological tolerance and autoimmunity. Intern. Emerg. Med. 2006, 1, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Li, L.; Fang, C.J.; Ryan, J.C.; Niemi, E.C.; Lebrón, J.A.; Björkman, P.J.; Arase, H.; Torti, F.M.; Torti, S.V.; Nakamura, M.C.; et al. Binding and uptake of H-ferritin are mediated by human transferrin receptor-1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 3505–3510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Li, J.Y.; Paragas, N.; Ned, R.M.; Qiu, A.; Viltard, M.; Leete, T.; Drexler, I.R.; Chen, X.; Sanna-Cherchi, S.; Mohammed, F.; et al. Scara5 is a ferritin receptor mediating non-transferrin iron delivery. Dev. Cell 2009, 16, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Kuruppu, A.I.; Zhang, L.; Collins, H.; Turyanska, L.; Thomas, N.R.; Bradshaw, T.D. An Apoferritin-based Drug Delivery System for the Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Gefitinib. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2015, 4, 2816–2821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Monti, D.M.; Ferraro, G.; Petruk, G.; Maiore, L.; Pane, F.; Amoresano, A.; Cinellu, M.A.; Merlino, A. Ferritin nanocages loaded with gold ions induce oxidative stress and apoptosis in MCF-7 human breast cancer cells. Dalton Trans. 2017, 46, 15354–15362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Du, B.; Jia, S.; Wang, Q.; Ding, X.; Liu, Y.; Yao, H.; Zhou, J. A Self-Targeting, Dual ROS/pH-Responsive Apoferritin Nanocage for Spatiotemporally Controlled Drug Delivery to Breast Cancer. Biomacromolecules 2018, 19, 1026–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cheng, X.; Fan, K.; Wang, L.; Ying, X.; Sanders, A.J.; Guo, T.; Xing, X.; Zhou, M.; Du, H.; Hu, Y.; et al. TfR1 binding with H-ferritin nanocarrier achieves prognostic diagnosis and enhances the therapeutic efficacy in clinical gastric cancer. Cell Death Dis. 2020, 11, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Fan, K.; Jia, X.; Zhou, M.; Wang, K.; Conde, J.; He, J.; Tian, J.; Yan, X. Ferritin Nanocarrier Traverses the Blood Brain Barrier and Kills Glioma. ACS Nano 2018, 12, 4105–4115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Desgrosellier, J.S.; Cheresh, D.A. Integrins in cancer: Biological implications and therapeutic opportunities. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2010, 10, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Staatz, W.D.; Fok, K.F.; Zutter, M.M.; Adams, S.P.; Rodriguez, B.A.; Santoro, S.A. Identification of a tetrapeptide recognition sequence for the alpha 2 beta 1 integrin in collagen. J. Biol. Chem. 1991, 266, 7363–7367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Huang, C.-W.; Chuang, C.-P.; Chen, Y.-J.; Wang, H.-Y.; Lin, J.-J.; Huang, C.-Y.; Wei, K.-C.; Huang, F.-T. Integrin α2β1-targeting ferritin nanocarrier traverses the blood-brain barrier for effective glioma chemotherapy. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2021, 19, 180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Luo, B.; Lee, A.S. The critical roles of endoplasmic reticulum chaperones and unfolded protein response in tumorigenesis and anticancer therapies. Oncogene 2013, 32, 805–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Lee, A.S. GRP78 induction in cancer: Therapeutic and prognostic implications. Cancer Res. 2007, 67, 3496–3499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Brown, J.M.; Giaccia, A.J. The unique physiology of solid tumors: Opportunities (and problems) for cancer therapy. Cancer Res. 1998, 58, 1408–1416. [Google Scholar]
  61. Wang, Z.; Huang, P.; Jacobson, O.; Wang, Z.; Liu, Y.; Lin, L.; Lin, J.; Lu, N.; Zhang, H.; Tian, R.; et al. Biomineralization-Inspired Synthesis of Copper Sulfide-Ferritin Nanocages as Cancer Theranostics. ACS Nano 2016, 10, 3453–3460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Huang, C.; Chu, C.; Wang, X.; Lin, H.; Wang, J.; Zeng, Y.; Zhu, W.; Wang, Y.-X.J.; Liu, G. Ultra-high loading of sinoporphyrin sodium in ferritin for single-wave motivated photothermal and photodynamic co-therapy. Biomater. Sci. 2017, 5, 1512–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ulbrich, K.; Hekmatara, T.; Herbert, E.; Kreuter, J. Transferrin- and transferrin-receptor-antibody-modified nanoparticles enable drug delivery across the blood-brain barrier (BBB). Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2009, 71, 251–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Mishra, V.; Mahor, S.; Rawat, A.; Gupta, P.N.; Dubey, P.; Khatri, K.; Vyas, S.P. Targeted brain delivery of AZT via transferrin anchored pegylated albumin nanoparticles. J. Drug Target. 2006, 14, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Ferris, D.P.; Lu, J.; Gothard, C.; Yanes, R.; Thomas, C.R.; Olsen, J.-C.; Stoddart, J.F.; Tamanoi, F.; Zink, J.I. Synthesis of biomolecule-modified mesoporous silica nanoparticles for targeted hydrophobic drug delivery to cancer cells. Small 2011, 7, 1816–1826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ramalho, M.J.; Bravo, M.; Loureiro, J.A.; Lima, J.; Pereira, M.C. Transferrin-modified nanoparticles for targeted delivery of Asiatic acid to glioblastoma cells. Life Sci. 2022, 296, 120435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wang, K.; Yuan, A.; Yu, J.; Wu, J.; Hu, Y. One-Step Self-Assembling Method to Prepare Dual-Functional Transferrin Nanoparticles for Antitumor Drug Delivery. J. Pharm. Sci. 2016, 105, 1269–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Crichton, R.R.; Charloteaux-Wauters, M. Iron transport and storage. Eur. J. Biochem. 1987, 164, 485–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wang, K.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J.; Yuan, A.; Sun, M.; Wu, J.; Hu, Y. Self-assembled IR780-loaded transferrin nanoparticles as an imaging, targeting and PDT/PTT agent for cancer therapy. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 27421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Sardoiwala, M.N.; Kushwaha, A.C.; Dev, A.; Shrimali, N.; Guchhait, P.; Karmakar, S.; Roy Choudhury, S. Hypericin-Loaded Transferrin Nanoparticles Induce PP2A-Regulated BMI1 Degradation in Colorectal Cancer-Specific Chemo-Photodynamic Therapy. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 6, 3139–3153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Koneru, T.; McCord, E.; Pawar, S.; Tatiparti, K.; Sau, S.; Iyer, A.K. Transferrin: Biology and Use in Receptor-Targeted Nanotherapy of Gliomas. ACS Omega 2021, 6, 8727–8733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhu, M.; Sheng, Z.; Jia, Y.; Hu, D.; Liu, X.; Xia, X.; Liu, C.; Wang, P.; Wang, X.; Zheng, H. Indocyanine Green-holo-Transferrin Nanoassemblies for Tumor-Targeted Dual-Modal Imaging and Photothermal Therapy of Glioma. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 39249–39258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sutter, M.; Boehringer, D.; Gutmann, S.; Günther, S.; Prangishvili, D.; Loessner, M.J.; Stetter, K.O.; Weber-Ban, E.; Ban, N. Structural basis of enzyme encapsulation into a bacterial nanocompartment. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2008, 15, 939–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Moon, H.; Lee, J.; Min, J.; Kang, S. Developing genetically engineered encapsulin protein cage nanoparticles as a targeted delivery nanoplatform. Biomacromolecules 2014, 15, 3794–3801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Choi, H.; Eom, S.; Kim, H.-U.; Bae, Y.; Jung, H.S.; Kang, S. Load and Display: Engineering Encapsulin as a Modular Nanoplatform for Protein-Cargo Encapsulation and Protein-Ligand Decoration Using Split Intein and SpyTag/SpyCatcher. Biomacromolecules 2021, 22, 3028–3039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. van de Steen, A.; Khalife, R.; Colant, N.; Mustafa Khan, H.; Deveikis, M.; Charalambous, S.; Robinson, C.M.; Dabas, R.; Esteban Serna, S.; Catana, D.A.; et al. Bioengineering bacterial encapsulin nanocompartments as targeted drug delivery system. Synth. Syst. Biotechnol. 2021, 6, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Moon, H.; Lee, J.; Kim, H.; Heo, S.; Min, J.; Kang, S. Genetically engineering encapsulin protein cage nanoparticle as a SCC-7 cell targeting optical nanoprobe. Biomater. Res. 2014, 18, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Torra, J.; Lafaye, C.; Signor, L.; Aumonier, S.; Flors, C.; Shu, X.; Nonell, S.; Gotthard, G.; Royant, A. Tailing miniSOG: Structural bases of the complex photophysics of a flavin-binding singlet oxygen photosensitizing protein. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 2428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Chen, Y.; Willmott, N.; Anderson, J.; Florence, A.T. Comparison of albumin and casein microspheres as a carrier for doxorubicin. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 1987, 39, 978–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Desoize, B.; Jardillier, J.C.; Kanoun, K.; Guerin, D.; Levy, M.C. In-vitro cytotoxic activity of cross-linked protein microcapsules. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 1986, 38, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Semo, E.; Kesselman, E.; Danino, D.; Livney, Y. Casein micelle as a natural nano-capsular vehicle for nutraceuticals. Food Hydrocoll. 2007, 21, 936–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Elbialy, N.S.; Mohamed, N. Alginate-coated caseinate nanoparticles for doxorubicin delivery: Preparation, characterisation, and in vivo assessment. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 154, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gao, C.; Liang, J.; Zhu, Y.; Ling, C.; Cheng, Z.; Li, R.; Qin, J.; Lu, W.; Wang, J. Menthol-modified casein nanoparticles loading 10-hydroxycamptothecin for glioma targeting therapy. Acta Pharm. Sin. B 2019, 9, 843–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Purushothaman, B.K.; Maheswari, P.U.; Begum, K.M.S. Glutamic acid functionalized casein-calciumferrite magnetic nanosystem based on paired targeting effect for synergistic anticancer therapy. Mater. Lett. 2021, 303, 130550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Bar-Zeev, M.; Assaraf, Y.G.; Livney, Y.D. β-casein nanovehicles for oral delivery of chemotherapeutic Drug combinations overcoming P-glycoprotein-mediated multidrug resistance in human gastric cancer cells. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 23322–23334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Chen, L.; Wei, J.; An, M.; Zhang, L.; Lin, S.; Shu, G.; Yuan, Z.; Lin, J.; Peng, G.; Liang, X.; et al. Casein nanoparticles as oral delivery carriers of mequindox for the improved bioavailability. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2020, 195, 111221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Chang, C.; Wang, T.; Hu, Q.; Luo, Y. Caseinate-zein-polysaccharide complex nanoparticles as potential oral delivery vehicles for curcumin: Effect of polysaccharide type and chemical cross-linking. Food Hydrocoll. 2017, 72, 254–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Peñalva, R.; Esparza, I.; Morales-Gracia, J.; González-Navarro, C.J.; Larrañeta, E.; Irache, J.M. Casein nanoparticles in combination with 2-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin improves the oral bioavailability of quercetin. Int. J. Pharm. 2019, 570, 118652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Głąb, T.K.; Boratyński, J. Potential of Casein as a Carrier for Biologically Active Agents. Top. Curr. Chem. 2017, 375, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Gandhi, S.; Roy, I. Drug delivery applications of casein nanostructures: A minireview. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 2021, 66, 102843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Narayanan, S.; Mony, U.; Vijaykumar, D.K.; Koyakutty, M.; Paul-Prasanth, B.; Menon, D. Sequential release of epigallocatechin gallate and paclitaxel from PLGA-casein core/shell nanoparticles sensitizes drug-resistant breast cancer cells. Nanomedicine 2015, 11, 1399–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Singh, A.; Bajpai, J.; Bajpai, A.K.; Mongre, R.K.; Lee, M.-S. Encapsulation of cytarabine into casein coated iron oxide nanoparticles (CCIONPs) and study of in vitro drug release and anticancer activities. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 2020, 55, 101396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Xu, R.; Fisher, M.; Juliano, R.L. Targeted albumin-based nanoparticles for delivery of amphipathic drugs. Bioconjug. Chem. 2011, 22, 870–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Desai, N.; Trieu, V.; Yao, Z.; Louie, L.; Ci, S.; Yang, A.; Tao, C.; De, T.; Beals, B.; Dykes, D.; et al. Increased antitumor activity, intratumor paclitaxel concentrations, and endothelial cell transport of cremophor-free, albumin-bound paclitaxel, ABI-007, compared with cremophor-based paclitaxel. Clin. Cancer Res. 2006, 12, 1317–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Miele, E.; Spinelli, G.P.; Miele, E.; Tomao, F.; Tomao, S. Albumin-bound formulation of paclitaxel (Abraxane ABI-007) in the treatment of breast cancer. Int. J. Nanomed. 2009, 4, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Lee, E.S.; Youn, Y.S. Albumin-based potential drugs: Focus on half-life extension and nanoparticle preparation. J. Pharm. Investig. 2016, 46, 305–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Vaz, J.; Ansari, D.; Sasor, A.; Andersson, R. SPARC: A Potential Prognostic and Therapeutic Target in Pancreatic Cancer. Pancreas 2015, 44, 1024–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Pascual-Pasto, G.; Castillo-Ecija, H.; Unceta, N.; Aschero, R.; Resa-Pares, C.; Gómez-Caballero, A.; Vila-Ubach, M.; Muñoz-Aznar, O.; Suñol, M.; Burgueño, V.; et al. SPARC-mediated long-term retention of nab-paclitaxel in pediatric sarcomas. J. Control. Release 2022, 342, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Latta, M.; Knapp, M.; Sarmientos, P.; Bréfort, G.; Becquart, J.; Guerrier, L.; Jung, G.; Mayaux, J.-F. Synthesis and Purification of Mature Human Serum Albumin from E. Coli. Nat. Biotechnol. 1987, 5, 1309–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Yeh, P.; Landais, D.; Lemaître, M.; Maury, I.; Crenne, J.Y.; Becquart, J.; Murry-Brelier, A.; Boucher, F.; Montay, G.; Fleer, R. Design of yeast-secreted albumin derivatives for human therapy: Biological and antiviral properties of a serum albumin-CD4 genetic conjugate. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1992, 89, 1904–1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Yao, Z.; Dai, W.; Perry, J.; Brechbiel, M.W.; Sung, C. Effect of albumin fusion on the biodistribution of interleukin-2. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2004, 53, 404–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Metzner, H.J.; Weimer, T.; Kronthaler, U.; Lang, W.; Schulte, S. Genetic fusion to albumin improves the pharmacokinetic properties of factor IX. Thromb. Haemost. 2009, 102, 634–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Syed, S.; Schuyler, P.D.; Kulczycky, M.; Sheffield, W.P. Potent Antithrombin Activity and Delayed Clearance From the Circulation Characterize Recombinant Hirudin Genetically Fused to Albumin. Blood 1997, 89, 3243–3252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Wang, M.; Zhang, L.; Cai, Y.; Yang, Y.; Qiu, L.; Shen, Y.; Jin, J.; Zhou, J.; Chen, J. Bioengineered Human Serum Albumin Fusion Protein as Target/Enzyme/pH Three-Stage Propulsive Drug Vehicle for Tumor Therapy. ACS Nano 2020, 14, 17405–17418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Chen, Q.; Wang, X.; Wang, C.; Feng, L.; Li, Y.; Liu, Z. Drug-Induced Self-Assembly of Modified Albumins as Nano-theranostics for Tumor-Targeted Combination Therapy. ACS Nano 2015, 9, 5223–5233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Wagner, S.; Rothweiler, F.; Anhorn, M.G.; Sauer, D.; Riemann, I.; Weiss, E.C.; Katsen-Globa, A.; Michaelis, M.; Cinatl, J.; Schwartz, D.; et al. Enhanced drug targeting by attachment of an anti alphav integrin antibody to doxorubicin loaded human serum albumin nanoparticles. Biomaterials 2010, 31, 2388–2398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Dubey, R.D.; Alam, N.; Saneja, A.; Khare, V.; Kumar, A.; Vaidh, S.; Mahajan, G.; Sharma, P.R.; Singh, S.K.; Mondhe, D.M.; et al. Development and evaluation of folate functionalized albumin nanoparticles for targeted delivery of gemcitabine. Int. J. Pharm. 2015, 492, 80–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Qi, L.; Guo, Y.; Luan, J.; Zhang, D.; Zhao, Z.; Luan, Y. Folate-modified bexarotene-loaded bovine serum albumin nanoparticles as a promising tumor-targeting delivery system. J. Mater. Chem. B 2014, 2, 8361–8371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Akbarian, A.; Ebtekar, M.; Pakravan, N.; Hassan, Z.M. Folate receptor alpha targeted delivery of artemether to breast cancer cells with folate-decorated human serum albumin nanoparticles. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 152, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Kudarha, R.R.; Sawant, K.K. Hyaluronic acid conjugated albumin nanoparticles for efficient receptor mediated brain targeted delivery of temozolomide. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 2021, 61, 102129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Kunde, S.S.; Wairkar, S. Targeted delivery of albumin nanoparticles for breast cancer: A review. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2022, 213, 112422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Kianfar, E. Protein nanoparticles in drug delivery: Animal protein, plant proteins and protein cages, albumin nanoparticles. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2021, 19, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Maham, A.; Tang, Z.; Wu, H.; Wang, J.; Lin, Y. Protein-based nanomedicine platforms for drug delivery. Small 2009, 5, 1706–1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Kunjiappan, S.; Pavadai, P.; Vellaichamy, S.; Ram Kumar Pandian, S.; Ravishankar, V.; Palanisamy, P.; Govindaraj, S.; Srinivasan, G.; Premanand, A.; Sankaranarayanan, M.; et al. Surface receptor-mediated targeted drug delivery systems for enhanced cancer treatment: A state-of-the-art review. Drug Dev. Res. 2021, 82, 309–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Hassanin, I.; Elzoghby, A. Albumin-based nanoparticles: A promising strategy to overcome cancer drug resistance. Cancer Drug Resist. 2020, 3, 930–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Van de Sande, L.; Cosyns, S.; Willaert, W.; Ceelen, W. Albumin-based cancer therapeutics for intraperitoneal drug delivery: A review. Drug Deliv. 2020, 27, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. An, F.-F.; Zhang, X.-H. Strategies for Preparing Albumin-based Nanoparticles for Multifunctional Bioimaging and Drug Delivery. Theranostics 2017, 7, 3667–3689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Spada, A.; Emami, J.; Tuszynski, J.A.; Lavasanifar, A. The Uniqueness of Albumin as a Carrier in Nanodrug Delivery. Mol. Pharm. 2021, 18, 1862–1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Sogomonyan, A.S.; Shipunova, V.O.; Soloviev, V.D.; Larionov, V.I.; Kotelnikova, P.A.; Deyev, S.M. 3D Models of Cellular Spheroids As a Universal Tool for Studying the Cytotoxic Properties of Anticancer Compounds In Vitro. Acta Nat. 2022, 14, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Shramova, E.I.; Chumakov, S.P.; Shipunova, V.O.; Ryabova, A.V.; Telegin, G.B.; Kabashin, A.V.; Deyev, S.M.; Proshkina, G.M. Genetically encoded BRET-activated photodynamic therapy for the treatment of deep-seated tumors. Light Sci. Appl. 2022, 11, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Lunin, A.V.; Korenkov, E.S.; Mochalova, E.N.; Nikitin, M.P. Green Synthesis of Size-Controlled in Vivo Biocompatible Immunoglobulin-Based Nanoparticles by a Swift Thermal Formation. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 13128–13134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Steijns, J.M.; van Hooijdonk, A.C. Occurrence, structure, biochemical properties and technological characteristics of lactoferrin. Br. J. Nutr. 2000, 84 (Suppl. S1), S11–S17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Wahlgren, M.C.; Arnebrant, T.; Paulsson, M.A. The Adsorption from Solutions of β-Lactoglobulin Mixed with Lactoferrin or Lysozyme onto Silica and Methylated Silica Surfaces. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1993, 158, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Golla, K.; Bhaskar, C.; Ahmed, F.; Kondapi, A.K. A target-specific oral formulation of Doxorubicin-protein nanoparticles: Efficacy and safety in hepatocellular cancer. J. Cancer 2013, 4, 644–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  125. Golla, K.; Cherukuvada, B.; Ahmed, F.; Kondapi, A.K. Efficacy, safety and anticancer activity of protein nanoparticle-based delivery of doxorubicin through intravenous administration in rats. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e51960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Kumari, S.; Ahsan, S.M.; Kumar, J.M.; Kondapi, A.K.; Rao, N.M. Overcoming blood brain barrier with a dual purpose Temozolomide loaded Lactoferrin nanoparticles for combating glioma (SERP-17-12433). Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 6602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Tang, S.; Wang, A.; Yan, X.; Chu, L.; Yang, X.; Song, Y.; Sun, K.; Yu, X.; Liu, R.; Wu, Z.; et al. Brain-targeted intranasal delivery of dopamine with borneol and lactoferrin co-modified nanoparticles for treating Parkinson’s disease. Drug Deliv. 2019, 26, 700–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Crowe, T.P.; Hsu, W.H. Evaluation of Recent Intranasal Drug Delivery Systems to the Central Nervous System. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Aldape, K.; Brindle, K.M.; Chesler, L.; Chopra, R.; Gajjar, A.; Gilbert, M.R.; Gottardo, N.; Gutmann, D.H.; Hargrave, D.; Holland, E.C.; et al. Challenges to curing primary brain tumours. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 16, 509–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Caraway, C.A.; Gaitsch, H.; Wicks, E.E.; Kalluri, A.; Kunadi, N.; Tyler, B.M. Polymeric Nanoparticles in Brain Cancer Therapy: A Review of Current Approaches. Polymers 2022, 14, 2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Mitusova, K.; Peltek, O.O.; Karpov, T.E.; Muslimov, A.R.; Zyuzin, M.V.; Timin, A.S. Overcoming the blood-brain barrier for the therapy of malignant brain tumor: Current status and prospects of drug delivery approaches. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2022, 20, 412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Ou, A.-T.; Zhang, J.-X.; Fang, Y.-F.; Wang, R.; Tang, X.-P.; Zhao, P.-F.; Zhao, Y.-G.; Zhang, M.; Huang, Y.-Z. Disulfiram-loaded lactoferrin nanoparticles for treating inflammatory diseases. Acta Pharmacol. Sin. 2021, 42, 1913–1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Narayana, R.V.L.; Jana, P.; Tomar, N.; Prabhu, V.; Nair, R.M.; Manukonda, R.; Kaliki, S.; Coupland, S.E.; Alexander, J.; Kalirai, H.; et al. Carboplatin- and Etoposide-Loaded Lactoferrin Protein Nanoparticles for Targeting Cancer Stem Cells in Retinoblastoma In Vitro. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2021, 62, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Senapathi, J.; Bommakanti, A.; Mallepalli, S.; Mukhopadhyay, S.; Kondapi, A.K. Sulfonate modified Lactoferrin nanoparticles as drug carriers with dual activity against HIV-1. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2020, 191, 110979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Azuma, Y.; Edwardson, T.G.W.; Hilvert, D. Tailoring lumazine synthase assemblies for bionanotechnology. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2018, 47, 3543–3557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Ritsert, K.; Huber, R.; Turk, D.; Ladenstein, R.; Schmidt-Bäse, K.; Bacher, A. Studies on the lumazine synthase/riboflavin synthase complex of Bacillus subtilis: Crystal structure analysis of reconstituted, icosahedral beta-subunit capsids with bound substrate analogue inhibitor at 2.4 A resolution. J. Mol. Biol. 1995, 253, 151–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Min, J.; Kim, S.; Lee, J.; Kang, S. Lumazine synthase protein cage nanoparticles as modular delivery platforms for targeted drug delivery. RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 48596–48600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Ra, J.-S.; Shin, H.-H.; Kang, S.; Do, Y. Lumazine synthase protein cage nanoparticles as antigen delivery nanoplatforms for dendritic cell-based vaccine development. Clin. Exp. Vaccine Res. 2014, 3, 227–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  139. Zhang, X.; Meining, W.; Fischer, M.; Bacher, A.; Ladenstein, R. X-ray structure analysis and crystallographic refinement of lumazine synthase from the hyperthermophile Aquifex aeolicus at 1.6 A resolution: Determinants of thermostability revealed from structural comparisons. J. Mol. Biol. 2001, 306, 1099–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Kim, H.; Kang, Y.J.; Min, J.; Choi, H.; Kang, S. Development of an antibody-binding modular nanoplatform for antibody-guided targeted cell imaging and delivery. RSC Adv. 2016, 6, 19208–19213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Artykov, A.A.; Belov, D.A.; Shipunova, V.O.; Trushina, D.B.; Deyev, S.M.; Dolgikh, D.A.; Kirpichnikov, M.P.; Gasparian, M.E. Chemotherapeutic Agents Sensitize Resistant Cancer Cells to the DR5-Specific Variant DR5-B more Efficiently than to TRAIL by Modulating the Surface Expression of Death and Decoy Receptors. Cancers 2020, 12, 1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Jun, H.; Jang, E.; Kim, H.; Yeo, M.; Park, S.G.; Lee, J.; Shin, K.J.; Chae, Y.C.; Kang, S.; Kim, E. TRAIL & EGFR affibody dual-display on a protein nanoparticle synergistically suppresses tumor growth. J. Control. Release 2022, 349, 367–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Levasseur, M.D.; Mantri, S.; Hayashi, T.; Reichenbach, M.; Hehn, S.; Waeckerle-Men, Y.; Johansen, P.; Hilvert, D. Cell-Specific Delivery Using an Engineered Protein Nanocage. ACS Chem. Biol. 2021, 16, 838–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Delfi, M.; Sartorius, R.; Ashrafizadeh, M.; Sharifi, E.; Zhang, Y.; de Berardinis, P.; Zarrabi, A.; Varma, R.S.; Tay, F.R.; Smith, B.R.; et al. Self-assembled peptide and protein nanostructures for anti-cancer therapy: Targeted delivery, stimuli-responsive devices and immunotherapy. Nano Today 2021, 38, 101119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Milne, J.L.S.; Wu, X.; Borgnia, M.J.; Lengyel, J.S.; Brooks, B.R.; Shi, D.; Perham, R.N.; Subramaniam, S. Molecular structure of a 9-MDa icosahedral pyruvate dehydrogenase subcomplex containing the E2 and E3 enzymes using cryoelectron microscopy. J. Biol. Chem. 2006, 281, 4364–4370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  146. Dalmau, M.; Lim, S.; Chen, H.C.; Ruiz, C.; Wang, S.-W. Thermostability and molecular encapsulation within an engineered caged protein scaffold. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2008, 101, 654–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Molino, N.M.; Neek, M.; Tucker, J.A.; Nelson, E.L.; Wang, S.-W. Viral-mimicking protein nanoparticle vaccine for eliciting anti-tumor responses. Biomaterials 2016, 86, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  148. Caivano, A.; Doria-Rose, N.A.; Buelow, B.; Sartorius, R.; Trovato, M.; D’Apice, L.; Domingo, G.J.; Sutton, W.F.; Haigwood, N.L.; Berardinis, P.D. HIV-1 Gag p17 presented as virus-like particles on the E2 scaffold from Geobacillus stearothermophilus induces sustained humoral and cellular immune responses in the absence of IFNγ production by CD4+ T cells. Virology 2010, 407, 296–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  149. Jaworski, J.P.; Krebs, S.J.; Trovato, M.; Kovarik, D.N.; Brower, Z.; Sutton, W.F.; Waagmeester, G.; Sartorius, R.; D’Apice, L.; Caivano, A.; et al. Co-immunization with multimeric scaffolds and DNA rapidly induces potent autologous HIV-1 neutralizing antibodies and CD8+ T cells. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e31464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  150. Lieser, R.M.; Chen, W.; Sullivan, M.O. Controlled Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Ligand Display on Cancer Suicide Enzymes via Unnatural Amino Acid Engineering for Enhanced Intracellular Delivery in Breast Cancer Cells. Bioconjug. Chem. 2019, 30, 432–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Li, Z.; Zhao, R.; Wu, X.; Sun, Y.; Yao, M.; Li, J.; Xu, Y.; Gu, J. Identification and characterization of a novel peptide ligand of epidermal growth factor receptor for targeted delivery of therapeutics. FASEB J. 2005, 19, 1978–1985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Lieser, R.M.; Hartzell, E.J.; Yur, D.; Sullivan, M.O.; Chen, W. EGFR Ligand Clustering on E2 Bionanoparticles for Targeted Delivery of Chemotherapeutics to Breast Cancer Cells. Bioconjug. Chem. 2022, 33, 452–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Lefèvre, C.T.; Bazylinski, D.A. Ecology, diversity, and evolution of magnetotactic bacteria. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2013, 77, 497–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Erdal, E.; Demirbilek, M.; Yeh, Y.; Akbal, Ö.; Ruff, L.; Bozkurt, D.; Cabuk, A.; Senel, Y.; Gumuskaya, B.; Algın, O.; et al. A Comparative Study of Receptor-Targeted Magnetosome and HSA-Coated Iron Oxide Nanoparticles as MRI Contrast-Enhancing Agent in Animal Cancer Model. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2018, 185, 91–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Kuzajewska, D.; Wszołek, A.; Żwierełło, W.; Kirczuk, L.; Maruszewska, A. Magnetotactic Bacteria and Magnetosomes as Smart Drug Delivery Systems: A New Weapon on the Battlefield with Cancer? Biology 2020, 9, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Ye, P.; Li, F.; Zou, J.; Luo, Y.; Wang, S.; Lu, G.; Zhang, F.; Chen, C.; Long, J.; Jia, R.; et al. In Situ Generation of Gold Nanoparticles on Bacteria-Derived Magnetosomes for Imaging-Guided Starving/Chemodynamic/Photothermal Synergistic Therapy against Cancer. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2022, 32, 2110063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Ma, K.; Zhao, H.; Zheng, X.; Sun, H.; Hu, L.; Zhu, L.; Shen, Y.; Luo, T.; Dai, H.; Wang, J. NMR studies of the interactions between AMB-1 Mms6 protein and magnetosome Fe3O4 nanoparticles. J. Mater. Chem. B 2017, 5, 2888–2895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Arakaki, A.; Webb, J.; Matsunaga, T. A novel protein tightly bound to bacterial magnetic particles in Magnetospirillum magneticum strain AMB-1. J. Biol. Chem. 2003, 278, 8745–8750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  159. Rawlings, A.E.; Bramble, J.P.; Hounslow, A.M.; Williamson, M.P.; Monnington, A.E.; Cooke, D.J.; Staniland, S.S. Ferrous Iron Binding Key to Mms6 Magnetite Biomineralisation: A Mechanistic Study to Understand Magnetite Formation Using pH Titration and NMR Spectroscopy. Chemistry 2016, 22, 7885–7894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  160. Wang, L.; Prozorov, T.; Palo, P.E.; Liu, X.; Vaknin, D.; Prozorov, R.; Mallapragada, S.; Nilsen-Hamilton, M. Self-assembly and biphasic iron-binding characteristics of Mms6, a bacterial protein that promotes the formation of superparamagnetic magnetite nanoparticles of uniform size and shape. Biomacromolecules 2012, 13, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Peigneux, A.; Jabalera, Y.; Vivas, M.A.F.; Casares, S.; Azuaga, A.I.; Jimenez-Lopez, C. Tuning properties of biomimetic magnetic nanoparticles by combining magnetosome associated proteins. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 8804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  162. Yavuz, M.; Ütkür, M.; Kehribar, E.Ş.; Yağız, E.; Sarıtaş, E.Ü.; Şeker, U.Ö.Ş. Engineered Bacteria with Genetic Circuits Accumulating Nanomagnets as MRI Contrast Agents. Small 2022, 18, e2200537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Arakaki, A.; Masuda, F.; Amemiya, Y.; Tanaka, T.; Matsunaga, T. Control of the morphology and size of magnetite particles with peptides mimicking the Mms6 protein from magnetotactic bacteria. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2010, 343, 65–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Prozorov, T.; Palo, P.; Wang, L.; Nilsen-Hamilton, M.; Jones, D.; Orr, D.; Mallapragada, S.K.; Narasimhan, B.; Canfield, P.C.; Prozorov, R. Cobalt ferrite nanocrystals: Out-performing magnetotactic bacteria. ACS Nano 2007, 1, 228–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  165. Shipunova, V.O.; Kotelnikova, P.A.; Aghayeva, U.F.; Stremovskiy, O.A.; Novikov, I.A.; Schulga, A.A.; Nikitin, M.P.; Deyev, S.M. Self-assembling nanoparticles biofunctionalized with magnetite-binding protein for the targeted delivery to HER2/neu overexpressing cancer cells. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2019, 469, 450–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Kotelnikova, P.A.; Shipunova, V.O.; Aghayeva, U.F.; Stremovskiy, O.A.; Nikitin, M.P.; Novikov, I.A.; Schulga, A.A.; Deyev, S.M.; Petrov, R.V. Synthesis of Magnetic Nanoparticles Stabilized by Magnetite-Binding Protein for Targeted Delivery to Cancer Cells. Dokl. Biochem. Biophys. 2018, 481, 198–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Alphandéry, E.; Faure, S.; Seksek, O.; Guyot, F.; Chebbi, I. Chains of magnetosomes extracted from AMB-1 magnetotactic bacteria for application in alternative magnetic field cancer therapy. ACS Nano 2011, 5, 6279–6296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Geng, Y.; Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Liu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Niu, W.; Basit, A.; Liu, W.; Jiang, W. Growth-inhibitory effects of anthracycline-loaded bacterial magnetosomes against hepatic cancer in vitro and in vivo. Nanomedicine 2019, 14, 1663–1680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Zhang, F.; Li, F.; Lu, G.-H.; Nie, W.; Zhang, L.; Lv, Y.; Bao, W.; Gao, X.; Wei, W.; Pu, K.; et al. Engineering Magnetosomes for Ferroptosis/Immunomodulation Synergism in Cancer. ACS Nano 2019, 13, 5662–5673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Bayer, M.E.; Blumberg, B.S.; Werner, B. Particles associated with Australia antigen in the sera of patients with leukaemia, Down’s Syndrome and hepatitis. Nature 1968, 218, 1057–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Nooraei, S.; Bahrulolum, H.; Hoseini, Z.S.; Katalani, C.; Hajizade, A.; Easton, A.J.; Ahmadian, G. Virus-like particles: Preparation, immunogenicity and their roles as nanovaccines and drug nanocarriers. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2021, 19, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Mejía-Méndez, J.L.; Vazquez-Duhalt, R.; Hernández, L.R.; Sánchez-Arreola, E.; Bach, H. Virus-like Particles: Fundamentals and Biomedical Applications. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 8579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Zdanowicz, M.; Chroboczek, J. Virus-like particles as drug delivery vectors. Acta Biochim. Pol. 2016, 63, 469–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Zubarev, I.; Vladimirtsev, D.; Vorontsova, M.; Blatov, I.; Shevchenko, K.; Zvereva, S.; Lunev, E.A.; Faizuloev, E.; Barlev, N. Viral Membrane Fusion Proteins and RNA Sorting Mechanisms for the Molecular Delivery by Exosomes. Cells 2021, 10, 3043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Donaldson, B.; Lateef, Z.; Walker, G.F.; Young, S.L.; Ward, V.K. Virus-like particle vaccines: Immunology and formulation for clinical translation. Expert Rev. Vaccines 2018, 17, 833–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Charlton Hume, H.K.; Vidigal, J.; Carrondo, M.J.T.; Middelberg, A.P.J.; Roldão, A.; Lua, L.H.L. Synthetic biology for bioengineering virus-like particle vaccines. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2019, 116, 919–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  177. Wang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Luo, J.; Han, X.; Wei, Y.; Wei, X. mRNA vaccine: A potential therapeutic strategy. Mol. Cancer 2021, 20, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Sharma, O.; Sultan, A.A.; Ding, H.; Triggle, C.R. A Review of the Progress and Challenges of Developing a Vaccine for COVID-19. Front. Immunol. 2020, 11, 585354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Roldão, A.; Mellado, M.C.M.; Castilho, L.R.; Carrondo, M.J.T.; Alves, P.M. Virus-like particles in vaccine development. Expert Rev. Vaccines 2010, 9, 1149–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Hagen, S.; Baumann, T.; Wagner, H.J.; Morath, V.; Kaufmann, B.; Fischer, A.; Bergmann, S.; Schindler, P.; Arndt, K.M.; Müller, K.M. Modular adeno-associated virus (rAAV) vectors used for cellular virus-directed enzyme prodrug therapy. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 3759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  181. Münch, R.C.; Janicki, H.; Völker, I.; Rasbach, A.; Hallek, M.; Büning, H.; Buchholz, C.J. Displaying high-affinity ligands on adeno-associated viral vectors enables tumor cell-specific and safe gene transfer. Mol. Ther. 2013, 21, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  182. Fang, C.-Y.; Tsai, Y.-D.; Lin, M.-C.; Wang, M.; Chen, P.-L.; Chao, C.-N.; Huang, Y.-L.; Chang, D.; Shen, C.-H. Inhibition of human bladder cancer growth by a suicide gene delivered by JC polyomavirus virus-like particles in a mouse model. J. Urol. 2015, 193, 2100–2106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Kaufman, H.L.; Kohlhapp, F.J.; Zloza, A. Oncolytic viruses: A new class of immunotherapy drugs. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2015, 14, 642–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Cao, G.-D.; He, X.-B.; Sun, Q.; Chen, S.; Wan, K.; Xu, X.; Feng, X.; Li, P.-P.; Chen, B.; Xiong, M.-M. The Oncolytic Virus in Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment. Front. Oncol. 2020, 10, 1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Yacoby, I.; Shamis, M.; Bar, H.; Shabat, D.; Benhar, I. Targeting antibacterial agents by using drug-carrying filamentous bacteriophages. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2006, 50, 2087–2097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  186. Schlimgen, R.; Howard, J.; Wooley, D.; Thompson, M.; Baden, L.R.; Yang, O.O.; Christiani, D.C.; Mostoslavsky, G.; Diamond, D.V.; Duane, E.G.; et al. Risks Associated with Lentiviral Vector Exposures and Prevention Strategies. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2016, 58, 1159–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  187. Hacein-Bey-Abina, S.; von Kalle, C.; Schmidt, M.; McCormack, M.P.; Wulffraat, N.; Leboulch, P.; Lim, A.; Osborne, C.S.; Pawliuk, R.; Morillon, E.; et al. LMO2-associated clonal T cell proliferation in two patients after gene therapy for SCID-X1. Science 2003, 302, 415–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Stolberg, S.G. The biotech death of Jesse Gelsinger. NY Times Mag. 1999, 28, 136–140. [Google Scholar]
  189. Wirth, T.; Parker, N.; Ylä-Herttuala, S. History of gene therapy. Gene 2013, 525, 162–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. El-Aneed, A. An overview of current delivery systems in cancer gene therapy. J. Control. Release 2004, 94, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Kozlovskaya, L.I.; Piniaeva, A.N.; Ignatyev, G.M.; Gordeychuk, I.V.; Volok, V.P.; Rogova, Y.V.; Shishova, A.A.; Kovpak, A.A.; Ivin, Y.Y.; Antonova, L.P.; et al. Long-term humoral immunogenicity, safety and protective efficacy of inactivated vaccine against COVID-19 (CoviVac) in preclinical studies. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 2021, 10, 1790–1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Jones, I.; Roy, P. Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine candidate appears safe and effective. Lancet 2021, 397, 642–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Dundas, C.M.; Demonte, D.; Park, S. Streptavidin-biotin technology: Improvements and innovations in chemical and biological applications. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013, 97, 9343–9353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Holmberg, A.; Blomstergren, A.; Nord, O.; Lukacs, M.; Lundeberg, J.; Uhlén, M. The biotin-streptavidin interaction can be reversibly broken using water at elevated temperatures. Electrophoresis 2005, 26, 501–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Chen, M.-H.; Soda, Y.; Izawa, K.; Kobayashi, S.; Tani, K.; Maruyama, K.; Tojo, A.; Asano, S. A versatile drug delivery system using streptavidin-tagged pegylated liposomes and biotinylated biomaterials. Int. J. Pharm. 2013, 454, 478–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Förster, G.J.; Santos, E.B.; Smith-Jones, P.M.; Zanzonico, P.; Larson, S.M. Pretargeted radioimmunotherapy with a single-chain antibody/streptavidin construct and radiolabeled DOTA-biotin: Strategies for reduction of the renal dose. J. Nucl. Med. 2006, 47, 140–149. [Google Scholar]
  197. Hatlem, D.; Trunk, T.; Linke, D.; Leo, J.C. Catching a SPY: Using the SpyCatcher-SpyTag and Related Systems for Labeling and Localizing Bacterial Proteins. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 2129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  198. Reddington, S.C.; Howarth, M. Secrets of a covalent interaction for biomaterials and biotechnology: SpyTag and SpyCatcher. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2015, 29, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  199. Lee, C.; Kang, S. Development of HER2-Targeting-Ligand-Modified Albumin Nanoparticles Based on the SpyTag/SpyCatcher System for Photothermal Therapy. Biomacromolecules 2021, 22, 2649–2658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Keeble, A.H.; Turkki, P.; Stokes, S.; Khairil Anuar, I.N.A.; Rahikainen, R.; Hytönen, V.P.; Howarth, M. Approaching infinite affinity through engineering of peptide-protein interaction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 26523–26533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  201. Lu, Z.H.; Li, J.; Dmitriev, I.P.; Kashentseva, E.A.; Curiel, D.T. Efficient Genome Editing Achieved via Plug-and-Play Adenovirus Piggyback Transport of Cas9/gRNA Complex on Viral Capsid Surface. ACS Nano 2022, 16, 10443–10455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Komedchikova, E.N.; Kolesnikova, O.A.; Tereshina, E.D.; Kotelnikova, P.A.; Sogomonyan, A.S.; Stepanov, A.V.; Deyev, S.M.; Nikitin, M.P.; Shipunova, V.O. Two-Step Targeted Drug Delivery via Proteinaceous Barnase-Barstar Interface and Doxorubicin-Loaded Nano-PLGA Outperforms One-Step Strategy for Targeted Delivery to HER2-Overexpressing Cells. Pharmaceutics 2023, 15, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Shipunova, V.O.; Shramova, E.I.; Schulga, A.A.; Shilova, M.V.; Deyev, S.M.; Proshkina, G.M. Delivery of Barnase to Cells in Liposomes Functionalized by Her2-Specific DARPin Module. Russ. J. Bioorg. Chem. 2020, 46, 1156–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Yashchenok, A.M.; Gusliakova, O.I.; Konovalova, E.V.; Novoselova, M.V.; Shipunova, V.O.; Abakumova, T.O.; Efimova, O.I.; Kholodenko, R.; Schulga, A.A.; Zatsepin, T.S.; et al. Barnase encapsulation into submicron porous CaCO3 particles: Studies of loading and enzyme activity. J. Mater. Chem. B 2021, 9, 8823–8831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  205. Deyev, S.M.; Lebedenko, E.N. Targeted Bifunctional Proteins and Hybrid Nanoconstructs for Cancer Diagnostics and Therapies. Mol. Biol. 2017, 51, 788–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Zdobnova, T.A.; Stremovskiy, O.A.; Lebedenko, E.N.; Deyev, S.M. Self-assembling complexes of quantum dots and scFv antibodies for cancer cell targeting and imaging. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e48248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  207. Nikitin, M.P.; Zdobnova, T.A.; Lukash, S.V.; Stremovskiy, O.A.; Deyev, S.M. Protein-assisted self-assembly of multifunctional nanoparticles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 5827–5832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  208. Shipunova, V.O.; Zelepukin, I.V.; Stremovskiy, O.A.; Nikitin, M.P.; Care, A.; Sunna, A.; Zvyagin, A.V.; Deyev, S.M. Versatile Platform for Nanoparticle Surface Bioengineering Based on SiO2-Binding Peptide and Proteinaceous Barnase*Barstar Interface. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 17437–17447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Stepanov, A.V.; Kalinin, R.S.; Shipunova, V.O.; Zhang, D.; Xie, J.; Rubtsov, Y.P.; Ukrainskaya, V.M.; Schulga, A.; Konovalova, E.V.; Volkov, D.V.; et al. Switchable targeting of solid tumors by BsCAR T cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2022, 119, e2210562119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Aghayeva, U.F.; Nikitin, M.P.; Lukash, S.V.; Deyev, S.M. Denaturation-resistant bifunctional colloidal superstructures assembled via the proteinaceous barnase-barstar interface. ACS Nano 2013, 7, 950–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Choe, W.; Durgannavar, T.A.; Chung, S.J. Fc-Binding Ligands of Immunoglobulin G: An Overview of High Affinity Proteins and Peptides. Materials 2016, 9, 994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  212. Rispens, T.; Te Velthuis, H.; Hemker, P.; Speijer, H.; Hermens, W.; Aarden, L. Label-free assessment of high-affinity antibody-antigen binding constants. Comparison of bioassay, SPR, and PEIA-ellipsometry. J. Immunol. Methods 2011, 365, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  213. Kotelnikova, P.A.; Iureva, A.M.; Nikitin, M.P.; Zvyagin, A.V.; Deyev, S.M.; Shipunova, V.O. Peroxidase-like activity of silver nanowires and its application for colorimetric detection of the antibiotic chloramphenicol. Talanta Open 2022, 6, 100164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Kovalenko, V.L.; Komedchikova, E.N.; Sogomonyan, A.S.; Tereshina, E.D.; Kolesnikova, O.A.; Mirkasymov, A.B.; Iureva, A.M.; Zvyagin, A.V.; Nikitin, P.I.; Shipunova, V.O. Lectin-Modified Magnetic Nano-PLGA for Photodynamic Therapy In Vivo. Pharmaceutics 2023, 15, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Bies, C.; Lehr, C.-M.; Woodley, J.F. Lectin-mediated drug targeting: History and applications. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2004, 56, 425–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Shipunova, V.O.; Nikitin, M.P.; Zelepukin, I.V.; Nikitin, P.I.; Deyev, S.M.; Petrov, R.V. A comprehensive study of interactions between lectins and glycoproteins for the development of effective theranostic nanoagents. Dokl. Biochem. Biophys. 2015, 464, 315–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Goding, J.W. Use of staphylococcal protein A as an immunological reagent. J. Immunol. Methods 1978, 20, 241–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Rombouts, Y.; Willemze, A.; van Beers, J.J.B.C.; Shi, J.; Kerkman, P.F.; van Toorn, L.; Janssen, G.M.C.; Zaldumbide, A.; Hoeben, R.C.; Pruijn, G.J.M.; et al. Extensive glycosylation of ACPA-IgG variable domains modulates binding to citrullinated antigens in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2016, 75, 578–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Shim, G.; Kim, D.; Lee, S.; Chang, R.S.; Byun, J.; Oh, Y.-K. Staphylococcus aureus-mimetic control of antibody orientation on nanoparticles. Nanomedicine 2019, 16, 267–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Liang, L.; Care, A.; Zhang, R.; Lu, Y.; Packer, N.H.; Sunna, A.; Qian, Y.; Zvyagin, A.V. Facile Assembly of Functional Upconversion Nanoparticles for Targeted Cancer Imaging and Photodynamic Therapy. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 11945–11953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Björck, L.; Protein, L. A novel bacterial cell wall protein with affinity for Ig L chains. J. Immunol. 1988, 140, 1194–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Roque, A.C.A.; Taipa, M.A.; Lowe, C.R. An artificial protein L for the purification of immunoglobulins and fab fragments by affinity chromatography. J. Chromatogr. A 2005, 1064, 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Nichols, R.J.; Cassidy-Amstutz, C.; Chaijarasphong, T.; Savage, D.F. Encapsulins: Molecular biology of the shell. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2017, 52, 583–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  224. Tamura, A.; Fukutani, Y.; Takami, T.; Fujii, M.; Nakaguchi, Y.; Murakami, Y.; Noguchi, K.; Yohda, M.; Odaka, M. Packaging guest proteins into the encapsulin nanocompartment from Rhodococcus erythropolis N771. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2015, 112, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  225. Cassidy-Amstutz, C.; Oltrogge, L.; Going, C.C.; Lee, A.; Teng, P.; Quintanilla, D.; East-Seletsky, A.; Williams, E.R.; Savage, D.F. Identification of a Minimal Peptide Tag for in Vivo and in Vitro Loading of Encapsulin. Biochemistry 2016, 55, 3461–3468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  226. Michel-Souzy, S.; Hamelmann, N.M.; Zarzuela-Pura, S.; Paulusse, J.M.J.; Cornelissen, J.J.L.M. Introduction of Surface Loops as a Tool for Encapsulin Functionalization. Biomacromolecules 2021, 22, 5234–5242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  227. Tripathi, N.K.; Shrivastava, A. Recent Developments in Bioprocessing of Recombinant Proteins: Expression Hosts and Process Development. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2019, 7, 420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  228. Kratz, F. A clinical update of using albumin as a drug vehicle—A commentary. J. Control. Release 2014, 190, 331–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Chu, L.; Robinson, D.K. Industrial choices for protein production by large-scale cell culture. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2001, 12, 180–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Xie, L.; Zhou, W.; Robinson, D. Protein production by large-scale mammalian cell culture. In Gene Transfer and Expression in Mammalian Cells; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2003; pp. 605–623. ISBN 9780444513717. [Google Scholar]
  231. Ceelen, W.; Sandra, L.; van de Sande, L.; Graversen, M.; Mortensen, M.B.; Vermeulen, A.; Gasthuys, E.; Reynders, D.; Cosyns, S.; Hoorens, A.; et al. Phase I study of intraperitoneal aerosolized nanoparticle albumin based paclitaxel (NAB-PTX) for unresectable peritoneal metastases. EBioMedicine 2022, 82, 104151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Chu, M.; Wang, H.; Bian, L.; Huang, J.; Wu, D.; Zhang, R.; Fei, F.; Chen, Y.; Xia, J. Nebulization Therapy with Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Derived Exosomes for COVID-19 Pneumonia. Stem Cell Rev. Rep. 2022, 18, 2152–2163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Kanae, H.; Teshima, K.; Shiroma, T.; Noguchi, K. Pharmacokinetics of a single dose of novel curcumin formulations mixed with fish oils in healthy humans. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2022, 86, 1688–1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Ongkudon, C.M.; Chew, J.H.; Liu, B.; Danquah, M.K. Chromatographic Removal of Endotoxins: A Bioprocess Engineer’s Perspective. ISRN Chromatogr. 2012, 2012, 649746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  235. Shilova, O.; Shramova, E.; Proshkina, G.; Deyev, S. Natural and Designed Toxins for Precise Therapy: Modern Approaches in Experimental Oncology. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 4975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Shipunova, V.O.; Komedchikova, E.N.; Kotelnikova, P.A.; Zelepukin, I.V.; Schulga, A.A.; Proshkina, G.M.; Shramova, E.I.; Kutscher, H.L.; Telegin, G.B.; Kabashin, A.V.; et al. Dual Regioselective Targeting the Same Receptor in Nanoparticle-Mediated Combination Immuno/Chemotherapy for Enhanced Image-Guided Cancer Treatment. ACS Nano 2020, 14, 12781–12795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Xi, X.-M.; Xia, S.-J.; Lu, R. Drug loading techniques for exosome-based drug delivery systems. Pharmazie 2021, 76, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Huang, X.; Brazel, C.S. On the importance and mechanisms of burst release in matrix-controlled drug delivery systems. J. Control. Release 2001, 73, 121–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Yoo, J.; Won, Y.-Y. Phenomenology of the Initial Burst Release of Drugs from PLGA Microparticles. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 6, 6053–6062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Hasan, A.S.; Socha, M.; Lamprecht, A.; Ghazouani, F.E.; Sapin, A.; Hoffman, M.; Maincent, P.; Ubrich, N. Effect of the microencapsulation of nanoparticles on the reduction of burst release. Int. J. Pharm. 2007, 344, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Leach, W.T.; Simpson, D.T.; Val, T.N.; Anuta, E.C.; Yu, Z.; Williams, R.O.; Johnston, K.P. Uniform encapsulation of stable protein nanoparticles produced by spray freezing for the reduction of burst release. J. Pharm. Sci. 2005, 94, 56–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Horne, D.S. Casein micelle structure: Models and muddles. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 2006, 11, 148–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Kumari, S.; Bhattacharya, D.; Rangaraj, N.; Chakarvarty, S.; Kondapi, A.K.; Rao, N.M. Aurora kinase B siRNA-loaded lactoferrin nanoparticles potentiate the efficacy of temozolomide in treating glioblastoma. Nanomedicine 2018, 13, 2579–2596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Frankel, R.B.; Bazylinski, D.A.; Schüler, D. Biomineralization of magnetic iron minerals in bacteria. Supramol. Sci. 1998, 5, 383–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  245. Strauss, J.H.; Sinsheimer, R.L. Purification and properties of bacteriophage MS2 and of its ribonucleic acid. J. Mol. Biol. 1963, 7, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. The diversity of self-assembling protein nanoparticles and their applications for in vitro and in vivo research, including biosensing, molecular imaging, and photodynamic or photothermal therapies. The structure of protein nanoparticles is accompanied by the Protein Data Bank (PDB) number if applicable.
Figure 1. The diversity of self-assembling protein nanoparticles and their applications for in vitro and in vivo research, including biosensing, molecular imaging, and photodynamic or photothermal therapies. The structure of protein nanoparticles is accompanied by the Protein Data Bank (PDB) number if applicable.
Pharmaceutics 15 00231 g001
Figure 2. Ferritin nanoparticles for glioblastoma treatment. Targeted delivery of 2D-HFn to glioma through the BBB. Reprinted with permission [57] (CC BY 4.0).
Figure 2. Ferritin nanoparticles for glioblastoma treatment. Targeted delivery of 2D-HFn to glioma through the BBB. Reprinted with permission [57] (CC BY 4.0).
Pharmaceutics 15 00231 g002
Figure 3. Schematic representation of Tf-NP-based targeted delivery of indocyanine green (ICG) for PTT. Reprinted with permission from [72]. Copyright 2017, American Chemical Society.
Figure 3. Schematic representation of Tf-NP-based targeted delivery of indocyanine green (ICG) for PTT. Reprinted with permission from [72]. Copyright 2017, American Chemical Society.
Pharmaceutics 15 00231 g003
Figure 4. Scheme of encapsulin-based targeted drug delivery to hepatocellular carcinoma cells. Reprinted with permission from [74]. Copyright 2014, American Chemical Society.
Figure 4. Scheme of encapsulin-based targeted drug delivery to hepatocellular carcinoma cells. Reprinted with permission from [74]. Copyright 2014, American Chemical Society.
Pharmaceutics 15 00231 g004
Figure 5. Schematic illustration of the design and application of self-assembling albumin nanoparticles for RGD-mediated tumor targeting. Copyright 2020 American Chemical Society [104].
Figure 5. Schematic illustration of the design and application of self-assembling albumin nanoparticles for RGD-mediated tumor targeting. Copyright 2020 American Chemical Society [104].
Pharmaceutics 15 00231 g005
Figure 6. Schematic illustration of lumazine synthase nanoparticle: surface and ribbon diagram (PDB: 1HQK) looking down the five-fold symmetry axis (A) and the interior space of the protein cage (B). Reproduced with the permission from [138] (CC BY-NC 4.0).
Figure 6. Schematic illustration of lumazine synthase nanoparticle: surface and ribbon diagram (PDB: 1HQK) looking down the five-fold symmetry axis (A) and the interior space of the protein cage (B). Reproduced with the permission from [138] (CC BY-NC 4.0).
Pharmaceutics 15 00231 g006
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Obozina, A.S.; Komedchikova, E.N.; Kolesnikova, O.A.; Iureva, A.M.; Kovalenko, V.L.; Zavalko, F.A.; Rozhnikova, T.V.; Tereshina, E.D.; Mochalova, E.N.; Shipunova, V.O. Genetically Encoded Self-Assembling Protein Nanoparticles for the Targeted Delivery In Vitro and In Vivo. Pharmaceutics 2023, 15, 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics15010231

AMA Style

Obozina AS, Komedchikova EN, Kolesnikova OA, Iureva AM, Kovalenko VL, Zavalko FA, Rozhnikova TV, Tereshina ED, Mochalova EN, Shipunova VO. Genetically Encoded Self-Assembling Protein Nanoparticles for the Targeted Delivery In Vitro and In Vivo. Pharmaceutics. 2023; 15(1):231. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics15010231

Chicago/Turabian Style

Obozina, Anastasiia S., Elena N. Komedchikova, Olga A. Kolesnikova, Anna M. Iureva, Vera L. Kovalenko, Fedor A. Zavalko, Tatiana V. Rozhnikova, Ekaterina D. Tereshina, Elizaveta N. Mochalova, and Victoria O. Shipunova. 2023. "Genetically Encoded Self-Assembling Protein Nanoparticles for the Targeted Delivery In Vitro and In Vivo" Pharmaceutics 15, no. 1: 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics15010231

APA Style

Obozina, A. S., Komedchikova, E. N., Kolesnikova, O. A., Iureva, A. M., Kovalenko, V. L., Zavalko, F. A., Rozhnikova, T. V., Tereshina, E. D., Mochalova, E. N., & Shipunova, V. O. (2023). Genetically Encoded Self-Assembling Protein Nanoparticles for the Targeted Delivery In Vitro and In Vivo. Pharmaceutics, 15(1), 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics15010231

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop