Biopolymers Research
Open Access

Chitosan nanoparticles; Targeted delivery; Cancer therapy; Drug encapsulation; Tumor targeting; Biocompatible nanocarriers; Controlled release; Nanomedicine; Cancer treatment; Polymer-based nanoparticles

Introduction

Cancer remains one of the leading causes of death globally, with traditional therapies like chemotherapy often limited by systemic toxicity, poor bioavailability, and lack of specificity toward tumor cells. The emergence of nanotechnology in medicine has opened new avenues for targeted drug delivery, enabling precise delivery of therapeutic agents to malignant cells while minimizing damage to healthy tissues. Among various nanocarriers developed for this purpose, chitosan-based nanoparticles have garnered significant attention due to their biocompatibility, biodegradability, mucoadhesiveness, and ease of chemical modification [1-5]. Chitosan is a natural cationic polysaccharide derived from chitin, abundantly found in crustacean shells. Its ability to form nanoparticles through ionic gelation or polyelectrolyte complexation makes it an excellent platform for drug delivery. Moreover, chitosan can be functionalized with ligands such as folic acid, antibodies, or peptides to achieve active targeting of tumor cells that overexpress specific surface receptors. This paper explores the development, optimization, and therapeutic potential of chitosan-based nanoparticles in enhancing targeted drug delivery for cancer treatment [6-10].

Discussion

Chitosan nanoparticles offer several advantages for cancer therapy, including efficient drug encapsulation, controlled and sustained drug release, and the ability to improve drug solubility and stability. The positively charged surface of chitosan allows strong interaction with negatively charged cellular membranes, promoting endocytosis and improved cellular uptake. Additionally, chitosan’s pH-sensitive nature enables it to release drugs preferentially in the acidic tumor microenvironment, increasing therapeutic efficacy while reducing side effects. Various anticancer drugs such as doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and curcumin have been successfully loaded into chitosan nanoparticles and shown enhanced cytotoxicity against cancer cell lines in vitro and in vivo. Surface modification plays a critical role in the targeting efficiency of these nanoparticles. For instance, folate-conjugated chitosan nanoparticles can bind specifically to folate receptors, which are often overexpressed in ovarian, breast, and lung cancers. Similarly, the attachment of RGD peptides enables the nanoparticles to target integrins involved in tumor angiogenesis. Recent studies also demonstrate the potential of chitosan-based nanoparticles to co-deliver drugs and genes (e.g., siRNA or plasmid DNA), providing a multifunctional platform for combination therapy. Despite their promising properties, challenges such as scale-up production, particle size uniformity, and long-term stability remain. Moreover, comprehensive in vivo toxicity studies and clinical trials are needed to fully assess their safety and therapeutic potential in humans.

Conclusion

Chitosan-based nanoparticles represent a versatile and promising nanoplatform for targeted drug delivery in cancer therapy. Their intrinsic properties, including biocompatibility, biodegradability, mucoadhesion, and pH responsiveness, make them particularly suited for enhancing drug delivery to tumor sites while minimizing off-target effects. By leveraging ligand-mediated targeting and co-delivery strategies, these nanoparticles can address multiple therapeutic challenges simultaneously, including tumor selectivity, drug resistance, and systemic toxicity. Continued research and development are crucial for addressing current limitations and translating laboratory successes into clinical applications. With growing interest from academia and industry alike, chitosan-based nanomedicine holds the potential to revolutionize the future of personalized cancer treatment.

References

1. Nowlin WH, Vanni MJ, Yang H (2008) Comparing resource pulses in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology 89: 647-659.

   Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Kautza A, Sullivan SMP (2016) The energetic contributions of aquatic primary producers to terrestrial food webs in a mid-size river system. Ecology 97: 694-705.

   Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Beasley JC, Olson ZH, DeVault TL (2012) Carrion cycling in food webs: comparisons among terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Oikos 121: 1021-1026.

   Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Cheng-Di D, Chih-Feng C, Chiu-Wen C (2012) Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Industrial Harbor Sediments by GC-MS. Int J Environ Res Public Health 9: 2175-2188.

   Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Nasher E, Heng LY, Zakaria Z, Salmijah S (2013) Assessing the Ecological Risk of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Sediments at Langkawi Island, Malaysia. ScientificWorldJournal 2013: 858309.

   Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. López GI (2017) Grain size analysis. In: Gilbert AS (ed) Encyclopedia of Geoarchaeology. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 341-348.

   Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Bhatta LD, Sunita CH, Anju P, Himlal B, Partha JD, et al. (2016) Ecosystem Service Changes and Livelihood Impacts in the Maguri-Motapung Wetlands of Assam, India. Land 5: 15.

   Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Dechasa F, Feyera S, Dawit D (2019) Determinants of Household Wetland Resources Use and Management Behavior in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Environ Sustain 2: 355-368.

   Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Deka S, Om PT, Ashish P (2019) Perception-Based Assessment of Ecosystem Services of Ghagra Pahar Forest of Assam, Northeast India. Geol Ecol Landsc 3: 197-209.

   Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Achzet B, Helbig C (2013) How to evaluate raw material supply risks—an overview. Resour Policy 38: 435-447.

    Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref