Skip to main content

Insight into Cellular Uptake and Intracellular Trafficking of Nanoparticles

Abstract

Nanoparticle science is rapidly changing the landscape of various scientific fields and defining new technological platforms. This is perhaps even more evident in the field of nanomedicine whereby nanoparticles have been used as a tool for the treatment and diagnosis of many diseases. However, despite the tremendous benefit conferred, common pitfalls of this technology is its potential short and long-term effects on the human body. To understand these issues, many scientific studies have been carried out. This review attempts to shed light on some of these studies and its outcomes. The topics that were examined in this review include the different possible uptake pathways of nanoparticles and intracellular trafficking routes. Additionally, the effect of physicochemical properties of nanoparticle such as size, shape, charge and surface chemistry in determining the mechanism of uptake and biological function of nanoparticles are also addressed.

Introduction

Nanoparticles (NPs) are a subcategory of nanomaterials that are currently at the forefront of cutting-edge research in nearly every field imaginable due to its unique properties and tremendous applicability [1,2,3,4]. In a technology market research report entitled “Global NP Market Outlook 2020” by RNCOS, it was reported that the market for NPs will grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 16% during 2015–2020. NP technology has found a unique niche in the field of biomedicine and biotechnology with its rapidly burgeoning repertoire of applications [5, 6]. For instance, NPs have been applied for drug and gene delivery [7, 8] biodetection of pathogens [9], detection of proteins [10], tissue engineering [11, 12], tumour imaging and targeting [13], tumour destruction via hyperthermia [14] and MRI contrast enhancement [15].

Owing to their small size, NPs can easily enter the cells as well as to translocate across the cells, tissues and organs. NPs are widely used in biomedical applications because they are able to pass through the biological barrier and enter the cell to exert their function. However, like a double-edged sword, the potential risks (i.e. adverse effect) of NP also arise from this capability [16, 17]. In spite of their “small” size, NPs as polar molecules are not able to diffuse through the cell membrane (CM). Since the CM is mostly permeable to small and non-polar molecules, NPs employ endocytotic pathways to enter the cells [18, 19]. The way by which NPs enter the cell is a key factor in determining their biomedical functions, biodistribution and toxicity. In nanomedicine, safe entry of NPs into the cells is a crucial step to obtain high therapeutic efficacy. Furthermore, intracellular trafficking and fate of NPs is a vital process to the success of NPs considering that these carriers are aimed to target specific sub-cellular compartment and deliver specific biomolecules such as contrast agents, genes and drugs [18, 20,21,22]. More importantly, the induction of cytotoxicity by NPs are determined by its entry pathway and intracellular localization. Hence, understanding cellular uptake and intracellular trafficking of NPs is crucial in designing safe and efficient nanomedicines [23].

Cellular uptake, targeting and intracellular trafficking of NPs can be optimized by tuning physicochemical properties of NP such as size, shape and surface properties [24]. Hence, knowledge of the underlying mechanisms involved in cellular uptake is crucial for assessing the fate of NPs and its toxicity. This review highlights the different possible uptake pathways of NPs and its intracellular trafficking routes. Additionally, the effect of NP’s physicochemical properties such as size, shape, charge and surface chemistry on its internalization by cells are also addressed. Understanding the physicochemical properties of NPs in relation to its cellular uptake mechanism will enable us to design functional NPs that are crucial in biomedical applications such as delivering drug payloads at the targeted site of action in a controlled manner with minimal toxic effects on the surrounding healthy tissues and organs.

Cellular Uptake Pathways of NPs

The CM, also known as the plasma membrane, encloses the cytoplasm by detaching the intracellular from the extracellular fluid. CM is immensely important as it protects intracellular components, maintains cell homeostasis, confer structural support and retains the composition of the cell [25,26,27,28,29]. CM consists of phospholipids arranged in a bilayer with embedded proteins. These phospholipid bilayers, with their hydrophilic heads and hydrophobic tails, permit the entrance of small biomolecules. More specifically, the CM is a selectively permeable barrier that controls the passage of substances into the cell [30, 31]. The CM employs different mechanisms to exchange substances which are mainly divided into two categories: passive transport and active transport. Gases such as oxygen and carbon dioxide, hydrophobic molecules such as benzene and uncharged molecules such as water and ethanol diffuse across the membrane from the regions of higher to lower concentration. This kind of transport which is along the concentration gradient and occurs without assistance of energy is called passive transport. In contrast, active transport occurs against the concentration gradient by using energy which is provided by adenosine triphosphate (ATP) [32,33,34,35,36].

Polar or charged biomolecules that cannot pass through the hydrophobic plasma membrane are internalized by a form of active transport which is called endocytosis. In this process, the cell engulfs the materials inside the extracellular fluid by invagination of CM and buds off inside the cell, forming a membrane-bounded vesicle called an endosome [37]. Endocytosis can be basically classified into two major categories: phagocytosis and pinocytosis. Phagocytosis (cell eating) is the process of taking in debris, bacteria or other large size solutes by specialized mammalian cells called phagocytes (i.e. monocytes, macrophages and neutrophils) [38, 39].

Integral to phagocytosis is a process called opsonization by which opsonins such as immunoglobulins and complement proteins coat the target materials to trigger the phagocytes of their presence and to initialize phagocytotic activity [40]. As the phagocyte begins to ingest the target material, it will simultaneously stimulate the formation of a membrane-bound vesicle called phagosome into which the ingested materials are compartmentalized within the phagocyte. At the latter stages of this process, the phagosome will fuse with the lysosome and the materials are digested at acidic pH by the hydrolytic enzymes contained within the lysosomal lumen [41,42,43].

In all cell types, small particles within the range of nanometers are internalized by pinocytosis [44]. In pinocytosis, “cellular drinking” plasma membrane forms an invagination to take up a small droplet of extracellular fluid including dissolved molecules in it. Pinocytosis is not a discriminating process and it occurs in almost all the cells in a continuous manner irrespective to the needs of the cell. The grabbed substances are pinched off into small vesicles that are called pinosome which fuses with lysosomes to hydrolyze or break down the contents [45, 46]. Phagocytosis and pinocytosis can be distinguished by the size of their endocytotic vesicles; the former encompass uptake of large particles by large vesicles with the size of 250 nm, and the latter encompass uptake of fluids through small vesicles with the size in the range of a few nanometres to hundreds of nanometres [42, 47]. Pinocytosis can be subcategorized into clathrin-mediated endocytosis, caveolae-mediated endocytosis, clathrin- and caveolae-independent endocytosis and macropinocytosis [48, 49].

Clathrin-mediated endocytosis is the cellular entry mechanism to internalize specific molecules into the cells. This entry route aids cells to take in plasma membrane components and nutrients including cholesterol by low-density lipoprotein receptor and iron by transferrin receptor [50,51,52,53,54,55,56]. In this process, particular ligands in extracellular fluid bind to the receptors on the surface of the CM forming a ligand-receptor complex. This ligand-receptor complex moves to a specialized region of the CM which are rich in clathrin, whereby they are engulfed through the formation of clathrin-coated vesicles. Once inside the cell, clathrin coatings on the exterior of the vesicles are expelled prior to fusing with early endosomes. The cargo within early endosomes will eventually reach lysosomes via the endo-lysosomal pathway [40, 57,58,59,60]. Each type of NP is internalized by the cell via preferentially uptake pathway. For example, NPs composed of poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid), D,L-polylactide and poly(ethylene glycolco-lactide) and silica (SiO2)-based nanomaterials are internalized by clathrin-mediated endocytotic pathway [61]. Coumarin-based solid-lipid NPs are internalized by the cells via non-energy-dependent pathway as the structure of these NPs are similar to the CM. All the lipid-based NPs utilize the clathrin-mediated endocytosis pathway [62]. The herceptin-coated gold NPs enter the cell via receptor-mediated endocytosis by means of membrane ErbB2 receptor [63].

Caveolae-mediated endocytosis is the route of cellular entry which involves flask-shaped membrane invaginations called caveolae (little caves). Caveolae are present in endothelial cells, epithelial, adipocytes, muscle and fibroblasts cells [64,65,66,67]. The size of caveolae typically ranges from 50 to 80 nm and are composed of membrane protein caveolin-1 which confer them flask-shaped structure [68,69,70,71]. Caveolae-dependent endocytosis is involved in cell signaling and regulation of membrane proteins, lipids and fatty acids [61, 64, 67]. Once caveolae are detached from plasma membrane, they fuse with a cell compartment called caveosomes that exists at neutral pH. Caveosomes are able to bypass lysosomes and therefore protect the contents from hydrolytic enzyme and lysosomal degradation. Hence, pathogens including virus and bacteria use this entry route to prevent degradation. Since the cargo internalized into the cells by caveolin-dependent mechanism do not end up in the lysosome, this pathway is employed in nanomedicine [54, 72,73,74].

Clathrin- and caveolae-independent endocytosis occurs in cells that are deprived of clathrin and caveolin. This pathway is utilized by growth hormones, extracellular fluid, glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI)-linked proteins and interleukin-2 to enter the cells. For instance, folic acid that employs clathrin- and caveolae-independent pathway to enter the cells [58, 72, 75,76,77,78,79] are conjugated to NPs and polymers used in drug delivery systems and as imaging agents [53, 80, 81]. Macropinocytosis is a type of pinocytosis mechanism in which cells take in high volumes of extracellular fluid by forming a large vesicle (0.5–10 μm) called macropinosomes [82,83,84,85]. Macropinocytosis is a pathway to internalize apoptotic and necrotic cells, bacteria and viruses as well as antigen presentation. This pathway can internalize micron-sized NPs which are not possible to be taken into cells by most other pathways. Macropinocytosis can occur in almost any cells except for brain microvessel endothelial cells [86,87,88,89]. NPs enter into the cell via one of these endocytotic routes as depicted in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Entry of NPs into cell using different endocytotic pathways. a Macropinocytosis and phagocytosis. b Clathrin-mediated endocytosis, clathrin-caveolin independent endocytosis and caveolae-mediated endocytosis

Effect of Physicochemical Properties of NP on Cellular Uptake

Studying the effect of physicochemical properties of NPs such as size, shape, surface charge, surface hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity and surface functionalization on cellular uptake is crucial as these parameters directly affect the uptake level, endocytotic route as well as cytotoxicity of NPs. [90, 91]. Physicochemical factors that affect the cellular uptake of NPs are illustrated in Fig. 2. In the following section, the impact of these parameters on cell–NP interactions are discussed.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Physicochemical factors that affect cellular uptake of NP. a Surface charge, b shape, c size and d surface chemistry

Effect of Size

Size of NP is a key factor in determining the efficiency of cellular uptake [92] as well as its toxic potential on living cells [24]. Moreover, the size of NP was found to play a major role in determining the uptake pathway as well. Small NPs with sizes ranging from a few to several hundred nanometers enter the cells via pino- or macropinocytosis. NPs in the size range of 250 nm to 3 μm have been shown to have an optimal in vitro phagocytosis, whereas NPs with the size range of 120–150 nm are internalized via clathrin- or caveolin-mediated endocytosis, and the maximum size of NPs employing this pathway was reported to be of 200 nm [47, 93]. In the caveolae-mediated pathway, the size of caveolae hinders the uptake of larger NPs [16, 17]. A particular type of NP may utilize multiple endocytic pathways depending on its size.

Several studies have indicated that for cellular uptake of NPs, there is an optimum size of 50 nm at which NPs are internalized more efficiently and has a higher uptake rate. NP uptake was shown to decrease for smaller particles (about 15–30 nm) or larger particles (about 70–240 nm) [94,95,96,97,98,99]. Additionally, NPs ranging in the size of 30–50 nm interacts efficiently with CM receptors and is subsequently internalized via receptor-mediated endocytosis [97]. In drug delivery application of NPs, the main concern is to prevent the NPs from being eliminated by the reticuloendothelial system and to prolong its circulation time in the blood, thus enhancing the bioavailability at the target. In this regard, increasing the size of NPs will lead to an increase in the clearance rate [100,101,102,103,104,105]. Therefore, understanding the role of NP size in cellular uptake is crucial to design effective and safe NPs for medical applications.

Though different studies have investigated the relationship between size of NP and uptake pathways, the revealed results have always been inconsistent [93, 106,107,108,109]. These contradictions can be related to the complexity of controlling other parameters of NP during the process of controlling size. In addition to that, sizes of NPs measured after synthesis may undergo changes during the in vitro and in vivo studies due to agglomeration and aggregation which in turn could affect the cellular internalization pathways [110, 111]. The impact of particle size on cellular uptake pathway in non-phagocytic B16 cells was investigated by employing different sizes of fluorescent latex beads in the range of 50–1000 nm [93]. The results have demonstrated that the internalization mechanism of these beads relies significantly on the particle size. In particular, beads with sizes of 200 nm or less were taken up by clathrin-coated pits whereas larger beads were internalized by caveolae-mediated endocytosis. Lai and co-workers [16] have found that small polymeric NPs with sizes less than 25 nm employs a new mechanism to reach the perinuclear region of the cells via non-degradative vesicle outside the endo/lysosomal pathway. This pathway is non-clathrin and non-caveolae-mediated and cholesterol-independent.

The uptake of gold (Au) NPs of different sizes (2 to 100 nm) conjugated with Herceptin-AuNPs by SK-BR-3 cells was shown to be size dependent. The highest cellular internalization was observed for NPs in the size ranges of 25–50 nm [63]. In this entry route, the size of NP was found to be the determinant in the binding and activation of membrane receptors and the eventual expression of the proteins. The effect of variation in the size and shape of colloidal AuNPs on the intracellular uptake was assessed [112]. AuNPs of 14-, 50- and 74-nm size with spherical and rod shape were incubated with HeLa cells. It was found that the NP uptake strongly depends on its size and shape and those particles with 50 nm size showed the highest uptake rate. Moreover, the uptake of spherical AuNPs was 500% more than rod-shaped NPs of similar size. Shan et al. [113] investigated the size-dependent force of endocytosing AuNPs with diameters of 4, 12 and 17 nm by HeLa cells. The results revealed that both the uptake and unbinding force values increase by the size of AuNPs. The uptake of SiO2 NPs of different sizes (50, 100 and 300 nm) by A549 cells (lung epithelial cells) has studied by means of combination of flow cytometry, fluorescence and electron microscopies. These researchers had shown that the uptake of SiO2 NPs has decreased by size [114].

Effect of Shape

In addition to size, the shape of the NP also plays a pivotal role in the uptake pathway as well as trafficking of NPs. Chithrani et al. [112] studied the effect of the shape of colloidal AuNPs on the uptake of HeLa cells. The result revealed that spherical AuNPs had five-fold higher uptake than rod-shaped AuNPs. In another work, same researchers investigated the uptake level of spherical and rod-shaped transferrin-coated AuNP on three different cell lines; STO cells, HeLa cells and SNB19 cells [94]. They observed that spherical AuNPs were internalized by all the cell lines at a higher rate than rod-shaped AuNPs.

In order to establish the effect of shape in vivo, Geng and coworkers [115] employed filomicelles to evaluate the differences in transport and trafficking of flexible filaments with spheres in rodents. The results revealed that filomicelles remained in the circulation about ten times more than spherical counterparts. Moreover, the sphere filomicelles are internalized by the cells more readily than longer filaments. Gratton and co-workers [106] demonstrated the effect of the shape of monodisperse hydrogel particles on uptake into HeLa cells. They have found that rod-like-shaped NPs had the highest internalization rates compared to spheres, cylinders and cubes. In another study, the impact of the shape of NPs on cell uptake was investigated by employing disc-shaped, spherical and rod-shaped polystyrene (PS) NPs on Caco-2 cells. The result demonstrated that the rod and disc-shaped NPs were internalized twofold higher than spherical NPs. They concluded that NP-mediated drug delivery can be advanced by considering the shape of NPs [116].

Xu and co-workers [117] studied the impact of shape on cellular uptake by preparing layered double hydroxide (LDH) NPs with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) in different morphology such as hexagonal sheets (50–150 nm laterally wide and 10–20 nm thick) and rods (30–60 nm wide and 100–200 nm long). All morphologies were taken up via clathrin-mediated endocytosis. LDH-FITC nanosphere were retained in the cytoplasm, whereas LDH-FITC nanorods were moved towards the nucleus by microtubules. Dasgupta et al. applied [118] a simulation to probe the role of the shape of NPs on cellular uptake. They have simulated membrane wrapping of the nanorod- and nanocube-shaped NPs. For rod-like particles, they found stable endocytotic states with small and high wrapping fraction; increment in aspect ratio was undesirable for complete wrapping. Nangia and Sureshkumar [119] have computerized the effect of shape on the translocation rate of NPs by applying advanced molecular dynamics simulation techniques. A major revelation of the study is the significant variation in the translocation rate of cone-, cube-, rod-, rice-, pyramid- and sphere-shaped NPs.

Effect of Surface Charge

Another critical factor which influences cellular uptake of NPs is surface charge. In the recent decade, nano surface modification has been employed to engineer the surface charge of NPs to be either cationic or anionic [92]. The negatively charged CM enhances the uptake of positively charged NPs. In particular, positively charged NPs have higher internalization than neutral and negatively charged NPs [47, 120]. However, the uptake of positively charged NPs may disrupt the integrity of CM and lead to an increase in toxicity [121, 122]. In general, positively charged NPs induce cell death [123, 124]. Interestingly, neutrally charged NPs will lower the cellular uptake as compared to negatively charged NPs [110, 125,126,127]. Moreover, the internalization of negatively charged NPs leads to gelation of membranes, while positively charged NPs cause fluidity in the CM [128, 129]. In addition to the uptake rate of NP, surface charges also affect the uptake mechanisms. More specifically, positively charged NPs are mainly internalized by the cell via macropinocytosis whereas clathrin-/caveolae-independent endocytosis is the mechanism for the uptake of negatively charged NP [130]. Cellular uptake pathways vary when the surface of the AuNPs is coated by organic molecules. For instance, plain AuNPs which are positively charged, are internalized via macropinocytosis and clathrin and caveolin-mediated endocytosis, while negatively charged polyethylene glycol (PEG) coated AuNPs are mainly internalized via caveolin- and/or clathrin-mediated endocytosis [131].

Li and Gu [132] studied the interaction of charged and neutral NPs with CM by means of molecular dynamics simulations. It was found that charged NPs had better adhesion to the CMs compared to neutral NPs. Moreover, by increasing the charge density of NPs, they can be fully wrapped by the membrane. Another research group employed molecular dynamics simulation to investigate the interactions of cationic and anionic AuNPs with CMs. The results have revealed that disruption to the CM due to AuNPs penetration increases as the charge density of AuNPs are enhanced [133]. These findings suggest a way of controlling the interactions between cells and AuNP by manipulating the surface charge densities of AuNPs to optimize its uptake while minimizing cytotoxicity which are essential characteristics for any NPs that are being considered for biomedical applications.

Li and Malmstadt [134] studied the interaction of positively and negatively charged PS-NPs with biological membrane. The result showed that the strong electrostatic interaction between cationic NPs and the phosphate groups of the membrane led to enhance NP–membrane binding and membrane surface tension which in turn result in the formation of pores. The uptake rate of positively charged AuNPs into SK-BR-3 cells was reported fivefold higher than negatively charged AuNPs. These researchers have also explored that positively charged AuNPs were internalized by non-endocytosis pathways while negatively charged AuNPs were taken up by cells via endocytosis pathways [135].

Hauck et al. [107] probed the uptake of gold nanorods (AuNRs) with a size range of 18 to 40 nm and surface charges in the range of + 37 mV to − 69 mV by HeLa cells. The results indicated that for all concentration of AuNRs, the highest internalization into HeLa cells was with the surface charges of + 37 mV and the lowest internalization at − 69 mV. Huhn and coworkers [136] assessed charge-dependent interactions of colloidal AuNPs with different cell lines such as 3T3 fibroblast cells, murine C17.2 neural progenitor cells and human umbilical vein endothelial cells. The result showed that for all the cell lines cationic AuNPs had higher uptake than the anionic counterpart. They concluded that the cell uptake is highly dependent on the sign of charge. Moreover, the cytotoxicity study indicated that as a consequence of higher uptake for positively charged NPs, they show higher toxicity than negatively charged one.

Effect of Hydrophobicity

Hydrophobicity of NP is a determinant factor in their interaction with the CM [92, 137]. Several studies demonstrated the impact of hydrophobicity of NPs on their interactions with the CM. Li et al. [138] studied the effect of hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity of NPs on the interaction with CM by employing molecular dynamics simulations. The results have revealed that hydrophobic NPs created inclusion in the CM while hydrophilic NPs was found to adsorb onto the CM. In another research, simulation approach was applied to investigate the effect of hydrophobicity on NP-cell interaction. It was observed that hydrophilic NPs were wrapped, while hydrophobic NPs were embedded within the inner hydrophobic core of the bilayers by directly penetrating into the membrane [139].

QDNPs interactions with mixed lipid/polymer membranes were assessed by changing the hydrophobicity surface of NPs. It was observed that hydrophobic NPs have located within the polymer domains in a mixed lipid/polymer monolayer of the membranes, whereas hydrophilic QDNPs adsorbed onto the monolayers and spread throughout, indicating higher effect on the molecule packing at the air/water interface [140]. Incorporation of functionalized AuNPs with mixed hydrophobic and hydrophilic ligands into liposome walls was studied. The result demonstrated that hydrophobic ligands interact with the hydrophobic core of the bilayer, while hydrophilic ligands interact with the aqueous solution [141].

Effect of Surface Modification

In biomedical applications of NPs, surface chemical modification of NP is a critical step utilized to decreases toxicity, increase stability and to control and modulate cellular internalization of NPs, hence their biological fate [142]. Surface functionalization of NPs predominantly comprises of PEG, the negative carboxyl (–COOH) group, neutral functional groups like hydroxyl (–OH) groups, and the positive amine (–NH2) group. The increment in the amount of (–NH2) lead to an enhanced positive surface charge, and hence raise the uptake of NPs into cells [143,144,145,146]. Similarly, –COOH functional groups increase the negative charge of NPs and accordingly enhance its uptake [144].

Tao et al. [147] have designed polydopamine functionalized NP-aptamer bioconjugate for tumour targeting. They have reported that the functionalized NPs have better targeting efficacy compared to non-functionalized NPs, indicating higher cellular uptake rates for functionalized NPs which translates into enhanced therapeutic effect. In another research, folic acid-functionalized NPs demonstrated higher efficacy in the targeting of cervical cancer cells than non-functionalized NPs [148]. The impact of surface coating on toxicity and cellular uptake of AuNPs were studied by Qiu and co-workers [90]. They have revealed that surface coating is a key factor in determining the cellular uptake rate since poly (diallyldimethyl ammonium chloride)-coated AuNRs showed a higher efficiency in internalization by the cells.

The differences in the cellular uptake of pristine polystyrene (PS-NPs) and amino-functionalized polystyrene NPs were investigated by Jiang and co-workers [149]. The results have demonstrated that amino-functionalized polystyrene NPs have a higher uptake rate than PS-NPs, and the former were internalized mainly via clathrin-mediated pathway and the latter via clathrin-independent endocytosis. This remarkable difference highlights the key role of surface chemical modification in cellular interactions with NPs. Surface-modified fullerene, C60(C(COOH)2)2 NPs were internalized by the cells predominantly via endocytosis in a time-, temperature- and energy-dependent manner. Clathrin-mediated endocytosis was found to be the preferred pathway for the internalization of C60(C(COOH)2)2 NPs [150].

Effect of Elasticity

The elasticity of NPs plays is an intrinsic factor in influencing its internalization by cells. The elasticity of NPs can be explained by its resistance to changes when forces are applied on it. Stiffness, hardness and rigidity are some of the terms that are synonymous in describing the elasticity of NPs. A measurement index that is being used to gauge the elasticity of NPs is Young’s modulus and the unit of measurement is Pascal (Pa). Based on this measurement, a higher Young’s modulus value denotes higher NPs elasticity and vice versa. Examples of the analytical devices or instruments that are used to measure this value on NPs are atomic force microscope, rheometer and nanoindenter. NPs that have higher elastic values are called hard NPs and examples of these are gold NPs, quantum dots and magnetic NPs. NPs that have lower elastic values are called soft NPs and examples of these are hydrogels, liposomes and biodegradable polymers.

Numerous studies that have focused on this parameter of NP with respect to cellular uptake have reported on the preference of cells to internalize stiffer NPs more efficiently compared to softer NPs [151, 152]. Evidently, this observation is attributed to lesser overall energy expenditure by membranes in wrapping stiffer NPs compared to softer NPs even though the deformational energy required to wrap the NPs varies throughout the internalization process. Furthermore, computational modelling of membrane wrapping of NPs with varying elasticity conducted using coarse-grained molecular dynamics (CGMD) simulation concurs with the experimental observation regarding deformational energy changes involved in internalizing stiff and soft NPs [153]. However, there are also other studies that have reported on softer NPs being internalized more efficiently than stiffer NPs [154, 155] and intermediate elastic NPs internalized more efficiently compared to either stiff or soft NPs [156]. Hence, tuning the elasticity of NPs for better cellular internalization could be a valuable tool in biomedical applications such as drug delivery. A potential application was demonstrated by Guo and coworkers, whereby accumulation of nanolipogels in tumour cells were enhanced primarily by controlling this parameter of NP [157].

Intracellular Trafficking of NPs

In the previous sections, different possible uptake pathways of NPs and the parameters that affect the efficacy of uptake has been discussed. Following uptake, the next crucial matter is the intracellular trafficking of NPs which determines its final destination within cellular compartments, its cytotoxicity and its therapeutic efficacy [158, 159]. After NPs are internalized by the cells, they will first encounter membrane-bound intracellular vesicles called early endosomes. Endosomes formed at the plasma membrane are categorized into three types; early endosomes, late endosomes and recycling endosomes [106, 160,161,162,163].

Early endosome ferries the cargo to the desired cellular destination. Part of the cargo is recycled to the plasma membrane via recycling endosomes. Early endosomes transform into late endosomes via maturation and differentiation process. The late endosomes will then integrate with lysosomes to form endolysosomal vesicles and hydrolytic enzymes contained within these vesicles degrade the trapped NPs [18, 164,165,166]. However, some NPs are able to escape this pathway and are released into the cytoplasm therefore bypassing the lysosomal degradation process [167,168,169]. Another intracellular degradation pathway which plays important role in the intracellular fate of NPs is an intracellular process called autophagy [170,171,172]. In this process, cytoplasmic contents will be surrounded by autophagosome and delivered to the lysosome to be broken down and recycled [173]. In addition, aggregated proteins and dysfunctional organelles are degraded by autophagy to maintain cellular homeostasis. It is necessary to consider this pathway since recent studies demonstrated that several NPs are capable of inducing autophagy [174,175,176,177,178].

The intracellular trafficking of Tat peptide-conjugated quantum dots (Tat-QDs) in live cells was studied by Ruan and co-workers [179]. Dynamic confocal imaging showed that Tat-QDs interacted with negatively charged CMs leading to its internalization by macropinocytosis. The QD containing vesicles were observed to be actively transported by molecular motors towards the perinuclear region known as the microtubule-organizing center (MTOC). Tat-QDs bind to cellular membrane structures such as filopodia and vesicle shedding results in releasing QD-containing vesicles from the tips of filopodia.

The uptake and intracellular fate of fluorescent carboxylated polystyrene particles (20 nm and 200 nm in diameter) were evaluated by applying it on hepatocyte [180]. It was found that the particles were internalized by hepatocytes in size, time and serum-dependent manner. The fate of the particles was studied and they were not observed in early endosomes or lysosomes, but only in the mitochondria of the hepatocyte. Particles accumulated inside bile canaliculi show that NPs can be eliminated within bile. A study on the uptake and intracellular fate of silver NPs into human mesenchymal stem cells demonstrated that they agglomerate in the perinuclear region [181]. It was observed by using fluorescent probes that particles are contained within endo-lysosomal structures but not in the cell nucleus, endoplasmic reticulum or Golgi complex. Confocal imaging of FITC conjugated titania nanotubes in mouse neural stem cells revealed that they have crossed the karyotheca entering the cell nucleus [182]. Single-walled carbon nanotubes were observed to enter the cytoplasm and localize in the cell nucleus leading to cell mortality [183]. Translocation of AuNRs towards the nucleus has also been reported [184].

Conclusions

The application of NPs in the modern world is growing at an exponential rate as the scientific enterprise is looking for novel ways to address current problems. NPs can be found as active ingredients in many formulations intended for human consumption, from cosmetics to processed foods. As its application increases in consumer products, so does human exposure to NPs. Hence, more research should be carried out to understand its potential hazards to humans and other living beings. In this review, we have looked at the current knowledge on the effects of NPs at a cellular level. Some of the topics discussed include cellular pathways of NPs and the influences of physiochemical properties of NPs on the uptake rate and uptake mechanism.

Abbreviations

ATP:

Adenosine triphosphate

CAGR:

Compound annual growth rate

CM:

Cell membrane

FITC:

Fluorescein isothiocyanate

GPI:

Glycosylphosphatidylinositol

LDH:

Layered double hydroxide

MTOC:

Microtubule-organizing center

NP:

Nanoparticle

PEG:

Polyethylene glycol

References

  1. Kamaly N, Xiao Z, Valencia PM, Radovic-Moreno AF, Farokhzad OC (2012) Targeted polymeric therapeutic nanoparticles: design, development and clinical translation. Chem Soc Rev 41(7):2971–3010

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mout R, Moyano DF, Rana S, Rotello VM (2012) Surface functionalization of nanoparticles for nanomedicine. Chem Soc Rev 41(7):2539–2544

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Elsabahy M, Wooley KL (2012) Design of polymeric nanoparticles for biomedical delivery applications. Chem Soc Rev 41(7):2545–2561

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dreaden EC, Alkilany AM, Huang X, Murphy CJ, El-Sayed MA (2012) The golden age: gold nanoparticles for biomedicine. Chem Soc Rev 41(7):2740–2779

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Shi J, Kantoff PW, Wooster R, Farokhzad OC (2017) Cancer nanomedicine: progress, challenges and opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer 17(1):20

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Serpooshan V, Quinn TM, Muja N, Nazhat SN (2013) Hydraulic permeability of multilayered collagen gel scaffolds under plastic compression-induced unidirectional fluid flow. Acta Biomater 9(1):4673–4680

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mah C, Zolotukhin I, Fraites T, Dobson J, Batich C, Byrne B (2000) Microsphere-mediated delivery of recombinant AAV vectors in vitro and in vivo. Mol Ther 1:S239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pantarotto D, Partidos CD, Hoebeke J, Brown F, Kramer E, Briand J-P et al (2003) Immunization with peptide-functionalized carbon nanotubes enhances virus-specific neutralizing antibody responses. Chem Biol 10(10):961–966

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Edelstein R, Tamanaha C, Sheehan P, Miller M, Baselt D, Whitman L et al (2000) The BARC biosensor applied to the detection of biological warfare agents. Biosens Bioelectron 14(10):805–813

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nam JM, Thaxton CS, Mirkin CA (2003) Nanoparticle-based bio-bar codes for the ultrasensitive detection of proteins. Science 301(5641):1884–1886

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. De La Isla A, Brostow W, Bujard B, Estevez M, Rodriguez JR, Vargas S et al (2003) Nanohybrid scratch resistant coatings for teeth and bone viscoelasticity manifested in tribology. Mater Res Innov 7(2):110–114

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ma J, Wong H, Kong L, Peng K (2003) Biomimetic processing of nanocrystallite bioactive apatite coating on titanium. Nanotechnology 14(6):619

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rogach AL, Ogris M (2010) Near-infrared-emitting semiconductor quantum dots for tumor imaging and targeting. Curr Opin Mol Ther 12(3):331–339

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Shinkai M, Yanase M, Suzuki M, Honda H, Wakabayashi T, Yoshida J et al (1999) Intracellular hyperthermia for cancer using magnetite cationic liposomes. J Magn Magn Mater 194(1):176–184

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Berezin MY (2014) Nanotechnology for biomedical imaging and diagnostics: from nanoparticle design to clinical applications. Wiley, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Lai SK, Hida K, Man ST, Chen C, Machamer C, Schroer TA et al (2007) Privileged delivery of polymer nanoparticles to the perinuclear region of live cells via a non-clathrin, non-degradative pathway. Biomaterials 28(18):2876–2884

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nishikawa T, Iwakiri N, Kaneko Y, Taguchi A, Fukushima K, Mori H et al (2009) Nitric oxide release in human aortic endothelial cells mediated by delivery of amphiphilic polysiloxane nanoparticles to caveolae. Biomacromolecules 10(8):2074–2085

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chou LY, Ming K, Chan WC (2011) Strategies for the intracellular delivery of nanoparticles. Chem Soc Rev 40(1):233–245

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mahmoudi M, Meng J, Xue X, Liang XJ, Rahman M, Pfeiffer C et al (2014) Interaction of stable colloidal nanoparticles with cellular membranes. Biotechnol Adv 32(4):679–692

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Petros RA, DeSimone JM (2010) Strategies in the design of nanoparticles for therapeutic applications. Nat Rev Drug Discov 9(8):615

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pridgen EM, Alexis F, Farokhzad OC (2015) Polymeric nanoparticle drug delivery technologies for oral delivery applications. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 12(9):1459–1473

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Yameen B, Choi WI, Vilos C, Swami A, Shi J, Farokhzad OC (2014) Insight into nanoparticle cellular uptake and intracellular targeting. J Control Release 190:485–499

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Albanese A, Tang PS, Chan WC (2012) The effect of nanoparticle size, shape, and surface chemistry on biological systems. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 14:1–16

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nel AE, Mädler L, Velegol D, Xia T, Hoek EM, Somasundaran P et al (2009) Understanding biophysicochemical interactions at the nano–bio interface. Nat Mater 8(7):543–557

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. McMahon HT, Gallop JL (2005) Membrane curvature and mechanisms of dynamic cell membrane remodelling. Nature 438(7068):590

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Shi Y, Massagué J (2003) Mechanisms of TGF-β signaling from cell membrane to the nucleus. Cell 113(6):685–700

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. García-Sánchez T, Muscat A, Leray I, Mir LM (2018) Pyroelectricity as a possible mechanism for cell membrane permeabilization. Bioelectrochemistry 119:227–233

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Honigmann A, Pralle A (2016) Compartmentalization of the Cell Membrane. J Mol Biol 428(24, Part A):4739–4748

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zalba S, ten Hagen TLM (2017) Cell membrane modulation as adjuvant in cancer therapy. Cancer Treat Rev 52:48–57

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Edidin M (2003) Lipids on the frontier: a century of cell-membrane bilayers. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 4(5):414

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Shi Y, Cai M, Zhou L, Wang H (2018) The structure and function of cell membranes studied by atomic force microscopy. Semin Cell Dev Biol 73:31–44

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Backes WL (2015) Passive Diffusion of Drugs Across Membranes. Reference Module in Biomedical Sciences. Elsevier

  33. Feher J (2017) 2.5 - Passive Transport and Facilitated Diffusion. Quantitative Human Physiology, 2nd edn. Academic Press, Boston, pp 161–169

    Google Scholar 

  34. Feher J (2012) 2.5 - Passive Transport and Facilitated Diffusion. Quantitative Human Physiology. Academic Press, Boston, pp 126–133

    Google Scholar 

  35. Douglas RG, Amino R, Sinnis P, Frischknecht F (2015) Active migration and passive transport of malaria parasites. Trends Parasitol 31(8):357–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Nizzero S, Ziemys A, Ferrari M (2018) Transport Barriers and Oncophysics in Cancer Treatment. Trends Cancer 4(4):277–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Makaraci P, Kim K (2018) trans-Golgi network-bound cargo traffic. Eur J Cell Biol 97(3):137–149

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Nazario-Toole AE, Wu LP (2017) Chapter Two - Phagocytosis in Insect Immunity. In: Ligoxygakis P (ed) Advances in Insect Physiology, Academic Press, pp 52, 35–82

  39. Rajendran NK, Kumar SSD, Houreld NN, Abrahamse H (2018) A review on nanoparticle based treatment for wound healing. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol 44:421–430

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Xiang S, Tong H, Shi Q, Fernandes JC, Jin T, Dai K et al (2012) Uptake mechanisms of non-viral gene delivery. J Control Release 158(3):371–378

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Pauwels A-M, Trost M, Beyaert R, Hoffmann E (2017) Patterns, receptors, and signals: regulation of phagosome maturation. Trends Immunol 38(6):407–422

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hillaireau H, Couvreur P (2009) Nanocarriers’ entry into the cell: relevance to drug delivery. Cell Mol Life Sci 66(17):2873–2896

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Caviston JP, Holzbaur EL (2006) Microtubule motors at the intersection of trafficking and transport. Trends Cell Biol 16(10):530–537

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhao F, Zhao Y, Liu Y, Chang X, Chen C, Zhao Y (2011) Cellular uptake, intracellular trafficking, and cytotoxicity of nanomaterials. Small 7(10):1322–1337

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Litwack G (2018) Chapter 18 - Membrane Transport. In: Human Biochemistry. Academic Press, Boston, pp 553–589

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. Ramsden JJ (2018) Chapter 14 - The Safety of Nanofacture and Nanomaterials. In: Applied Nanotechnology, 3rd edn. William Andrew Publishing, pp 205–223

  47. Panariti A, Miserocchi G, Rivolta I (2012) The effect of nanoparticle uptake on cellular behavior: disrupting or enabling functions? Nanotechnol Sci Appl 5:87

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Hirota K, Terada H (2012) Endocytosis of particle formulations by macrophages and its application to clinical treatment. INTECH Open Access Publisher

  49. Yu Y (2018) Resolving Endosome Rotation in Intracellular Trafficking. Biophys J 114(3, Supplement 1):630a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ferguson JP, Huber SD, Willy NM, Aygün E, Goker S, Atabey T et al (2017) Mechanoregulation of clathrin-mediated endocytosis. J Cell Sci 130(21):3631–3636

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lu R, Drubin DG, Sun Y (2016) Clathrin-mediated endocytosis in budding yeast at a glance. J Cell Sci 129(8):1531–1536

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Hassinger JE, Oster G, Drubin DG, Rangamani P (2017) Design principles for robust vesiculation in clathrin-mediated endocytosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114(7):E1118–E1E27

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Doherty GJ, McMahon HT (2009) Mechanisms of endocytosis. Annu Rev Biochem 78:857–902

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Conner SD, Schmid SL (2003) Regulated portals of entry into the cell. Nature 422(6927):37

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Vanlandingham PA, Barmchi MP, Royer S, Green R, Bao H, Reist N et al (2014) AP180 Couples Protein Retrieval to Clathrin-Mediated Endocytosis of Synaptic Vesicles. Traffic 15(4):433–450

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Capraro BR, Shi Z, Wu T, Chen Z, Dunn JM, Rhoades E et al (2013) Kinetics of endophilin N-BAR domain dimerization and membrane interactions. J Biol Chem 288(18):12533–12543

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Rappoport JZ (2008) Focusing on clathrin-mediated endocytosis. Biochem J 412(3):415–423

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Soldati T, Schliwa M (2006) Powering membrane traffic in endocytosis and recycling. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7(12):897

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Praefcke GJ, McMahon HT (2004) The dynamin superfamily: universal membrane tubulation and fission molecules? Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 5(2):133

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Cocucci E, Aguet F, Boulant S, Kirchhausen T (2012) The first five seconds in the life of a clathrin-coated pit. Cell 150(3):495–507

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Sahay G, Alakhova DY, Kabanov AV (2010) Endocytosis of nanomedicines. J Control Release 145(3):182–195

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Rivolta I, Panariti A, Lettiero B, Sesana S, Gasco P, Gasco M et al (2011) Cellular uptake of coumarin-6 as a model drug loaded in solid lipid nanoparticles. J Physiol Pharmacol 62(1):45

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Jiang W, Kim BY, Rutka JT, Chan WC (2008) Nanoparticle-mediated cellular response is size-dependent. Nat Nanotechnol 3(3):145–150

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Parton RG, Simons K (2007) The multiple faces of caveolae. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 8(3):185

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Thorn H, Stenkula KG, Karlsson M, Örtegren U, Nystrom FH, Gustavsson J et al (2003) Cell surface orifices of caveolae and localization of caveolin to the necks of caveolae in adipocytes. Mol Biol Cell 14(10):3967–3976

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wang Z, Tiruppathi C, Cho J, Minshall RD, Malik AB (2011) Delivery of nanoparticle complexed drugs across the vascular endothelial barrier via caveolae. IUBMB Life 63(8):659–667

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Thomas D (2017) Chapter 22 - Endocytosis and the Endosomal Membrane System A2 - Pollard. In: Earnshaw WC, Lippincott-Schwartz J, Johnson GT (eds) Cell Biology, 3rd edn. Elsevier, pp 377–392

  68. Nabi IR (2009) Cavin fever: regulating caveolae. Nat Cell Biol 11(7):789

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Parton RG, Del Pozo MA (2013) Caveolae as plasma membrane sensors, protectors and organizers. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 14(2):98

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Ray A, Mitra AK (2017) Chapter 8 - Nanotechnology in Intracellular Trafficking, Imaging, and Delivery of Therapeutic Agents. In: Emerging Nanotechnologies for Diagnostics, Drug Delivery and Medical Devices. Elsevier, Boston, pp 169–188

    Google Scholar 

  71. Stillwell W (2016) Chapter 11 - Long-Range Membrane Properties. In: An Introduction to Biological Membranes, 2nd edn. Elsevier, pp 221–245

  72. Sandvig K, Pust S, Skotland T, van Deurs B (2011) Clathrin-independent endocytosis: mechanisms and function. Curr Opin Cell Biol 23(4):413–420

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Rejman J, Conese M, Hoekstra D (2006) Gene transfer by means of lipo-and polyplexes: role of clathrin and caveolae-mediated endocytosis. J Liposome Res 16(3):237–247

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Oh P, Borgström P, Witkiewicz H, Li Y, Borgström BJ, Chrastina A et al (2007) Erratum: Live dynamic imaging of caveolae pumping targeted antibody rapidly and specifically across endothelium in the lung. Nat Biotechnol 25(4):478

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Kirkham M, Fujita A, Chadda R, Nixon SJ, Kurzchalia TV, Sharma DK et al (2005) Ultrastructural identification of uncoated caveolin-independent early endocytic vehicles. J Cell Biol 168(3):465–476

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Damm E-M, Pelkmans L, Kartenbeck J, Mezzacasa A, Kurzchalia T, Helenius A (2005) Clathrin-and caveolin-1–independent endocytosis: entry of simian virus 40 into cells devoid of caveolae. J Cell Biol 168(3):477–488

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Mellman I, Nelson WJ (2008) Coordinated protein sorting, targeting and distribution in polarized cells. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 9(11):833

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Ferreira APA, Boucrot E (2018) Mechanisms of Carrier Formation during Clathrin-Independent Endocytosis. Trends Cell Biol 28(3):188–200

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Zhang F, Guo H, Zhang J, Chen Q, Fang Q (2018) Identification of the caveolae/raft-mediated endocytosis as the primary entry pathway for aquareovirus. Virology 513:195–207

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Lu Y, Low PS (2012) Folate-mediated delivery of macromolecular anticancer therapeutic agents. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 64:342–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Kelemen LE (2006) The role of folate receptor α in cancer development, progression and treatment: cause, consequence or innocent bystander? Int J Cancer 119(2):243–250

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Lim JP, Gleeson PA (2011) Macropinocytosis: an endocytic pathway for internalising large gulps. Immunol Cell Biol 89(8):836–843

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Swanson JA (2008) Shaping cups into phagosomes and macropinosomes. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 9(8):639

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Tekle C, Deurs BV, Sandvig K, Iversen T-G (2008) Cellular trafficking of quantum dot-ligand bioconjugates and their induction of changes in normal routing of unconjugated ligands. Nano Lett 8(7):1858–1865

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Mercer J, Helenius A (2009) Virus entry by macropinocytosis. Nat Cell Biol 11(5):510

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Kuhn DA, Vanhecke D, Michen B, Blank F, Gehr P, Petri-Fink A et al (2014) Different endocytotic uptake mechanisms for nanoparticles in epithelial cells and macrophages. Beilstein J Nanotechnol 5:1625

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Kerr MC, Teasdale RD (2009) Defining macropinocytosis. Traffic 10(4):364–371

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Jones AT (2007) Macropinocytosis: searching for an endocytic identity and role in the uptake of cell penetrating peptides. J Cell Mol Med 11(4):670–684

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Kühn S, Lopez-Montero N, Chang Y-Y, Sartori-Rupp A, Enninga J (2017) Imaging macropinosomes during Shigella infections. Methods 127:12–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Qiu Y, Liu Y, Wang L, Xu L, Bai R, Ji Y et al (2010) Surface chemistry and aspect ratio mediated cellular uptake of Au nanorods. Biomaterials 31(30):7606–7619

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Wu Y-N, Yang L-X, Shi X-Y, Li I-C, Biazik JM, Ratinac KR et al (2011) The selective growth inhibition of oral cancer by iron core-gold shell nanoparticles through mitochondria-mediated autophagy. Biomaterials 32(20):4565–4573

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Zhu M, Nie G, Meng H, Xia T, Nel A, Zhao Y (2012) Physicochemical properties determine nanomaterial cellular uptake, transport, and fate. Acc Chem Res 46(3):622–631

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Rejman J, Oberle V, Zuhorn I, Hoekstra D (2004) Size-dependent internalization of particles via the pathways of clathrin-and caveolae-mediated endocytosis. Biochem J 377:159–169

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Chithrani BD, Chan WC (2007) Elucidating the mechanism of cellular uptake and removal of protein-coated gold nanoparticles of different sizes and shapes. Nano Lett 7(6):1542–1550

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Geiser M, Rothen-Rutishauser B, Kapp N, Schürch S, Kreyling W, Schulz H et al (2005) Ultrafine particles cross cellular membranes by nonphagocytic mechanisms in lungs and in cultured cells. Environ Health Perspect 113(11):1555–1560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Jin H, Heller DA, Sharma R, Strano MS (2009) Size-dependent cellular uptake and expulsion of single-walled carbon nanotubes: single particle tracking and a generic uptake model for nanoparticles. ACS Nano 3(1):149–158

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Lu F, Wu SH, Hung Y, Mou CY (2009) Size Effect on Cell Uptake in Well-Suspended, Uniform Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles. Small 5(12):1408–1413

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Osaki F, Kanamori T, Sando S, Sera T, Aoyama Y (2004) A quantum dot conjugated sugar ball and its cellular uptake. On the size effects of endocytosis in the subviral region. J Am Chem Soc 126(21):6520–6521

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Wang S-H, Lee C-W, Chiou A, Wei P-K (2010) Size-dependent endocytosis of gold nanoparticles studied by three-dimensional mapping of plasmonic scattering images. J Nanobiotechnol 8(1):33

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Behzadi S, Serpooshan V, Tao W, Hamaly MA, Alkawareek MY, Dreaden EC et al (2017) Cellular uptake of nanoparticles: journey inside the cell. Chem Soc Rev 46(14):4218–4244

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Bruno BJ, Miller GD, Lim CS (2013) Basics and recent advances in peptide and protein drug delivery. Ther Deliv 4(11):1443–1467

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Biswas AK, Islam MR, Choudhury ZS, Mostafa A, Kadir MF (2014) Nanotechnology based approaches in cancer therapeutics. Adv Nat Sci Nanosci Nanotechnol 5(4):043001

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Bhatia S (2016) Nanoparticles types, classification, characterization, fabrication methods and drug delivery applications. In: Natural Polymer Drug Delivery Systems. Springer, pp 33–93

  104. Ventola CL (2017) Progress in Nanomedicine: Approved and Investigational Nanodrugs. Pharm Ther 42(12):742

    Google Scholar 

  105. Gendelman HE, Anantharam V, Bronich T, Ghaisas S, Jin H, Kanthasamy AG et al (2015) Nanoneuromedicines for degenerative, inflammatory, and infectious nervous system diseases. Nanomedicine 11(3):751–767

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Gratton SE, Ropp PA, Pohlhaus PD, Luft JC, Madden VJ, Napier ME et al (2008) The effect of particle design on cellular internalization pathways. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(33):11613–11618

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Hauck TS, Ghazani AA, Chan WC (2008) Assessing the effect of surface chemistry on gold nanorod uptake, toxicity, and gene expression in mammalian cells. Small 4(1):153–159

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Min Y, Akbulut M, Kristiansen K, Golan Y, Israelachvili J (2008) The role of interparticle and external forces in nanoparticle assembly. Nat Mater 7(7):527–538

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Wei P, Zhang L, Lu Y, Man N, Wen L (2010) C60 (Nd) nanoparticles enhance chemotherapeutic susceptibility of cancer cells by modulation of autophagy. Nanotechnology 21(49):495101

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. He C, Hu Y, Yin L, Tang C, Yin C (2010) Effects of particle size and surface charge on cellular uptake and biodistribution of polymeric nanoparticles. Biomaterials 31(13):3657–3666

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Verma A, Stellacci F (2010) Effect of surface properties on nanoparticle–cell interactions. Small 6(1):12–21

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Chithrani BD, Ghazani AA, Chan WC (2006) Determining the size and shape dependence of gold nanoparticle uptake into mammalian cells. Nano Lett 6(4):662–668

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Shan Y, Ma S, Nie L, Shang X, Hao X, Tang Z et al (2011) Size-dependent endocytosis of single gold nanoparticles. Chem Commun 47(28):8091–8093

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Shapero K, Fenaroli F, Lynch I, Cottell DC, Salvati A, Dawson KA (2011) Time and space resolved uptake study of silica nanoparticles by human cells. Mol BioSyst 7(2):371–378

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Geng Y, Dalhaimer P, Cai S, Tsai R, Tewari M, Minko T et al (2007) Shape effects of filaments versus spherical particles in flow and drug delivery. Nat Nanotechnol 2(4):249–255

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Banerjee A, Qi J, Gogoi R, Wong J, Mitragotri S (2016) Role of nanoparticle size, shape and surface chemistry in oral drug delivery. J Control Release 238:176–185

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Xu ZP, Niebert M, Porazik K, Walker TL, Cooper HM, Middelberg AP et al (2008) Subcellular compartment targeting of layered double hydroxide nanoparticles. J Control Release 130(1):86–94

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Dasgupta S, Auth T, Gompper G (2014) Shape and orientation matter for the cellular uptake of nonspherical particles. Nano Lett 14(2):687–693

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Nangia S, Sureshkumar R (2012) Effects of nanoparticle charge and shape anisotropy on translocation through cell membranes. Langmuir 28(51):17666–17671

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Marano F, Hussain S, Rodrigues-Lima F, Baeza-Squiban A, Boland S (2011) Nanoparticles: molecular targets and cell signalling. Arch Toxicol 85(7):733–741

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Goodman CM, McCusker CD, Yilmaz T, Rotello VM (2004) Toxicity of gold nanoparticles functionalized with cationic and anionic side chains. Bioconjug Chem 15(4):897–900

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Lovrić J, Bazzi HS, Cuie Y, Fortin GR, Winnik FM, Maysinger D (2005) Differences in subcellular distribution and toxicity of green and red emitting CdTe quantum dots. J Mol Med 83(5):377–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Dawson KA, Salvati A, Lynch I (2009) Nanotoxicology: nanoparticles reconstruct lipids. Nat Nanotechnol 4(2):84–85

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Hoffmann F, Cinatl J, Kabičková H, Kreuter J, Stieneker F (1997) Preparation, characterization and cytotoxicity of methylmethacrylate copolymer nanoparticles with a permanent positive surface charge. Int J Pharm 157(2):189–198

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Allen T, Austin G, Chonn A, Lin L, Lee K (1991) Uptake of liposomes by cultured mouse bone marrow macrophages: influence of liposome composition and size. Biochim Biophys Acta 1061(1):56–64

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Raz A, Bucana C, Fogler WE, Poste G, Fidler IJ (1981) Biochemical, morphological, and ultrastructural studies on the uptake of liposomes by murine macrophages. Cancer Res 41(2):487–494

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  127. Patil S, Sandberg A, Heckert E, Self W, Seal S (2007) Protein adsorption and cellular uptake of cerium oxide nanoparticles as a function of zeta potential. Biomaterials 28(31):4600–4607

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Arvizo RR, Miranda OR, Thompson MA, Pabelick CM, Bhattacharya R, Robertson JD et al (2010) Effect of nanoparticle surface charge at the plasma membrane and beyond. Nano Lett 10(7):2543–2548

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Wang B, Zhang L, Bae SC, Granick S (2008) Nanoparticle-induced surface reconstruction of phospholipid membranes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(47):18171–18175

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Dausend J, Musyanovych A, Dass M, Walther P, Schrezenmeier H, Landfester K et al (2008) Uptake mechanism of oppositely charged fluorescent nanoparticles in HeLa cells. Macromol Biosci 8(12):1135–1143

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Brandenberger C, Mühlfeld C, Ali Z, Lenz AG, Schmid O, Parak WJ et al (2010) Quantitative Evaluation of Cellular Uptake and Trafficking of Plain and Polyethylene Glycol-Coated Gold Nanoparticles. Small 6(15):1669–1678

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Li Y, Gu N (2010) Thermodynamics of charged nanoparticle adsorption on charge-neutral membranes: a simulation study. J Phys Chem B 114(8):2749–2754

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Lin J, Zhang H, Chen Z, Zheng Y (2010) Penetration of lipid membranes by gold nanoparticles: insights into cellular uptake, cytotoxicity, and their relationship. ACS Nano 4(9):5421–5429

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Li S, Malmstadt N (2013) Deformation and poration of lipid bilayer membranes by cationic nanoparticles. Soft Matter 9(20):4969–4976

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Cho EC, Xie J, Wurm PA, Xia Y (2009) Understanding the role of surface charges in cellular adsorption versus internalization by selectively removing gold nanoparticles on the cell surface with a I2/KI etchant. Nano Lett 9(3):1080–1084

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Huhn D, Kantner K, Geidel C, Brandholt S, De Cock I, Soenen SJ et al (2013) Polymer-coated nanoparticles interacting with proteins and cells: focusing on the sign of the net charge. ACS Nano 7(4):3253–3263

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  137. Rozenberg B, Tenne R (2008) Polymer-assisted fabrication of nanoparticles and nanocomposites. Prog Polym Sci 33(1):40–112

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Li Y, Chen X, Gu N (2008) Computational investigation of interaction between nanoparticles and membranes: hydrophobic/hydrophilic effect. J Phys Chem B 112(51):16647–16653

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Curtis EM, Bahrami AH, Weikl TR, Hall CK (2015) Modeling nanoparticle wrapping or translocation in bilayer membranes. Nanoscale 7(34):14505–14514

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Olubummo A, Schulz M, Lechner B-D, Scholtysek P, Bacia K, Blume A et al (2012) Controlling the localization of polymer-functionalized nanoparticles in mixed lipid/polymer membranes. ACS Nano 6(10):8713–8727

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Lee H-Y, Shin SHR, Abezgauz LL, Lewis SA, Chirsan AM, Danino DD et al (2013) Integration of gold nanoparticles into bilayer structures via adaptive surface chemistry. J Am Chem Soc 135(16):5950–5953

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Chompoosor A, Saha K, Ghosh PS, Macarthy DJ, Miranda OR, Zhu ZJ et al (2010) The role of surface functionality on acute cytotoxicity, ROS generation and DNA damage by cationic gold nanoparticles. Small 6(20):2246–2249

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Alexis F, Pridgen E, Molnar LK, Farokhzad OC (2008) Factors affecting the clearance and biodistribution of polymeric nanoparticles. Mol Pharm 5(4):505–515

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  144. Holzapfel V, Lorenz M, Weiss CK, Schrezenmeier H, Landfester K, Mailänder V (2006) Synthesis and biomedical applications of functionalized fluorescent and magnetic dual reporter nanoparticles as obtained in the miniemulsion process. J Phys Condens Matter 18(38):S2581

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Lorenz MR, Holzapfel V, Musyanovych A, Nothelfer K, Walther P, Frank H et al (2006) Uptake of functionalized, fluorescent-labeled polymeric particles in different cell lines and stem cells. Biomaterials 27(14):2820–2828

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Orr G, Panther DJ, Phillips JL, Tarasevich BJ, Dohnalkova A, Hu D et al (2007) Submicrometer and nanoscale inorganic particles exploit the actin machinery to be propelled along microvilli-like structures into alveolar cells. ACS Nano 1(5):463–475

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  147. Tao W, Zeng X, Wu J, Zhu X, Yu X, Zhang X et al (2016) Polydopamine-based surface modification of novel nanoparticle-aptamer bioconjugates for in vivo breast cancer targeting and enhanced therapeutic effects. Theranostics 6(4):470

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Tao W, Zhang J, Zeng X, Liu D, Liu G, Zhu X et al (2015) Blended nanoparticle system based on miscible structurally similar polymers: a safe, simple, targeted, and surprisingly high efficiency vehicle for cancer therapy. Adv Healthc Mater 4(8):1203–1214

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  149. Jiang X, Dausend J, Hafner M, Musyanovych A, Röcker C, Landfester K et al (2010) Specific effects of surface amines on polystyrene nanoparticles in their interactions with mesenchymal stem cells. Biomacromolecules 11(3):748–753

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Li W, Chen C, Ye C, Wei T, Zhao Y, Lao F et al (2008) The translocation of fullerenic nanoparticles into lysosome via the pathway of clathrin-mediated endocytosis. Nanotechnology 19(14):145102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  151. Anselmo AC, Zhang M, Kumar S, Vogus DR, Menegatti S, Helgeson ME et al (2015) Elasticity of Nanoparticles Influences Their Blood Circulation, Phagocytosis, Endocytosis, and Targeting. ACS Nano 9(3):3169–3177

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  152. Yi X, Shi X, Gao H (2011) Cellular uptake of elastic nanoparticles. Phys Rev Lett 107(9):098101

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  153. Shen Z, Ye H, Li Y (2018) Understanding receptor-mediated endocytosis of elastic nanoparticles through coarse grained molecular dynamic simulation. Phys Chem Chem Phys 20(24):16372–16385

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  154. Tang H, Ye H, Zhang H, Zheng Y (2015) Wrapping of nanoparticles by the cell membrane: the role of interactions between the nanoparticles. Soft Matter 11(44):8674–8683

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  155. Yi X, Gao H (2017) Kinetics of receptor-mediated endocytosis of elastic nanoparticles. Nanoscale 9(1):454–463

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  156. Banquy X, Suarez F, Argaw A, Rabanel J-M, Grutter P, Bouchard J-F et al (2009) Effect of mechanical properties of hydrogel nanoparticles on macrophage cell uptake. Soft Matter 5(20):3984–3991

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  157. Guo P, Liu D, Subramanyam K, Wang B, Yang J, Huang J et al (2018) Nanoparticle elasticity directs tumor uptake. Nat Commun 9(1):130

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  158. Cartiera MS, Johnson KM, Rajendran V, Caplan MJ, Saltzman WM (2009) The uptake and intracellular fate of PLGA nanoparticles in epithelial cells. Biomaterials 30(14):2790–2798

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  159. Peñaloza JP, Márquez-Miranda V, Cabaña-Brunod M, Reyes-Ramírez R, Llancalahuen FM, Vilos C et al (2017) Intracellular trafficking and cellular uptake mechanism of PHBV nanoparticles for targeted delivery in epithelial cell lines. J Nanobiotechnol 15(1):1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  160. Lewinski N, Colvin V, Drezek R (2008) Cytotoxicity of Nanoparticles. Small 4(1):26–49

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  161. Rauch J, Kolch W, Laurent S, Mahmoudi M (2013) Big signals from small particles: regulation of cell signaling pathways by nanoparticles. Chem Rev 113(5):3391–3406

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  162. Jovic M, Sharma M, Rahajeng J, Caplan S (2010) The early endosome: a busy sorting station for proteins at the crossroads. Histol Histopathol 25(1):99

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  163. Huotari J, Helenius A (2011) Endosome maturation. EMBO J 30(17):3481–3500

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  164. Grant BD, Donaldson JG (2009) Pathways and mechanisms of endocytic recycling. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 10(9):597

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  165. Park M, Salgado JM, Ostroff L, Helton TD, Robinson CG, Harris KM et al (2006) Plasticity-induced growth of dendritic spines by exocytic trafficking from recycling endosomes. Neuron 52(5):817–830

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  166. Venkatachalam K, Wong C-O, Zhu MX (2015) The role of TRPMLs in endolysosomal trafficking and function. Cell Calcium 58(1):48–56

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  167. Martens TF, Remaut K, Demeester J, De Smedt SC, Braeckmans K (2014) Intracellular delivery of nanomaterials: how to catch endosomal escape in the act. Nano Today 9(3):344–364

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  168. Dominska M, Dykxhoorn DM (2010) Breaking down the barriers: siRNA delivery and endosome escape. J Cell Sci 123(8):1183–1189

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  169. Wong C-O, Gregory S, Hu H, Chao Y, Sepúlveda VE, He Y et al (2017) Lysosomal Degradation Is Required for Sustained Phagocytosis of Bacteria by Macrophages. Cell Host Microbe 21(6):719–730 e6

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  170. Lewis PA, Perez-Carrion M, Piccoli G (2017) Chapter 6 - Autophagy. In: Verstreken P (ed) Parkinson's Disease. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 179–206

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  171. Hayat MA (2016) Chapter 1 - Overview of Autophagy. In: Hayat MA (ed) Autophagy: Cancer, Other Pathologies, Inflammation, Immunity, Infection, and Aging. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 1–71

    Google Scholar 

  172. Hayat MA (2015) Chapter 1 - Introduction to Autophagy: Cancer, Other Pathologies, Inflammation, Immunity, Infection, and Aging, Volume 6. In: Hayat MA (ed) Autophagy: Cancer, Other Pathologies, Inflammation, Immunity, Infection, and Aging. Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp 1–51

    Google Scholar 

  173. Anding AL, Baehrecke EH (2017) Cleaning house: selective autophagy of organelles. Dev Cell 41(1):10–22

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  174. Klionsky DJ (2007) Autophagy: from phenomenology to molecular understanding in less than a decade. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 8(11):931–937

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  175. Mizushima N (2007) Autophagy: process and function. Genes Dev 21(22):2861–2873

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  176. Stern ST, Johnson DN (2008) Role for nanomaterial-autophagy interaction in neurodegenerative disease. Autophagy 4(8):1097–1100

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  177. Wang J, Yu Y, Lu K, Yang M, Li Y, Zhou X et al (2017) Silica nanoparticles induce autophagy dysfunction via lysosomal impairment and inhibition of autophagosome degradation in hepatocytes. Int J Nanomedicine 12:809

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  178. Ma X, Wu Y, Jin S, Tian Y, Zhang X, Zhao Y et al (2011) Gold nanoparticles induce autophagosome accumulation through size-dependent nanoparticle uptake and lysosome impairment. ACS Nano 5(11):8629–8639

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  179. Ruan G, Agrawal A, Marcus AI, Nie S (2007) Imaging and tracking of tat peptide-conjugated quantum dots in living cells: new insights into nanoparticle uptake, intracellular transport, and vesicle shedding. J Am Chem Soc 129(47):14759–14766

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  180. Johnston HJ, Semmler-Behnke M, Brown DM, Kreyling W, Tran L, Stone V (2010) Evaluating the uptake and intracellular fate of polystyrene nanoparticles by primary and hepatocyte cell lines in vitro. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 242(1):66–78

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  181. Greulich C, Diendorf J, Simon T, Eggeler G, Epple M, Köller M (2011) Uptake and intracellular distribution of silver nanoparticles in human mesenchymal stem cells. Acta Biomater 7(1):347–354

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  182. Wang Y, Wang J, Deng X, Wang J, Wang H, Wu M et al (2009) Direct imaging of titania nanotubes located in mouse neural stem cell nuclei. Nano Res 2(7):543–552

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  183. Porter AE, Gass M, Muller K, Skepper JN, Midgley PA, Welland M (2007) Direct imaging of single-walled carbon nanotubes in cells. Nat Nanotechnol 2(11):713–717

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  184. Oyelere AK, Chen PC, Huang X, El-Sayed IH, El-Sayed MA (2007) Peptide-conjugated gold nanorods for nuclear targeting. Bioconjug Chem 18(5):1490–1497

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Universiti Sains Malaysia under KPT-TRGS Grant [203/PFIZIK/6711560].

Availability of Data and Materials

The authors agreed to share data to any recommended repositories.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

PF and AAA wrote the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Parisa Foroozandeh.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Foroozandeh, P., Aziz, A.A. Insight into Cellular Uptake and Intracellular Trafficking of Nanoparticles. Nanoscale Res Lett 13, 339 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s11671-018-2728-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s11671-018-2728-6

Keywords

  • Nanoparticles
  • Cellular uptake
  • Intracellular trafficking
  • Nanomedicine
  • Cytotoxicity