Demonstrates enhanced targeting of inflamed endothelial cells using E-Selectin immunoliposomes, suggesting cost-effective strategies for drug delivery.
Inflamed endothelium targeting via E-Selectin is a promising strategy for drug delivery across the neurovascular interface, however, exploitation of the strategy by immunoliposomes remains limited. Furthermore, the high cost of antibodies poses a practical barrier for iterative formulation optimization. In this study, we developed two E-Selectin-targeted immunoliposome types incorporating either a commercially available monoclonal antibody (mAb) or a mAb produced in-house from a proprietary hybridoma line. Pre-formed liposomes were functionalized through maleimide-PEG conjugation and characterized for size distribution (by DLS), zeta potential (electrophoretic mobility), and Mab attachment (%). Immunoliposome targeting efficacy was assessed on brain microvascular endothelial cells under basal conditions and also after LPS-induced inflammation (to mimic pathological E-Selectin upregulation), by flow cytometry. Both immunoliposome formulations had similar characteristics and demonstrated significantly enhanced binding to endothelial cells relative to non-targeted liposomes, under both conditions studied. Furthermore, uptake by inflamed cells was always significantly higher than by non-inflamed cells. No differences in (in vitro) targeting magnitude between the commercial and hybridoma-derived Mab's were quantified, proving their comparable performance despite substantial differences in mAb cost. The current findings highlight the feasibility of substituting commercial mAbs with hybridoma-derived ones during preclinical development of targeted nanocarriers, as a strategy to reduce expenses while preserving their specificity and functional performance. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that E-Selectin targeted immunoliposomes are promising drug delivery systems for treatment of inflamed vasculature, justifying further in vitro and in vivo exploitation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gkartziou et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: