Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

European Journal of Nanomedicine

Editor-in-Chief: Hunziker, Patrick / Mollenhauer, Jan

Managing Editor: Löffler, Beat / Salieb-Beugelaar, Georgette

Editorial Board Member: Alexiou, Christoph / Balogh, Lajos / Barenholz, Yechezkel / Dawson, Kenneth / Fadeel, Bengt / Husseini, Ghaleb / Krol, Silke / Lee, Dong Soo / Lehr, Claus-Michael / Mangge, Harald / Müller, Bert / Peer, Dan / Scoles, Giacinto / Serruys, Patrick / Schwartz, Simo / Szebeni, Janos

4 Issues per year


CiteScore 2016: 1.06

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.411
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.360

Online
ISSN
1662-596X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Therapeutic delivery using cell-penetrating peptides

Rupa R. Sawant
  • Center for Pharmaceutical Biotechnology and Nanomedicine, Northeastern University, 140 The Fenway, Room 211/214, Boston, MA 02115, USA
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Niravkumar R. Patel
  • Center for Pharmaceutical Biotechnology and Nanomedicine, Northeastern University, 140 The Fenway, Room 211/214, Boston, MA 02115, USA
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Vladimir P. Torchilin
  • Corresponding author
  • Center for Pharmaceutical Biotechnology and Nanomedicine, Northeastern University, 140 The Fenway, Room 211/214, Boston, MA 02115, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2013-08-21 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ejnm-2013-0005

Abstract

Intracellular delivery of promising therapeutic agents as well as nanocarriers presents a unique challenge. However, with the discovery of the cell-penetrating peptides (CPPs), overcoming this obstacle seems more plausible. In many cases, CPPs conjugated with therapeutic agent or therapeutic agent loaded-nanoparticles have shown promising results via increased cellular uptake. In this review, the current status of CPPs for the intracellular delivery of not just potential therapeutic small molecules but also large molecules like peptides, nucleic acids and nanocarriers is discussed. In addition, the design of ‘smart stimuli-sensitive nanocarrier’ to overcome the non-target-specificity of CPPs is also described.

Keywords: cell penetrating peptides; nanocarrier; nucleic acids; stimuli-sensitive liposomes

CPPs: Tools for crossing the cell membrane and molecular mechanism

The cell membrane, a fundamental necessity for a cell, presents a challenge for intracellular delivery for many therapeutic molecules. Most therapeutic molecules, whether small or large, more often, have their molecular target located intracellularly. Although such molecules, like proteins, peptides, nucleic acids and various kinds of nanocarriers hold greater promise for improved therapeutic effects, their intracellular delivery remains challenging.

During the past 20 years, a new family of short peptides that readily transport across the biological membrane, known as cell-penetrating peptides (CPPs) has emerged. This discovery has been regarded as a potentially important step in the development of novel strategies to increase the intracellular availability of molecules of high therapeutic interest but low membrane permeability, including peptides, proteins and nucleic acids.

Classification of CPPs

Based on their origin, CPPs can be divided into three classes: protein-derived peptides, model peptides and designed peptides (1, 2). Protein-derived peptides such as transactivator of transcription (TAT) (3) and penetratin (4), also referred to as protein transduction domains (PTDs), are the short stretches of the protein domain that are primarily responsible for their translocation ability. Model peptides mimic the translocation properties of known CPPs such as model amphipathic peptide (MAP) (5). Designed CPPs are produced by the fusion of hydrophilic and hydrophobic domains from different sources. These include transportan (a fusion of galanin and mastoparan) (6), MPG (the chimeric peptide from the fusion sequence of HIV-1 glycoprotein (gp)41 protein and peptide from the nuclear localization sequence (NLS) of simian vacuolating virus (SV)40 T-antigen) (7). Synthetic peptides such as polyarginines also show potential for translocation (8).

Based on the peptide sequences and binding properties to the lipids, CPPs can also be divided into three classes: primary amphiphatic, secondary amphiphatic and non-amphiphatic CPPs (9). The primary amphiphatic CPPs include transportan (6) or TP10 (10) and contain more than 20 amino acids. They have both hydrophobic and hydrophilic residues along their primary structure (9). Secondary amphiphatic CPPs such as penetratin (4), vascular endothelial-cadherin (pVEC) (11) and M918 (12) contain smaller number of amino acids compared to primary amphiphatic CPPs and their amphiphatic property is revealed when they form an alpha-helix or beta sheet structure upon interaction with a phospholipid membrane. The non-amphiphatic CPPs are short and contain high amount of cationic amino acids such as arginine, for example arginine-9 (R9) (8) and TAT (3, 13). All the CPPs are highly positively charged due to the contribution of basic residues such as lysine or arginine. MAP has the fastest cellular uptake and cargo delivery efficiency, followed by transportan, TAT, and penetratin (14).

The successful use of these peptides for intracellular delivery of electrostatically or covalently linked cargos, including proteins, nucleic acids (15–18), liposomes (19–21), micelles (22, 23) and other nanoparticles (24–26), has led efforts to identify CPPs with greater cell penetrating activity. Such efforts have resulted in the identification of CPPs with diverse amino acid sequences (Table 1).

Table 1

Examples of CPPs.

Mechanism of uptake of CPPs

Despite of multiple studies to elucidate the mechanism by which CPPs enter the cells (27–31), the mechanism of uptake of CPPs is still not completely clear. Different uptake mechanisms are involved in different systems, and in some cases, the mechanism is cell type- or cargo type-specific. This difficulty in elucidating these mechanisms may be due to the fact that in many cases CPPs can interact with multiple cell surface molecules. Therefore, CPPs can be taken up by cells via multiple pathways (28, 32, 33). There is evidence of both energy-dependent vesicular mechanisms, referred to as endocytosis, or direct processes involving translocation through the lipid bilayer by CPPs (34, 35). Also, all three major types of endocytosis (i.e., clathrin-mediated, caveolin-mediated and macropinocytosis) (36–40) appear to be involved for different CPPs or CPP-attached cargo (Figure 1).

Scheme of different suggested pathways of CPP uptake mechanisms.
Figure 1

Scheme of different suggested pathways of CPP uptake mechanisms.

Direct translocation via energy independent pathways may involve different mechanisms such as inverted micelle formation (41), the carpet-like model (42), pore formation (42) and membrane thinning model (43). The interaction of the positively charged CPP with negatively charged cellular membrane components such as heparan sulfate and the phospholipid bilayer constitutes the first step in all these mechanisms. These internalization mechanisms are highly dependent on the peptide concentration, peptide sequence and lipid composition in each model membrane study. It has been reported that the direct translocation mechanism is most likely to occur at high CPP concentrations and for primary amphiphatic CPPs such as transportan analogues and MPG (28, 44, 45). The inverted micelle model was suggested for direct translocation of penetratin (46). Since this mechanism was shown to involve interaction between hydrophobic residues such as tryptophan and the hydrophobic part of the membrane, this mechanism is not probable for the highly cationic CPPs such as TAT. For pore formation mechanism certain threshold concentration of peptide is required, which is different for different peptides. The carpet-like model and membrane thinning model also involves interactions between negatively charged phospholipid and cationic CPPs that leads to a carpeting and thinning of the membrane, respectively. This is followed by translocation of the CPP, only when CPP concentration is above a threshold concentration.

From the recent studies, it can be concluded that three types of endocytic uptake mechanisms are involved: clathrin-mediated (30), lipid raft-mediated through the formation of caveolae (39) and macropinocytosis (36, 47, 48). The peptides reported in Table 1 can be also divided based on hydrophobicity such as hydrophilic or arginine-rich CPPs (TAT and R9), intermediate hydrophobic CPPs (Penetratin, Pen-Arg, M918, pVEC) and hydrophobic (TP10). Since these peptides have different number of arginine residues and positive charges, they could use different cellular uptake mechanisms. Guterstam et al. suggested direct translocation mechanism for arginine-rich CPPs such as R9 and TAT in presence of high pyrenebutyrate concentration (50 μM). At lower pyrenebutyrate concentration, translocation of R9-attached oligonucleotide occurred by macropinocytosis (49). Macropinocytosis was demonstrated to be implicated in the internalization of polyarginines (50), and to a much less extent of penetratin. Inhibition of macropinocytosis also led to a decrease in the uptake for TAT, suggesting macropinocytosis as a route of entry (29, 47). Dowdy et al. also confirmed macropinocytosis as the route for TAT uptake (51). In contrast some other study has shown involvement of an energy- and temperature-independent pathways for arginine-rich CPPs (52). Different types of endocytic uptake mechanisms are also reported for arginine-rich CPPs alone or conjugated to cargo (37, 39, 47, 53, 54). Thus, type of cell lines and nature of cargo may affect their uptake mechanism.

For intermediately hydrophobic peptides such as pVEC, M918 and penetratin different cellular entry pathways are reported. It has been shown that pVEC is able to translocate into different cell lines (11). The involvement of clathrin dependent endocytotic pathway is also suggested (55). M918 is able to deliver various cargo molecules into different cell lines. The presence of endocytotic pathways (especially macropinocytosis) was confirmed as the uptake mechanism. However, glycoaminoglycans on the cell membrane are not involved in cellular uptake mechanism (12). For penetratin, endocytosis was suggested as the uptake mechanism both in the absence or presence of the cargo molecules. However, different types of endocytotic pathways for penetratin and its cargo conjugates have been reported (28).

For hydrophobic CPP like TP10 alone and with cargo attached, different cellular uptake and translocation mechanisms have been demonstrated. However, the cellular uptake is suggested to occur mainly via the endocytotic pathway (56).

CPPs and endosomal escape

After endocytosis, the entrapment in the endosomal compartment is the major challenge for CPPs and their cargoes. They could be digested by lysosomal hydrolysis before reaching a target. Increasing hydrophobicity of the complex is one way used to overcome the endosomal membrane barrier (57). A variety of methods such as those using fusogenic lipids (58–61), membrane disruptive peptides (47, 54, 62, 63) and polymers (64, 65), and lysomotropic agents (47, 66, 67) have been reported to enhance the endosomal escape of CPP-attached cargoes. Recently, a new CPP called PepFect6 (PF6), which has four chloroquine-analogs (trifluoromethylquinoline, QN) covalently, attached to the peptide via a succinylated lysine-tree is reported (68). This modification dramatically increased the efficiency compared to its parent peptide stearyl-TP10 in the delivery of siRNA, due to the CPP’s increased ability to escape the endosomal compartment. Later, PF14 was designed with stearyl-TP10 as a backbone but with the lysine residues replaced with the non-coded amino-acid ornithine to improve complex formation with oligonucleotides (69). This peptide was more resistant to protease degradation. This was further modified by designing a peptide combining the transfection efficiency of PF14 with an moieties to facilitate endosomal escape (70).

After the endosomal escape, intracellular trafficking of the cargo may be influenced by the presence or absence of the carrier. If both the carrier and the cargo remain attached then the high positive charge on carrier such as TAT and R8, may direct the CPP-conjugate to the nucleus where the positively charged carrier is likely to interact with the negatively charged DNA. To avoid this possibility, some CPP conjugates have been designed so that the cargo is released from the CPP after reaching the cytosol by using a reducible disulfide bond between the CPP and cargo (71).

Since the discovery over 20 years ago of CPPs, CPP-conjugated cargoes have found applications in a variety of disease areas such as cancer, cardiology, stroke and pain. The relative lack of both toxicity and cell specificity has enabled the use of CPP technology in various preclinical models (72).

Delivery of therapeutics using CPPs

CPPs have shown great potential and can be used for range of therapeutic applications (as can be seen in Figure 2), both in vitro and in vivo. CPPs have delivered various cargoes to challenging target areas such as brain, eye, heart, immune system, intestinal wall and skin. More detailed information on current status of delivery of various therapeutics and nanocarrier-based systems using CPPs is given below.

Potential targets for intracellular delivery using CPPs.
Figure 2

Potential targets for intracellular delivery using CPPs.

Delivery of small molecules

Conjugation with CPPs can enhance the intracellular delivery of small molecules. Doxorubicin (DOX) is one of the most commonly used drugs to treat various types of cancers. Dox-CPPs were found to induce apoptosis in MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells at much lower doses than free drug (73). The cells treated with free DOX usually over express the anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-2. However, this protein was inefficient in preventing DOX-CPP-induced apoptosis. In another study, coupling of DOX to penetratin helped DOX to bypass the P-glycoprotein (Pgp)-dependent drug efflux from the brain and thus enhanced the uptake across the blood-brain barrier in an in situ brain perfusion model (74). Methotrexate, an anticancer agent, demonstrated a five-fold increase in cytotoxicity with a breast cancer cell line after conjugation with the CPP, YTA2 (75). Recently, Zhang et al. reported a new analogue of transportan 10 (TP10) known as TP10–5 (TK), a CPP with a remarkable capacity for membrane translocation (76). However, low levels of specificity and high toxicity limited its successful use for drug delivery applications. Further modification of TK by replacement of all lysines with histidines resulted in development of a new type of acid-activated CPP (TH) with more cellular uptake at acidic pH 6.0 compared to a typical physiological pH. After attachment of camptothecin (CPT) to TH, this conjugate exhibited increased cytotoxicity to cancer cells in a pH-dependent manner compared with free CPT and TK-CPT.

The conjugation of CPPs to small molecule cytotoxic drugs has also been used to alter the in vivo distribution and to improve the efficacy profile of the parent molecule. When DOX was attached via a non-cleavable linker to several CPPs derived from heparin-binding proteins or anti-DNA antibodies (named as ‘Vetocell’ peptides) (77), one of such conjugate (DTS-101, see Table 2) exhibited increased antitumor efficacy and reduced systemic cytotoxicity compared to the parent drug. In another study, a conjugation of Vetocell with an active metabolite of irinotecan showed greater efficacy and higher plasma levels than the parent molecule (78).

Table 2

Clinical status of CPP-conjugated compounds.

Delivery of proteins and peptides

The nature of the cell membrane restricts cellular drug uptake to small (<600 Da) and to hydrophobic molecules. This offers several challenges for intracellular delivery of proteins and peptides which have short in vivo half-lives and poor bioavailability. Thus, methods that enable their efficient intracellular delivery and successful in vivo application are needed.

CPPs and protein delivery

The use of CPPs greatly facilitates the intracellular delivery of a wide range of proteins (79–82). The best example of a biologically active protein delivered by a CPP is the TAT- β-galactosidase (gal) fusion protein. Delivery across the blood-brain barrier is usually restricted to very small (<6 amino acids) highly lipophilic peptides, but after fusion with TAT, this CPP carried 480 kDa β-gal across the blood-brain barrier after intraperitoneal injection (83). The peptide-mediated cytoplasmic delivery of macromolecules had not been achieved until these studies.

CPPs also have potential in the treatment of stroke. Cerebral ischemia is usually the result of a blood flow blockage in the brain. Death of the neuronal cells after cerebral ischemia is associated with apoptosis. The apoptosis is mediated by the release of pro-apoptotic proteins and anti-apoptotic proteins such as Bcl-xL that counteract the pro-apoptotic process. However, failure to deliver these anti-apoptotic proteins to cells has been a challenge. Cao et al. used the anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-xL conjugated to TATp for neuroprotection in a murine middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) study (84). The hemagglutinin (HA)-tagged compound known as PTD-HA-Bcl-xL was administered intraperitoneally up to 45 min after the start of reperfusion. The infarct size was significantly reduced in a dose-dependent manner measured 3 days after the start of reperfusion. PTD-HA-Bcl-xL also decreased ischemia-induced caspase-3 activation in ischemic neurons. This indicated that the effect was mediated partly by a reduction in the cellular apoptosis response following ischemia.

Cyclosporine A (CsA) is an immune suppressant and anti-inflammatory agent used for a number of indications. However, the topical application of this drug is limited since it cannot readily penetrate the epidermis. When conjugated to a polyarginine CPP by a pH-sensitive linker (7-mer, called R7-CsA), it resulted in enhanced penetration into the dermis of mouse and human skin and human skin grafted onto mice (85). The conjugate was taken up by dermal T-lymphocytes and reduced the secretion of the pro-inflammatory cytokine, interleukin (IL)-2 and significantly reduced cutaneous inflammation in this mouse model of contact dermatitis.

Use of TAT has also enabled the delivery of antibodies for radiotherapeutic application (86). Morris et al. developed a new technique for protein delivery based on the peptide, Pep-1 (87). Pep-1 aided delivery of different peptides, proteins, and antibodies inside different cells in vitro and in vivo, without any chemical coupling between the cargo and Pep-1 (79). CPPs also have great potential to facilitate insulin permeation from the intestinal lumen or nasal cavity into systemic circulation via efficient uptake by epithelial cells. In fact, the co-administration of insulin with the peptide penetratin increased intestinal and nasal insulin bioavailability to 35 and 50%, respectively (88).

CPPs and peptide delivery

Recently, Boisguerin et al. studied four CPPs (TAT, (RXR)4 (an oligoarginine analog, which has an α-aminohexanoic acid linker (x) between arginine residues), Bpep and Pip2b) conjugated to the BH4-peptide, derived from the BH4 domain of the Bcl-xL anti-apoptotic protein (89). TAT-BH4 and Pip2b-BH4 conjugates decreased apoptosis in vitro in primary cardiomyocytes. When injected intravenously at a low dose at the onset of reperfusion in a surgical model of myocardial ischemia and reperfusion injury, they induced a large decrease in infarct size when measured after 24 h reperfusion. These effects were not observed following the injection of the CPP alone or a scrambled version of BH4. A peptide inhibitor of c-Jun-N-terminal kinase conjugated to TAT (now in clinical development by Xigen as XG-102), has also been shown to protect against apoptotic cell death in both in vitro and in in vivo models of cerebral ischemia (90).

Protein kinase (PK) enzymes play a major role in cardiac cellular function by transducing signals from the cell membrane to intracellular locations (91). δ-PKC inhibition during the reperfusion period led to restoration of cellular energy stores, enhanced recovery from intracellular acidosis, preservation of mitochondrial function and reduced damage to myocytes and endothelial cells after an ischemic insult (92). KAI-9803 is a novel peptide derived from the δV1-1 portion of δPKC, conjugated reversibly to the cell penetrating peptide TAT via a disulfide bond that inhibits δ-PKC activity by disrupting binding of δ-PKC to its receptor for activated C kinases, thereby preventing localization of δ-PKC to the mitochondria during periods of myocardial ischemia and reperfusion (93, 94). In ex vivo studies, KAI-9803 inhibited global cardiac injury following ischemia and reperfusion in rat hearts (95) as well as in excised human cardiac tissue (96). Administration of KAI-9803 at the beginning of the reperfusion period led to much greater recovery of contractile function following ischemia than with a TAT CPP control group.

The clinical development status of several CPP-conjugated compounds is presented in Table 2.

Delivery of nucleic acids

Current advances in genetics have led to the recognition of nucleic acid-based therapies as a promising tool for the treatment of various pathological conditions resulting from unregulated expression of genes. To mediate their efficient cellular uptake, however, there is an urgent need for the delivery systems that prevent nucleic acid degradation and promote intracellular delivery of loaded cargo. Their unique properties that enhance cellular uptake shared by most of CPPs make them particularly suited to act as gene delivery vectors. The following section describes the recent advances in the use of CPPs for the delivery of different types of nucleic acids such as DNA, siRNA and oligonucleosides.

DNA delivery

DNA delivery into cells has been identified as one of the most promising approaches to treat diseases related to unregulated gene expression. Overcoming physiological barriers that affect stability of DNA and uptake of DNA by targeted cells, is still the prime requirement for the success of DNA delivery. An approach utilizing CPPs for DNA delivery has been widely studied because of the very low toxicity profile of CPPs, low immunogenicity of CPPs, their ability to protect and transport loaded cargo in the intracellular space and a unique property shared by most CPPs to accumulate inside nucleus. Numerous researches have been carried out on CPPs for DNA delivery as outlined in Table 3.

Table 3

CPPs used for nucleic acid delivery.

The potential of peptides for DNA delivery was demonstrated as early as 1998 by Pooga et al. (109). In their study, DNA condensed with Transportan peptide successfully suppressed expression of functional galanin receptors. Later, simple complexes formed by luciferase encoded plasmids and oligoarginines showed a slight improvement in transfection efficiency in comparison to plasmid-only controls (110). This was improved by N-terminal modification of octa-arginine (R8) by hydrophobic moiety such as stearic acid, referred to as stearyl-R8 (110). This strategy was later extended to another arginine-rich peptide, (RxR)4 for delivery of pDNA and showed significant increase in gene expression in variety of cell lines than regular stearyl-oligoarginine (57). Recently, stearyl-TP10 was reported to mediate efficient gene delivery in vitro and in vivo without any toxicity or immunogenicity (111). Lo et al. reported a TAT peptide analog modified with histidines and cysteins (C-5H-TAT-5H-C), which showed enhanced luciferase expression in a variety of cell lines. It also showed increased luciferase gene expression after direct injections to the brain and spinal cord (112). An interesting study was carried out by Liu et al., where the macro-branched cell penetrating peptides POLYTAT1, POLYTAT 2 and POLYTAT 3 were designed for gene delivery. All three compounds demonstrated higher transfection efficiency in mammalian cell lines when condensed with DNA compared to TAT alone (113). Rajpal et al., showed synthesis of various novel CPP candidates from already known pVEC (101). It was found that the presence of histidines along with 9 arginines and secondary amphipathicity showed efficient DNA delivery with low toxicity even in absence of chloroquine in multiple cell lines.

siRNA delivery

RNA interference (RNAi) has been recognized as a vital tool for manipulation of gene expression in cells. Numerous studies have exploited the usefulness of CPPs for intracellular delivery of siRNAs. Initial attempts were made to link siRNAs with CPPs either by covalent or non-covalent approaches. Numerous studies have since been carried out to evaluate both approaches for the silencing of the target gene (Table 3).

The first successful delivery of siRNA using cell penetrating peptide was achieved with the MPG peptide (102). Non-covalently linked siRNA/MPG complexes resulted in significant downregulation of the target protein, GAPDH. This RNAi effect was further increased when siRNA was complexed with MPGΔNLS, a NLS mutant of MPG. Application of the MPG peptide was also evaluated for the delivery of siRNA in vivo. This attempt resulted in successful downregulation of targeted genes and ultimately a reduction in tumor growth (114). In 2006, Sandra and coworkers tested the ability of MPGα, a variant of MPG, for the delivery of siRNA (103). The interesting part in their study was the discovery of significant gene silencing with the MPGα/siRNA complex even in presence of several endocytosis inhibitors. Lundberg et al. reported a histidine-modified penetratin analog, an EB1 peptide, with endosomolytic properties, which vectorized siRNA in non-covalent manner and showed significant gene silencing in cell cultures (115). Modified polyarginine peptides, cholesteryl oligoarginine, have also been exploited for the delivery of siRNA (106). Complexation of Chol-R9 with siRNA as well as DNA resulted in a significant increase in cell transfection compared to plain R9 in vitro. They observed that the in vivo delivery of siRNA/Chol-R9 complex resulted in decreased expression of intratumoral vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF, the target protein), which resulted in a decreased tumor volume. Stearylation was also reported to improve siRNA delivery efficiency into cells using CPPs. Langel et al. reported that stearylated transportan TP-10 efficiently delivered a splice-correcting phosphorothioate 20-O-methyl RNA (20-OMe ON) into cells (10, 116). Later the novel PF6 carrier peptide (a stearyl-TP10 analogue modified with the chloroquine derivative trifluoromethylquinoline) was developed to improve endosomal escape (68). The PF6 peptide showed efficient transfection in human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) and Jurkat cells with siRNA. Moreover, the high RNAi response produced by PF6/siRNA was retained in the presence of serum. The same group also developed PepFect 14 (PF14), by substitution of stearly-TP10 lysines with ornithines (69). PF14/siRNA nanocomplexes prepared by a solid dispersion technique displayed comparable RNAi activity with that of the freshly prepared nanocomplexes in solution (117).

Dowdy et al. reported an interesting approach for the delivery of siRNA using a fusion protein with three repeats of a TAT peptide containing a double-stranded RNA binding domain (PTD-DRBD) (118). PTD-DRBD showed efficient gene knockdown in various hard-to-transfect primary and transformed cells, including T cells, HUVEC and human embryonic stem cells without any cytotoxicity or immunogenicity. TAT-DRBD also showed tumor reduction in a tumor xenograft model after intratumoral delivery in mice (119).

Crombez et al., also demonstrated the successful intracellular delivery of siRNA when complexed with a synthetic peptide, CADY (107). This peptide had very high affinity for siRNA (Kd=15.2 nM) which resulted in the formation of stable complexes. The cellular uptake mechanism of CADY/siRNA complex was partially dependent on the endosomal pathway. However, it was apparently associated with interaction between the cell membrane and trypsin residues of the peptide. Low molecular weight protamine (LMWP), derived from natural protamine, evaluated for the delivery of siRNA, showed formation of stable complexes of LMWP with siRNA which resulted in gene silencing, both in vitro and in vivo (108). Interestingly, the treatment with/siRNA complex did not result in an increase in the serum level of inflammatory cytokines including interferon IFN-α and interleukin IL-12 indicating a minimum immunostimulatory effect.

Delivery of pharmaceutical nanocarriers

Various types of pharmaceutical nanocarriers have been used successfully to increase the stability of drugs, alter their pharmacokinetics and ultimately reduce the undesired side-effects with improvement in the efficacy of the loaded drugs (120, 121). The most commonly studied nanocarriers are liposomes and micelles. These nanocarriers can be loaded with a wide variety of drugs and can be functionalized with various ligands (120, 122). CPPs including TAT have been used to functionalize various nanocarriers (liposomes, micelles, nanoparticles) to increase the intracellular delivery of the cargo.

The chemistry utilized to join the peptide and nanocarrier together has a direct effect on subsequent function. Ideally, whatever chemistry is used to attach the peptide to a nanocarrier should result in a uniform display of the peptides on the nanocarrier surface with their active regions clearly extended and available for interaction. For example, it is very important that the positive charge on the oligoarginine motifs are clearly available for direct interaction with the extracellular membranes (123). Sterically blocking of the oligoarginine or other nanocarrier surface-attached ligands can result in mixed functional avidity with some nanocarriers undergoing high efficiency uptake while others do not. Further, for efficient uptake of CPP-modified nanocarrier, it is also important to have a high density, or ratio, of CPP on nanocarrier surfaces. However, low modification levels may not be sufficient for uptake, especially when applying small concentrations of nanocarrier materials to cells (123). While developing smart stimuli-sensitive nanocarrier, it is important to control the peptides affinity to the nanocarrier surface. It has become increasingly evident that the CPP peptides should be attached to the cargos in such a way that allows them to be released intracellularly at a specific organelle where their activity is highest. This can be achieved with a linkage that is responsive to external stimuli (e.g., light or heat) or other environmental cues (e.g., changes in pH or presence of a reducing agent/protease) (124). Also, particular attention should be paid to the characteristics of the nanocarrier material itself, other ligands and functional groups on their surface, the peptide sequence itself and the final required utility. There are currently four general strategies commonly applied for attachment of peptides to nanoparticle materials (Table 4).

Table 4

Strategies applied for attachment of peptides to nanoparticle materials.

Various in vitro and in vivo examples of TAT-modified nanocarriers that can serve as the basis for cellular fluorescence and magnetic labeling reagents have been reported. The first example of use of TAT peptide as a vector for nanoparticle delivery was described in 1999 (132). TAT functionalized iron oxide nanoparticles efficiently labeled cells, to serve as a tool for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or magnetic separation of cells in vivo.

Modification of liposomes with TAT enhanced the delivery of liposome into cells, such as murine Lewis lung carcinoma (LLC) cells, human breast tumor BT20 cells, and rat cardiac myocytes H9C2 (19). The TAT was attached to liposomes via the spacer, p-nitrophenylcarbonyl-PEG-PE, at a density of a few hundreds of TAT per single 200 nm liposome vesicle. Only those TAT-liposomes, which provided direct contact of TAT residues with cells, displayed an enhanced uptake by the cells (133). TAT-modified liposomes also enhanced binding and endocytosis in ovarian carcinoma cells (20). Ant (4358) and TAT coupled to small unilamellar liposomes accumulated in higher proportions within tumor cells and dendritic cells than unmodified control liposomes (134). Application of CPP-modified liposomes for aerosol lung delivery was investigated with three CPPs: TAT, Ant, and R8 conjugated to neutral liposomes. Efficient internalization of the modified liposomes was observed by airway epithelial cells in culture and delivered cargo (e.g. dextran) to the cytoplasm of the cells (135).

The requirement for direct unhindered contact of CPP with cells was also shown for TAT-modified micelles (23). These micelles, when loaded with the anticancer drug paclitaxel, demonstrated increased cytotoxicity in vitro with various cancer cell lines. This was considered to be a result of an increased cell interaction of TAT-modified micelles compared to non-modified-micelles.

The treatment of central nervous system diseases such as brain glioma is a major challenge due to the presence of the blood–brain barrier (BBB). The cationic charge of TAT can facilitate interaction with the normally negatively charged BBB, triggering permeabilization of the cell membrane via a receptor/transporter-independent pathway which results in endocytosis of the sequence (41). TAT crossed the BBB and accumulated in the CNS (136). Qin et al. covalently conjugated TAT with cholesterol to prepare DOX-loaded liposomes for brain glioma therapy (137). Results of the biodistribution study showed higher efficiency of brain delivery and lower cardiotoxic risk. The survival time of the glioma-bearing rats treated with TAT-modified liposome was much longer than controls.

TAT was also used to modify thiocholesterol-based cationic lipids (TCL)-based nanolipoparticles (NLPs). The TAT-modified NLPs had a zwitterionic surface and a higher transfection efficiency than the non-modified cationic NLPs (138). The TAT-modified lipoplexes were internalized by cells mainly via a cholesterol-dependent clathrin-mediated pathway (139).

The potential of TAT-modified liposomes to enhance the delivery of a model gene, a plasmid encoding for the GFP (pEGFP-N1), to human brain tumor U-87 MG cells was investigated both in vitro and in vivo in an intracranial model in nude mice (140). An enhanced selective delivery of pEGFP-N1 to tumor cells and effective transfection was observed after intratumoral injection compared to plain plasmid-loaded lipoplexes. No transfection (green fluorescence of GFP) was noted in the normal brain adjacent to tumors. Thus, TAT–lipoplexes may be used to augment the delivery of genes to tumor cells when injected intratumorally, without affecting the normal adjacent brain.

We have reported a double–targeted delivery system using low cationic DNA lipoplexes modified with TAT and/or with monoclonal anti-myosin monoclonal antibody 2G4 (mAb 2G4) specific for cardiac myosin for targeted gene delivery to ischemic myocardium (141). Increased transfection was observed in vitro of both normoxic and hypoxia damaged cardiomyocytes in the presence of TAT. Modification of these lipoplexes with mAb 2G4 antibody increased the transfection further in the case of hypoxic, but not normoxic cardiomyocytes. After in vivo administration, an increased accumulation of mAb 2G4-modified TAT lipoplexes in the ischemic rat myocardium led to significantly enhanced transfection of cardiomyocytes in the ischemic zone. Thus, the genetic transformation of hypoxic cardiomyocytes can be enhanced with lipoplexes modified with TAT and/or mAb 2G4.

We recently reported R8-modified pegylated liposomal DOX (R8-PLD) for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer, for which the primary treatment modality currently consists of surgery and radiotherapy. The treatment of non-small cell lung cancer cell line, A549 monolayers with R8-PLD increased the level of cell death marker lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) secretion confirming higher cytotoxicity of R8-PLD than PLD. R8-PLD induced greater level of apoptosis to A549 tumor xenograft and dramatic inhibition of tumor volume and tumor weight reduction (21).

The arginine octamer (R8) modified liposomes were studied for cellular delivery of siRNA. The R8-liposomal siRNA had a very high stability in serum and produced a highly elevated transfection efficiency of SK-MES-1 lung tumor cells otherwise resistant to Lipofectamine 2000-mediated transfection. The siRNA in R8-liposomes effectively inhibited the targeted gene and significantly reduced the proliferation of cancer cells (142). Arginine-9 (R9) was also investigated as a potential carrier for siRNAs (143). Harashima et al. have developed R8-modified liposomes with condensed DNA cores coated with lipid membranes. These liposomes are prepared by programmed packaging known as multifunctional envelope-type nanodevices (MEND) and showed high transfection efficiency and little cytotoxicity (59, 144). This system was also developed for delivery of siRNA (145). The MEND system developed with stearyl-R8 showed highest RNAi response. Later, improved endosomal escape of R8-MEND was reported by surface decoration with a pH-dependent fusogenic peptide GALA and a optimized lipid mixture for endosomal fusion (146) or with a new pH-sensitive cationic lipid, YSK05 (147).

A traceable micellar system was constructed from degradable poly(ethylene oxide)-block-poly(ε-caprolactone) (PEO-b-PCL) block copolymers for simultaneous intracellular delivery of DOX and siRNA against P-gp expression in multidrug-resistant MDA-MB-435 human tumor models that overexpress P-gp (148). The functional group on the PCL block incorporated short polyamines for complexation with siRNA or chemically conjugated DOX via a pH-sensitive hydrazone linkage. These micelles were surface-modified with integrin Rvβ3-specific ligand (RGD4C) for active cancer targeting and TAT peptide for intracellular delivery. The micelles were further tagged with near-infrared fluorescent imaging probes. Compared to plain micelles, TAT- and RGD-micelles significantly increased cellular uptake of FAM-siRNA and DOX. Also the level of reversal of resistance was higher for RGD4C and TAT-modified micelles.

Kanazawa et al. prepared methoxy poly(ethylene glycol) (MPEG)/polycaprolactone (PCL) diblock copolymers conjugated with a TAT peptide via a disulfide linkage and evaluated their ability as an siRNA carrier. The MPEG-PCL-SS-TAT/anti-VEGF siRNA complexes achieved a high anti-tumor effect in tumor-bearing mice after i.v. administration (149).

After endocytosis, the sequestration and entrapment of the majority of internalized material within endocytic vesicles represents the major limitation of CPP-mediated delivery of biologically active molecules. When the endosomolytic peptide HA2 was covalently conjugated with TAT to induce the release of a TAT-coupled cargo from endocytic bodies, it exerted a more significant biological effect at lower concentrations (47). Lundberg et al. attempted a similar strategy by noncovalent packaging of siRNA duplexes with an endosomolytic peptide that is potentially capable of enhancing the effectiveness of CPP/siRNA complex delivery by inducing its release from endosomes (115).

Recently, a tumor-penetrating peptide, iRGD (CRGDKGPDC), was reported to increase vascular and tissue penetration in a tumor-specific and neuropilin-1-dependent manner, as compared to conventional RGD peptides (150–152). The iRGD homes to tumor sites by binding to integrins, which are highly expressed in tumor endothelium. After binding, the iRGD peptide is proteolytically cleaved to produce CRGDK fragment, which favors binding to neuropilin-1 receptor, facilitating the penetration of drugs into the tumor. This lead to enhanced therapeutic effect of antitumor drugs. The iRGD when conjugated to liposomes enhanced the antitumor efficacy in breast tumor cells, including multidrug-resistant cells (153). Gu et al. co-administered iRGD with MT1-AF7p peptide (which presents high binding affinity to membrane type-1 matrix metalloproteinase) functionalized paclitaxel-loaded PEG-poly(lactic acid) (PLA) nanoparticles. This resulted in significantly improved nanoparticles extravasation across the blood-brain tumor barrier and accumulation in glioma parenchyma and longer median survival time of the nude mice bearing intracranial C6 glioma (154).

Smart stimuli-sensitive multifunctional nanocarriers

Although, CPPs have shown immense potential for intracellular delivery of variety of cargoes, their in vivo application is usually limited because of nonspecificity leading to risk of unwanted tissue distribution and drug-induced toxic effects on normal tissues. Thus, the nonselective in vivo penetration is of major pharmacological concern. To solve this problem we introduced the idea of ‘smart stimuli-sensitive multifunctional nanocarrier’. An ideal multifunctional nanocarrier should circulate in blood for a prolonged time, bear specific cell-surface targeting moieties (monoclonal antibodies, Fab fragments, phage display peptides) and respond to certain stimulus characteristics of the pathological site (to either release an entrapped drug or expose “hidden” active moieties (such as non-specific CPPs) by surface-attached pH- or temperature-sensitive coatings) and finally, deliver the cargo intracellularly.

We have prepared targeted long-circulating PEGylated liposomes and PEG–phosphatidylethanolamine (PEG–PE)-based micelles possessing several functionalities as can be seen in Figure 3 (155). These nanocarriers were surface modified with a monoclonal antibody (infarct-specific antimyosin antibody 2G4 or cancer-specific antinucleosome antibody 2C5) and cell penetrating TAT moieties with TAT-(short PEG)–PE derivatives. In addition, the low pH-sensitive PEG2000 or 5000-hydrazone (Hz)-PE was used for liposome surface modification or for micelle preparation to shield the TAT moieties at normal pH. At pH 7.5–8.0, both liposomes and micelles had high specific binding with antibody substrates, but showed very limited internalization of NIH/3T3 or U-87 cells. However, after brief incubation (15-to-30 min) at low pH (pH 5.0–6.0) these nanocarriers lost their protective PEG shell by acidic hydrolysis of PEG–Hz–PE and acquired the ability to get internalized effectively by cells via exposed TAT moieties.

‘Smart’ nanocarrier system exposing targeting antibody while protecting CPPs.
Figure 3

‘Smart’ nanocarrier system exposing targeting antibody while protecting CPPs.

Recently, we reported multifunctional liposomes prepared by modification of Doxil with TAT moieties and cancer-specific mAb 2C5. TAT was conjugated with a short PEG1000-PE spacer, and mAb 2C5 was attached to a long PEG chain (2C5-PEG3400-PE) (156). The TAT moieties were shielded with pH-sensitive PEG2000-Hz-PE. This multifunctional immuno-Doxil® preparation increased cytotoxicity of B16-F10, HeLa and MCF-7 cells when pre-incubated at lower pH, indicating TAT exposure and cell penetration activity. Based on the above idea, a liposomal delivery system modified with TAT-PEG2000-PE and a protective longer cysteine (Cys)-cleavable PEG(5000) to modulate the function of TAT was studied recently (157). TAT-modified stimulus-sensitive polymeric micelles prepared to enhance interaction with cells under acidified conditions have been described (22, 158).

We also expanded the applicability of this concept by using other stimulus sensitive bonds such as enzyme sensitivity. In particular, the levels of matrix metalloprotease 2 (MMP 2) are upregulated in the extracellular matrix of the tumor. We reported a novel matrix metalloprotease-2 (MMP 2)-sensitive multifunctional immunoliposome comprised of a TAT peptide function shielded sterically by long-chain PEG, mAb 2C5 for active tumor targeting attached to the liposomal surface and a MMP 2-cleavable octapeptide (Gly-Pro-Leu-Gly-Ile-Ala-Gly-Gln) as a labile bond between long chain PEG and lipid. The octapeptide linker was degraded by the extracellular MMP2 in the tumor cells, exposing the TAT moiety resulting in increased cellular uptake (159).

Harris et al. developed the magnetofluorescent dextran-coated iron oxide nanoparticles modified with long-chain PEG via the MMP 2 cleavable spacer to mask CPP (160). This system was able to selectively accumulate at the xenograft tumor via the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect, followed by detachment of PEG due to cleavage of the linker by endogenous MMP 2. As a consequence, CPP function was exposed and cell penetration of the iron oxide nanoparticles was activated. Similarly, Mok et al. developed MMP2-senstive, PEG- and CPP-modified quantum dots (QD) for cancer diagnosis (161).

Jiang et al. group developed a “activatable cell penetrating peptides” (ACPPs) system for tumor imaging (162). In this system, a MMP2/9 substrate peptide, XPLGLAG, was selected as the cleavable linker, and poly Glu (E9) was chosen as the inhibitory polyanionic moiety to interact with CPP. The CPP-bearing payload was delivered into tumor cells after the linker was cleaved by MMP2/9. It provided sharp-contrast images that distinguished the high-uptake regions from those with low uptake. This corresponded well to the MMP activity distribution (163). This system was further modified by adding a large- molecular-weight carrier (dendrimer, PAMAM) to the polyarginine CPP of the ACPP. This system provided amplified signals because of the presence of more than one contrast agent per peptide (164). The same group recently reported activatable cell-penetrating peptide (dtACPP) system that is dual-triggered by the lowered pH and MMP2. The dtACPP-modified nanoparticles used to co-deliver plasmid expressing interfering RNA targeting VEGF (shVEGF) and DOX resulted in effective shutdown of blood vessels and cell apoptosis within the tumor (165). Based on this strategy, an activatable low molecular weight protamine (ALMWP, E10-PLGLAG-VSRRRRRRGGRRRR) in which the positive charges on the LMWP necessary for transduction were initially masked by a polyanionic peptide (E10) sequence, a MMP-2/9 cleavable peptide linker sequence PLGLAG16 used as a linker. This ALMWP when used as tumor-targeting ligand to modify PEG-PLA nanoparticles exhibited an enhanced MMP-dependent accumulation in HT-1080 (human fibrosarcoma) cells via both energy-independent direct translocation and clathrin-mediated, cytoskeleton-dependent endocytosis (166). Pharmacokinetic and biodistribution study in HT-1080 tumor-bearing mice showed that ALMWP-modified paclitaxel-loaded nanoparticles significantly increased the accumulation of paclitaxel in the tumor site but not the nontarget tissues and also exhibited improved antitumor efficacy over that by unmodified nanoparticles and LMWP-functionalized nanoparticles.

A prodrug strategy based on electrostatic interaction, ATTEMPTS (antibody targeted, [protamine] triggered, electrically modified prodrug-type strategy) was reported. This system is based on the charge neutralization of CPP by heparin and the competitive binding between CPP and protamine with heparin. The system comprised of conjugate of the polycationic CPP and the protein drug as ‘drug compartment’ and ‘targeting compartment made of a heparin-modified antibody. There is strong electrostatic binding between polyanionic heparin motif on the antibody and the polycationic CPP, resulting in formation of polyelectrolyte Drug-CPP Hep-Ab prodrug style complex. The CPP function is inhibited due to binding with heparin and is expected to remain stable during targeting with no detachment of the two compartments. The release of the active CPP-drug conjugates is triggered by systemic injection of protamine (167).

Shamay et al. reported a system in which, CPP was modified with photolabile caged mol- ecules, thereby providing light-dependent cell internalization (168). In this system, the positive charges of lysine residues on the CPP (52-RRMKWKK-58) were temporarily masked by photo-cleavable groups, Nvoc(6-nitroveratrylcarbonyl), thus forming the caged CPP (cCPP, Ac-KRRMKNvocWKNvocKNvoc). After illuminated with the UV light, the protecting groups (Nvoc) were cleaved and CPP function is exposed.

Concluding remarks and future perspectives

Discovery of various CPPs and their ability to deliver attached cargo intracellularly could benefit hundreds of potential therapeutic molecules including large molecules like peptides and nucleic acids. The progress in the use of CPPs would be further benefited by more detailed understanding of their mechanism of entry into cells which might lead to development of cell or tissue specific CPPs. Currently, the idea of ‘smart stimuli-sensitive multifunctional nanocarrier’ serves the purpose of protecting these non-specific CPPs till reaching the target. More detailed studies on bioavailability of CPP-modified nanocarrier, possible toxicity mechanisms are also important considerations, which might depend on the nature of the CPP, the linker design, and the specific cargo. Thus, thoughtful CPP-conjugate design will be high priority to the development of safe and effective therapeutics. The production of multifunctional nanocarriers economically and on large scale is also challenging. The important criteria that should be kept in mind while designing multifunctional nanocarriers include: (1) the use of biocompatible, biodegradable materials, (2) the use of simple and reproducible bioconjugation techniques for the surface modification of nanocarriers, (3) a simple multifunctional nanocarrier assembly process, (4) the optimization of biophysicochemical properties of the nanocarrier to achieve optimal drug loading/release, a long circulation half-life, enhanced target tissue accumulation and (5) optimal nanocarrier stability.

References

  • 1.

    Lindgren M, Hallbrink M, Prochiantz A, Langel U. Cell-penetrating peptides. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2000;21:99–103.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 2.

    Zorko M, Langel U. Cell-penetrating peptides: mechanism and kinetics of cargo delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2005;57:529–45.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 3.

    Vives E, Brodin P, Lebleu B. A truncated HIV-1 Tat protein basic domain rapidly translocates through the plasma membrane and accumulates in the cell nucleus. J Biol Chem 1997;272:16010–7.Google Scholar

  • 4.

    Derossi D, Joliot AH, Chassaing G, Prochiantz A. The third helix of the Antennapedia homeodomain translocates through biological membranes. J Biol Chem 1994;269:10444–50.Google Scholar

  • 5.

    Oehlke J, Scheller A, Wiesner B, Krause E, Beyermann M, Klauschenz E, et al. Cellular uptake of an alpha-helical amphipathic model peptide with the potential to deliver polar compounds into the cell interior non-endocytically. Biochim Biophys Acta 1998;1414:127–39.Google Scholar

  • 6.

    Pooga M, Hallbrink M, Zorko M, Langel U. Cell penetration by transportan. Faseb J 1998;12:67–77.Google Scholar

  • 7.

    Morris MC, Vidal P, Chaloin L, Heitz F, Divita G. A new peptide vector for efficient delivery of oligonucleotides into mammalian cells. Nucleic Acids Res 1997;25:2730–6.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 8.

    Futaki S, Suzuki T, Ohashi W, Yagami T, Tanaka S, Ueda K, et al. Arginine-rich peptides. An abundant source of membrane-permeable peptides having potential as carriers for intracellular protein delivery. J Biol Chem 2001;276:5836–40.Google Scholar

  • 9.

    Ziegler A. Thermodynamic studies and binding mechanisms of cell-penetrating peptides with lipids and glycosaminoglycans. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2008;60:580–97.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 10.

    Soomets U, Lindgren M, Gallet X, Hallbrink M, Elmquist A, Balaspiri L, et al. Deletion analogues of transportan. Biochim Biophys Acta 2000;1467:165–76.Google Scholar

  • 11.

    Elmquist A, Lindgren M, Bartfai T, Langel U. VE-cadherin-derived cell-penetrating peptide, pVEC, with carrier functions. Exp Cell Res 2001;269:237–44.Google Scholar

  • 12.

    El-Andaloussi S, Johansson HJ, Holm T, Langel U. A novel cell-penetrating peptide, M918, for efficient delivery of proteins and peptide nucleic acids. Mol Ther 2007;15:1820–6.Google Scholar

  • 13.

    Green M, Loewenstein PM. Autonomous functional domains of chemically synthesized human immunodeficiency virus tat trans-activator protein. Cell 1988;55:1179–88.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 14.

    Hallbrink M, Floren A, Elmquist A, Pooga M, Bartfai T, Langel U. Cargo delivery kinetics of cell-penetrating peptides. Biochim Biophys Acta 2001;1515:101–9.Google Scholar

  • 15.

    Meade BR, Dowdy SF. Exogenous siRNA delivery using peptide transduction domains/cell penetrating peptides. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2007;59:134–40.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 16.

    Bolhassani A. Potential efficacy of cell-penetrating peptides for nucleic acid and drug delivery in cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta 2011;1816:232–46.Google Scholar

  • 17.

    Lehto T, Kurrikoff K, Langel U. Cell-penetrating peptides for the delivery of nucleic acids. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2012;9:823–36.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 18.

    Nakase I, Akita H, Kogure K, Graslund A, Langel U, Harashima H, et al. Efficient intracellular delivery of nucleic acid pharmaceuticals using cell-penetrating peptides. Accounts Chem Res 2012;45:1132–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 19.

    Whiteman KR, Subr V, Ulbrich K, Torchilin VP. Poly(Hpma)-coated liposomes demonstrate prolonged circulation in mice. J Liposome Res 2001;11:153–64.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 20.

    Fretz MM, Koning GA, Mastrobattista E, Jiskoot W, Storm G. OVCAR-3 cells internalize TAT-peptide modified liposomes by endocytosis. Biochim Biophys Acta 2004;1665:48–56.Google Scholar

  • 21.

    Biswas S, Deshpande PP, Perche F, Dodwadkar NS, Sane SD, Torchilin VP. Octa-arginine-modified pegylated liposomal doxorubicin: An effective treatment strategy for non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Lett 2013;335:191–200.Google Scholar

  • 22.

    Sethuraman VA, Bae YH. TAT peptide-based micelle system for potential active targeting of anti-cancer agents to acidic solid tumors. J Control Release 2007;118:216–24.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 23.

    Sawant RR, Sawant RM, Kale AA, Torchilin VP. The architecture of ligand attachment to nanocarriers controls their specific interaction with target cells. J Drug Target 2008;16:596–600.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 24.

    Berry CC. Intracellular delivery of nanoparticles via the HIV-1 tat peptide. Nanomedicine (Lond) 2008;3:357–65.Google Scholar

  • 25.

    Malhotra M, Tomaro-Duchesneau C, Saha S, Kahouli I, Prakash S. Development and characterization of chitosan-PEG-TAT nanoparticles for the intracellular delivery of siRNA. Int J Nanomedicine 2013;8:2041–52.Google Scholar

  • 26.

    Pan L, Liu J, He Q, Wang L, Shi J. Overcoming multidrug resistance of cancer cells by direct intranuclear drug delivery using TAT-conjugated mesoporous silica nanoparticles. Biomaterials 2013;34:2719–30.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 27.

    Fischer PM, Krausz E, Lane DP. Cellular delivery of impermeable effector molecules in the form of conjugates with peptides capable of mediating membrane translocation. Bioconjug Chem 2001;12:825–41.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 28.

    Duchardt F, Fotin-Mleczek M, Schwarz H, Fischer R, Brock R. A comprehensive model for the cellular uptake of cationic cell-penetrating peptides. Traffic 2007;8:848–66.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 29.

    Kaplan IM, Wadia JS, Dowdy SF. Cationic TAT peptide transduction domain enters cells by macropinocytosis. J Control Release 2005;102:247–53.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 30.

    Richard JP, Melikov K, Vives E, Ramos C, Verbeure B, Gait MJ, et al. Cell-penetrating peptides. A reevaluation of the mechanism of cellular uptake. J Biol Chem 2003;278:585–90.Google Scholar

  • 31.

    Zaro JL, Rajapaksa TE, Okamoto CT, Shen WC. Membrane transduction of oligoarginine in HeLa cells is not mediated by macropinocytosis. Mol Pharm 2006;3:181–6.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 32.

    Nakase I, Takeuchi T, Tanaka G, Futaki S. Methodological and cellular aspects that govern the internalization mechanisms of arginine-rich cell-penetrating peptides. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2008;60:598–607.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 33.

    Jones AT. Gateways and tools for drug delivery: endocytic pathways and the cellular dynamics of cell penetrating peptides. Int J Pharm 2008;354:34–8.Google Scholar

  • 34.

    Sawant R, Torchilin V. Intracellular transduction using cell-penetrating peptides. Mol Biosyst 2010;6:628–40.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 35.

    Madani F, Lindberg S, Langel U, Futaki S, Graslund A. Mechanisms of cellular uptake of cell-penetrating peptides. J Biophys 2011;2011:414729.Google Scholar

  • 36.

    Gump JM, Dowdy SF. TAT transduction: the molecular mechanism and therapeutic prospects. Trends Mol Med 2007;13:443–8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 37.

    Richard JP, Melikov K, Brooks H, Prevot P, Lebleu B, Chernomordik LV. Cellular uptake of unconjugated TAT peptide involves clathrin-dependent endocytosis and heparan sulfate receptors. J Biol Chem 2005;280:15300–6.Google Scholar

  • 38.

    Potocky TB, Menon AK, Gellman SH. Cytoplasmic and nuclear delivery of a TAT-derived peptide and a beta-peptide after endocytic uptake into HeLa cells. J Biol Chem 2003;278:50188–94.Google Scholar

  • 39.

    Fittipaldi A, Ferrari A, Zoppe M, Arcangeli C, Pellegrini V, Beltram F, et al. Cell membrane lipid rafts mediate caveolar endocytosis of HIV-1 Tat fusion proteins. J Biol Chem 2003;278:34141–9.Google Scholar

  • 40.

    Console S, Marty C, Garcia-Echeverria C, Schwendener R, Ballmer-Hofer K. Antennapedia and HIV transactivator of transcription (TAT) “protein transduction domains” promote endocytosis of high molecular weight cargo upon binding to cell surface glycosaminoglycans. J Biol Chem 2003;278:35109–14.Google Scholar

  • 41.

    Derossi D, Calvet S, Trembleau A, Brunissen A, Chassaing G, Prochiantz A. Cell internalization of the third helix of the Antennapedia homeodomain is receptor-independent. J Biol Chem 1996;271:18188–93.Google Scholar

  • 42.

    Matsuzaki K, Yoneyama S, Murase O, Miyajima K. Transbilayer transport of ions and lipids coupled with mastoparan X translocation. Biochemistry 1996;35:8450–6.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 43.

    Lee MT, Hung WC, Chen FY, Huang HW. Many-body effect of antimicrobial peptides: on the correlation between lipid’s spontaneous curvature and pore formation. Biophys J 2005;89:4006–16.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 44.

    Kosuge M, Takeuchi T, Nakase I, Jones AT, Futaki S. Cellular internalization and distribution of arginine-rich peptides as a function of extracellular peptide concentration, serum, and plasma membrane associated proteoglycans. Bioconjug Chem 2008;19:656–64.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 45.

    Deshayes S, Morris MC, Divita G, Heitz F. Interactions of amphipathic CPPs with model membranes. Biochim Biophys Acta 2006;1758:328–35.Google Scholar

  • 46.

    Derossi D, Chassaing G, Prochiantz A. Trojan peptides: the penetratin system for intracellular delivery. Trends Cell Biol 1998;8:84–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 47.

    Wadia JS, Stan RV, Dowdy SF. Transducible TAT-HA fusogenic peptide enhances escape of TAT-fusion proteins after lipid raft macropinocytosis. Nat Med 2004;10:310–5.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 48.

    Torchilin VP. Tat peptide-mediated intracellular delivery of pharmaceutical nanocarriers. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2008;60:548–58.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 49.

    Guterstam P, Madani F, Hirose H, Takeuchi T, Futaki S, El Andaloussi S, et al. Elucidating cell-penetrating peptide mechanisms of action for membrane interaction, cellular uptake, and translocation utilizing the hydrophobic counter-anion pyrenebutyrate. Biochim Biophys Acta 2009;1788:2509–17.Google Scholar

  • 50.

    Nakase I, Niwa M, Takeuchi T, Sonomura K, Kawabata N, Koike Y, et al. Cellular uptake of arginine-rich peptides: roles for macropinocytosis and actin rearrangement. Mol Ther 2004;10:1011–22.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 51.

    Gump JM, June RK, Dowdy SF. Revised role of glycosaminoglycans in TAT protein transduction domain-mediated cellular transduction. J Biol Chem 2010;285:1500–7.Google Scholar

  • 52.

    Thoren PE, Persson D, Isakson P, Goksor M, Onfelt A, Norden B. Uptake of analogs of penetratin, Tat(48–60) and oligoarginine in live cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2003;307:100–7.Google Scholar

  • 53.

    Saalik P, Elmquist A, Hansen M, Padari K, Saar K, Viht K, et al. Protein cargo delivery properties of cell-penetrating peptides. A comparative study. Bioconjug Chem 2004;15:1246–53.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 54.

    El-Andaloussi S, Johansson HJ, Lundberg P, Langel U. Induction of splice correction by cell-penetrating peptide nucleic acids. J Gene Med 2006;8:1262–73.Google Scholar

  • 55.

    Elmquist A, Hansen M, Langel U. Structure-activity relationship study of the cell-penetrating peptide pVEC. Biochim Biophys Acta 2006;1758:721–9.Google Scholar

  • 56.

    Padari K, Saalik P, Hansen M, Koppel K, Raid R, Langel U, et al. Cell transduction pathways of transportans. Bioconjug Chem 2005;16:1399–410.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 57.

    Lehto T, Abes R, Oskolkov N, Suhorutsenko J, Copolovici DM, Mager I, et al. Delivery of nucleic acids with a stearylated (RxR)4 peptide using a non-covalent co-incubation strategy. J Control Release 2010;141:42–51.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 58.

    Hyndman L, Lemoine JL, Huang L, Porteous DJ, Boyd AC, Nan X. HIV-1 Tat protein transduction domain peptide facilitates gene transfer in combination with cationic liposomes. J Control Release 2004;99:435–44.Google Scholar

  • 59.

    Khalil IA, Kogure K, Futaki S, Hama S, Akita H, Ueno M, et al. Octaarginine-modified multifunctional envelope-type nanoparticles for gene delivery. Gene Ther 2007;14:682–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 60.

    Yamada Y, Akita H, Kamiya H, Kogure K, Yamamoto T, Shinohara Y, et al. MITO-Porter: a liposome-based carrier system for delivery of macromolecules into mitochondria via membrane fusion. Biochim Biophys Acta 2008;1778:423–32.Google Scholar

  • 61.

    El-Sayed A, Futaki S, Harashima H. Delivery of macromolecules using arginine-rich cell-penetrating peptides: ways to overcome endosomal entrapment. AAPS J 2009;11:13–22.Google Scholar

  • 62.

    Plank C, Oberhauser B, Mechtler K, Koch C, Wagner E. The influence of endosome-disruptive peptides on gene transfer using synthetic virus-like gene transfer systems. J Biol Chem 1994;269:12918–24.Google Scholar

  • 63.

    Sugita T, Yoshikawa T, Mukai Y, Yamanada N, Imai S, Nagano K, et al. Improved cytosolic translocation and tumor-killing activity of Tat-shepherdin conjugates mediated by co-treatment with Tat-fused endosome-disruptive HA2 peptide. Biochem Bioph Res Co 2007;363:1027–32.Google Scholar

  • 64.

    Sirsi SR, Schray RC, Guan X, Lykens NM, Williams JH, Erney ML, et al. Functionalized PEG-PEI copolymers complexed to exon-skipping oligonucleotides improve dystrophin expression in mdx mice. Hum Gene Ther 2008;19:795–806.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 65.

    Suk JS, Suh J, Choy K, Lai SK, Fu J, Hanes J. Gene delivery to differentiated neurotypic cells with RGD and HIV Tat peptide functionalized polymeric nanoparticles. Biomaterials 2006;27:5143–50.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 66.

    Shiraishi T, Pankratova S, Nielsen PE. Calcium ions effectively enhance the effect of antisense peptide nucleic acids conjugated to cationic tat and oligoarginine peptides. Chem Biol 2005;12:923–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 67.

    Shiraishi T, Nielsen PE. Enhanced delivery of cell-penetrating peptide-peptide nucleic acid conjugates by endosomal disruption. Nat Protoc 2006;1:633–6.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 68.

    Andaloussi SE, Lehto T, Mager I, Rosenthal-Aizman K, Oprea II, Simonson OE, et al. Design of a peptide-based vector, PepFect6, for efficient delivery of siRNA in cell culture and systemically in vivo. Nucleic Acids Res 2011;39:3972–87.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 69.

    Ezzat K, Andaloussi SE, Zaghloul EM, Lehto T, Lindberg S, Moreno PM, et al. PepFect 14, a novel cell-penetrating peptide for oligonucleotide delivery in solution and as solid formulation. Nucleic Acids Res 2011;39:5284–98.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 70.

    Lindberg S, Munoz-Alarcon A, Helmfors H, Mosqueira D, Gyllborg D, Tudoran O, et al. PepFect15, a novel endosomolytic cell-penetrating peptide for oligonucleotide delivery via scavenger receptors. Int J Pharm 2013;441:242–7.Google Scholar

  • 71.

    Wender PA, Galliher WC, Goun EA, Jones LR, Pillow TH. The design of guanidinium-rich transporters and their internalization mechanisms. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2008;60:452–72.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 72.

    Patel LN, Zaro JL, Shen WC. Cell penetrating peptides: intracellular pathways and pharmaceutical perspectives. Pharm Res 2007;24:1977–92.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 73.

    Aroui S, Brahim S, De Waard M, Breard J, Kenani A. Efficient induction of apoptosis by doxorubicin coupled to cell-penetrating peptides compared to unconjugated doxorubicin in the human breast cancer cell line MDA-MB 231. Cancer Lett 2009;285:28–38.Google Scholar

  • 74.

    Rousselle C, Clair P, Lefauconnier JM, Kaczorek M, Scherrmann JM, Temsamani J. New advances in the transport of doxorubicin through the blood-brain barrier by a peptide vector-mediated strategy. Mol Pharmacol 2000;57:679–86.Google Scholar

  • 75.

    Lindgren M, Rosenthal-Aizman K, Saar K, Eiriksdottir E, Jiang Y, Sassian M, et al. Overcoming methotrexate resistance in breast cancer tumour cells by the use of a new cell-penetrating peptide. Biochem Pharmacol 2006;71:416–25.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 76.

    Zhang W, Song J, Zhang B, Liu L, Wang K, Wang R. Design of acid-activated cell penetrating peptide for delivery of active molecules into cancer cells. Bioconjug Chem 22:1410–5.Google Scholar

  • 77.

    Meyer-Losic F, Quinonero J, Dubois V, Alluis B, Dechambre M, Michel M, et al. Improved therapeutic efficacy of doxorubicin through conjugation with a novel peptide drug delivery technology (Vectocell). J Med Chem 2006;49:6908–16.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 78.

    Meyer-Losic F, Nicolazzi C, Quinonero J, Ribes F, Michel M, Dubois V, et al. DTS-108, a novel peptidic prodrug of SN38: in vivo efficacy and toxicokinetic studies. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:2145–53.Google Scholar

  • 79.

    Gros E, Deshayes S, Morris MC, Aldrian-Herrada G, Depollier J, Heitz F, et al. A non-covalent peptide-based strategy for protein and peptide nucleic acid transduction. Biochim Biophys Acta 2006;1758:384–93.Google Scholar

  • 80.

    El-Andaloussi S, Holm T, Langel U. Cell-penetrating peptides: mechanisms and applications. Curr Pharm Des 2005;11:3597–611.Google Scholar

  • 81.

    Gupta B, Levchenko TS, Torchilin VP. Intracellular delivery of large molecules and small particles by cell-penetrating proteins and peptides. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2005;57:637–51.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 82.

    Mae M, Langel U. Cell-penetrating peptides as vectors for peptide, protein and oligonucleotide delivery. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2006;6:509–14.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 83.

    Schwarze SR, Ho A, Vocero-Akbani A, Dowdy SF. In vivo protein transduction: delivery of a biologically active protein into the mouse. Science 1999;285:1569–72.Google Scholar

  • 84.

    Cao G, Pei W, Ge H, Liang Q, Luo Y, Sharp FR, et al. In vivo delivery of a Bcl-xL fusion protein containing the TAT protein transduction domain protects against ischemic brain injury and neuronal apoptosis. J Neurosci 2002;22:5423–31.Google Scholar

  • 85.

    Rothbard JB, Garlington S, Lin Q, Kirschberg T, Kreider E, McGrane PL, et al. Conjugation of arginine oligomers to cyclosporin A facilitates topical delivery and inhibition of inflammation. Nat Med 2000;6:1253–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 86.

    Cornelissen B, Hu M, McLarty K, Costantini D, Reilly RM. Cellular penetration and nuclear importation properties of 111In-labeled and 123I-labeled HIV-1 tat peptide immunoconjugates in BT-474 human breast cancer cells. Nucl Med Biol 2007;34:37–46.Google Scholar

  • 87.

    Morris MC, Depollier J, Mery J, Heitz F, Divita G. A peptide carrier for the delivery of biologically active proteins into mammalian cells. Nat Biotechnol 2001;19:1173–6.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 88.

    Kamei N, Nielsen EJ, Khafagy el S, Takeda-Morishita M. Noninvasive insulin delivery: the great potential of cell-penetrating peptides. Ther Deliv 2013;4:315–26.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 89.

    Boisguerin P, Redt-Clouet C, Franck-Miclo A, Licheheb S, Nargeot J, Barrere-Lemaire S, et al. Systemic delivery of BH4 anti-apoptotic peptide using CPPs prevents cardiac ischemia-reperfusion injuries in vivo. J Control Release 2011;156:146–53.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 90.

    Hirt L, Badaut J, Thevenet J, Granziera C, Regli L, Maurer F, et al. D-JNKI1, a cell-penetrating c-Jun-N-terminal kinase inhibitor, protects against cell death in severe cerebral ischemia. Stroke 2004;35:1738–43.Google Scholar

  • 91.

    Force T, Kuida K, Namchuk M, Parang K, Kyriakis JM. Inhibitors of protein kinase signaling pathways: emerging therapies for cardiovascular disease. Circulation 2004;109:1196–205.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 92.

    Inagaki K, Chen L, Ikeno F, Lee FH, Imahashi K, Bouley DM, et al. Inhibition of delta-protein kinase C protects against reperfusion injury of the ischemic heart in vivo. Circulation 2003;108:2304–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 93.

    Chen L, Hahn H, Wu G, Chen CH, Liron T, Schechtman D, et al. Opposing cardioprotective actions and parallel hypertrophic effects of delta PKC and epsilon PKC. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001;98:11114–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 94.

    Murriel CL, Churchill E, Inagaki K, Szweda LI, Mochly-Rosen D. Protein kinase Cdelta activation induces apoptosis in response to cardiac ischemia and reperfusion damage: a mechanism involving BAD and the mitochondria. J Biol Chem 2004;279:47985–91.Google Scholar

  • 95.

    Inagaki K, Hahn HS, Dorn GW, 2nd, Mochly-Rosen D. Additive protection of the ischemic heart ex vivo by combined treatment with delta-protein kinase C inhibitor and epsilon-protein kinase C activator. Circulation 2003;108:869–75.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 96.

    Sivaraman V, Hausenloy DJ, Kolvekar S, Hayward M, Yap J, Lawrence D, et al. The divergent roles of protein kinase C epsilon and delta in simulated ischaemia-reperfusion injury in human myocardium. J Mol Cell Cardiol 2009;46:758–64.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 97.

    Morris MC, Chaloin L, Mery J, Heitz F, Divita G. A novel potent strategy for gene delivery using a single peptide vector as a carrier. Nucleic Acids Res 1999;27:3510–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 98.

    Wyman TB, Nicol F, Zelphati O, Scaria PV, Plank C, Szoka FC, Jr. Design, synthesis, and characterization of a cationic peptide that binds to nucleic acids and permeabilizes bilayers. Biochemistry 1997;36:3008–17.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 99.

    Rittner K, Benavente A, Bompard-Sorlet A, Heitz F, Divita G, Brasseur R, et al. New basic membrane-destabilizing peptides for plasmid-based gene delivery in vitro and in vivo. Mol Ther 2002;5:104–14.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 100.

    Eguchi A, Akuta T, Okuyama H, Senda T, Yokoi H, Inokuchi H, et al. Protein transduction domain of HIV-1 Tat protein promotes efficient delivery of DNA into mammalian cells. J Biol Chem 2001;276:26204–10.Google Scholar

  • 101.

    Rajpal, Mann A, Khanduri R, Naik RJ, Ganguli M. Structural rearrangements and chemical modifications in known cell penetrating peptide strongly enhance DNA delivery efficiency. J Control Release 2012;157:260–71.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 102.

    Simeoni F, Morris MC, Heitz F, Divita G. Insight into the mechanism of the peptide-based gene delivery system MPG: implications for delivery of siRNA into mammalian cells. Nucleic Acids Res 2003;31:2717–24.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 103.

    Veldhoen S, Laufer SD, Trampe A, Restle T. Cellular delivery of small interfering RNA by a non-covalently attached cell-penetrating peptide: quantitative analysis of uptake and biological effect. Nucleic Acids Res 2006;34:6561–73.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 104.

    Davidson TJ, Harel S, Arboleda VA, Prunell GF, Shelanski ML, Greene LA, et al. Highly efficient small interfering RNA delivery to primary mammalian neurons induces MicroRNA-like effects before mRNA degradation. J Neurosci 2004;24:10040–6.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 105.

    Deshayes S, Morris MC, Divita G, Heitz F. Cell-penetrating peptides: tools for intracellular delivery of therapeutics. Cell Mol Life Sci 2005;62:1839–49.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 106.

    Kim WJ, Christensen LV, Jo S, Yockman JW, Jeong JH, Kim YH, et al. Cholesteryl oligoarginine delivering vascular endothelial growth factor siRNA effectively inhibits tumor growth in colon adenocarcinoma. Mol Ther 2006;14:343–50.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 107.

    Crombez L, Aldrian-Herrada G, Konate K, Nguyen QN, McMaster GK, Brasseur R, et al. A new potent secondary amphipathic cell-penetrating peptide for siRNA delivery into mammalian cells. Mol Ther 2009;17:95–103.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 108.

    Choi YS, Lee JY, Suh JS, Kwon YM, Lee SJ, Chung JK, et al. The systemic delivery of siRNAs by a cell penetrating peptide, low molecular weight protamine. Biomaterials 31:1429–43.Google Scholar

  • 109.

    Pooga M, Soomets U, Hallbrink M, Valkna A, Saar K, Rezaei K, et al. Cell penetrating PNA constructs regulate galanin receptor levels and modify pain transmission in vivo. Nat Biotechnol 1998;16:857–61.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 110.

    Futaki S, Ohashi W, Suzuki T, Niwa M, Tanaka S, Ueda K, et al. Stearylated arginine-rich peptides: a new class of transfection systems. Bioconjug Chem 2001;12:1005–11.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 111.

    Lehto T, Simonson OE, Mager I, Ezzat K, Sork H, Copolovici DM, et al. A peptide-based vector for efficient gene transfer in vitro and in vivo. Mol Ther 2011;19:1457–67.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 112.

    Lo SL, Wang S. An endosomolytic Tat peptide produced by incorporation of histidine and cysteine residues as a nonviral vector for DNA transfection. Biomaterials 2008;29:2408–14.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 113.

    Liu Z, Li M, Cui D, Fei J. Macro-branched cell-penetrating peptide design for gene delivery. J Control Release 2005;102:699–710.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 114.

    Crombez L, Morris MC, Dufort S, Aldrian-Herrada G, Nguyen Q, Mc Master G, et al. Targeting cyclin B1 through peptide-based delivery of siRNA prevents tumour growth. Nucleic Acids Res 2009;37:4559–69.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 115.

    Lundberg P, El-Andaloussi S, Sutlu T, Johansson H, Langel U. Delivery of short interfering RNA using endosomolytic cell-penetrating peptides. Faseb J 2007;21:2664–71.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 116.

    Mae M, El Andaloussi S, Lundin P, Oskolkov N, Johansson HJ, Guterstam P, et al. A stearylated CPP for delivery of splice correcting oligonucleotides using a non-covalent co-incubation strategy. J Control Release 2009;134:221–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 117.

    Ezzat K, Zaghloul EM, El Andaloussi S, Lehto T, El-Sayed R, Magdy T, et al. Solid formulation of cell-penetrating peptide nanocomplexes with siRNA and their stability in simulated gastric conditions. J Control Release 2012;162:1–8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 118.

    Eguchi A, Meade BR, Chang YC, Fredrickson CT, Willert K, Puri N, et al. Efficient siRNA delivery into primary cells by a peptide transduction domain-dsRNA binding domain fusion protein. Nat Biotechnol 2009;27:567–71.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 119.

    Michiue H, Eguchi A, Scadeng M, Dowdy SF. Induction of in vivo synthetic lethal RNAi responses to treat glioblastoma. Cancer Biol Ther 2009;8:2306–13.Google Scholar

  • 120.

    Torchilin VP. Cell penetrating peptide-modified pharmaceutical nanocarriers for intracellular drug and gene delivery. Biopolymers 2008;90:604–10.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 121.

    Temsamani J, Vidal P. The use of cell-penetrating peptides for drug delivery. Drug Discov Today 2004;9:1012–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 122.

    Torchilin VP. Multifunctional nanocarriers. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2006;58:1532–55.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 123.

    Delehanty JB, Mattoussi H, Medintz IL. Delivering quantum dots into cells: strategies, progress and remaining issues. Anal Bioanal Chem 2009;393:1091–105.Google Scholar

  • 124.

    Delehanty JB, Boeneman K, Bradburne CE, Robertson K, Medintz IL. Quantum dots: a powerful tool for understanding the intricacies of nanoparticle-mediated drug delivery. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2009;6:1091–112.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 125.

    Rozenzhak SM, Kadakia MP, Caserta TM, Westbrook TR, Stone MO, Naik RR. Cellular internalization and targeting of semiconductor quantum dots. Chem Commun (Camb) 2005:2217–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 126.

    Wagner SC, Roskamp M, Colfen H, Bottcher C, Schlecht S, Koksch B. Switchable electrostatic interactions between gold nanoparticles and coiled coil peptides direct colloid assembly. Org Biomol Chem 2009;7:46–51.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 127.

    Delehanty JB, Medintz IL, Pons T, Brunel FM, Dawson PE, Mattoussi H. Self-assembled quantum dot-peptide bioconjugates for selective intracellular delivery. Bioconjug Chem 2006;17:920–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 128.

    Medintz IL, Clapp AR, Brunel FM, Tiefenbrunn T, Uyeda HT, Chang EL, et al. Proteolytic activity monitored by fluorescence resonance energy transfer through quantum-dot-peptide conjugates. Nat Mater 2006;5:581–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 129.

    Xu C, Xu K, Gu H, Zheng R, Liu H, Zhang X, et al. Dopamine as a robust anchor to immobilize functional molecules on the iron oxide shell of magnetic nanoparticles. J Am Chem Soc 2004;126:9938–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 130.

    Hainfeld JF, Liu W, Halsey CM, Freimuth P, Powell RD. Ni-NTA-gold clusters target His-tagged proteins. J Struct Biol 1999;127:185–98.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 131.

    Kim J, Park HY, Kim J, Ryu J, Kwon do Y, Grailhe R, et al. Ni-nitrilotriacetic acid-modified quantum dots as a site-specific labeling agent of histidine-tagged proteins in live cells. Chem Commun (Camb) 2008:1910–2.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 132.

    Josephson L, Tung CH, Moore A, Weissleder R. High-efficiency intracellular magnetic labeling with novel superparamagnetic-Tat peptide conjugates. Bioconjug Chem 1999;10:186–91.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 133.

    Torchilin VP, Levchenko TS, Rammohan R, Volodina N, Papahadjopoulos-Sternberg B, D’Souza GG. Cell transfection in vitro and in vivo with nontoxic TAT peptide-liposome-DNA complexes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003;100:1972–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 134.

    Marty C, Meylan C, Schott H, Ballmer-Hofer K, Schwendener RA. Enhanced heparan sulfate proteoglycan-mediated uptake of cell-penetrating peptide-modified liposomes. Cell Mol Life Sci 2004;61:1785–94.Google Scholar

  • 135.

    Cryan SA, Devocelle M, Moran PJ, Hickey AJ, Kelly JG. Increased intracellular targeting to airway cells using octaarginine-coated liposomes: in vitro assessment of their suitability for inhalation. Mol Pharm 2006;3:104–12.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 136.

    Banks WA, Robinson SM, Nath A. Permeability of the blood-brain barrier to HIV-1 Tat. Exp Neurol 2005;193:218–27.Google Scholar

  • 137.

    Qin Y, Chen H, Yuan W, Kuai R, Zhang Q, Xie F, et al. Liposome formulated with TAT-modified cholesterol for enhancing the brain delivery. Int J Pharm 2011;419:85–95.Google Scholar

  • 138.

    Huang Z, Li W, MacKay JA, Szoka FC, Jr. Thiocholesterol-based lipids for ordered assembly of bioresponsive gene carriers. Mol Ther 2005;11:409–17.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 139.

    Vandenbroucke RE, De Smedt SC, Demeester J, Sanders NN. Cellular entry pathway and gene transfer capacity of TAT-modified lipoplexes. Biochim Biophys Acta 2007;1768:571–9.Google Scholar

  • 140.

    Gupta B, Levchenko TS, Torchilin VP. TAT peptide-modified liposomes provide enhanced gene delivery to intracranial human brain tumor xenografts in nude mice. Oncol Res 2007;16:351–9.Google Scholar

  • 141.

    Ko YT, Hartner WC, Kale A, Torchilin VP. Gene delivery into ischemic myocardium by double-targeted lipoplexes with anti-myosin antibody and TAT peptide. Gene Ther 2009;16:52–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 142.

    Zhang C, Tang N, Liu X, Liang W, Xu W, Torchilin VP. siRNA-containing liposomes modified with polyarginine effectively silence the targeted gene. J Control Release 2006;112:229–39.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 143.

    Law M, Jafari M, Chen P. Physicochemical characterization of siRNA-peptide complexes. Biotechnol Progr 2008;24:957–63.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 144.

    Hatakeyama H, Akita H, Kogure K, Harashima H. A novel nonviral gene delivery system: multifunctional envelope-type nano device. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 2010;119:197–230.Google Scholar

  • 145.

    Nakamura Y, Kogure K, Futaki S, Harashima H. Octaarginine-modified multifunctional envelope-type nano device for siRNA. J Control Release 2007;119:360–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 146.

    Akita H, Kogure K, Moriguchi R, Nakamura Y, Higashi T, Nakamura T, et al. Nanoparticles for ex vivo siRNA delivery to dendritic cells for cancer vaccines: programmed endosomal escape and dissociation. J Control Release 2010;143:311–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 147.

    Sato Y, Hatakeyama H, Sakurai Y, Hyodo M, Akita H, Harashima H. A pH-sensitive cationic lipid facilitates the delivery of liposomal siRNA and gene silencing activity in vitro and in vivo. J Control Release 2012;163:267–76.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 148.

    Xiong XB, Lavasanifar A. Traceable multifunctional micellar nanocarriers for cancer-targeted co-delivery of MDR-1 siRNA and doxorubicin. ACS nano 2011;5:5202–13.Google Scholar

  • 149.

    Kanazawa T, Sugawara K, Tanaka K, Horiuchi S, Takashima Y, Okada H. Suppression of tumor growth by systemic delivery of anti-VEGF siRNA with cell-penetrating peptide-modified MPEG-PCL nanomicelles. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2012;81:470–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 150.

    Sugahara KN, Teesalu T, Karmali PP, Kotamraju VR, Agemy L, Girard OM, et al. Tissue-penetrating delivery of compounds and nanoparticles into tumors. Cancer cell 2009;16:510–20.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 151.

    Teesalu T, Sugahara KN, Kotamraju VR, Ruoslahti E. C-end rule peptides mediate neuropilin-1-dependent cell, vascular, and tissue penetration. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009;106:16157–62.Google Scholar

  • 152.

    Sugahara KN, Teesalu T, Karmali PP, Kotamraju VR, Agemy L, Greenwald DR, et al. Coadministration of a tumor-penetrating peptide enhances the efficacy of cancer drugs. Science 2010;328:1031–5.Google Scholar

  • 153.

    Liu Y, Ji M, Wong MK, Joo KI, Wang P. Enhanced therapeutic efficacy of iRGD-conjugated crosslinked multilayer liposomes for drug delivery. BioMed Res Int 2013;2013:378380.Google Scholar

  • 154.

    Gu G, Gao X, Hu Q, Kang T, Liu Z, Jiang M, et al. The influence of the penetrating peptide iRGD on the effect of paclitaxel-loaded MT1-AF7p-conjugated nanoparticles on glioma cells. Biomaterials 2013;34:5138–48.Google Scholar

  • 155.

    Sawant RM, Hurley JP, Salmaso S, Kale A, Tolcheva E, Levchenko TS, et al. “SMART” drug delivery systems: double-targeted pH-responsive pharmaceutical nanocarriers. Bioconjug Chem 2006;17:943–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 156.

    Koren E, Apte A, Jani A, Torchilin VP. Multifunctional PEGylated 2C5-immunoliposomes containing pH-sensitive bonds and TAT peptide for enhanced tumor cell internalization and cytotoxicity. J Control Release 2012;160:264–73.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 157.

    Kuai R, Yuan W, Li W, Qin Y, Tang J, Yuan M, et al. Targeted delivery of cargoes into a murine solid tumor by a cell-penetrating peptide and cleavable poly(ethylene glycol) comodified liposomal delivery system via systemic administration. Mol Pharm 2011;8:2151–61.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 158.

    Lee ES, Gao Z, Kim D, Park K, Kwon IC, Bae YH. Super pH-sensitive multifunctional polymeric micelle for tumor pH(e) specific TAT exposure and multidrug resistance. J Control Release 2008;129:228–36.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 159.

    Zhu L, Kate P, Torchilin VP. Matrix metalloprotease 2-responsive multifunctional liposomal nanocarrier for enhanced tumor targeting. ACS nano 2012;6:3491–8.Google Scholar

  • 160.

    Harris TJ, von Maltzahn G, Lord ME, Park JH, Agrawal A, Min DH, et al. Protease-triggered unveiling of bioactive nanoparticles. Small 2008;4:1307–12.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 161.

    Mok H, Bae KH, Ahn CH, Park TG. PEGylated and MMP-2 specifically dePEGylated quantum dots: comparative evaluation of cellular uptake. Langmuir 2009;25:1645–50.Google Scholar

  • 162.

    Jiang T, Olson ES, Nguyen QT, Roy M, Jennings PA, Tsien RY. Tumor imaging by means of proteolytic activation of cell-penetrating peptides. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2004;101:17867–72.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 163.

    Olson ES, Aguilera TA, Jiang T, Ellies LG, Nguyen QT, Wong EH, et al. In vivo characterization of activatable cell penetrating peptides for targeting protease activity in cancer. Integr Biol 2009;1:382–93.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 164.

    Olson ES, Jiang T, Aguilera TA, Nguyen QT, Ellies LG, Scadeng M, et al. Activatable cell penetrating peptides linked to nanoparticles as dual probes for in vivo fluorescence and MR imaging of proteases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010;107:4311–6.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 165.

    Huang S, Shao K, Liu Y, Kuang Y, Li J, An S, et al. Tumor-targeting and microenvironment-responsive smart nanoparticles for combination therapy of antiangiogenesis and apoptosis. ACS nano 2013;7:2860–71.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 166.

    Xia H, Gu G, Hu Q, Liu Z, Jiang M, Kang T, et al. Activatable cell penetrating peptide-conjugated nanoparticles with enhanced permeability for site-specific targeting delivery of anticancer drug. Bioconjug Chem 2013;24:419–30.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 167.

    Huang Y, Park YS, Wang J, Moon C, Kwon YM, Chung HS, et al. ATTEMPTS system: a macromolecular prodrug strategy for cancer drug delivery. Curr Pharm Des 2010;16:2369–76.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 168.

    Shamay Y, Adar L, Ashkenasy G, David A. Light induced drug delivery into cancer cells. Biomaterials 2011;32:1377–86.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Rupa R. Sawant

Rupa R. Sawant is currently an Associate Research Scientist in Dr. Vladimir Torchilin’s Lab at Northeastern University. Dr. Sawant received a PhD in Pharmaceutical Technology from The University Institute of Chemical Technology, Mumbai, India in 2006. Her research interests include targeted lipid-based nanoparticulate delivery systems for treatment of cancer, stimuli-sensitive nanocarriers and intracellular delivery of nanocarriers using cell-penetrating peptides. Dr. Sawant has published 22 original research papers, 13 reviews and book chapters.

Niravkumar R. Patel

Niravkumar R. Patel is currently a Research Associate at Dr. Torchilin’s laboratory at Northeastern University. He has completed Mater of Science with Thesis and is continuing PhD in Pharmaceutics and Drug Delivery Systems at Northeastern University. He has authored three original research articles. His research interests include developing pharmaceutical nanocarriers for drug delivery and drug targeting, three dimensional spheroid culture as a novel cancer research model and combination therapy to overcome the multidrug resistance phenomenon demonstrated by cancer cells.

Vladimir P. Torchilin

Vladimir P. Torchilin, PhD, DSc, is a University Distinguished Professor and Director of the Center for Pharmaceutical Biotechnology and Nanomedicine at Northeastern University, Boston. He has published more than 400 articles, wrote 10 books, and holds more than 40 patents. He is Editor-in-Chief of Current Drug Discovery Technologies, Editor-in-Chief of Drug Delivery and on the Editorial Boards of many journals. He is a member of European Academy of Sciences and recipients of numerous national and international awards. His research interests have focused on drug delivery and targeting, pharmaceutical nanocarriers for diagnostic and therapeutic agents, and experimental cancer immunology.


Corresponding author: Dr. Vladimir P. Torchilin, Center for Pharmaceutical Biotechnology and Nanomedicine, Northeastern University, 140 The Fenway, Room 211/214, Boston, MA 02115, USA, E-mail:


Received: 2013-02-24

Accepted: 2013-08-05

Published Online: 2013-08-21

Published in Print: 2013-09-01


Citation Information: European Journal of Nanomedicine, ISSN (Online) 1662-596X, ISSN (Print) 1662-5986, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ejnm-2013-0005.

Export Citation

©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Jin-Long Wu, Xiao-Yan He, Bo-Ya Liu, Meng-Qing Gong, Ren-Xi Zhuo, and Si-Xue Cheng
J. Mater. Chem. B, 2017, Volume 5, Number 24, Page 4697
[2]
Yuki Takechi-Haraya, Kenzo Aki, Yumi Tohyama, Yuichi Harano, Toru Kawakami, Hiroyuki Saito, and Emiko Okamura
Pharmaceuticals, 2017, Volume 10, Number 2, Page 42
[3]
Juliana C. Silva, Lázaro M. Neto, Rogério C. Neves, Jaqueline C. Gonçalves, Monalisa M. Trentini, Ricardo Mucury-Filho, Karina S. Smidt, Isabel C. Fensterseifer, Osmar N. Silva, Lilian D. Lima, Patricia B. Clissa, Nathália Vilela, Fernanda Guilhelmelli, Luciano P. Silva, Marisa Rangel, André Kipnis, Ildinete Silva-Pereira, Octavio L. Franco, Ana P. Junqueira-Kipnis, Anamelia L. Bocca, and Márcia R. Mortari
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 2017, Volume 49, Number 2, Page 167
[4]
Azam Bolhassani, Behnaz Sadat Jafarzade, and Golnaz Mardani
Peptides, 2017, Volume 87, Page 50
[5]
N. Grimaldi, F. Andrade, N. Segovia, L. Ferrer-Tasies, S. Sala, J. Veciana, and N. Ventosa
Chem. Soc. Rev., 2016, Volume 45, Number 23, Page 6520
[6]
Parvin Zakeri-Milani, Samaneh Mohammadi, Hadi Valizadeh, Ali Shirani, Javid Shahbazi Mojarrad, and Samad Mussa Farkhani
IET Nanobiotechnology, 2016, Volume 10, Number 2, Page 87
[7]
Yuki Takechi-Haraya, Ryo Nadai, Hitoshi Kimura, Kazuchika Nishitsuji, Kenji Uchimura, Kumiko Sakai-Kato, Kohsaku Kawakami, Akira Shigenaga, Toru Kawakami, Akira Otaka, Hironobu Hojo, Naomi Sakashita, and Hiroyuki Saito
Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Biomembranes, 2016, Volume 1858, Number 6, Page 1339
[8]
Jesús Fominaya, Jerónimo Bravo, and Angelita Rebollo
Therapeutic Delivery, 2015, Volume 6, Number 10, Page 1171
[9]
Aubin Moutal, Liberty François-Moutal, Joel M. Brittain, May Khanna, and Rajesh Khanna
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, 2015, Volume 8
[10]
Vítor Gaspar, Duarte de Melo-Diogo, Elisabete Costa, André Moreira, João Queiroz, Chantal Pichon, Ilídio Correia, and Fani Sousa
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy, 2015, Volume 15, Number 3, Page 353
[11]
Jie Tang, Li Zhang, Han Fu, Qifang Kuang, Huile Gao, Zhirong Zhang, and Qin He
Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B, 2014, Volume 4, Number 1, Page 67

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in