Current Revisit Functions of Magnetic Nanoparticles in the Separation of Circulating Tumour Cells (CTCs) from Non-CTCs

Chawpon Chung^*
*Correspondence: Chawpon Chung, Department of Medical Biology, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand, Email:

Keywords

Tumour • Global • Bloodstream

Introduction

Magnetic nanoparticles have emerged as a groundbreaking technology for the separation of CTCs from non-CTCs. Their unique properties, including superparamagnetism and surface functionalization, have led to the development of highly efficient and selective methods for CTC isolation. This review discusses the current state of magnetic nanoparticle-based CTC separation, highlighting the various strategies, challenges, and future prospects in this dynamic field. The presence and characterization of CTCs provide insights into the biology of cancer, enabling the detection of earlystage metastasis, the monitoring of disease progression, and the assessment of treatment response. CTC analysis can also aid in the development of personalized cancer therapies, as it allows for the identification of genetic mutations, gene expression patterns, and drug sensitivities unique to individual patients. CTC isolation is inherently challenging due to the rarity of these cells, the complexity of the blood matrix, and the need for high purity and yield. Various techniques have been developed for CTC isolation, including immunomagnetic separation, microfluidics, and filtration methods, but each has its limitations. Immunomagnetic separation relies on antibodies that specifically bind to CTCs. While highly specific, this approach can be limited by the availability of suitable surface markers on CTCs and the potential for false negatives. Microfluidic-based methods offer precise control over fluid dynamics, but they may not be scalable for clinical applications. Filtration methods, such as size-based separation, can be limited by the variability in CTC size and deformability [1].

Magnetic nanoparticles have gained prominence in the field of CTC separation due to their unique properties. These properties include superparamagnetism, which enables them to respond to an external magnetic field, and the ability to functionalize their surfaces with ligands for specific CTC targeting. Magnetic nanoparticle-based CTC separation strategies can be broadly categorized into two approaches: positive and negative selection. Positive selection methods involve targeting CTCs with magnetic nanoparticles conjugated to specific antibodies or aptamers, followed by their isolation using an external magnetic field. This approach ensures high specificity, as the particles selectively bind to CTCs expressing the target biomarker. Antibody-conjugated magnetic nanoparticles are a widely used positive selection method. These nanoparticles are coated with antibodies that specifically recognize surface antigens on CTCs. Upon binding to CTCs, the particles can be easily separated from the blood matrix using an external magnet. This method ensures high purity in CTC isolation.Aptamers are short, single-stranded DNA or RNA molecules that can bind to specific targets, including CTC surface markers. Magnetic nanoparticles functionalized with aptamers have shown promise in CTC isolation. Aptamers offer advantages such as stability and ease of modification, making them a valuable alternative to antibodies.

Negative selection methods, in contrast, involve depleting non-CTCs from the blood sample, leaving behind the CTCs. This approach is less common than positive selection but can be advantageous when the target marker for CTCs is not well-defined. White blood cells are the primary non-CTC population in blood, and their removal can enhance the purity of CTC isolation. Magnetic nanoparticles coated with antibodies targeting leukocyte-specific surface markers, such as CD45, can be used to selectively remove leukocytes from the blood sample. In some cases, CTCs are larger than most blood cells, and size-based separation using magnetic nanoparticles can be effective. Magnetic nanoparticles can be functionalized with size-specific ligands or coatings to selectively capture larger cells, while allowing smaller non-CTCs to flow through. While magnetic nanoparticles have shown great promise in CTC separation, several challenges need to be addressed to optimize and translate these techniques into clinical practice. The specificity and sensitivity of CTC separation methods are critical for their clinical utility. Achieving high specificity while maintaining sensitivity is a delicate balance, as some CTCs may not express the targeted surface markers, leading to false negatives. Improvements in the selection of target antigens and the development of multiplexed assays are essential to address this challenge [2-4].

Literature Review

For magnetic nanoparticle-based CTC separation methods to be adopted in clinical practice, they need extensive validation in large, diverse patient populations. Clinical trials are necessary to assess the accuracy, reproducibility, and clinical relevance of these techniques. Regulatory approval is also crucial to ensure their safety and efficacy. The cost of magnetic nanoparticle-based CTC separation methods can be a significant barrier to their widespread adoption. Efforts to reduce costs and improve scalability are needed to make these techniques accessible to a broader range of patients and healthcare facilities. Despite the challenges, magnetic nanoparticle-based CTC separation holds tremendous promise for cancer research and clinical applications. Liquid biopsies, which involve the analysis of CTCs, Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA), and exosomes in blood, offer a holistic approach to cancer diagnostics and monitoring. Integrating magnetic nanoparticle-based CTC separation with other liquid biopsy components can provide a comprehensive view of the disease and its progression. Advancements in single-cell analysis technologies will enable the in-depth characterization of individual CTCs, shedding light on their heterogeneity and clonal evolution. This knowledge can inform treatment decisions and improve our understanding of cancer biology [5].

Discussion

Developing point-of-care CTC separation devices that are user-friendly and cost-effective would greatly expand access to CTC analysis. These devices could be used in resource-limited settings and for routine cancer screening. Magnetic nanoparticle-based CTC separation can also be integrated into combination therapies. For example, CTCs separated from the blood can be used to identify drug resistance mechanisms, allowing for the customization of treatment regimens. Blood contains various components, including red blood cells, platelets, and proteins, which can interfere with CTC isolation. Strategies to reduce the non-specific binding of magnetic nanoparticles to these components are essential. Additionally, methods for handling blood samples with a high hematocrit need to be developed to ensure efficient CTC separation. Intratumoral heterogeneity means that CTCs are not a uniform population, and certain subpopulations may be missed by current isolation methods. Innovations in the identification and isolation of rare subpopulations, such as cancer stem cells, are required for a more comprehensive understanding of cancer biology and improved treatment strategies [6].

Conclusion

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) algorithms in the analysis of CTC data can improve the accuracy of CTC identification and characterization. These technologies can also aid in the interpretation of complex data sets generated from CTC analysis. The isolation and analysis of CTCs offer a promising avenue for the early diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Magnetic nanoparticles have emerged as a powerful tool for CTC separation, thanks to their unique properties and surface functionalization capabilities. Positive and negative selection methods using magnetic nanoparticles have shown significant progress in enhancing the specificity and sensitivity of CTC isolation. Nevertheless, several challenges, including specificity, blood matrix interference, rare CTC subpopulations, clinical validation, and cost, need to be addressed for these techniques to be adopted in routine clinical practice. Future directions for magnetic nanoparticle-based CTC separation include integration with liquid biopsies, single-cell analysis, point-of-care devices, combination therapies, and the application of artificial intelligence and machine learning. AS researchers continue to develop and refine magnetic nanoparticle-based CTC separation methods, we move closer to realizing the full potential of CTCs in transforming cancer diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment. This field holds great promise for improving patient outcomes and advancing our understanding of cancer biology.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest by author.

References

1. Font-Clos, Francesc, Stefano Zapperi and Caterina AM La Porta. "Blood flow contributions to cancer metastasis." Iscience 23 (2020).

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Tellez-Gabriel, Marta, Marie-Françoise Heymann, and Dominique Heymann. "Circulating tumor cells as a tool for assessing tumor heterogeneity." Theranostics 9 (2019): 4580.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Lin, Danfeng, Lesang Shen, Meng Luo amd Kun Zhang, et al. "Circulating tumor cells: Biology and clinical significance." Signal Transduct Target Ther 6 (2021): 404.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Nagrath, Sunitha, Lecia V. Sequist, Shyamala Maheswaran and Daphne W. Bell, et al. "Isolation of rare circulating tumour cells in cancer patients by microchip technology." Nature 450 (2007): 1235-1239.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Habli, Zeina, Walid AlChamaa, Raya Saab and Humam Kadara, et al. "Circulating tumor cell detection technologies and clinical utility: Challenges and opportunities." Cancers 12 (2020): 1930.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

6. Allard, W. Jeffrey, Jeri Matera, M. Craig Miller and Madeline Repollet, et al. "Tumor cells circulate in the peripheral blood of all major carcinomas but not in healthy subjects or patients with nonmalignant diseases." Clin Cancer Res 10 (2004): 6897-6904.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at