2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      siRNA nanohybrid systems: false hope or feasible answer in cancer management

      1 , 2 , 2
      Therapeutic Delivery
      Future Science Ltd

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Finding out predisposition and makeup alterations in cancer cells has prompted the exploration of exogenous small interference RNA (siRNA) as a therapeutic agent to deal with cancer. siRNA is subjected to many limitations that hinder its cellular uptake. Various nanocarriers have been loaded with siRNA to improve their cellular transportation and have moved to clinical trials. However, many restrictions as low encapsulation efficiency, nanocarrier cytotoxicity and premature release of siRNA have impeded the single nanocarrier use. The realm of nanohybrid systems has emerged to overcome these limitations and to synergize the criteria of two or more nanocarriers. Different nanohybrid systems that were developed as cellular pathfinders for the exogenous siRNA to target cancer will be illustrated in this review.

          Related collections

          Most cited references161

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries

          This article provides a status report on the global burden of cancer worldwide using the GLOBOCAN 2018 estimates of cancer incidence and mortality produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, with a focus on geographic variability across 20 world regions. There will be an estimated 18.1 million new cancer cases (17.0 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 9.6 million cancer deaths (9.5 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) in 2018. In both sexes combined, lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer (11.6% of the total cases) and the leading cause of cancer death (18.4% of the total cancer deaths), closely followed by female breast cancer (11.6%), prostate cancer (7.1%), and colorectal cancer (6.1%) for incidence and colorectal cancer (9.2%), stomach cancer (8.2%), and liver cancer (8.2%) for mortality. Lung cancer is the most frequent cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among males, followed by prostate and colorectal cancer (for incidence) and liver and stomach cancer (for mortality). Among females, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death, followed by colorectal and lung cancer (for incidence), and vice versa (for mortality); cervical cancer ranks fourth for both incidence and mortality. The most frequently diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death, however, substantially vary across countries and within each country depending on the degree of economic development and associated social and life style factors. It is noteworthy that high-quality cancer registry data, the basis for planning and implementing evidence-based cancer control programs, are not available in most low- and middle-income countries. The Global Initiative for Cancer Registry Development is an international partnership that supports better estimation, as well as the collection and use of local data, to prioritize and evaluate national cancer control efforts. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2018;0:1-31. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Cancer statistics, 2018

            Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival. Incidence data, available through 2014, were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data, available through 2015, were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, 1,735,350 new cancer cases and 609,640 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Over the past decade of data, the cancer incidence rate (2005-2014) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% annually in men, while the cancer death rate (2006-2015) declined by about 1.5% annually in both men and women. The combined cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2015 by a total of 26%, translating to approximately 2,378,600 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak. Of the 10 leading causes of death, only cancer declined from 2014 to 2015. In 2015, the cancer death rate was 14% higher in non-Hispanic blacks (NHBs) than non-Hispanic whites (NHWs) overall (death rate ratio [DRR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.13-1.15), but the racial disparity was much larger for individuals aged <65 years (DRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.29-1.32) compared with those aged ≥65 years (DRR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09) and varied substantially by state. For example, the cancer death rate was lower in NHBs than NHWs in Massachusetts for all ages and in New York for individuals aged ≥65 years, whereas for those aged <65 years, it was 3 times higher in NHBs in the District of Columbia (DRR, 2.89; 95% CI, 2.16-3.91) and about 50% higher in Wisconsin (DRR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.56-2.02), Kansas (DRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.25-1.81), Louisiana (DRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.60), Illinois (DRR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.39-1.57), and California (DRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.38-1.54). Larger racial inequalities in young and middle-aged adults probably partly reflect less access to high-quality health care. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:7-30. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Ultrastructural Characterization of the Lower Motor System in a Mouse Model of Krabbe Disease

              Krabbe disease (KD) is a neurodegenerative disorder caused by the lack of β- galactosylceramidase enzymatic activity and by widespread accumulation of the cytotoxic galactosyl-sphingosine in neuronal, myelinating and endothelial cells. Despite the wide use of Twitcher mice as experimental model for KD, the ultrastructure of this model is partial and mainly addressing peripheral nerves. More details are requested to elucidate the basis of the motor defects, which are the first to appear during KD onset. Here we use transmission electron microscopy (TEM) to focus on the alterations produced by KD in the lower motor system at postnatal day 15 (P15), a nearly asymptomatic stage, and in the juvenile P30 mouse. We find mild effects on motorneuron soma, severe ones on sciatic nerves and very severe effects on nerve terminals and neuromuscular junctions at P30, with peripheral damage being already detectable at P15. Finally, we find that the gastrocnemius muscle undergoes atrophy and structural changes that are independent of denervation at P15. Our data further characterize the ultrastructural analysis of the KD mouse model, and support recent theories of a dying-back mechanism for neuronal degeneration, which is independent of demyelination.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Therapeutic Delivery
                Therapeutic Delivery
                Future Science Ltd
                2041-5990
                2041-6008
                February 2022
                February 2022
                : 13
                : 2
                : 109-133
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Industrial Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
                [2 ]Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon
                Article
                10.4155/tde-2021-0068
                35105155
                c3aac4bc-5563-4596-94ac-5b0b74a69263
                © 2022
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article