Guo, P. The emerging field of RNA nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 5: 833-842

Nanobiomedical Center, College of Engineering and College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221, USA.
Nature Nanotechnology (Impact Factor: 34.05). 12/2010; 5(12):833-42. DOI: 10.1038/nnano.2010.231
Source: PubMed


Like DNA, RNA can be designed and manipulated to produce a variety of different nanostructures. Moreover, RNA has a flexible structure and possesses catalytic functions that are similar to proteins. Although RNA nanotechnology resembles DNA nanotechnology in many ways, the base-pairing rules for constructing nanoparticles are different. The large variety of loops and motifs found in RNA allows it to fold into numerous complicated structures, and this diversity provides a platform for identifying viable building blocks for various applications. The thermal stability of RNA also allows the production of multivalent nanostructures with defined stoichiometry. Here we review techniques for constructing RNA nanoparticles from different building blocks, we describe the distinct attributes of RNA inside the body, and discuss potential applications of RNA nanostructures in medicine. We also offer some perspectives on the yield and cost of RNA production.

47 Reads
  • Source
    • "During the last decade, the field of Synthetic Biology has impressively illustrated that nucleic acids and in particular RNA molecules are reliable materials for the design and implementation of functional circuits as well as nanoscale devices and objects (Guo, 2010; Khalil and Collins, 2010; Afonin et al., 2013; Ishikawa et al., 2013). The reasons for this success are grounded in the facts that for RNA (1) an experimentally measured energy model exists (Mathews, 2006) (2) regulation at the level of RNA molecules is faster than via the production of proteins and (3) design questions are readily expressed in the discrete framework of binary base-pairing than in continuous interactions between, e.g., the amino acids in proteins. "

    Artificial Life 14: International Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems; 07/2014
  • Source
    • "The physicochemical properties of siRNAs enforce their formulation in a delivery system (Kanasty et al., 2012). Consequently, interest in siRNA delivery technologies has increased in recent years in recognition of their potential for applications in nanomedicine (Guo 2010). Most drug delivery systems, however, have no affinity for endothelial cells, leading to adverse effects or sub-optimal effectiveness when not being taken up by diseased endothelium (Simone et al., 2009). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In recent years much research in RNA nanotechnology has been directed to develop an efficient and clinically suitable delivery system for short interfering RNA (siRNA). The current study describes the in vivo siRNA delivery using PEGylated antibody-targeted SAINT-based-lipoplexes (referred to as antibody-SAINTPEGarg/PEG2%), which showed superior siRNA delivery capacity and effective down-regulation of VE-cadherin gene expression in vitro in inflammation-activated primary endothelial cells of different vascular origins. PEGylation of antibody-SAINTPEGarg resulted in more desirable pharmacokinetic behavior than that of non-PEGylated antibody-SAINTPEGarg. To create specificity for inflammation-activated endothelial cells, antibodies against vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1) were employed. In TNFα-challenged mice, these intravenously administered anti-VCAM-1-SAINTPEGarg/PEG2% homed VCAM-1 protein expressing vasculature. Confocal laser scanning microscopy revealed that anti-VCAM-1-SAINTPEGarg/PEG2% co-localized with endothelial cells in lung postcapillary venules. Furthermore, they did not exert any liver and kidney toxicity. Yet, lack of in vivo gene silencing as assessed in whole lung and in laser microdissected lung microvascular segments indicates that in vivo internalization and/or intracellular trafficking of the delivery system and its cargo in the target cells are not sufficient, and needs further attention,emphasizing the essence of evaluating siRNA delivery systems in an appropriate in vivo animal model at an early stage in their development.
    International Journal of Pharmaceutics 04/2014; 469(1). DOI:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2014.04.041 · 3.65 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "This model explains how the motor can transport dsDNA without involving rotation, coiling, or a torsional force. Revolution mechanism might reconcile the stoichiometric inconsistency among many bacteriophages whose ATPases have been reported to be tetrameric (Chang et al., 2012; Medina et al., 2011; Fuller et al., 2007; Ortega and Catalano, 2006), pentameric (see above), hexameric (Guo et al., 1998; Zhang et al., 1998; Hendrix, 1998; Shu et al., 2007; Xiao et al., 2008; Moll and Guo, 2007; Shu et al., 2007; Xiao et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2012), and nonameric (Roy et al., 2011). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Biomotors have been classified into linear and rotational motors. For 35 years, it has been popularly believed that viral dsDNA-packaging apparatuses are pentameric rotation motors. Recently, a third class of hexameric motor has been found in bacteriophage phi29 that utilizes a mechanism of revolution without rotation, friction, coiling, or torque. This review addresses how packaging motors control dsDNA one-way traffic; how four electropositive layers in the channel interact with the electronegative phosphate backbone to generate four steps in translocating one dsDNA helix; how motors resolve the mismatch between 10.5 bases and 12 connector subunits per cycle of revolution; and how ATP regulates sequential action of motor ATPase. Since motors with all number of subunits can utilize the revolution mechanism, this finding helps resolve puzzles and debates concerning the oligomeric nature of packaging motors in many phage systems. This revolution mechanism helps to solve the undesirable dsDNA supercoiling issue involved in rotation.
    Virology 11/2013; 446(1-2):133-43. DOI:10.1016/j.virol.2013.07.025 · 3.32 Impact Factor
Show more

Preview (2 Sources)

47 Reads
Available from