Recent Progress of Metal-Organic Framework-Based Photodynamic Therapy for Cancer Treatment
Yuyun Ye,Yifan Zhao,Yong Sun,Jie Cao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S362759
IF: 7.033
2022-05-24
International Journal of Nanomedicine
Abstract:Yuyun Ye, Yifan Zhao, Yong Sun, Jie Cao Department of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266021, People's Republic of China Correspondence: Jie Cao; Yong Sun, Email ; Photodynamic therapy (PDT), combining photosensitizers (PSs) and excitation light at a specific wavelength to produce toxic reactive oxygen species, has been a novel and promising approach to cancer treatment with non-invasiveness, spatial specificity, and minimal systemic toxicity, compared with conventional cancer treatment. Recently, numerous basic research and clinical research have demonstrated the potential of PDT in the treatment of a variety of malignant tumors, such as esophageal cancer, bladder cancer, and so on. Metal-organic framework (MOF) has been developed as a new type of nanomaterial with the advantages of high porosity, large specific surface area, adjustable pore size, and easy functionalization, which could serve as carriers to load PSs or increase the accumulation of PSs in target cells during PDT. Moreover, active MOFs have the potential to construct multifunctional systems, which are conducive to refining the tumor microenvironment (TME) and implementing combination therapy to improve PDT efficacy. Hence, a comprehensive and in-depth depiction of the whole scene of the recent development of MOFs-based PDT in cancer treatment is desirable. This review summarized the recent research strategies of MOFs-based PDT in antitumor therapy from the perspective of MOFs functions, including active MOFs, inactive MOFs, and their further combination therapies in clinical antitumor treatment. In addition, the bottlenecks and obstacles in the application of MOFs in PDT are also described. Keywords: photodynamic therapy, metal-organic framework, tumor microenvironment, active MOFs, inactive MOFs About 100 years ago, Tappeiner studied that the phenomenon of PS combined with light killing cells was oxygen-dependent, and proposed the concept of photodynamic effect for the first time to describe this oxygen-dependent photosensitization reaction. 1,2 The emergence of this concept has attracted extensive attention from scientists and researchers, which has greatly promoted the development of PDT. 3 Nowadays, PDT has been widely used in the treatment of many diseases 4–8 including malignant tumors 9,10 for its non-invasiveness, spatial specificity, and minimal side effect on normal tissues. Typically, under the irradiation of a certain wavelength of light, PS absorbs a certain amount of light energy to become an excited PS. Subsequently, the absorbed energy transfers to the adjacent oxygen (O 2 ), and the O 2 are excited into highly toxic reactive oxygen species (ROS), including superoxide anion radical (O 2 · − ), hydroxyl radical (·OH), hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2 ), and singlet oxygen ( 1 O 2 ). 11 ROS, 12 especially cytotoxic ·OH and 1 O 2 , can be effective antitumor species by penetrating the cell membrane and then reacting with biological macromolecules (such as proteins and nucleic acids) in the tumor cell to induce cell apoptosis or necrosis. 11,13 Thus, worldwide researchers have focused on developing PSs for effective PDT. Commonly used PSs in clinical PDT are from three families 14 –— porphyrins, 15 chlorophylls, 16 and organic dyes. 17 However, most PSs are hydrophobic, lack targeting, and have low bioavailability, so using PS in vivo is prone to self-aggregation, fluorescence quenching, and phagocyte scavenging by the mononuclear phagocyte system, which usually fails to achieve the desired antitumor effect of PDT. In recent years, with the development of nanotechnology, 18 nanocarriers, 19 such as liposomes, 20–22 dendrimer, 23–25 nanomicelles, 26–28 nanohydrogel, 29–31 have been greatly used for improving the safety and effectiveness of PSs, due to their advantages of effective targeting, delayed-release, improved cargo stability, reduced systemic toxicity and avoidance of premature clearance. However, most nanocarriers have disadvantages such as poor drug loading, poor biocompatibility, nonrepeatability, and poor stability. For example, although liposomes with good biocompatibility have a unique bilayer structure, which can simultaneously upload hydrophilic drugs and hydrophobic drugs, they could not achieve locally controlled release, and have poor stability. 32 Dendrimers have the advantages of monodispersity, easy functionalization, and biodegradation, but their wide application is limited by high cost and single type, so current studies are mostly based on PAMAM and polyethyleneimine (PEI) dendrimers. 33 Nanosca -Abstract Truncated-
pharmacology & pharmacy,nanoscience & nanotechnology