Page 54 - IMO-2-3

Innovative Medicines & Omics Biocompatibility of nanomaterials

charge, energy band gaps, and hydration tendencies, they assess light-activated nano-upconversion systems, thereby
predicted biological outcomes with high reliability, thereby demonstrating a comprehensive route from material
streamlining the screening process. Although these design to functional testing. This integration of disciplines
models are powerful, they rely heavily on the quality and improves both predictive accuracy and translational
diversity of the datasets used for training. Inconsistencies potential. As noted by Seoane-Viaño et al., the successful
29
in data reporting and the lack of standardized descriptors implementation of 3D-printed nanomedicines hinges not
can limit their predictive accuracy. As such, computational only on their design but also on thorough biocompatibility
results are best viewed as complementary to experimental assessment and regulatory alignment.
methods, with ongoing improvements necessary to achieve
broader regulatory acceptance. 24,25 4. Scientific challenges in biocompatibility

3.4. Regulatory standards The integration of nanomaterials into biomedical
applications continues to drive innovation in diagnostics,
The regulatory landscape for nanomaterials is shaped by the therapeutics, and tissue engineering. However, their
guidelines issued by leading authorities, including the FDA, clinical translation remains impeded by unresolved
EMA, the International Organization for Standardization challenges surrounding biocompatibility. These include
(ISO), and the Organization for Economic Co-operation immunological risks, long-term safety concerns, and
and Development (OECD). These bodies define the regulatory uncertainties. This section examines key
protocols and criteria that nanomaterials must meet scientific barriers related to nanotoxicology, immune
before clinical application, with emphasis placed on safety, response, material degradation, and global safety standards.
stability, pharmacokinetics, and immune compatibility. 26
One of the earliest success stories is the approval of 4.1. Toxicity and immune response
Doxil®, a liposomal formulation of doxorubicin, which A central challenge in nanomedicine is the potential
underwent comprehensive biocompatibility testing for toxicity and immunogenicity of nanomaterials. Their
sterility, blood compatibility, and immune responses. high surface area and physicochemical reactivity can
4
However, as nanomedicine continues to evolve rapidly, lead to unintended biological interactions. For instance,
current regulatory frameworks often struggle to keep nanoparticles may induce oxidative stress, disrupt cell
pace. The lack of standardized global guidelines poses membranes, or trigger inflammatory cytokine release.
3
challenges for developers seeking international approval Surface charge and hydrophobicity strongly influence
and commercialization. these outcomes. For example, positively charged particles
In response, regulatory bodies are moving toward often facilitate enhanced cellular uptake but are also linked
greater harmonization, promoting validated in vitro to increased membrane disruption and inflammation. 3
and computational models as part of a robust evaluation Furthermore, the adsorption of proteins onto the
pipeline. This push not only ensures safety but also nanoparticle surface—the “protein corona” effect—
facilitates the adoption of innovative technologies. 27 alters their biological identity and can lead to immune
3.5. Comparative metrics and evaluation criteria misrecognition. This dynamic interaction may affect
circulation time, biodistribution, and therapeutic efficacy.
Given the diverse methodologies employed in Importantly, even formulations previously considered
biocompatibility assessment, the establishment of inert may provoke immune responses when administered
standardized metrics is essential to ensure reproducibility in vivo, emphasizing the need for rigorous pre-clinical
and facilitate cross-study comparisons. Common immunotoxicity testing. 3
evaluation parameters include cytotoxicity thresholds,
quantification of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as 4.2. Long-term stability and degradation
interleukin (IL)-6 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF- The long-term fate of nanomaterials in the body is a
α), cellular uptake rates, tissue biodistribution profiles, and growing concern, especially when they exhibit poor
histopathological scoring. biodegradability. Inorganic nanoparticles, such as those

Efforts to integrate these variables into unified used for imaging and targeted drug delivery, may lack
frameworks have led to the development of integrated efficient metabolic or excretory pathways. This can result
testing strategies, which synthesize data from in vitro, in vivo, in their accumulation in organs involved in clearance,
and in silico methods into a single evaluative framework. such as the liver, spleen, and kidneys, potentially causing
4,5
One example is the work by Schloemer et al., who used chronic toxicity over time. For example, gold and iron
28
quantum-level modeling alongside biological tests to oxide nanoparticles exceeding 50 nm often localize in
Volume 2 Issue 3 (2025) 48 doi: 10.36922/IMO025210024