A pipeline integrates machine learning and blood studies to profile biocompatibility in nanomedicine, indicating potential immune hazards.
The clinical translation of metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) - a promising class of porous materials for nanomedicine - is hindered by a poor understanding of their complex interactions with the immune system and in vivo immunotoxicity. To address this gap, a hierarchical "Safety-by-Design" pipeline is established and validated, integrating machine learning (ML) with ex vivo human blood studies and targeted in vivo models. This multi-stage workflow enables the systematic profiling of MOF immunotoxicity, de-risking their development. The power of this approach is demonstrated using four clinically relevant MOFs - NU-901, PCN-222, UiO-66, and ZIF-8 - revealing distinct, framework-dependent immune fingerprints. The initial in silico screening correctly flagged NU-901 and ZIF-8 as potential hazards to human health. These predictions are subsequently validated ex vivo, where NU-901 is confirmed to be selectively cytotoxic to CD14+ monocytes, and ZIF-8 is identified as a specific pro-inflammatory agent via IL-6 induction. In contrast, candidates predicted to be safe - UiO-66 and PCN-222 - demonstrated high biocompatibility ex vivo and advanced to in vivo studies, where they caused only minimal and transient immune activation. This study provides a validated, resource-efficient roadmap for preclinical immunotoxicity assessment, establishing a rational paradigm to accelerate the safe clinical translation of MOFs and other advanced nanomedicines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhuang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: