This review compares animal-derived exosomes and plant-derived nanoparticles to evaluate their effectiveness as drug carriers, suggesting improvements for clinical use.
Exosomes and plant-derived exosome-like nanoparticles (PELNs) are increasingly investigated as biologically derived nanocarriers that can couple cargo protection with biointerface-enabled transport. From a pharmaceutics standpoint, their therapeutic performance is often cargo-governed (e.g., microRNAs and proteins) and is ultimately constrained by delivery determinants such as stability, biodistribution, cellular uptake, and intracellular trafficking. In this review, we compare animal-derived exosomes (ADEs) and PELNs through a formulation-centric lens, emphasizing how source-dependent molecular composition shapes critical delivery behaviors and translational feasibility. We reorganize representative preclinical evidence into pharmaceutics-relevant delivery scenarios—including systemic/vascular targeting, blood–brain barrier transport, oral gastrointestinal delivery, and tumor microenvironment modulation—to connect cargo identity with exposure-site interactions and pharmacodynamic outcomes. We further discuss engineering strategies for improving payload control, targeting precision, and dosing accuracy, including endogenous enrichment, exogenous loading, and surface functionalization, while highlighting scale-up and safety considerations introduced by modification. Finally, we delineate translational priorities required to advance exosome-based products toward clinical development: standardized dose metrics (particle- and cargo-normalized), quantitative PK/biodistribution–PD relationships, potency assays and critical quality attributes (CQAs), manufacturing consistency under GMP, and regulatory-compliant characterization. Collectively, this review reframes ADEs and PELNs as cargo-driven pharmaceutical delivery systems and provides a practical roadmap for translation, with particular attention to the oral and scalable potential of PELNs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: