Currently there is a problem with how nanoparticles get in to tumors, or more a problem with how it happens. First of all nanoparticles are small, the same size as a marble appears to us, nanoparticles appear to cancer cells. That being said, we don't just ingest every marble we see, but for some reason tumors do this with nanoparticles. It happens in such a drastic amount it has been labeled the enhanced permeability and retention effect or EPR. And you hear nanoparticle people talk about this all the time, EPR this EPR that.
This observation, was also one of the reasons nanoparticles in medicine became a thing, its on thousands of papers, and patents. However, recently its been found to be either not as substantial as we thought (with some people saying it happens in like 0.7% of the case), or it happens by some sort of active mechanism specific to only certain ones. I am not sure what to believe. I like the idea of active transport, but there are many tumors so its unlikely they all behave the same (#notmytumor).
What is really confusing was the logic of discovery itself. It was first noticed when grafting tumors on the side of mice that nanoparticles just collected there. Which is fine, but these tumors are really large, like a third of the size as the mouse, and in science you usually need controls. So I still don't understand what they negative control was. The absence of a tumor? Just seems like from these experiments you can't make these claims. So you wonder was the nanoparticle field trying to find its usefulness in biology or was it an actual observation, or still do tumors a third of the size as the mouse take up anything?
There are a number of useful clinically used nanoparticle systems, that improve patients life and the standard of care. Some deliver drugs, others identify the tumour. There just seems to be a confusion on how it happens, and when you design these systems what is important to have.
This observation, was also one of the reasons nanoparticles in medicine became a thing, its on thousands of papers, and patents. However, recently its been found to be either not as substantial as we thought (with some people saying it happens in like 0.7% of the case), or it happens by some sort of active mechanism specific to only certain ones. I am not sure what to believe. I like the idea of active transport, but there are many tumors so its unlikely they all behave the same (#notmytumor).
What is really confusing was the logic of discovery itself. It was first noticed when grafting tumors on the side of mice that nanoparticles just collected there. Which is fine, but these tumors are really large, like a third of the size as the mouse, and in science you usually need controls. So I still don't understand what they negative control was. The absence of a tumor? Just seems like from these experiments you can't make these claims. So you wonder was the nanoparticle field trying to find its usefulness in biology or was it an actual observation, or still do tumors a third of the size as the mouse take up anything?
There are a number of useful clinically used nanoparticle systems, that improve patients life and the standard of care. Some deliver drugs, others identify the tumour. There just seems to be a confusion on how it happens, and when you design these systems what is important to have.