Cell-Mediated and Peptide-Based Delivery Systems: Emerging Frontiers in Targeted Therapeutics
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Peptide-Based Delivery Systems
2.1. Cell-Penetrating Peptides and Gene Transfer
2.2. CPPs in Vaccine Development
2.3. Peptidomimetic and Self-Assembled Nanostructures
3. Cell-Mediated Delivery Systems
3.1. Engineered Immune Cells as Therapeutic Couriers
3.2. Endothelial Cell-Mediated Vascular Repair
4. Overcoming the Blood–Brain Barrier
4.1. Nanomaterial and Peptide Strategies
4.2. Bioactive Nanoparticles for Neurodegenerative Diseases
5. Immunotherapeutic Integration
6. Ocular and Localized Delivery
7. Design Principles and Structure–Function Insights
7.1. Molecular Modularity
7.2. Cell Interactions and Microenvironment Sensitivity
8. Translational and Regulatory Considerations
9. Outlook and Future Perspectives
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| ATMPs | Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products |
| AI | Artificial Intelligence |
| BBB | Blood-Brain-Barrier |
| CF-SPPS | Continuous-Flow Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis |
| CPPs | Cell-penetrating peptides |
| CQAs | critical quality attributes |
| DCs | Dendritic Cells |
| ECs | Endothelial Cells |
| ESCRT | Endosomal Sorting Complexes Required for Transport |
| EMA | European Medicines Agency |
| FDA | Food and Drug Administration |
| GMP | Good Manufacturing Practices |
| HTS | High-Throughput Screening |
| ICH | International Council for Harmonisation |
| IMPs | Immune-Modulating Peptides |
| MD | Molecular Dynamics |
| ML | Machine Learning |
| MMP | Matrix Metallo Proteinase |
| NIR | Near-Infra Red |
| NK1R | Neurokinin-1 Receptor |
| RGD | Arginine–Glycine–Aspartic acid motif |
| REDV | Arg–Glu–Asp–Val motif |
| QbD | Quality-by-Design |
| PAAs | Polyacrylates |
| RALA | Ras-Related Protein |
| TAT | Trans-Activator of Transcription |
References
- Gori, A.; Lodigiani, G.; Colombarolli, S.G.; Bergamaschi, G.; Vitali, A. Cell Penetrating Peptides: Classification, Mechanisms, Methods of Study, and Applications. ChemMedChem 2023, 18, e202300236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milletti, F. Cell-penetrating peptides: Classes, origin, and current landscape. Drug Discov. Today 2012, 17, 850–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fosgerau, K.; Hoffmann, T. Peptide therapeutics: Current status and future directions. Drug Discov. Today 2015, 20, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Richard, J.; Melikov, K.; Vives, E.; Ramos, C.; Verbeure, B.; Gait, M.; Chernomordik, L.; Lebleu, B. Cell-penetrating peptides—A reevaluation of the mechanism of cellular uptake. J. Biol. Chem. 2003, 278, 585–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, J.; Khan, A.R.; Fu, M.; Wang, R.; Ji, J.; Zhai, G. Cell-penetrating peptide: A means of breaking through the physiological barriers of different tissues and organs. J. Control. Release 2019, 309, 106–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muttenthaler, M.; King, G.; Adams, D.; Alewood, P. Trends in peptide drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2021, 20, 309–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Guo, P.; Ma, Z.; Lu, P.; Kebebe, D.; Liu, Z. Combination of cell-penetrating peptides with nanomaterials for the potential therapeutics of central nervous system disorders: A review. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2021, 19, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Cabral, H.; Mi, P. Nanocarriers address intracellular barriers for efficient drug delivery, overcoming drug resistance, subcellular targeting and controlled release. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2024, 207, 115239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Desale, K.; Kuche, K.; Jain, S. Cell-penetrating peptides (CPPs): An overview of applications for improving the potential of nanotherapeutics. Biomater. Sci. 2021, 9, 1153–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chatterjee, S.; Kon, E.; Sharma, P.; Peer, D. Endosomal escape: A bottleneck for LNP- mediated therapeutics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2024, 121, e2307800120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Zaro, J.; Shen, W. Fusion protein linkers: Property, design and functionality. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2013, 65, 1357–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, J.; Ashrafizadeh, M.; Aref, A.; Sethi, G.; Ertas, Y. Peptide-functionalized, -assembled and—Loaded nanoparticles in cancer therapy. Drug Discov. Today 2024, 29, 103981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zorko, M.; Jones, S.; Langel, Ü. Cell-penetrating peptides in protein mimicry and cancer therapeutics. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2022, 180, 114044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, D.; Cao, Y.; Cao, M.; Wang, Y.; Cao, Y.; Gong, T. Nanomedicine in cancer therapy. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2023, 8, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanasty, R.; Dorkin, J.; Vegas, A.; Anderson, D. Delivery materials for siRNA therapeutics. Nat. Mater. 2013, 12, 967–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, M.M.; Filipczak, N.; Torchilin, V.P. Cell penetrating peptides: A versatile vector for co-delivery of drug and genes in cancer. J. Control. Release 2021, 330, 1220–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zaidi, S.; Fatima, F.; Zaidi, S.; Zhou, D.; Deng, W.; Liu, S. Engineering siRNA therapeutics: Challenges and strategies. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2023, 21, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Song, Y.; Lei, L.; Cai, X.; Wei, H.; Yu, C.-Y. Immunomodulatory Peptides for Tumor Treatment. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2025, 14, 2400512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahlapuu, M.; Håkansson, J.; Ringstad, L.; Björn, C. Antimicrobial Peptides: An Emerging Category of Therapeutic Agents. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2016, 6, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alharbi, S. Anti-inflammatory role of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and its clinical implications. Ther. Adv. Endocrinol. Metab. 2024, 15, 20420188231222367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bendotti, G.; Montefusco, L.; Lunati, M.; Usuelli, V.; Pastore, I.; Lazzaroni, E.; Assi, E.; Seelam, A.; El Essawy, B.; Jang, J.; et al. The anti-inflammatory and immunological properties of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists. Pharmacol. Res. 2022, 182, 106320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magana, M.; Pushpanathan, M.; Santos, A.; Leanse, L.; Fernandez, M.; Ioannidis, A.; Giulianotti, M.; Apidianakis, Y.; Bradfute, S.; Ferguson, A.; et al. The value of antimicrobial peptides in the age of resistance. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2020, 20, E216–E230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hancock, R.; Sahl, H. Antimicrobial and host-defense peptides as new anti-infective therapeutic strategies. Nat. Biotechnol. 2006, 24, 1551–1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Portincasa, P.; Bonfrate, L.; Vacca, M.; De Angelis, M.; Farella, I.; Lanza, E.; Khalil, M.; Wang, D.; Sperandio, M.; Di Ciaula, A. Gut Microbiota and Short Chain Fatty Acids: Implications in Glucose Homeostasis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slominski, R.; Raman, C.; Chen, J.; Slominski, A. How cancer hijacks the body?s homeostasis through the neuroendocrine system. Trends Neurosci. 2023, 46, 263–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Hul, M.; Cani, P. The gut microbiota in obesity and weight management: Microbes as friends or foe? Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 2023, 19, 258–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powers, J.; Hancock, R. The relationship between peptide structure and antibacterial activity. Peptides 2003, 24, 1681–1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mookherjee, N.; Anderson, M.; Haagsman, H.; Davidson, D. Antimicrobial host defence peptides: Functions and clinical potential. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2020, 19, 311–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pang, G.; Chen, P.; Cao, X.; Yu, H.; Zhang, L.W.; Zhao, J.; Wang, F.-J. Improving combination cancer immunotherapy by manipulating dual immunomodulatory signals with enzyme-triggered, cell-penetrating peptide-mediated biomodulators. Biomater. Sci. 2024, 12, 776–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, L.; Li, X.; Wang, R.; Zeng, Y.; Zeng, Z.; Xie, T. Recent Research Progress of RGD Peptide–Modified Nanodrug Delivery Systems in Tumor Therapy. Int. J. Pept. Res. Ther. 2023, 29, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Battistini, L.; Bugatti, K.; Sartori, A.; Curti, C.; Zanardi, F. RGD Peptide-Drug Conjugates as Effective Dual Targeting Platforms: Recent Advances. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2021, 2021, 2506–2528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruoslahti, E. RGD and other recognition sequences for integrins. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 1996, 12, 697–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, M.; Sahu, A.; Kim, G.B.; Nam, G.H.; Um, W.; Shin, S.J.; Jeong, Y.Y.; Kim, I.-S.; Kim, K.; Kwon, I.C.; et al. Comparison of in vivo targeting ability between cRGD and collagen-targeting peptide conjugated nano-carriers for atherosclerosis. J. Control. Release 2018, 269, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, Y.; Zheng, X.; Zhong, X.; Cui, Q.; Zhang, S.; Wen, X.; Heng, B.; He, S.; Shen, Y.; Zhang, J.; et al. Manipulation of Heterogeneous Surface Electric Potential Promotes Osteogenesis by Strengthening RGD Peptide Binding and Cellular Mechanosensing. Adv. Mater. 2023, 35, e2209769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hersel, U.; Dahmen, C.; Kessler, H. RGD modified polymers: Biomaterials for stimulated cell adhesion and beyond. Biomaterials 2003, 24, 4385–4415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Javid, H.; Oryani, M.; Rezagholinejad, N.; Esparham, A.; Tajaldini, M.; Karimi-Shahri, M. RGD peptide in cancer targeting: Benefits, challenges, solutions, and possible integrin-RGD interactions. Cancer Med. 2024, 13, e6800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lutolf, M.; Hubbell, J. Synthetic biomaterials as instructive extracellular microenvironments for morphogenesis in tissue engineering. Nat. Biotechnol. 2005, 23, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sun, J.; Huang, Y.; Zhao, H.; Niu, J.; Ling, X.; Zhu, C.; Wang, L.; Yang, H.; Yang, Z.; Pan, G.; et al. Bio-clickable mussel-inspired peptides improve titanium-based material osseointegration synergistically with immunopolarization-regulation. Bioact. Mater. 2022, 9, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tian, T.; Liang, R.; Erel-Akbaba, G.; Saad, L.; Obeid, P.; Gao, J.; Chiocca, E.; Weissleder, R.; Tannous, B. Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in GBM Primed with Radiation by Engineered Extracellular Vesicles. ACS Nano 2022, 16, 1940–1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Shang, Y.; Chen, X.; Midgley, A.C.; Wang, Z.; Zhu, D.; Wu, J.; Chen, P.; Wu, L.; Wang, X.; et al. Supramolecular Nanofibers Containing Arginine-Glycine-Aspartate (RGD) Peptides Boost Therapeutic Efficacy of Extracellular Vesicles in Kidney Repair. ACS Nano 2020, 14, 12133–12147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sugahara, K.; Teesalu, T.; Karmali, P.; Kotamraju, V.; Agemy, L.; Girard, O.; Hanahan, D.; Mattrey, R.; Ruoslahti, E. Tissue-Penetrating Delivery of Compounds and Nanoparticles into Tumors. Cancer Cell 2009, 16, 510–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, M.; Lu, T.; Nong, Z.; Li, G.; Pan, X.; Wei, Y.; Yang, Y.; Wu, N.; Huang, J.; Pan, M.; et al. Reductive response and RGD targeting nano-graphene oxide drug delivery system. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 101202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, J.; Xue, L.; Gong, N.; Zhang, H.; Shepherd, S.J.; Haley, R.M.; Swingle, K.L.; Mitchell, M.J. RGD peptide-based lipids for targeted mRNA delivery and gene editing applications. RSC Adv. 2022, 12, 25397–25404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Galindo, J.M.; Merino, S.; Herrero, M.A. Advanced Hydrogels: Enhancing Tissue Bioengineering with RGD Peptides and Carbon Nanomaterials. ChemMedChem 2025, 20, e202400587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dvir, T.; Timko, B.; Kohane, D.; Langer, R. Nanotechnological strategies for engineering complex tissues. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2011, 6, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, G.; Wang, T.; Han, Z.; Tian, L.; Cheng, Q.; Luo, L.; Zhao, B.; Wang, C.; Feng, S.; Wang, L.; et al. Substance P containing peptide gene delivery vectors for specifically transfecting glioma cells mediated by a neurokinin-1 receptor. J. Mater. Chem. B 2021, 9, 6347–6356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeyarajan, S.; Xavier, J.; Rao, N.M.; Gopal, V. Plasmid DNA delivery into MDA-MB-453 cells mediated by recombinant Her-NLS fusion protein. Int. J. Nanomed. 2010, 5, 725–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Neves, A.R.; Sousa, A.; Faria, R.; Albuquerque, T.; Queiroz, J.A.; Costa, D. Cancer gene therapy mediated by RALA/plasmid DNA vectors: Nitrogen to phosphate groups ratio (N/P) as a tool for tunable transfection efficiency and apoptosis. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2020, 185, 110610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasannejad-Asl, B.; Pooresmaeil, F.; Takamoli, S.; Dabiri, M.; Bolhassani, A. Cell penetrating peptide: A potent delivery system in vaccine development. Front. Pharmacol. 2022, 13, 1072685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, T.T.; Kang, T.H.; Ma, B.; Xu, Y.; Hung, C.F.; Wu, T.C. LAH4 enhances CD8+ T cell immunity of protein/peptide-based vaccines. Vaccine 2012, 30, 784–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mardani, G.; Bolhassani, A.; Agi, E.; Shahbazi, S.; Mehdi Sadat, S. Protein vaccination with HPV16 E7/Pep-1 nanoparticles elicits a protective T-helper cell-mediated immune response. IUBMB Life 2016, 68, 459–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jabbari, E. Targeted delivery with peptidomimetic conjugated self-assembled nanoparticles. Pharm. Res. 2009, 26, 612–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, P.; Wu, W.; Gao, R.; Zhu, H.; Wang, J.; Du, R.; Li, X.; Zhang, C.; Cao, S.; Xiang, R. Engineered Cell-Assisted Photoactive Nanoparticle Delivery for Image-Guided Synergistic Photodynamic/Photothermal Therapy of Cancer. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 13935–13944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, H.; Lei, D.; Li, J.; Xin, J.; Zhang, L.; Fu, L.; Wang, J.; Zeng, W.; Yao, C.; Zhang, Z.; et al. MMP-2 Inhibitor-Mediated Tumor Microenvironment Regulation Using a Sequentially Released Bio-Nanosystem for Enhanced Cancer Photo-Immunotherapy. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2022, 14, 41834–41850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, K. Mast cells for cell-mediated therapy. J. Control. Release 2015, 202, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, J.; Wang, M.; Wei, T.; Bai, L.; Zhao, J.; Wang, K.; Feng, Y. Endothelial Cell-Mediated Gene Delivery for In Situ Accelerated Endothelialization of a Vascular Graft. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021, 13, 16097–16105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Patel, D.M.; Patel, B. Crossing the Blood–Brain Barrier: Recent Advances in Drug Delivery to the Brain. CNS Drugs 2017, 31, 109–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, J.; Shen, Z.; Anraku, Y.; Kataoka, K.; Chen, X. Nanomaterial-based blood-brain-barrier (BBB) crossing strategies. Biomaterials 2019, 224, 119491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, F.; Xu, C.L.; Liu, C.M. Drug delivery strategies to enhance the permeability of the blood-brain barrier for treatment of glioma. Drug Des. Devel Ther. 2015, 9, 2089–2100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathupala, S.P. Delivery of small-interfering RNA (siRNA) to the brain. Expert Opin. Ther. Pat. 2009, 19, 137–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Man, R.C.H.; Qiu, Y.; Leung, S.W.S.; Fruhwirth, G.O.; Lam, J.K.W. Co-delivery of PD-L1- and EGFR-targeting siRNAs by synthetic PEG12-KL4 peptide to the lungs as potential strategy against non-small cell lung cancer. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2024, 195, 114177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kshirsagar, N.; Patil, A.; Suryawanshi, M. Bioactive compound nanoparticles for Alzheimer’s disease. Inflammopharmacology 2025, 33, 2963–2976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.Y.; Wang, R.F. Enhancing cancer immunotherapy by intracellular delivery of cell-penetrating peptides and stimulation of pattern-recognition receptor signaling. Adv. Immunol. 2012, 114, 151–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kimura, S.; Maeda, K.; Nagashima, R.; Miura, K.; Arakawa, M.; Ebina, H.; Tanaka, N.; Morita, E. Efficient immunogenic peptide antigen delivery to dendritic cells using an ESCRT-mediated extracellular vesicle formation method. Vaccine 2021, 39, 2976–2982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Y.; Zhang, D.; Liu, J.; Ouyang, J.; Zhang, C.; Tan, Q.; Jiang, J.; Hu, K. Ocular Soluble Microneedle Patch Loaded with Immunogenic Cell Death Inducer PKHB1 Peptide for Alleviating Herpes Simplex Keratitis. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2025, 17, 42824–42837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torchilin, V.P. Multifunctional, stimuli-sensitive nanoparticulate systems for drug delivery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2014, 13, 813–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Desgrosellier, J.S.; Cheresh, D.A. Integrins in cancer: Biological implications and therapeutic opportunities. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2010, 10, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reissmann, S.; Filatova, M.P. New generation of cell-penetrating peptides: Functionality and potential clinical application. J. Pept. Sci. 2021, 27, e3300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imre, A.; Balogh, B.; Mándity, I. GraphCPP: The new state-of-the-art method for cell-penetrating peptide prediction via graph neural networks. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2025, 182, 495–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Khan, M.F.; Kundu, D.; Gogoi, M.; Shrestha, A.K.; Karanth, N.G.; Patra, S. Enzyme-Responsive and Enzyme Immobilized Nanoplatforms for Therapeutic Delivery: An Overview of Research Innovations and Biomedical Applications. In Nanopharmaceuticals: Principles and Applications Vol. 3; Yata, V.K., Ranjan, S., Dasgupta, N., Lichtfouse, E., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 165–200. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, C.; Yuan, H.; Wang, Y.; Feng, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Yin, T.; He, H.; Gou, J.; Tang, X. The interplay between PEGylated nanoparticles and blood immune system. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2023, 200, 115044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Municoy, S.; Álvarez Echazú, M.I.; Antezana, P.E.; Galdopórpora, J.M.; Olivetti, C.; Mebert, A.M.; Foglia, M.L.; Tuttolomondo, M.V.; Alvarez, G.S.; Hardy, J.G.; et al. Stimuli-Responsive Materials for Tissue Engineering and Drug Delivery. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 4724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruoslahti, E. Peptides as Targeting Elements and Tissue Penetration Devices for Nanoparticles. Adv. Mater. 2012, 24, 3747–3756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anselmo, A.C.; Mitragotri, S. Cell-mediated delivery of nanoparticles: Taking advantage of circulatory cells to target nanoparticles. J. Control. Release 2014, 190, 531–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Behzadi, S.; Serpooshan, V.; Tao, W.; Hamaly, M.A.; Alkawareek, M.Y.; Dreaden, E.C.; Brown, D.; Alkilany, A.M.; Farokhzad, O.C.; Mahmoudi, M. Cellular uptake of nanoparticles: Journey inside the cell. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2017, 46, 4218–4244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Irvine, D.J.; Hanson, M.C.; Rakhra, K.; Tokatlian, T. Synthetic Nanoparticles for Vaccines and Immunotherapy. Chem. Rev. 2015, 115, 11109–11146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Erdei, E.; Marcos, J.T.; Varró, N.; Horváti, K.; Bacsa, B.; Mándity, I.M. Spatiotemporal control in biomedicine: Photoswitchable peptides and foldamers. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2025, 182, 4458–4465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ventola, C.L. Progress in Nanomedicine: Approved and Investigational Nanodrugs. Pharm. Ther. 2017, 42, 742–755. [Google Scholar]
- Erdei, E.; Mándoki, A.; Deák, A.; Balogh, B.; Molnár, L.; Mándity, I.M. BioGoldNCDB: A Database of Gold Nanoclusters and Related Nanoparticles with Biomedical Activity. Molecules 2025, 30, 3310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartrampf, N.; Saebi, A.; Poskus, M.; Gates, Z.P.; Callahan, A.J.; Cowfer, A.E.; Hanna, S.; Antilla, S.; Schissel, C.K.; Quartararo, A.J.; et al. Synthesis of proteins by automated flow chemistry. Science 2020, 368, 980–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Varró, N.; Mándityné Huszka, B.; Erdei, E.; Mándoki, A.; Mándity, I.M. Upscaled Synthesis of α- and β-Peptides in a Continuous-Flow Reactor Using Propylene Carbonate as an Eco-Friendly Solvent. Chem. Methods 2025, 5, e202500010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tinkle, S.; McNeil, S.E.; Mühlebach, S.; Bawa, R.; Borchard, G.; Barenholz, Y.; Tamarkin, L.; Desai, N. Nanomedicines: Addressing the scientific and regulatory gap. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2014, 1313, 35–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, K. Facing the Truth about Nanotechnology in Drug Delivery. ACS Nano 2013, 7, 7442–7447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhavoronkov, A.; Ivanenkov, Y.A.; Aliper, A.; Veselov, M.S.; Aladinskiy, V.A.; Aladinskaya, A.V.; Terentiev, V.A.; Polykovskiy, D.A.; Kuznetsov, M.D.; Asadulaev, A.; et al. Deep learning enables rapid identification of potent DDR1 kinase inhibitors. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 1038–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Taylor, B.N.; Mehta, R.R.; Yamada, T.; Lekmine, F.; Christov, K.; Chakrabarty, A.M.; Bratescu, L.; Green, A.; Bratescu, E. Non-toxic azurin peptide (p28) induces p53-mediated apoptosis in breast cancer cells. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2009, 8, 2947–2958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lulla, R.R.; Goldman, S.; Yamada, T.; Beattie, C.W.; Bressler, L.R.; Pacini, M.; Pollack, I.F.; Fisher, P.G.; Packer, R.J.; Dunkel, I.J.; et al. Phase I trial of p28 (NSC745104), a non-HDM2-mediated peptide inhibitor of p53 ubiquitination in pediatric patients with recurrent or progressive central nervous system tumors: A Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium Study. Neuro-Oncology 2016, 18, 1319–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morse, M.A.; Garst, J.; Osada, T.; Khan, S.; Hobeika, A.; Clay, T.M.; Valente, N.; Shreeniwas, R.; Hsu, D.S.; Riedlinger, G.; et al. A Phase I study of dexosome immunotherapy in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer. J. Transl. Med. 2005, 3, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Besse, B.; Charrier, M.; Lapierre, V.; Dansin, E.; Lantz, O.; Planchard, D.; Le Chevalier, T.; Livartowski, A.; Giroux-Leprieur, E.; André, F.; et al. Dendritic cell–derived exosomes as maintenance immunotherapy after first-line chemotherapy in NSCLC. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 34, 4133–4142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liau, L.M.; Ashkan, K.; Tran, D.D.; Campian, J.L.; Trusheim, J.E.; Cobbs, C.S.; Heth, J.A.; Salacz, M.E.; Taylor, S.; D’Andre, S.D.; et al. First results on survival from a large Phase III clinical trial of an autologous dendritic cell vaccine in newly diagnosed glioblastoma. J. Transl. Med. 2018, 16, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kloor, M.; Reuschenbach, M.; Ebert, M.P.; Drayton, R.M.; Schneider, M.; Nachbichler, S.B.; Grabe, N.; Mascaux, C.; Taillefer, A.; Ligtenberg, M.J.; et al. Vaccination of MSI-H colorectal cancer patients with frameshift peptide antigens: A phase I/IIa clinical trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 33, 0320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dean, A.; Gill, S.; McGregor, M.; Broadbridge, V.; Jarvelainen, H.A.; Price, T.J. Phase I trial of the first-in-class agent CEND-1 in combination with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2020, 31, S941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Medicines Agency (EMA). Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs). Off. J. Eur. Union 2007, L324. [Google Scholar]
- EMA Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT). Reflection Paper on Classification of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products; EMA/CAT/600280/2010; European Medicines Agency: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps): 21 CFR Part 1271; Federal Register: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- European Medicines Agency (EMA). Guideline on Human Cell-Based Medicinal Products; EMA/CHMP/410869/2006; European Medicines Agency: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Bowman, D.M.; Gatof, J. Reviewing the Regulatory Barriers for Nanomedicine: Global Questions and Challenges. Nanomedicine 2015, 10, 3275–3286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalluri, R.; LeBleu, V.S. The biology, function, and biomedical applications of exosomes. Science 2020, 367, eaau6977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mura, S.; Nicolas, J.; Couvreur, P. Stimuli-responsive nanocarriers for drug delivery. Nat. Mater. 2013, 12, 991–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, Z.; Wang, R.; Guo, J.; Wang, X. The role and future prospects of artificial intelligence algorithms in peptide drug development. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2024, 175, 116709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irvine, D.J.; Swartz, M.A.; Szeto, G.L. Engineering synthetic vaccines using cues from natural immunity. Nat. Mater. 2013, 12, 978–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhao, Y.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, Q.; Tao, H. Research Progress of Neutrophil-Mediated Drug Delivery Strategies for Inflammation-Related Disease. Pharmaceutics 2023, 15, 1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Z.; Lu, Y.; Shi, Y.; Jiang, M.; Shan, X.; Li, X.; Zhang, J.; Qin, B.; Liu, X.; Guo, X.; et al. Neutrophil hitchhiking for drug delivery to the bone marrow. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2023, 18, 647–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doshi, N.; Swiston, A.J.; Gilbert, J.B.; Alcaraz, M.L.; Cohen, R.E.; Rubner, M.F.; Mitragotri, S. Cell-based drug delivery devices using phagocytosis-resistant backpacks. Adv. Mater. 2011, 23, H105–H109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shields, C.W., IV; Evans, M.A.; Wang, L.L.-W.; Lau, L.; Angelini, T.E.; Horner, P.J.; Mitragotri, S.; López, G.P. Cellular backpacks for macrophage immunotherapy. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eaaz6579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freimann, K.; Arukuusk, P.; Kurrikoff, K.; Hansen, M.; Zuchner, T.; Langel, Ü. Formulation of stable and homogeneous cell-penetrating peptide NF55 nanoparticles for efficient gene delivery in vivo. Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids 2018, 10, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- D’Astolfo, D.S.; Pagliero, R.J.; Pras, A.; Karyala, S.V.; Malik, P.; Wen, B.; Gabriel, R.; DeAngelo, S.L.; Hoffmann, T.; Becker, C.; et al. Efficient intracellular delivery of native proteins. Cell 2015, 161, 674–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]





| References | Efficacy | Safety | Scalability | Clinical Translation Stage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [46] | Very high transfection efficiency; NK1R-targeted; crosses BBB in vitro and in zebrafish; P-02 is optimal. | Low cytotoxicity; no in vivo toxicity in zebrafish; SP competition does not introduce toxicity. | SPPS-based modular peptides, high purity, stable self-assembled nanoparticles–good theoretical scalability, but not evaluated. | Early preclinical (cell lines + zebrafish). No mammalian in vivo efficacy or toxicology yet. |
| [47] | Strong, selective transfection in HER2/3-overexpressing MDA-MB-453 breast cancer cells. No measurable transfection in HER2-low MDA-MB-231 cells, confirming receptor-dependent uptake. | MTT assays show no detectable cytotoxicity in either MDA-MB-453 or MDA-MB-231 at the tested charge ratios. | No discussion of industrial scale-up, formulation stability, or manufacturability beyond lab-scale bacterial expression. | Entirely in vitro work (breast cancer cell lines). No in vivo studies, no pharmacokinetics, no toxicology, no animal tumor models. |
| [48] | RALA efficiently condenses p53-encoding plasmid DNA at N/P ≥ 2, forming stable nano-sized complexes. Strong intracellular delivery and nuclear accumulation in HeLa cells at N/P 5–10. | Non-toxic to normal fibroblasts across N/P 1–10; viability > 90% at 24–48 h. In HeLa cells, reduced viability results from p53-induced apoptosis, not formulation toxicity. | RALA peptide synthesized via standard solid-phase peptide synthesis (SPPS). Methods rely on routine laboratory procedures (DLS, centrifugation), suggesting straightforward scalability, although not tested at production scale. | Fully in vitro study (HeLa cancer cells + fibroblasts). No in vivo animal studies, no pharmacokinetics, no toxicology. |
| [49] | CPPs improve antigen uptake, processing, and presentation by APCs. Enhance both humoral and cellular immunity (Th1 bias, CTL activation). Improve mRNA and DNA vaccine delivery, increase stability and expression. | CPPs generally show low toxicity and non-immunogenicity in vitro. | CPPs are easy to synthesize, cost-effective, and can be produced in high quantities. | No CPP-based vaccines are yet FDA-approved. |
| [50] | LAH4 strongly enhances intracellular delivery of proteins and CpG in dendritic cells. Results in potent protective and therapeutic antitumor effects in B16/OVA and B16 melanoma models—significantly prolonged survival and reduced tumor growth. | No in vivo toxicity reported in mice; all effects attributed to immune responses rather than toxicity. | LAH4 is a synthetic amphipathic peptide—readily manufacturable using solid-phase peptide synthesis. Delivery relies on spontaneous complexation; methods are compatible with scalable vaccine production, though no industrial-scale testing is described. | In vitro dendritic cell uptake and cross-presentation assays; multiple in vivo mouse vaccination and tumor challenge models (OVA/B16 and TRP-2/B16). No pharmacokinetic, biodistribution, toxicology, or GMP studies. |
| [51] | Efficient intracellular delivery of E7 into HEK-293T cells at 1–3 h post-transfection; none detected with E7 alone. Tumor model: E7/Pep-1 (1:20) provides 80% tumor-free survival, comparable to E7 + Freund’s adjuvant. | MTT assays show no significant cytotoxicity of Pep-1 or E7/Pep-1 nanoparticles at 24–48 h in HEK-293T cells; complexation reduces Pep-1 cytotoxicity. | Pep-1 is a synthetic peptide produced by standard peptide synthesis (SPPS). | Preclinical, early stage. Study includes in vitro cell delivery and in vivo mouse tumor-challenge model. No pharmacokinetics, toxicology, or large-animal studies; no clinical trials reported. |
| [52] | Effective for tumor targeting, imaging, vaccination, intracellular delivery, and protein delivery (e.g., rhBMP-2 maintained >95% bioactivity when encapsulated. | Peptidomimetic conjugation can increase interaction with immune system–may increase phagocytosis if unmodified. | Most systems rely on synthetic polymer self-assembly, SPPS peptide synthesis, and standard conjugation chemistries (e.g., NHS, maleimide. | No clinical trials involving these peptidomimetic self-assembled systems are reported. |
| References | Efficacy | Safety | Scalability | Clinical Translation Stage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [53] | In vivo: MN@RMNCs achieve complete tumor ablation, prevent recurrence, and significantly improve survival. cRGD-engineered MN@RMNCs show 1.7 × higher tumor accumulation than unmodified MN@MNCs and 2.3 × higher than free NPs. | In vivo toxicity evaluation shows: no mortality, no weight loss, and normal liver/kidney biochemistry (ALT, AST, ALP, ALB, CRE, UA, URE) across groups. | Whole system relies on established techniques: SPPS peptides, DSPE-PEG carriers, immune cell culture | In vitro: uptake, ROS generation, PDT/PTT cytotoxicity. In vivo: mouse 4T1 breast tumor model; imaging, biodistribution, toxicity, treatment efficacy. No pharmacokinetics, GLP toxicology, or large-animal studies. No clinical trials reported. |
| [54] | In vivo melanoma model: tumor proliferation reduced to 1.13% of saline control; highest survival with complete tumor suppression. | No histological damage or acute toxicity reported in treated animals. | All steps are widely used in nanomedicine manufacturing—high theoretical scalability, though not validated at GMP/industrial scale. | Data include in vitro melanoma cytotoxicity, NK-cell activation assays, and in vivo xenografted A375 mouse tumor model. No pharmacokinetic, biodistribution, GLP toxicology, or large-animal studies beyond mice. No clinical trials reported. |
| [55] | Tat and C105Y CPPs effectively deliver cargoes (TAMRA dye; avidin protein) into mast-cell line RBL-2H3 without triggering exocytosis. Cargoes can be released on demand via mastoparan or physiological IgE-mediated activation–demonstrates controlled secretion capability. | Human mast cells may differ substantially in sensitivity to CPP-mediated activation; safety is not yet established. | Major scalability bottleneck is not the CPPs, but the difficulty/cost of isolating, maintaining, and expanding primary human mast cells. | Conceptual early-stage research; no animal studies, no human data. Current data generated only in rat basophilic leukemia (RBL-2H3) mast-cell line. |
| [56] | Gene complexes (GCs) show ~100% cellular uptake in HUVECs. MMP-triggered release achieves ~40% cumulative release in 24 h, none without enzyme. | NPs and GCs show >80% cell viability at 20 μg/mL. In vivo: no reported adverse effects; no thrombus formation on fully endothelialized graft; normal vessel morphology at 28 days. | Moderate scalability, but manufacturing complexity is higher than single-step peptide systems. | Promising for vascular graft endothelialization but not yet at translational/clinical readiness. |
| References. | Efficacy | Safety | Scalability | Clinical Translation Stage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [57] | Several nanoparticle systems (e.g., transferrin-targeted liposomes, angiopep-2 conjugates) show significant survival improvement in animal glioma models. | Some carriers (liposomes, PLGA, SLNs, dendrimers) are generally recognized as biocompatible, but long-term CNS safety is not well established. | Formulations based on liposomes, PLGA nanoparticles, micelles, and SLNs are considered highly scalable because they use established industrial manufacturing (emulsification, solvent evaporation, microfluidics). | Most technologies remain in early preclinical development (in vitro, rodent models) with very few in clinical trials. |
| [58] | Nanomaterials (liposomes, polymeric NPs, inorganic NPs, micelles) show enhanced BBB penetration, enabled by receptors (TfR, LfR, LRP1), CPPs, shuttle peptides, intranasal delivery, or temporary BBB-opening | Nanomaterials (liposomes, polymeric NPs, inorganic NPs, micelles) show enhanced BBB penetration, enabled by receptors (TfR, LfR, LRP1), CPPs, shuttle peptides, intranasal delivery, or temporary BBB-opening. Several nanomaterials demonstrate good biocompatibility and are biodegradable. | Many platforms rely on established scalable methods: polymeric NP self-assembly, liposome formation, PEGylation, peptide synthesis. | Most strategies remain preclinical, tested in vitro (BBB cell models) and in vivo (mouse, rat, zebrafish) models |
| [59] | Multiple BBB-crossing strategies (nanotechnology, hyperthermia, receptor-mediated transport, CPPs, cell-mediated delivery) with strong preclinical evidence of enhanced drug penetration into brain parenchyma. | Nanoparticles may induce inflammatory responses, neutrophil influx, and mortality at high doses | Cell-based delivery has lowest scalability, requiring expansion and engineering of millions of viable stem cells. | No strategy has yet demonstrated major clinical benefit, and most remain preclinical to early clinical stage. |
| [60] | CPP–siRNA duplexes demonstrated successful delivery to primary neurons in vitro and CNS tissue in vivo | Need to ensure complex stability and control unintended interactions | CPPs are short peptides (10–30 aa) and easily synthesized using standard peptide synthesis, suggesting good manufacturing scalability | Early preclinical, with limited clinical progress limited to invasive delivery strategies. |
| [61] | PEG12-KL4 efficiently mediates siRNA knock-down of EGFR and PD-L1 in NSCLC lines (NCI-H292, HCC827, NCI-H1975)–reducing EGFR to < 20–40% and PD-L1 to ~50% depending on the cell line | PEGylated KL4 is previously shown to have good pulmonary tolerance in mice. Confocal images and cell viability experiments do not indicate cytotoxicity from the peptide itself (only siRNA-mediated effects). | High theoretical scalability, supported by existing clinical-grade KL4 surfactant experience. | Early preclinical feasibility study, next steps = therapeutic evaluation in NSCLC mouse models. |
| [62] | Strong preclinical efficacy consistent across rodent AD models: improved cognition, reduced Aβ aggregation, reduced neuroinflammation, inhibition of tau hyperphosphorylation. No human efficacy demonstrated. | Preclinical data suggests acceptable safety for many polymeric systems, but long-term CNS safety remains a major unresolved challenge. | Generally scalable for polymeric/lipid NPs, but metal/bioconjugate NPs may face manufacturing, reproducibility, and regulatory barriers. | All systems remain preclinical. Some patented formulations exist, but no clinical translation or human trials yet. |
| [63] | Efficacy varies by platform. ACT is described as the most potent; peptide vaccines lag behind. | Safety is acceptable for most platforms, but intensive regimens (ACT) carry known toxicities. | Peptide vaccines are most scalable; ACT/APC vaccines least scalable. | Strongest translation: APC vaccine (approved). ACT is in late-stage trials but not approved. Peptide vaccines are emerging. |
| [64] | ESCRT-engineered EVs successfully deliver antigenic peptides (OVA) into dendritic cells. | Effective induction of CTL activation shown in vitro. This study does not include in vivo safety data. | Method is currently laboratory-scale and requires co-transfection steps. | In vitro only: no animal vaccination or tumor model. No clinical trial indications. |
| Modality/Product | Indication | Trial ID | Phase | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| p28 (NSC745104), tumor-targeting CPP | Advanced solid tumors/pediatric CNS tumors | NCT00914914 | I | Azurin-derived CPP; preferentially enters cancer cells, stabilizes p53; good tolerability in adults and children. (ClinicalTrials.gov) |
| IFN-γ–Dex (DC-derived exosomes with tumor Ags) | Maintenance immunotheray in NSCLC | NCT01159288 | II | Autologous DC-derived exosomes loaded with MHC I/II tumor antigens after induction chemotherapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov) |
| DCVax-L (autologous tumor lysate–pulsed DCs) | Newly diagnosed glioblastoma | NCT00045968 | III | Autologous DC vaccine loaded with tumor lysate; represents an advanced DC-based, peptide-loaded cell product. (PMC) |
| DC vaccine for MSI-positive CRC /Lynch syn | Microsatellite instability–positive colorectal cancer | NCT01885702 | I/II | Autologous peptide/tumor antigen–loaded DC vaccine in hereditary cancer predisposition. (ClinicalTrials.gov) |
| Certepetide (LSTA1) + gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel | Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma | NCT05042128 | IIb/III | Tumor-penetrating peptide that enhances intratumoral delivery of co-administered chemotherapeutics. (ClinicalTrials.gov) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Erdei, E.; Deme, R.; Balogh, B.; Mándity, I.M. Cell-Mediated and Peptide-Based Delivery Systems: Emerging Frontiers in Targeted Therapeutics. Pharmaceutics 2025, 17, 1597. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics17121597
Erdei E, Deme R, Balogh B, Mándity IM. Cell-Mediated and Peptide-Based Delivery Systems: Emerging Frontiers in Targeted Therapeutics. Pharmaceutics. 2025; 17(12):1597. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics17121597
Chicago/Turabian StyleErdei, Eszter, Ruth Deme, Balázs Balogh, and István M. Mándity. 2025. "Cell-Mediated and Peptide-Based Delivery Systems: Emerging Frontiers in Targeted Therapeutics" Pharmaceutics 17, no. 12: 1597. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics17121597
APA StyleErdei, E., Deme, R., Balogh, B., & Mándity, I. M. (2025). Cell-Mediated and Peptide-Based Delivery Systems: Emerging Frontiers in Targeted Therapeutics. Pharmaceutics, 17(12), 1597. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics17121597

