Although essential nanosystems such as nanoparticles and nanocarriers are desirable options for transporting various drug molecules into the biological environment, they rapidly remove from the circulatory system due to their interaction with multiple in vivo barriers, especially the immune barrier, which will result in their short-term effects. In order to improve their effectiveness and durability in the circulatory system, the polymer coatings can use to cover the surface of nanoparticles and nanocarriers to conceal them from the immune system. Due to their different properties (like charge, elasticity, and hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity), these coatings can improve drug delivery nanosystem durability and therapeutic applications. The mentioned coatings have different types and are divided into various categories, such as synthetic polymers, polysaccharides, and zwitterionic polymers. Each of these polymers has unique properties based on its category, origin, and chemical structure that make them suitable for producing stealth drug delivery nanocarriers. In this review article, we have tried to explain the importance of these diverse polymer coatings in determining the fate of drug nanocarriers and then introduced the different types of these coatings and, finally, described various methods that directly and indirectly analyze the nanocoatings to determine the stability of nanoparticles in the body.
AlexisFPridgenEMolnarLK, et al.Factors affecting the clearance and biodistribution of polymeric nanoparticles. Mol Pharm2008; 5(4): 505–515.
2.
PederzoliFTosiGVandelliMA, et al.Protein corona and nanoparticles: how can we investigate on?WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol2017; 9(6): e1467.
3.
LynchIDawsonKA. Protein–nanoparticle interactions. Nano-Enabled Medical Applications2020: 231–250.
4.
MalachowskiTHasselA. Engineering nanoparticles to overcome immunological barriers for enhanced drug delivery. Engineered Regeneration2020; 1: 35–50.
5.
Pombo GarcíaKZarschlerKBarbaroL, et al.Zwitterionic‐coated “stealth” nanoparticles for biomedical applications: recent advances in countering biomolecular corona formation and uptake by the mononuclear phagocyte system. Small2014; 10(13): 2516–2529.
6.
De JongWHBormPJ. Drug delivery and nanoparticles: applications and hazards. Int J Nanomedicine2008; 3(2): 133–149.
7.
SalmasoSCalicetiP. Stealth properties to improve therapeutic efficacy of drug nanocarriers. J Drug Deliv2013; 2013: 374252.
8.
BludauHCzaparAEPitekAS, et al.POxylation as an alternative stealth coating for biomedical applications. Eur Polym J2017; 88: 679–688.
9.
ZhangRXAhmedTLiLY, et al.Design of nanocarriers for nanoscale drug delivery to enhance cancer treatment using hybrid polymer and lipid building blocks. Nanoscale2017; 9(4): 1334–1355.
10.
ElsabahyMWooleyKL. Design of polymeric nanoparticles for biomedical delivery applications. Chem Soc Rev2012; 41(7): 2545–2561.
11.
ZolnikBSGonzález-FernándezÁSadriehN, et al.Minireview: nanoparticles and the immune system. Endocrinology2010; 151(2): 458–465.
TsoiKMMacParlandSAMaX-Z, et al.Mechanism of hard-nanomaterial clearance by the liver. Nat Mater2016; 15(11): 1212–1221.
14.
FamSYCheeCFYongCY, et al.Stealth coating of nanoparticles in drug-delivery systems. Nanomaterials2020; 10(4): 787.
15.
BlancoEShenHFerrariM. Principles of nanoparticle design for overcoming biological barriers to drug delivery. Nat Biotechnol2015; 33(9): 941–951.
16.
Hall JB McLeland CB Dobrovolskaia MA McNeilAggarwal P.SE. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev2009; 61: 428–437.
17.
ShinSWSongIHUmSH. Role of physicochemical properties in nanoparticle toxicity. Nanomaterials2015; 5(3): 1351–1365.
18.
ReinholzJLandfesterKMailänderV. The challenges of oral drug delivery via nanocarriers. Drug Deliv2018; 25(1): 1694–1705.
19.
RampadoRCrottiSCalicetiP, et al.Recent advances in understanding the protein corona of nanoparticles and in the formulation of “stealthy” nanomaterials. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2020; 8: 166.
20.
RitzSSchöttlerSKotmanN, et al.Protein corona of nanoparticles: distinct proteins regulate the cellular uptake. Biomacromolecules2015; 16(4): 1311–1321.
21.
FrankMMFriesLF. The role of complement in inflammation and phagocytosis. Immunol Today1991; 12(9): 322–326.
22.
NikzamirMAkbarzadehAPanahiY. An overview on nanoparticles used in biomedicine and their cytotoxicity. Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology2021; 61: 102316.
23.
LiuSWangZJiangX, et al.Denatured corona proteins mediate the intracellular bioactivities of nanoparticles via the unfolded protein response. Biomaterials2021; 265: 120452.
24.
ChoiHSLiuWMisraP, et al.Renal clearance of quantum dots. Nat Biotechnol2007; 25(10): 1165–1170.
25.
DiJGaoXDuY, et al.Size, shape, charge and “stealthy” surface: Carrier properties affect the drug circulation time in vivo. Asian J Pharm Sci2021; 16(4): 444–458.
26.
Sen GuptaA.Role of particle size, shape, and stiffness in design of intravascular drug delivery systems: insights from computations, experiments, and nature. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol2016; 8(2): 255–270.
27.
García-ÁlvarezRHadjidemetriouMSánchez-IglesiasA, et al.In vivo formation of protein corona on gold nanoparticles. The effect of their size and shape. Nanoscale2018; 10(3): 1256–1264.
28.
Janát-AmsburyMJanát-AmsburyMMRayA, et al.Geometry and surface characteristics of gold nanoparticles influence their biodistribution and uptake by macrophages. Eur J Pharm Biopharm2011; 77(3): 417–423.
29.
HaroonHHunterAFarhangraziZ, et al.A brief history of long circulating nanoparticles. Adv Drug Deliv Rev2022; 188: 114396.
30.
ChampionJAMitragotriS. Role of target geometry in phagocytosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2006; 103(13): 4930–4934.
31.
HühnDKantnerKGeidelC, et al.Polymer-coated nanoparticles interacting with proteins and cells: focusing on the sign of the net charge. ACS Nano2013; 7(4): 3253–3263.
32.
BuskensPWoutersMRentropC, et al.A brief review of environmentally benign antifouling and foul-release coatings for marine applications. J Coat Technol Res2013; 10(1): 29–36.
33.
AnselmoACMitragotriS. Impact of particle elasticity on particle-based drug delivery systems. Adv Drug Deliv Rev2017; 108: 51–67.
Vivero‐EscotoJLSlowingIITrewynBG, et al.Mesoporous silica nanoparticles for intracellular controlled drug delivery. Small2010; 6(18): 1952–1967.
36.
SlowingIIVivero-EscotoJLWuC-W, et al.Mesoporous silica nanoparticles as controlled release drug delivery and gene transfection carriers. Adv Drug Deliv Rev2008; 60(11): 1278–1288.
37.
MaanAMHofmanAHVosWM, et al.Recent developments and practical feasibility of polymer‐based antifouling coatings. Adv Funct Mater2020; 30(32): 2000936.
38.
GulatiNMStewartPLSteinmetzNF. Bioinspired shielding strategies for nanoparticle drug delivery applications. Mol Pharm2018; 15(8): 2900–2909.
39.
DebayleMBalloulEDembeleF, et al.Zwitterionic polymer ligands: an ideal surface coating to totally suppress protein-nanoparticle corona formation?Biomaterials2019; 219: 119357.
40.
GrefRLückMQuellecP, et al.‘Stealth’corona-core nanoparticles surface modified by polyethylene glycol (PEG): influences of the corona (PEG chain length and surface density) and of the core composition on phagocytic uptake and plasma protein adsorption. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces2000; 18(3–4): 301–313.
41.
MoriAKlibanovALTorchilinVP, et al.Influence of the steric barrier activity of amphipathic poly (ethyleneglycol) and ganglioside GM1 on the circulation time of liposomes and on the target binding of immunoliposomes in vivo. FEBS Lett1991; 284(2): 263–266.
42.
KnopKHoogenboomRFischerD, et al.Poly (ethylene glycol) in drug delivery: pros and cons as well as potential alternatives. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl2010; 49(36): 6288–6308.
43.
SukJSXuQKimN, et al.PEGylation as a strategy for improving nanoparticle-based drug and gene delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev2016; 99: 28–51.
44.
OwensDEIIIPeppasNA. Opsonization, biodistribution, and pharmacokinetics of polymeric nanoparticles. Int J Pharm2006; 307(1): 93–102.
45.
GraysonSMGodbeyWT. The role of macromolecular architecture in passively targeted polymeric carriers for drug and gene delivery. J Drug Target2008; 16(5): 329–356.
46.
LuxenhoferRBezenMJordanR. Kinetic Investigations on the Polymerization of 2‐Oxazolines Using Pluritriflate Initators. Macromol Rapid Commun2008; 29(18): 1509–1513.
47.
VonarbourgAPassiraniCSaulnierP, et al.Parameters influencing the stealthiness of colloidal drug delivery systems. Biomaterials2006; 27(24): 4356–4373.
48.
StormGBelliotSODaemenT, et al.Surface modification of nanoparticles to oppose uptake by the mononuclear phagocyte system. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews1995; 17(1): 31–48.
49.
KeefeAJJiangS. Poly (zwitterionic) protein conjugates offer increased stability without sacrificing binding affinity or bioactivity. Nat Chem2011; 4(1): 59–63.
50.
HuC-MJFangRHLukBT, et al.Polymeric nanotherapeutics: clinical development and advances in stealth functionalization strategies. Nanoscale2014; 6(1): 65–75.
51.
SettanniGZhouJSuoT, et al.Protein corona composition of poly (ethylene glycol)-and poly (phosphoester)-coated nanoparticles correlates strongly with the amino acid composition of the protein surface. Nanoscale2017; 9(6): 2138–2144.
52.
UlbrichtJJordanRLuxenhoferR. On the biodegradability of polyethylene glycol, polypeptoids and poly (2-oxazoline) s. Biomaterials2014; 35(17): 4848–4861.
53.
LiBChuFLuQ, et al.Alternating stealth polymer coatings between administrations minimizes toxic and antibody immune responses towards nanomedicine treatment regimens. Acta Biomater2021; 121: 527–540.
54.
GaucherGAsahinaKWangJ, et al.Effect of poly (N-vinyl-pyrrolidone)-block-poly (D, L-lactide) as coating agent on the opsonization, phagocytosis, and pharmacokinetics of biodegradable nanoparticles. Biomacromolecules2009; 10(2): 408–416.
55.
ZhuZXieCLiuQ, et al.The effect of hydrophilic chain length and iRGD on drug delivery from poly (ε-caprolactone)-poly (N-vinylpyrrolidone) nanoparticles. Biomaterials2011; 32(35): 9525–9535.
56.
KinnearCBurnandDCliftMJ, et al.Polyvinyl alcohol as a biocompatible alternative for the passivation of gold nanorods. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl2014; 53(46): 12613–12617.
57.
AmoozgarZYeoY. Recent advances in stealth coating of nanoparticle drug delivery systems. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol2012; 4(2): 219–233.
58.
ShubhraQTTóthJGyenisJ, et al.Poloxamers for surface modification of hydrophobic drug carriers and their effects on drug delivery. Polymer Reviews2014; 54(1): 112–138.
59.
MfoafoKKwonYOmidiY, et al.Contemporary Applications of thermogelling PEO-PPO-PEO triblock copolymers. Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology2022; 70: 103182.
60.
LiuZJiaoYWangY, et al.Polysaccharides-based nanoparticles as drug delivery systems. Adv Drug Deliv Rev2008; 60(15): 1650–1662.
61.
LemarchandCGrefRPassiraniC, et al.Influence of polysaccharide coating on the interactions of nanoparticles with biological systems. Biomaterials2006; 27(1): 108–118.
62.
MuthiahMParkI-KChoC-S. Surface modification of iron oxide nanoparticles by biocompatible polymers for tissue imaging and targeting. Biotechnol Adv2013; 31(8): 1224–1236.
63.
AgnihotriSAMallikarjunaNNAminabhaviTM. Recent advances on chitosan-based micro-and nanoparticles in drug delivery. J Control Release2004; 100(1): 5–28.
64.
TripodoGTrapaniATorreML, et al.Hyaluronic acid and its derivatives in drug delivery and imaging: recent advances and challenges. Eur J Pharm Biopharm2015; 97: 400–416.
65.
ZhangQDengCFuY, et al.Repeated administration of hyaluronic acid coated liposomes with improved pharmacokinetics and reduced immune response. Mol Pharm2016; 13(6): 1800–1808.
66.
ZhongWPangLFengH, et al.Recent advantage of hyaluronic acid for anti-cancer application: A review of “3S” transition approach. Carbohydr Polym2020; 238: 116204.
67.
TiwariSBahadurP. Modified hyaluronic acid based materials for biomedical applications. Int J Biol Macromol2019; 121: 556–571.
68.
AlharethKVauthierCBourassetF, et al.Conformation of surface-decorating dextran chains affects the pharmacokinetics and biodistribution of doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles. Eur J Pharm Biopharm2012; 81(2): 453–457.
69.
ChauvierreCMardenMCVauthierC, et al.Heparin coated poly (alkylcyanoacrylate) nanoparticles coupled to hemoglobin: a new oxygen carrier. Biomaterials2004; 25(15): 3081–3086.
70.
DuehrkopCLeneweitGHeyderC, et al.Development and characterization of an innovative heparin coating to stabilize and protect liposomes against adverse immune reactions. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces2016; 141: 576–583.
71.
LiDWeiQWuC, et al.Superhydrophilicity and strong salt-affinity: Zwitterionic polymer grafted surfaces with significant potentials particularly in biological systems. Adv Colloid Interface Sci2020; 278: 102141.
72.
JungSParkSChoiD, et al.Efficient Drug Delivery Carrier Surface without Unwanted Adsorption Using Sulfobetaine Zwitterion. Adv Mater Interfaces2020; 7(22): 2001433.
73.
MetselaarJMBruinPde BoerLW, et al.A novel family of L-amino acid-based biodegradable polymer− lipid conjugates for the development of long-circulating liposomes with effective drug-targeting capacity. Bioconjug Chem2003; 14(6): 1156–1164.
74.
RombergBMetselaarJMBaranyiL, et al.Poly (amino acid) s: promising enzymatically degradable stealth coatings for liposomes. Int J Pharm2007; 331(2): 186–189.
75.
LiuNHanJZhangX, et al.pH-responsive zwitterionic polypeptide as a platform for anti-tumor drug delivery. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces2016; 145: 401–409.
76.
FyrnerTLeeH-HMangoneA, et al.Saccharide-functionalized alkanethiols for fouling-resistant self-assembled monolayers: synthesis, monolayer properties, and antifouling behavior. Langmuir2011; 27(24): 15034–15047.
77.
GaoCLinZJurado‐SánchezB, et al.Stem cell membrane‐coated nanogels for highly efficient in vivo tumor targeted drug delivery. Small2016; 12(30): 4056–4062.
78.
Carrillo-CarrionCCarrilMParakWJ. Techniques for the experimental investigation of the protein corona. Curr Opin Biotechnol2017; 46: 106–113.
79.
OvaisMNethiSKUllahS, et al.Recent advances in the analysis of nanoparticle-protein coronas. Nanomedicine2020; 15(10): 1037–1061.
80.
MahmoudiMLynchIEjtehadiMR, et al.Protein− nanoparticle interactions: opportunities and challenges. Chem Rev2011; 111(9): 5610–5637.
81.
MatczukMLegatJShtykovSN, et al.Characterization of the protein corona of gold nanoparticles by an advanced treatment of CE‐ICP‐MS data. Electrophoresis2016; 37(15–16): 2257–2259.
82.
BraunNJDeBrosseMCHussainSM, et al.Modification of the protein corona–nanoparticle complex by physiological factors. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl2016; 64: 34–42.
83.
HühnJFedeliCZhangQ, et al.Dissociation coefficients of protein adsorption to nanoparticles as quantitative metrics for description of the protein corona: A comparison of experimental techniques and methodological relevance. Int J Biochem Cell Biol2016; 75: 148–161.
84.
ShaoQJiangS. Molecular understanding and design of zwitterionic materials. Adv Mater2015; 27(1): 15–26.
85.
AssfalgMRagonaLPaganoK, et al.The study of transient protein–nanoparticle interactions by solution NMR spectroscopy. Biochim Biophys Acta Proteins Proteom2016; 1864(1): 102–114.
86.
SerpooshanVMahmoudiMZhaoM, et al.Protein corona influences cell–biomaterial interactions in nanostructured tissue engineering scaffolds. Adv Funct Mater2015; 25(28): 4379–4389.
87.
WangXBergerRRamosJI, et al.Nanopatterns of polymer brushes for understanding protein adsorption on the nanoscale. RSC Adv2014; 4(85): 45059–45064.
88.
ZhengTBottSHuoQ. Techniques for accurate sizing of gold nanoparticles using dynamic light scattering with particular application to chemical and biological sensing based on aggregate formation. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces2016; 8(33): 21585–21594.
89.
PinoPdPelazBZhangQ, et al.Protein corona formation around nanoparticles–from the past to the future. Mater Horiz2014; 1(3): 301–313.
90.
RöckerCPötzlMZhangF, et al.A quantitative fluorescence study of protein monolayer formation on colloidal nanoparticles. Nat Nanotechnol2009; 4(9): 577–580.
91.
MaioloDBergesePMahonE, et al.Surfactant titration of nanoparticle–protein corona. Anal Chem2014; 86(24): 12055–12063.
92.
CedervallTLynchILindmanS, et al.Understanding the nanoparticle–protein corona using methods to quantify exchange rates and affinities of proteins for nanoparticles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2007; 104(7): 2050–2055.
93.
FongW-KMooreTLBalogS, et al.Nanoparticle behaviour in complex media: methods for characterizing physicochemical properties, evaluating protein corona formation, and implications for biological studies. Biological Responses to Nanoscale Particles2019: 101–150. Springer.
94.
SasidharanARiviereJEMonteiro-RiviereNA. Gold and silver nanoparticle interactions with human proteins: impact and implications in biocorona formation. J Mater Chem B2015; 3(10): 2075–2082.
95.
BlundellELVogelRPlattM. Determination of zeta potential via nanoparticle translocation velocities through a tunable nanopore: using DNA-modified particles as an example. JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments)2016; (116): e54577.
96.
LiDZhuZSunD-W. Visualization of the in situ distribution of contents and hydrogen bonding states of cellular level water in apple tissues by confocal Raman microscopy. Analyst2020; 145(3): 897–907.
97.
de GennesP.Conformations of polymers attached to an interface. Macromolecules1980; 13(5): 1069–1075.
98.
DamodaranVBFeeCJRuckhT, et al.Conformational studies of covalently grafted poly (ethylene glycol) on modified solid matrices using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Langmuir2010; 26(10): 7299–7306.
99.
PerryJLReuterKGKaiMP, et al.PEGylated PRINT nanoparticles: the impact of PEG density on protein binding, macrophage association, biodistribution, and pharmacokinetics. Nano Lett2012; 12(10): 5304–5310.
