Search

Proteins and peptides (PPs) have gradually become more attractive therapeutic molecules than small molecular drugs due to their high selectivity and efficacy, but fewer side effects. Owing to the poor stability and limited permeability through gastrointestinal (GI) tract and epithelia, the therapeutic PPs are usually administered by parenteral route. Given the big demand for oral administration in clinical use, a variety of researches focused on developing new technologies to overcome GI barriers of PPs, such as enteric coating, enzyme inhibitors, permeation enhancers, nanoparticles, as well as intestinal microdevices. Some new technologies have been developed under clinical trials and even on the market. This review summarizes the history, the physiological barriers and the overcoming approaches, current clinical and preclinical technologies, and future prospects of oral delivery of PPs., Graphical abstract The current strategies for improving oral absorption of proteins and peptides (PPs) include stabilization, absorption enhancement and mucus-related technologies. Most of marketed oral PP products employ two or more strategies.Image 1

Graphical abstract, Even given recent advances in nanomedicine development of breast cancer treatment in recent years and promising results in pre-clinical models, cancer nanomedicines often fail at the clinical trial stage. Limitations of conventional in vitro models include the lack of representation of the stromal population, the absence of a three-dimensional (3D) structure, and a poor representation of inter-tumor and intra-tumor heterogeneity. Herein, we review those cell culture strategies that aim to overcome these limitations, including cell co-cultures, advanced 3D cell cultures, patient-derived cells, bioprinting, and microfluidics systems. The in vivo evaluation of nanomedicines must consider critical parameters that include the enhanced permeability and retention effect, the host's immune status, and the site of tumor implantation. Here, we critically discuss the advantages and limitations of current in vivo models and report how the improved selection and application of breast cancer models can improve the clinical translation of nanomedicines.

The efficacy of chemotherapeutic drug in cancer treatment is often hampered by drug resistance of tumor cells, which is usually caused by abnormal gene expression. RNA interference mediated by siRNA and miRNA can selectively knock down the carcinogenic genes by targeting specific mRNAs. Therefore, combining chemotherapeutic drugs with gene agents could be a promising strategy for cancer therapy. Due to poor stability and solubility associated with gene agents and drugs, suitable protective carriers are needed and have been widely researched for the co-delivery. In this review, we summarize the most commonly used nanocarriers for co-delivery of chemotherapeutic drugs and gene agents, as well as the advances in co-delivery systems., Graphical abstract Combining chemotherapeutic drugs with gene agents could be a promising strategy for cancer therapy. Four major types of nanocarriers to co-delivery gene and chemotherapeutic drugs were reviewed, including (a) cationic liposome, (b) micelle system, (c) dendrimer system, and (d) supramolecular system.

The effect of folic acid (FA) on breast cancer (BC) risk is uncertain. We hypothesised that this uncertainty may be due, in part, to differential effects of FA between BC cells with different phenotypes. To test this we investigated the effect of treatment with FA concentrations within the range of unmetabolised FA reported in humans on the expression of the transcriptome of non-transformed (MCF10A) and cancerous (MCF7 and Hs578T) BC cells. The total number of transcripts altered was: MCF10A, seventy-five (seventy up-regulated); MCF7, twenty-four (fourteen up-regulated); and Hs578T, 328 (156 up-regulated). Only the cancer-associated geneTAGLNwas altered by FA in all three cell lines. In MCF10A and Hs578T cells, FA treatment decreased pathways associated with apoptosis, cell death and senescence, but increased those associated with cell proliferation. The folate transporters SLC19A1, SLC46A1 and FOLR1 were differentially expressed between cell lines tested. However, the level of expression was not altered by FA treatment. These findings suggest that physiological concentrations of FA can induce cell type-specific changes in gene regulation in a manner that is consistent with proliferative phenotype. This has implications for understanding the role of FA in BC risk. In addition, these findings support the suggestion that differences in gene expression induced by FA may involve differential activities of folate transporters. Together these findings indicate the need for further studies of the effect of FA on BC.