Aug 2026· ACS Applied Nano Materials· 0 citations· 221 references
TL;DR
How photothermal, magnetothermal, piezoelectric, sonodynamic, and acoustically responsive nanomaterials modulate nanoparticle–cell interactions through membrane perturbation, uptake enhancement, vesicle destabilization, altered intracellular trafficking, and nonclassical transport pathways is discussed.
Abstract
Endosomal sequestration remains a major barrier to the intracellular delivery of nanotherapeutics/nanomedicine, prompting the development of physically responsive nanomaterials activated by light, magnetic fields, and ultrasound. These external stimuli are widely proposed to induce endosomal escape through localized heating, mechanical perturbation, cavitation, membrane permeabilization, or reactive oxygen species generation. However, growing quantitative evidence suggests that in many systems only a limited fraction of internalized nanoparticles undergoes bona fide cytosolic release following stimulation, often accounting for less than 10–15% of the total intracellular population. This Review critically examines the mechanistic basis of physical stimuli–assisted endosomal escape and distinguishes true cytosolic delivery from broader stimulation-induced intracellular effects. We discuss how photothermal, magnetothermal, piezoelectric, sonodynamic, and acoustically responsive nanomaterials modulate nanoparticle–cell interactions through membrane perturbation, uptake enhancement, vesicle destabilization, altered intracellular trafficking, and nonclassical transport pathways. Importantly, we discuss why substantial therapeutic responses can still arise despite modest endosomal release, owing to enhanced intracellular accumulation and improved local bioavailability. Finally, we outline emerging strategies for quantitative mechanistic evaluation and propose a more realistic framework in which physical stimulation is viewed not solely as an endosomolytic trigger, but as a broader regulator of intracellular access relevant to next-generation nanomedicine design.
Successful intracellular delivery requires a nanocarrier to adhere to the cell membrane, be wrapped and internalized and finally released into the cytoplasm before it is degraded. While the initial steps have been intensively studied, the intracellular release of a nanocarrier has received comparatively less attention...
Massimiliano Paesani, I. Ilie· bioRxiv· 0 citations
Molecular simulations are employed to elucidate how LNPs fuse with the endosomal membrane and release their payloads, and identify multiple fusion pathways, with a dominant stalk-pore mechanism.
A. P. Singh, Kana Shibata, Yusuke Miyazaki et al.· bioRxiv· 0 citations
Abstract The clinical translation of cancer nanomedicine remains constrained by inefficient intracellular delivery, poor subcellular specificity, and limited tumor accumulation, highlighting the need for more precise drug delivery strategies. Organelle-targeted nanocarriers have emerged as a promising platform for enha...
Han-Gen Zhang, Jia Guo, Xin-Miao Wang et al.· International Journal of Nan...· 0 citations
This study uses giant unilamellar vesicles mimicking the endosomal membrane to directly visualize the interaction and membrane disruptions caused by two model LNPs constituted by two different ionizable lipids, establishing a cell-free platform for dissecting individual sub-steps of endosomal escape.
Extracellular vesicle (EV) therapeutics are progressing from broad proof-of-concept studies toward product-specific engineering and clinically defined applications. Native EVs offer biological membrane functions and the capacity to transport diverse molecular cargoes, but their therapeutic performance is limited by low...
Jiao Xu, Zhi Li, Da Liu et al.· Extracellular Vesicles and C...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.