The lymphatic system serves an integral role in fluid homeostasis, lipid metabolism and immune defence, and influences a diverse range of diseases, including infection, inflammatory and metabolic diseases, and cancer.
Targeted delivery to the lymphatics and lymphoid tissues has the potential to improve oral bioavailability, enhance vaccination and tolerance induction, target delivery to lymph-resident cancer metastasis and infection, and promote the utility of treatments for diseases ranging from infections such as HIV to cancer and inflammatory and metabolic disease.
Selective delivery to the lymph is largely dictated by size, as macromolecules or particulate carriers are excluded from access to blood capillaries, whereas interstitial fluid flow sweeps larger constructs into the more permeable lymphatics.
Lymphatic targeting may be achieved via the delivery of macromolecular therapeutics (for example, proteins and peptides), small-molecule therapeutics in association with macromolecular carriers (for example, nanoparticles, polymers, liposomes and dendrimers) or small-molecule therapeutics that associate, in situ, with endogenous macromolecular constructs (for example, lipoproteins and proteins) or cells that are transported from interstitial tissues via lymphatic rather than blood capillaries.
The design of lymphatic delivery systems ranges from simple systems that rely on passive lymphatic access to more complex structures that integrate into endogenous lymph transport processes. Recent studies have suggested the presence of active transport processes that facilitate entry across the lymphatic endothelium, and delivery systems that harness these processes are emerging.
In many cases, disease progression results in lymphatic remodelling. Next-generation lymphatic targeting approaches will probably seek to harness a better understanding of changes to lymphatic structure and function in disease to promote targeting to the lymphatics and enhance therapeutic utility.
Future efforts in lymphatic drug delivery might usefully address barriers to the clinical translation of lymphotropic delivery vehicles, such as the lack of well-validated models to predict lymphatic uptake in humans.
The lymphatic system serves an integral role in fluid homeostasis, lipid metabolism and immune control. In cancer, the lymph nodes that drain solid tumours are a primary site of metastasis, and recent studies have suggested intrinsic links between lymphatic function, lipid deposition, obesity and atherosclerosis. Advances in the current understanding of the role of the lymphatics in pathological change and immunity have driven the recognition that lymph-targeted delivery has the potential to transform disease treatment and vaccination. In addition, the design of lymphatic delivery systems has progressed from simple systems that rely on passive lymphatic access to sophisticated structures that use nanotechnology to mimic endogenous macromolecules and lipid conjugates that 'hitchhike' onto lipid transport processes. Here, we briefly summarize the lymphatic system in health and disease and the varying mechanisms of lymphatic entry and transport, as well as discussing examples of lymphatic delivery that have enhanced therapeutic utility. We also outline future challenges to effective lymph-directed therapy.
The lymphatic system comprises a network of vessels and nodes that circulate immune cells and provide a site for antigen presentation and immune activation1. The lymphatic system also transports dietary lipids, in the form of lipoproteins, from the intestine to the general circulation2 and clears fluid, macromolecules (including proteins), particulates (including infectious materials such as bacteria) and small molecules packaged into endogenous carriers (such as plasma lipoproteins, vesicles or exosomes) from the peripheral tissues2,3,4 into the systemic circulation.
Entry into the lymphatics is via the initial lymphatic capillaries in the interstitium. From lymphatic capillaries, lymph flows through progressively larger pre-collecting and collecting lymphatic vessels, lymph nodes and post-nodal (efferent) lymphatic vessels, each segmented frequently by semilunar valves to facilitate unidirectional flow. The collecting lymphatic vessels are also surrounded by smooth muscle that pumps lymph via contractions initiated by pacemaker cells. The majority of lymph is returned to the venous system at the junction of the left jugular and subclavian veins through the thoracic lymph duct (Fig. 1).
Historically, lymph was thought to form in the capillary beds from arterial exudate through a passive process dictated by Starling forces5,6. Accordingly, measurements of hydrostatic and osmotic pressures in blood, interstitial fluid and lymph combined with known lymph and blood flow rates led to the assumption that 90% of the capillary filtrate in the interstitium was directly reabsorbed into post-capillary venules, whereas the remainder drained into lymphatic vessels. More recent evidence, however, suggests that a far greater proportion of the capillary filtrate may be drained via the lymph6. The importance of the lymphatics in capillary filtrate reabsorption is underscored by the development of tissue oedema caused by either an intrinsic (genetic) fault in the structure or function of lymphatics (primary lymphoedema) or trauma or surgery interrupting the lymphatic structure (secondary lymphoedema), such as a lymph node biopsy in cancer7.
Immunologically, the lymphatic vessels provide channels for antigens, antigen presenting cells (APCs) and lymphocytes to traffic from tissues to draining lymph nodes, where antigen presentation by APCs to resident lymphocytes regulates immune responses1,8. Recent studies have further demonstrated that lymphatic endothelial cells (LECs) may actively modulate the immune response by controlling lymph flow and the delivery of antigens and immune cells to lymph nodes via the coordinated expression of nitric oxide, chemokines and adhesion molecules8. In this way, the lymphatics have key roles in promoting immune activation or the development of immune tolerance. Additionally, the mesenteric lymph nodes (MLNs) have a central role in the induction of local and systemic tolerance to self and food proteins, and in local tolerance to commensal bacteria and their by-products, as well as providing a firewall against systemic entry and immune responses to the commensal bacteria. Consequently, food allergies9 and inflammation and infection resulting from mucosal and systemic entry of commensal bacteria and their by-products are prevented10,11.
In the intestine, dietary lipids are packaged into lipoproteins by enterocytes and preferentially drain into intestinal lymphatic capillaries, rather than blood capillaries, thereby avoiding the liver upon their return to the systemic circulation2,12. Recent studies also provide evidence of broader roles for the lymphatics in lipid metabolism. For example, two separate studies suggest that the clearance of excess cholesterol from tissue macrophages is mediated via cholesterol transfer to high-density lipoprotein (HDL) followed by the transport of HDL to the systemic circulation via the lymphatic vessels, ultimately for excretion by the liver13,14. These data implicate the lymphatics in HDL reverse cholesterol transport and atherosclerosis. Indeed, functional lymphatics appear to be required to facilitate the clearance of atherosclerotic plaques13. Lymphatic vessels and nodes are also typically embedded in adipose tissue15,16, and increased fat deposition around the lymphatics is seen in transgenic mouse strains with hyperpermeable lymphatics17,18 as well as in patients with lymphoedema15. High-fat diets promote changes to lymphatic permeability, contractility and transport properties18,19,20,21, alter lymph node structure22,23, and expand the surrounding adipose tissue18,19. Together, these results suggest close links between lymphatic function, immunity, metabolism and diet.
A growing appreciation of the diversity of physiological functions that lymphatics modulate has led to the realization that they influence a wider range of diseases than once thought7,24,25,26. These include lymphoedema7, cancer and metastases27, immune and inflammatory conditions28,29 (for example, inflammatory bowel disease30,31, psoriasis32, rheumatoid arthritis33 and asthma34) and metabolic disease (for example, obesity15,17,18, hypertension35 and atherosclerosis13). Liver disease and ascites36, cardiovascular disease37, infection (for example, HIV38,39, hepatitis40, filiarasis41 and Ebola virus42), acute and critical illness43, solid organ transplant rejection7,44, and tolerance to self and food proteins9,45 are also influenced by lymphatic function. In many of these diseases, there are changes to lymphangiogenesis, lymphatic vessel density, dilation, contraction and/or lymph flow (Fig. 2), although the functional importance of these changes are not yet known. In cancer, metastatic dissemination from the primary tumour most often occurs via the transfer of tumour cells to the lymph nodes through tumour-associated lymphatic vessels27. Similarly, in infection, the lymphatics appear to be a major site of viral replication and/or dissemination, notably in HIV38,39, Ebola virus42 and hepatitis40.
Recognition that the lymphatics have key roles in disease has driven an increased interest in targeted delivery to the lymphatics to enhance therapeutic outcomes29,46,47,48,49. Mirroring the advances in our understanding of lymphatic function, the design of lymphatic delivery systems has also progressed to include sophisticated systems that mimic or integrate into endogenous lymphatic transport processes. This Review describes the latest findings regarding the mechanisms by which drugs, prodrugs, vaccines and delivery systems access the lymphatic vessels and lymph nodes after oral, parenteral and mucosal delivery. Particular focus is given to novel systems that utilize recently identified routes of lymph entry. Finally, we highlight examples of lymphatic delivery approaches that have demonstrated enhanced drug exposure or utility in immunotherapy, vaccination, viral therapy and cancer metastasis.
Routes of drug entry into lymphatic vessels
For most small molecules, drainage from the interstitial space occurs primarily via the blood capillaries because blood flow rates in these vessels are 100–500-fold higher than lymph flow. Indeed, for most molecules and drugs delivered orally or parenterally, transport from the site of administration is via blood capillaries. By contrast, macromolecular constructs such as proteins and large peptides are able to promote entry into the lymphatics because their size precludes ready access to the blood but does not restrict lymphatic access (Box 1). Consequently, lymphatic-targeting strategies have centred on macromolecular constructs (either unmodified or modified) that are transported from interstitial tissues via the lymphatics rather than blood capillaries.
However, lymph-targeted delivery of low molecular mass therapeutics is also achievable. Strategies include associating the low molecular mass therapeutic with synthetic macromolecular carriers (for example, nanoparticles, polymers and liposomes) or via in situ association with endogenous macromolecular constructs (for example, lipoproteins and proteins) or cells (leukocytes) that possess inherent lymphotropic properties. These methods have been used following parenteral, oral and, in some cases, mucosal delivery (for example, pulmonary, nasal or genital) (Fig. 1).
Parenteral delivery. The lymphatic uptake of exogenous therapeutic macromolecules follows a similar pathway to interstitial fluid, endogenous macromolecules and cells (Fig. 3). After interstitial administration (for example, subcutaneous, intramuscular or intradermal injection) small molecules or moderately sized macromolecules that are <10 nm48 in size (or 16–20 kDa for proteins50) are absorbed primarily via the blood capillaries draining the injection site rather than lymphatic capillaries. Particles >100 nm in diameter are also poorly transported into lymph owing to reduced diffusion and convection through the interstitium (the water channels that provide conduits for transfer within the interstitium are typically 100 nm in diameter48,51). Between these extremes, therapeutic proteins and macromolecules 20–30 kDa50,52,53,54,55,56,57 in size and particles 10–100 nm in size48,58,59 are able to move through the interstitium and enter lymphatic vessels. Entry from the interstitium to the initial lymphatics occurs via interendothelial cell junctions and may also involve active transcytosis2,12,14,60,61,62. The potential mechanisms that underlie the size dependency of lymphatic transport are outlined in more detail in Box 1.
The interstitium is primarily composed of entangled collagen fibres and glycosaminoglycans that are crosslinked in a gel-like matrix4. The principle glycosaminoglycan is hyaluronic acid, which carries a net negative charge. Migration through the interstitium is therefore usually lower for materials carrying a net positive charge, whereas a neutral or negative charge commonly promotes interstitial transfer63,64, although there are exceptions48,65. Movement of hydrophilic macromolecules through the interstitial water channels is thought to occur more effectively than for hydrophobic macromolecules66.
The transport of macromolecules into the lymph is promoted by fluid flow from the interstitium to the lymphatics (Box 1). Factors that alter interstitial fluid pressure and flow therefore alter lymphatic transport. As such, administration at different injection sites, where interstitial pressures and fluid flows vary, leads to different degrees or rates of lymphatic transport. The foot, for example, has a high interstitial pressure, and subcutaneous injection into this region results in higher lymphatic transport than injection into the flank or abdomen of rats58 and sheep54. Intradermal injection may also promote enhanced lymphatic uptake compared with intramuscular or subcutaneous injection owing to higher interstitial pressure and higher lymph flow rates in the skin relative to other interstitial sites67,68,69. Factors that increase interstitial oncotic pressure, such as the co-administration of albumin70, dextrans71 or proteins that increase vascular extravasation (for example, bradykinin and histamine)72 may also promote lymphatic uptake and transport.
Albumin drains from the interstitium and is returned to the systemic circulation via the lymphatics. Therapeutic macromolecules that bind to albumin are therefore expected to preferentially drain from the interstitium into the lymphatics. Liu et al.73 recently took advantage of this approach to develop vaccines that target lymph nodes after subcutaneous administration (see below). Derivatization of macromolecular therapeutics or carriers with targeting agents that bind targets expressed on LECs or tumours has also been used to promote interaction with and uptake across the lymphatic endothelium. For example, hyaluronic acid74 and LyP-1 (Refs 62,75,76,77,78) have been used to target lymphatic vessel endothelial hyaluronic acid receptor 1 (LYVE1) on LECs and p32 on tumours, respectively. LECs also express a range of receptors (for example, integrins79) and secrete chemoattractants (for example, chemokines8) that promote the adhesion and trafficking of immune and tumour cells through lymphatic vessels to lymph nodes. Delivery systems that bind or respond to these agents may provide additional routes to lymphatic-specific delivery.
Alternatively, targeted lymphatic uptake after parenteral delivery may be achieved by exploiting the mechanisms by which antigens are presented to lymphoid tissues. Antigens are phagocytosed by APCs such as dendritic cells in the extracellular matrix. APCs subsequently mature, enter the lymph and migrate to lymph nodes where they present antigen to effector cells (lymphocytes). Materials that are taken up by APCs in the extracellular matrix can therefore traffic to draining lymph nodes in association with the APC. Larger antigens are more likely to be phagocytosed and carried to the lymph node by APCs such as dendritic cells, whereas smaller antigens (<70 kDa) or particles (<50 nm) are more likely to drain directly into the lymphatics59,80. In addition, materials carrying a positive charge are generally more readily taken up into APCs than materials carrying a neutral charge81. However, the efficiency of uptake into the draining lymphatics is typically lower for larger and positively charged materials owing to enhanced retention within the interstitium59,82, despite their affinity for APCs. Improved targeting to dendritic cells and draining lymph nodes has also been achieved via the derivatization of delivery systems with carbohydrates (such as mannose) that are recognized and internalized by mannose receptors82,83 and with mAbs to lymphocyte antigen 75 (also known as DEC-205), a transmembrane protein found on dendritic cells84. Finally, uptake into dendritic cells and draining lymph nodes is enhanced after intradermal vaccination compared with other parenteral routes owing to the higher number of dendritic cells in the skin.
Lymphatic transport and/or lymph node distribution has also been reported following intravenous delivery of polyethylene glycol(PEG)ylated proteins, liposomes and nanoparticles65,85,86,87. In this case, macromolecules must first extravasate from blood capillaries into the interstitium, from where lymphatic access is expected to occur in the same way that it would after direct interstitial administration. The site (or sites) of extravasation are not well defined, although transfer across more permeable fenestrated or sinusoidal endothelium might be expected to be enhanced. Until very recently, the brain has been considered an organ that is devoid of a classical lymphatic system. However, a series of recent discoveries has demonstrated the existence of a glymphatic system and a lymphatic system in the brain that facilitate the transport and clearance of fluid, drug-like molecules, macromolecules, proteins and immune cells from the brain88,89,90,91,92,93,94 (Box 2).
Oral delivery. Following oral administration, drugs or drug delivery systems must first pass through the intestinal epithelium to access the underlying interstitial space that is drained by the blood and lymph capillaries. As selective lymphatic access from the interstitium requires a macromolecular construct (see above), the stability of macromolecules within the gastrointestinal tract and their low permeability across the gastrointestinal mucosa are substantial physical and biological barriers to lymphatic entry after oral delivery. The flow rate of blood through the intestinal blood capillaries and portal vein is also substantially higher (500-fold) than the flow rate of lymph through the intestinal lymphatic system. The majority of small molecules, which can readily diffuse into both blood and lymph capillaries, are therefore absorbed and transported from the intestine via the blood circulation rather than the lymphatic system owing to higher mass transport. Nonetheless, substantial lymphatic transport can occur after oral administration when macromolecular access to the gastrointestinal interstitium is possible and where access to blood capillaries is restricted. This has been described for lipophilic small-molecule drugs or prodrugs that are absorbed and then associate with intestinal lipoproteins during passage across enterocytes, and with macromolecular constructs such as antigens, tolerogens, peptides, proteins and nanosized delivery systems that are stable in the gastrointestinal tract and are permeable, at least to some extent, across the gastrointestinal epithelium. These are discussed briefly below and in Figs 4,5, and reviewed in detail elsewhere47,49,95,96,97,98,99.
Lymphatic uptake of orally administered lipophilic drugs and prodrugs. For some highly lipophilic drugs, intestinal lymphatic transport may be highly efficient and the predominant route of transport to the systemic circulation following oral delivery47. For these drugs, lymphatic access occurs via association with lipid absorption and lipoprotein assembly pathways during diffusion across intestinal absorptive cells (enterocytes)47,49 (Fig. 4). Upon exocytosis from enterocytes, drug–lipoprotein complexes are transported across the basement membrane and trafficked from the intestinal lamina propria via the lymphatics. In general, intestinal lymphatic transport of lipophilic drugs is only substantial when the drug is administered with a source of lipid (from food or a formulation) because this is required to promote lipoprotein formation47,49,100. The type and dose of lipid with which the drug is administered therefore becomes important in directing lymphatic transport. After absorption, the majority of long-chain (> C14) lipids are assembled into intestinal lymph lipoproteins, whereas the reverse is true for medium-chain lipids (< C12), for which the majority diffuse across enterocytes to directly enter the blood circulation101,102. Drug administration with long-chain lipids therefore promotes lymphatic transport more effectively than administration with short- or medium-chain lipids47,101,102.
Charman et al.103 initially suggested that the physicochemical properties required to promote drug association with intestinal lipoproteins (and therefore to promote lymphatic transport) were a logP value of >5 and solubility of >50 mg per g in long-chain triglyceride. These approximations have been remarkably successful in predicting the potential for intestinal lymphatic transport, although some exceptions are evident, including examples of low lymphatic transport for compounds with high triglyceride solubilities104 and substantial lymphatic transport for drugs with relatively low triglyceride solubilities105,106. In the latter cases, drug affinity for the interfacial region of lipoproteins rather than the triglyceride-rich core, or affinity for an unidentified active transport process, have been suggested as alternative drivers of lymphatic transport105,107,108. It is also apparent that drugs may influence their own disposition into the lymph by altering the production of lymph lipoproteins105,109, further complicating predictive strategies. Nonetheless, the potential for drugs to associate with intestinal lymph lipoproteins in vivo and therefore to access the intestinal lymph has been estimated, with some success, via in vitro drug affinity assays using isolated or reassembled chylomicrons105,108,110 or via analysis of a range of molecular descriptors using in silico approaches107,111.
Increases in lipoprotein affinity are therefore expected to enhance intestinal lymphatic transport. Most simplistically, this can be achieved via the introduction of structural modifications to enhance lipophilicity and thereby to generate highly lipophilic drug analogues. However, this is inconsistent with typical 'rule of 5'-like progression gates for drug candidates112 and commonly raises questions regarding lipophilic efficiency and toxicity113. An alternative approach is to temporarily boost lipophilicity via the synthesis of a lipophilic prodrug, whereby the parent drug is conjugated to a lipid or lipophilic moiety via a cleavable linker95,96. The simplest of these prodrugs comprise alkyl esters that promote passive partition into lipoproteins in the enterocyte to facilitate lymphatic transport. However, these are relatively inefficient. By contrast, lipophilic prodrugs that integrate into lipid processing pathways, such as triglyceride or phospholipid resynthesis, are typically more effective96,114,115. In recent studies, for example (illustrated in Fig. 6), we have shown that triglyceride mimetic prodrugs of the immunosuppressant mycophenolic acid are far more effective in promoting lymphatic transport than simple alkyl esters or amides114. Interestingly this study114, and others95,115, revealed substantial structural sensitivities in the absorption and lymphatic transport of glyceride prodrugs, in particular the point of conjugation and the nature of the conjugation chemistry. In general, conjugation at the sn-2 position and via an ester bond appears to promote lymphatic transport most effectively96,114,115, although this is not always the case116.
Phospholipid mimetic prodrugs have been described for a range of purposes, including improved oral bioavailability and reduced toxicity, controlled drug release, and enhanced delivery to the brain96. Phospholipid prodrugs for lymphatic transport are less common117,118, but enhanced lymphatic transport of the phospholipid prodrug dipalmitoylphosphatidylfluorouridine and more recently DP-VPA, a phospholipid prodrug of valproic acid, has been demonstrated117,118.
Lymphatic uptake of orally administered macromolecular constructs. The oral absorption of macromolecules (including therapeutic proteins and nanosized or microsized delivery systems) have been a focus of the pharmaceutical sciences for decades99,119,120. The subsequent extent of lymphatic transport of these materials is rarely studied; however, their size suggests that a large proportion of an absorbed dose might be expected to drain into intestinal lymphatic capillaries. The intestine, however, is a substantial barrier to macromolecule absorption99,119,120 and although an increasing number of reports suggest the possibility of the absorption or sampling of macromolecules or particulates by cells of the intestinal tract, whether the quantity absorbed is sufficient to promote biological activity across a range of applications is less clear (Box 3). For certain applications, such as vaccination and tolerance induction, the absorption of a small proportion of the dose may be sufficient to achieve a clinically relevant effect99. Indeed, several oral vaccines have been developed and are commercially available97,121 (see below), but whether the intestinal absorption of macromolecular therapeutics will ever occur in sufficient quantities to provide reliable and consistent therapeutic end points for applications other than vaccination and conditions other than those localized in the gastrointestinal tract, or where highly potent therapeutics can tolerate very low bioavailability, remains in question. Several encouraging reports have emerged (for example, Refs 122,123), but none has been translated into a clinically and commercially successful product.
For macromolecular constructs that do cross the intestinal epithelium, the primary route of absorption is likely to be via the intestinal lymphatic system. The intestinal lymphatic system comprises the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), including the Peyer's patches and isolated lymphoid follicles, and the mesenteric lymphatic vessels and MLNs9,97. Figure 5 summarizes the modes of access to the GALT and mesenteric lymphatics. The characteristics of the macromolecular construct are likely to influence the site of uptake9,97, although this is incompletely understood. In general, particulate antigens, including bacteria and viruses, and particulate delivery systems, cross the follicle-associated epithelium (FAE) to enter the GALT. By contrast, soluble and low molecular mass antigenic materials, such as polypeptides, may more readily cross the normal villous epithelium from where they enter mesenteric lymph vessels directly or, following interaction with dendritic cells, in the lamina propria9,97.
Translocation across the FAE into the GALT typically occurs via M cells. M cells constitute only 10% of the cells in the FAE but have a higher transcytotic activity for macromolecular constructs than normal epithelial cells (enterocytes)124. Lymphatic access can also occur across the normal villous epithelium via several mechanisms (Fig. 5). In addition to uptake across the FAE or villous epithelium, a population of myeloid cells9,125 in the lamina propria are able to extend their cellular processes between adjacent villous epithelial cells and sample the contents of the intestinal lumen directly, including antigens and microbiota126,127. However, whether they represent a major mechanism of antigen and particulate uptake in vivo has been questioned9.
For nanoparticulate and microparticulate delivery systems, the route and extent of intestinal uptake is likely to be dependent on the characteristics of the particles99, including physical and chemical stability, size, surface charge, shape and elasticity. The presence (or absence) of targeting ligands, such as lectins128, invasins129, RGD peptide130, and others120,131, may also enhance uptake. Uptake may occur either via the M cells in the GALT or via the normal villous epithelium119,132. Much of the early research in this area focused on absorption via M cells in the GALT, although this route of entry may be limited because the GALT is located largely in the lower intestine and comprises less than 10% of the surface of the intestine (and, as described above, only 10% of the epithelial cells in GALT are M cells). In general, particles >10 μm in diameter appear to be inefficiently taken up by M cells or epithelial cells, whereas particles in the nanometre to low micrometre size range may be taken up more effectively133,134.
Absolute quantification of the extent of absorption of nanoparticulates and microparticulates has been investigated in few studies, and even fewer have examined lymphatic transport directly (although this is often inferred). The proportion of the dose of nanoparticles or microparticles that is absorbed intact has been reported to range from essentially zero135,136,137 to relatively large quantities (5–40% of the dose)123,129,132,134,138,139,140. In some of the first reported studies, between 6 and 34% of the dose of 50 nm to 3 μm polystyrene microspheres or nanoparticles or 50–500 nm polymeric or squalenated nanoparticles were absorbed after oral administration129,134,138,139. More recently, relative bioavailabilities of 4.9–7.1% were reported for solid lipid nanoparticles loaded with insulin compared with subcutaneous injection of insulin in saline140, and oral bioavailabilities of 9% for fondaparinux-loaded nanoparticles administered in gastroresistant capsules139. Absorption efficiencies of 13.7% per hour were also described for insulin administered in 60 nm polymeric nanoparticles conjugated with crystallizable antibody fragments (Fc) that readily bind to the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) in the intestinal epithelium123, and docetaxel administration in nanocapsules embedded in microparticles has been suggested to result in oral plasma area under the curves (AUCs) that are 1.77-times higher than that after intravenous administration of the same dose of the commercial solution (Taxotere)122. Finally, a recent study demonstrated that 30–45% of the dose of polystyrene microparticles of varying diameters (500 nm to 5 μm) was absorbed after injection into isolated loops of jejunum or ileum132.
By contrast, perhaps as many studies suggest essentially zero absorption of nanosized or microsized particles; for example, absorption of <0.0055 and 0.01% of the dose of 27 nm and 170–250 nm latex particles137 and <0.01% of the dose of 2.65 μm-sized particles (with 0.0006% of particles detected in Peyer's patches)135. In one of the few studies to directly quantify the uptake of nanoparticles and microparticles into the mesenteric lymphatics136, <0.2% of the dose of a range of particles 0.15–10.0 μm in diameter was absorbed and transported in lymph. The absorption of smaller dendrimer-based polymeric materials (2.5–15 nm) has been less well-studied in vivo, but where data are available, oral absorption is also very low141,142. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the widely disparate oral bioavailabilities reported for orally administered nanoparticles and microparticles has led to controversy and questions regarding the consistency of studies and the differing methodologies used (Box 3).
Mucosal and other routes of delivery. There has been a recent surge in interest in targeted delivery to non-gastrointestinal mucosal lymphoid tissues and lymph nodes, such as the nasal, pulmonary and genital mucosa. Much of this interest has focused on the delivery of vaccines to mucosal surfaces (described further below)46,143,144. Different mucosal surfaces share commonalities in the structure of the associated lymphatic systems. In most mucosal surfaces, the epithelium consists of a single layer of columnar epithelial cells, although some surfaces, such as the oral mucosa, upper respiratory tract and lower genital tract comprise multilayered squamous epithelium144. The normal epithelium is interrupted, at varying frequencies depending on the mucosal site and animal species, by MALT such as Peyer's patches or isolated lymphoid follicles. The MALT is covered by M cells that, as described above for the gastrointestinal tract, more readily transport antigens and particulate matter than normal epithelial cells. Antigens, macromolecular drugs and delivery systems that cross the epithelium are transported to the draining mucosal lymph nodes via lymphatic capillaries and collecting vessels.
For example, following nasal administration, 50 nm polypropylene sulfide nanoparticles transit the nasal mucosa via M cells, interact with nasal-associated lymphoid tissues and resident APCs and elicit protective immune responses145. In a follow-up study, the model antigen ovalbumin was conjugated to similar nanoparticles, but in this case, of different sizes (30–200 nm). The 200 nm particles provided the most effective immune response146. However, it is unknown whether this reflects enhanced uptake into the MALT, improved capture by APCs or enhanced immunogenicity of the particles.
The lungs have a dense vascular supply, particularly in the respiratory region (alveoli, alveolar ducts and respiratory bronchioles)147. The permeability of the lung epithelium and the density of vascular capillaries in the alveoli dictate that the absorption of small-molecule drugs from the deep lung into the systemic circulation is rapid and almost immediate in many cases148. The lung is also drained via deep and superficial lymphatic vessels149. The superficial lymphatic vessels lie beneath the pleural lining of the lung whereas the deep lymphatic vessels and pulmonary lymph nodes reside primarily along non-capillary vessels and the major conducting airways (trachea, bronchi and bronchioles). Lymphoid tissue is also present in the bronchus in healthy lungs of some species (for example, rats and rabbits) although it is not normally present in healthy lungs of adult humans and mice but can be induced by antigens, infection or inflammation150.
The deep lymphatic vessels and lymph nodes associated with the conducting airways appear to be the most important for the elimination of inhaled foreign materials, which are normally trapped by the mucosa and cilia in the upper conducting airways and moved either to the throat and swallowed via the mucocilliary escalator or captured by macrophages and cleared via the lymphatics151,152. By contrast, the lymphatics in the lung parenchyma are relatively sparse, although small (10–20 μm) interlobular lymph vessels have been observed within interalveolar walls153. The primary function of these lymphatic vessels has been suggested to be the collection of interstitial fluid and extravasated proteins that surround the interalveolar septa153. Inhaled nanomaterials may be removed from the respiratory region or conducting airways by the lymphatics, either following direct uptake across the pulmonary epithelium or following uptake by the large number of APCs present in the lung. Under basal conditions or after intentional induction, lymphoid tissue may also play a part in the uptake of nanomaterials from the lungs150. Several studies have demonstrated uptake of inhaled nanoparticles, including liposomes154, 20–70 kDa dextrans155, non-cationic organic and inorganic nanoparticles of ≤34 nm156 and antigen-carrying lipid nanocapsules157 into lung lymph nodes. Several other studies have inferred lung lymphatic involvement in the systemic availability of inhaled solid lipid nanoparticles158, liposomes159 and 50–900 nm polystyrene nanoparticles160. However, the mechanisms of lymphatic uptake of materials from the lungs has rarely been assessed directly, and, with the exception of a relatively limited number of studies, has been conducted in rodents in which lung size and/or lymphatic anatomy are considerably different to humans. Direct evidence of the role of the lung lymphatics in the clearance of particulate materials in larger animals and humans is therefore lacking.
Routes of entry and retention in lymph nodes
Lymph nodes provide a site for immune surveillance, the generation of immune responses and initial tumour cell metastasis48,51. The uptake of therapeutics into lymph nodes is therefore important for vaccination and for the treatment of immune-related disease and cancer29,46,48. The interior structure of the lymph node and the routes of access to the node via the blood and the lymph are summarized in Fig. 7. High endothelial venules (HEVs) provide the primary point of entry for naive T and B lymphocytes, plasmacytoid dendritic cells and natural killer cells from the systemic circulation1. Naive T and B lymphocytes extravasate across HEVs via a multi-step cascade that is initiated by the recognition of lymph node addressins by the lymphocyte-homing receptor L-selectin. This initial step results in lymphocyte tethering, rolling and ultimately transit across the HEV wall1. T and B cells subsequently migrate through the lymph node and position themselves in the T and B cell regions of the node under the control of chemokine ligands1.
Lymph, which contains tissue fluid, antigens, proteins, lipoproteins and immune cells, enters the lymph nodes via afferent lymphatic vessels1,51 (Fig. 7). The majority of the lymphocytes that enter the afferent lymph are memory T cells161. By contrast, naive T cells enter the lymph nodes primarily via HEVs1. The majority of T cells that exit lymph nodes via efferent lymphatics are also naive T cells161. Chemokines modulate the entry, migration and retention of cells within the lymph node1. Dendritic cells also migrate into the initial lymphatics, crawl along the lymphatics to the lymph node and migrate to the T cell-rich paracortex under the control of CCL21 and CCL1 (chemokines that are recognized by CCR7 and CCR8 receptors, respectively, on the dendritic cell surface)1,162.
Therapeutics may similarly enter lymph nodes via afferent lymph vessels or HEVs. For example, nanoparticulate (20–40 nm) superparamagnetic iron oxide particles accumulate within lymph nodes after intravenous injection, which is due to a combination of transfer across HEV and extravasation into the interstitial space followed by transfer to lymph nodes via afferent lymphatic vessels163. For direct entry via HEVs, a ligand that binds to surface receptors on HEVs might be expected to enhance uptake, although to the best of our knowledge no such system has yet been described. Alternatively, entry via HEVs may occur following uptake of therapeutics into immune cells followed by transfer of the immune cells into lymph nodes via HEVs. For example, the immunosuppressant fingolimod (Gilenya, Novartis) accumulates within lymph nodes via association with lymphocytes in the systemic circulation and subsequent uptake up into lymph nodes, presumably via HEVs164.
Entry of therapeutics into lymph nodes via afferent lymphatic vessels has been studied in more detail than access via HEVs27,51 (Fig. 7). Access via afferent lymph occurs via direct uptake of an antigen, protein or particulate delivery system into the lymphatics from the interstitial tissue or following uptake into APCs in the interstitium and subsequent entry of the APC into the lymph. In general, larger (500–2,000 nm) and positively charged materials are preferentially taken up by APCs, particularly dendritic cells, at the injection site, whereas smaller and neutrally charged materials (20–200 nm) are trafficked directly to the lymphatics27,59,81,165. After entry into lymph nodes, antigens or particles may pass around the outside of the lymph node via the subcapsular sinus and leave directly via the efferent lymph. Alternatively, materials may be retained via uptake into subcapsular macrophages or cells within the B and T cell zones46. Larger particles are typically taken up by subcapsular macrophages166,167, whereas smaller particles or small molecules enter the B or T cell zones through the lymphatic sinuses or conduits46,59,165,168,169. Sequestration within lymph nodes via interaction with node-resident macrophages or dendritic cells may also be promoted by the use of targeting ligands to APC-specific receptors such as mannose82,83, antigens such as DEC-205 (Ref. 84) and peptide MHC and co-stimulatory receptor ligands170,171.
In general, the properties that promote lymph node retention are the opposite of those required for efficient drainage from the subcutaneous injection site. For example, macromolecules of increasing size are more effectively retained in lymph nodes but drain poorly from interstitial injection sites81,82,172. Thus, mitomycin-C conjugated to high molecular mass dextrans drained inefficiently from the injection site compared with unconjugated mitomycin-C or mitomycin-C conjugated to low molecular mass dextrans, but was retained more effectively in lymph nodes173. Similar results have been observed for liposomes of varying diameter (40 nm to 400 nm); although in this case the proportion of the dose retained within the nodes was similar for all liposomes owing to a balance between decreased lymphatic uptake and increased lymph node retention as size increased58,167.
Similarly, the assembly of a layer of a hydrophilic polymer, for example, PEG, on the surface of a nanoparticle typically enhances drainage from a subcutaneous injection site, but provides a steric barrier to opsonization and phagocytosis, and reduces uptake into lymph node-resident cells and lymph node retention65,166. More highly charged macromolecules also show limited convection from interstitial injection sites but may be retained more effectively within lymph nodes via interactions with resident APCs81,174. For example, cationic materials are more readily taken up by dendritic cells and retained in the lymph node medulla and paracortex compared with neutral materials81. Conversely, anionic charge can promote drainage from the interstitium via electrostatic repulsion of negatively charged glycosaminoglycans at the injection site58,65,66 and may also promote lymph node retention66.
Importantly, recent studies have highlighted that even when enhanced uptake and retention of materials within lymph nodes is achieved, this does not always translate into enhanced therapeutic efficacy80,175. This may be because the nanomaterial does not release its cargo, does not enter the desired lymph node region, fails to interact with and activate the appropriate cells within the node or passes through the lymph node too rapidly to exert an effect. Focus is therefore now directed towards nanomaterials that not only promote lymph node sequestration, but also facilitate controlled release to the desired regions and cell types within the lymph node, modulate the lymph node microenvironment to generate appropriate immune responses and/or minimize systemic distribution and toxicity80.
Therapeutic advantages of lymphatic delivery
The benefits of lymphatic delivery usually manifest as either an increase in exposure or an enhancement in therapeutic efficacy (that is, higher efficacy versus toxicity) or both. Several studies have shown that lymphatic delivery can enhance drug exposure, particularly following oral delivery, and other studies have provided evidence that lymphatic transport can promote effective vaccination, tolerance induction, immune therapy and the treatment of viral infections and cancer. Here, we provide a brief description of the most recent studies where lymphatic delivery has been shown to be beneficial. This is followed by a discussion of the clinical application of lymphatic delivery. Focus is directed towards benefits in drug delivery; however, lymphatic delivery strategies have also been used extensively to image lymphatic function or involvement in disease, outcomes that may also lead to enhanced therapeutic outcomes. These topics are reviewed elsewhere29,176.
Oral bioavailability. Intestinal lymphatic transport circumvents hepatic first-pass metabolism. In contrast to absorption via the blood into the portal vein (and transport to the liver), the intestinal lymph flows from the intestine to the thoracic lymph before emptying directly into the systemic circulation via the major veins in the neck (Fig. 6). Increases in intestinal lymphatic transport therefore substantially enhance oral bioavailability when bioavailability is limited by first-pass metabolism. An example of this approach is the commercial product testosterone undecanoate (Andriol; Merck). Testosterone exhibits minimal bioavailability after oral administration owing to complete first-pass metabolism177. By contrast, testosterone undecanoate, an alkyl ester prodrug of testosterone, enables oral testosterone replacement therapy because a proportion of the dose of the prodrug is transported via the intestinal lymphatics, thus avoiding first-pass metabolism177. Undecanoate esters also enhance the oral bioavailability of methylnortestosterone178 and dimethandrolone179. Similar studies have shown that promoting the intestinal lymphatic transport of lipophilic drugs (rather than prodrugs) such as halofantrine180 and CRA13 (Ref. 181) via co-administration with lipids also increases systemic drug exposure by reducing hepatic first-pass metabolism. In the case of halofantrine, there is also evidence to suggest a reduction in enterocyte-based metabolism via drug sequestration in lipoproteins in the enterocyte182.
Recently, it was suggested that lymphatic transport may be harnessed to enhance the oral bioavailability of docetaxel122. When administered in standard formulations, docetaxel has poor oral bioavailability that is due to extensive cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4)-mediated first-pass metabolism and P-glycoprotein (also known as MDR1/ABCB1)-mediated efflux. By contrast, after oral administration of docetaxel incorporated into nanocapsules that were then embedded in microparticles, exposure was significantly enhanced. The authors hypothesized that the orally administered docetaxel nanocapsules were transported into the intestinal lymphatics after receiving a surface coat of apoproteins and phospholipids during passage across the enterocytes (that is, they became 'lipoproteinated').
Cancer chemotherapy. Many cancers metastasize via the lymphatics, with cancer cells initially lodging and proliferating in the sentinel (that is, first draining) lymph node48. Lymph node metastases are often removed surgically (lymphadenectomy) or obliterated using radiation therapy in an attempt to prolong survival. However, this process is invasive and leads to morbidity associated with the disruption of lymphatic flow, including pain, swelling and oedema48. Lymph-targeted chemotherapy has the potential to enhance delivery to lymphatic-resident cancers and to reduce systemic exposure that correlates with dose-limiting side effects.
A relatively limited number of studies have described benefits in the treatment of cancer via lymph targeting of orally delivered drugs183 or prodrugs118,184, including the docetaxel studies described above122. A far larger body of literature, however, describes the therapeutic benefits of access to the lymphatics and sites of lymphatic cancer metastasis after parenteral administration. Enhanced drug exposure to metastasis-bearing lymph nodes has been shown after interstitial administration of a range of macromolecular constructs at or near the site of the primary tumour. Improved lymph node targeting has been demonstrated for PEGylated proteins185, liposomes86,186, dendrimers86,186, polymeric micelles187,188,189, nanoparticles190,191 and hyaluronan conjugates192. Lymph node targeting using these approaches has been shown to reduce the growth, or promote the regression, of metastatic and/or primary tumours73,185,193,194,195,196,197 and to reduce systemic toxicity66.
Immunomodulation. Promoting the delivery of small-molecule immunosuppressant drugs to targets within the lymphatics has the potential to enhance immune modulation. For example, the incorporation of immunomodulatory drugs into 50 nm micelles formed from amphiphilic block copolymers enhanced the delivery of the immunomodulatory drugs to the lymph nodes draining the subcutaneous injection site and promoted both anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects198. In a similar approach, but in this case harnessing intestinal lymphatic transport processes, a highly lipophilic immunomodulator more effectively targeted lymphocytes and increased the expression of the anti-inflammatory cytokines interleukin-4 (IL-4) and IL-10 in lymphocytes after ex vivo mitogen stimulation when co-administered with lipid to stimulate lymph transport199. As described above, the efficacy of fingolimod has also been linked to its accumulation in lymph nodes164. Lymphatic vessels themselves have recently emerged as therapeutic targets in inflammation, suggesting the potential for lymph-targeted delivery to enhance anti-inflammatory therapy28,29. Interestingly, many current treatments for inflammatory diseases, such as anakinra (Kineret; Sobi), tocilizumab (Actemra; Genetech) and infliximab (Remicade; Janssen) affect lymphangiogenesis200,201,202. These therapeutic proteins are administered via subcutaneous and/or intravenous injection and their relatively large size suggests that at least a proportion of the dose will distribute via the lymphatics. Lymph vessel effects stemming from enhanced lymphatic exposure may therefore have a role in their anti-inflammatory activity.
Parenteral vaccination. Vaccines promote immune protection (or activation) or stimulate the development of immune tolerance. Thus, they prevent disease (prophylactic vaccines) by providing immune protection against future encounters with pathogens, or prevent allergy, organ transplant rejection or autoimmune disease by promoting immune tolerance to innocuous self or foreign antigens. Vaccines can also treat disease (therapeutic vaccines) by promoting immune activation and eradication of, for example, viruses or tumour cells and by enhancing immune tolerance to treat allergy or autoimmune disease51. The potential for lymphatic delivery to enhance tolerance is summarized in the following section. The potential for lymphatic delivery to enhance immune protection (prophylactic vaccination) or activation (therapeutic vaccination) is discussed below.
Vaccines typically comprise live-attenuated microorganisms, purified proteins or peptides, or DNA or RNA, administered in combination with adjuvants that facilitate the recruitment of immune cells and activate the appropriate immune responses51,203. Vaccine-mediated immune protection or activation is a complex process that is highly dependent on vaccine delivery to immune cells within the lymphatic system and the development of an immune response. The typical immune response to a vaccine antigen is reviewed in depth elsewhere51,203. Most commonly, vaccine antigens are administered into interstitial tissues and are transported from the injection site to lymph nodes via lymphatic vessels. Upon reaching the lymph nodes, antigens generate an antigen-specific immune response via the activation of T lymphocytes, which in turn activate B lymphocytes to produce protective antibodies. This usually occurs via the binding and internalization of the antigen by dendritic cells (or other APCs) at the injection site followed by trafficking to lymph nodes where dendritic cells present antigens to T lymphocytes. Alternatively, antigens can enter the lymphatic capillaries directly and drain to lymph nodes where antigens are internalized and presented to lymphocytes by resident dendritic cells, resulting in lymphocyte activation204.
The importance of the lymphatics in the vaccine response has stimulated studies to enhance vaccine efficacy by promoting lymph node targeting. The methods used usually involve targeting antigen and adjuvants to lymph nodes in a controlled manner. Most simply, direct injection of vaccines into lymph nodes (that is, intranodal injection) has been shown to enhance vaccine potency and to be safe and efficacious in preclinical models and clinical trials51,205,206,207,208. However, intranodal injection requires a trained health care professional and the benefits of lymph node targeting following intranodal injection may be short-lived owing to rapid flushing of the lymph node by lymph fluid. To investigate these concerns, a combination of a model vaccine (ovalbumin) and a biodegradable microparticle formulation to provide sustained release of an adjuvant (a Toll-like receptor 3 ligand) to the lymph node were tested and shown to enhance immune responses to ovalbumin relative to intramuscular injection or intranodal injection of control formulations207.
Many studies have shown that vaccine efficacy is enhanced by increasing the lymphatic uptake of vaccine antigens and adjuvants80,168,209,210. For example, administration into the skin can improve vaccination responses relative to administration via other parenteral routes. This enhanced response reflects the higher number of dendritic cells and the richer supply of lymphatic vessels in the skin and therefore enhanced antigen uptake and immune responses in draining lymph nodes68,69. Conjugation of the model antigen ovalbumin to surface-modified biodegradable polypropylene sulfide nanoparticles also increased delivery to dendritic cells in the lymph node following interstitial administration. This led to enhanced activation of the complement cascade, humoral and cellular immune responses59,168. Similarly, targeting of ovalbumin or a malaria antigen to lymph node APCs via subcutaneous injection in interbilayer-crosslinked multilamellar vesicles enhanced humoral and cellular immune responses211. Targeting TRP2 peptide antigen to lymph node dendritic cells via subcutaneous injection in cationic micelles also enhanced cellular immune responses and reduced tumour growth in a B6-F10 murine melanoma model compared with non-lymph targeted TRP2 (Ref. 81). In a different approach, polymeric nanoparticles were developed that mimicked mast cell granules and targeted the lymph node draining an injection site, slowly releasing cytokines212. This approach enhanced vaccination-induced responses to an influenza virus antigen and increased survival from a lethal challenge of the virus. More recently, DNA or peptide vaccines and an adjuvant (CpG) have been targeted to lymph nodes using an albumin 'hitchhiking' approach, leading to enhanced immune responses73 (Fig. 5). For therapeutic cancer vaccines, recent studies have suggested that targeted delivery specifically to lymph nodes draining a primary tumour site may provide additional benefit compared with targeting other lymph nodes213,214. For example, vaccination with a polymeric nanoparticle-based therapeutic vaccine induced stronger local and systemic cytotoxic CD8+ T cell responses following delivery to the tumour draining lymph node compared with distal lymph nodes214.
Mucosal vaccination. Mucosal vaccination provides a biological advantage via the promotion of systemic immunity as well as immunity at local (and distal) mucosal sites121,143,144. However, mucosal immunity, particularly in the intestine, is biased towards the development of tolerance. Mucosal vaccines therefore require adjuvants to promote immunogenicity and immunity rather than tolerance. Inadequate immunogenicity remains a major challenge to the effective development of mucosal vaccines121,143,144.
In the design of mucosal vaccines, particulate antigens are usually more effective than soluble antigens116,147,148, and nanoparticles or microparticles, liposomes, virus-like particles, bacterial ghosts and immunostimulating complexes have been widely used to enhance vaccine efficacy116,147,148. The benefits of particulate vaccines probably stem, at least in part, from enhanced translocation via M cells and access to MALT compared to soluble antigens. Immune responses are subsequently stimulated by antigen uptake by dendritic cells in MALT, dendritic cell activation and antigen presentation to T and/or B lymphocytes in the MALT (or draining mucosal lymph nodes), ultimately leading to the generation of memory and effector lymphocytes (Fig. 5).
Delivery of antigens and adjuvants to the mucosal lymphatics is therefore critical to effective mucosal vaccination, a suggestion supported by many studies that describe enhanced immune responses after targeting particulate vaccines to the MALT via M cells215. In oral vaccination, protection from degradation within the gastrointestinal lumen, as well as efficient uptake into the mucosal lymphatics, is important in ensuring an adequate immune response. A recent report showed enhanced immune protection against vaccinia virus in the rectum and vagina via the administration of the vaccine and adjuvant in poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) nanoparticles encapsulated in pH-responsive microspheres. The microspheres selectively dissolved in the terminal ileum (protecting against degradation) and were subsequently taken up into Peyer's patches216.
Enhanced mucosal vaccination has also been described via targeted delivery to the mucosal lymphatics after nasal or pulmonary administration. For example, intranasal administration of degradable polymeric nanoparticles conjugated to ovalbumin and adjuvant enhanced uptake into dendritic cells in the nasal-associated lymphoid tissue and promoted mucosal responses to ovalbumin in the lung and also at more distal mucosal sites such as the vagina and rectum145,146. Similarly, pulmonary administration of lymph node-targeted nanoparticles conjugated to tuberculosis antigen enhanced T cell responses and reduced lung mycobacterial burden217. Pulmonary administration of the adjuvant CpG, and lymph node targeting of nanoparticle-based carriers conjugated to ovalbumin or the influenza virus, led to more robust immunization and protection compared with (non-lymph targeted) soluble ovalbumin and CpG218. Finally, lipid nanocapsules containing a protein or peptide antigen showed increased uptake into APCs and promoted transport to the draining lymph nodes after pulmonary administration compared with pulmonary administration of soluble antigen or subcutaneous administration of the nanocapsule-based system. When administered in combination with Toll-like receptor agonists, these antigen-loaded nanocapsules improved the efficacy of both a therapeutic tumour vaccine and a prophylactic viral vaccine compared to soluble antigen and adjuvant157.
Tolerance. Tolerance encompasses a range of mechanisms that are initiated to suppress local and/or systemic immune responses to antigen9,219,220,221. Therapeutically, tolerance induction is being explored as a means of overcoming poor inherent tolerance to food, animal and plant antigens9, and to treat autoimmune disease219,221 and allograft rejection222, in which tolerance to certain self-antigens is lost. Tolerance can be induced via mucosal (usually oral) or systemic administration of regulatory signals, soluble peptides, in situ production of peptide antigens via DNA vaccination, or the injection of peptide-coupled cells220.
The mesenteric lymphatics and, in particular, the lamina propria and MLNs are crucial sites for the promotion of oral tolerance9,219 (Fig. 5). It has been suggested that the preferred route of antigen entry for oral tolerance induction is via the villous epithelium and transport to the MLNs via the intestinal lymphatics (either directly or indirectly following uptake into dendritic cells)9,223. By contrast, M cell-mediated antigen uptake into the GALT may have a subordinate role in oral tolerance induction, at least to protein antigen (although it may be more important in tolerance to commensal bacteria). Soluble antigens that are more readily taken up across the villous epithelium (Fig. 5) might therefore be expected to be more effective in promoting tolerogenic responses compared to particulate antigens224. These suggestions are supported by studies that demonstrate impaired oral tolerance after removal of MLNs225,226, but normal tolerance induction in the absence of Peyer's patches226,227,228. Contrary findings are apparent, however229, and targeted delivery of protein antigen directly to Peyer's patches via M cells facilitated tolerance induction230. Similarly, oral antigen delivery in liposomes231, nanoparticles232,233 and microspheres234 appeared to enhance tolerance, although the mechanisms involved are not completely understood.
Several studies have also demonstrated that tolerance can be enhanced via targeted delivery to the lymphatic system following parenteral (rather than oral) delivery80. Systemic injection of PLGA nanoparticles loaded with mycophenolic acid enhanced distribution to spleen and lymph node-resident macrophages and dendritic cells and promoted tissue graft survival by limiting the ability of the APCs to prime and expand graft-reactive T cells235. Similarly, co-delivery of the immunomodulator rapamycin with either protein or peptide antigens in nanoparticles enhanced distribution to lymph nodes after subcutaneous delivery and induced potent and durable antigen-specific immune tolerance236. In the latter study, inhibition of antigen-specific hypersensitivity reactions, attenuation of relapsing experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (an animal model of multiple sclerosis) and reduced antibody responses against coagulation factor VIII in haemophilia A mice were also evident236. By contrast, administration of non-lymph targeted (free) rapamycin and separate administration of rapamycin and antigen did not promote immune tolerance. Co-formulation of a self antigen with a small-molecule inhibitor of inflammatory nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) in liposomes has also been shown to enhance uptake into lymph node-resident dendritic cells, reduce NF-κB (and thereby decrease the proliferation of self-reactive T cells) and to diminish the severity of arthritis237. Tolerance has also been induced in an animal model of multiple sclerosis, by administration of microparticles designed to mimic tolerogenic apoptotic cells, and was found to depend on microparticle delivery to marginal zone macrophages in the spleen, a primary lymphoid organ238.
Viral infection. Targeted delivery to the lymphatic system is expected to enhance therapy against viruses that reside, replicate within and/or disseminate via the lymphatics. In support of this contention, the effectiveness of antiretroviral suppression of HIV replication in lymphoid tissue was recently found to be correlated with the concentration of antiretroviral drugs in the lymph nodes of patients38. Other studies have also suggested that insufficient antiretroviral concentrations in lymphoid tissues may contribute to viral persistence239,240,241. Lymphatic-targeted drug delivery is therefore increasingly being explored as a means of enhancing antiretroviral activity242,243,244. Thus, glycerolipidic prodrugs have been synthesized to promote drug delivery to HIV reservoirs in the gut lymphatics245,246, and a range of nanomedicine platforms (for example, drug–polymer conjugates, dendrimers, micelles, liposomes, solid lipid nanoparticles, nanosuspensions and polymeric nanoparticles) have been used to facilitate delivery of antiretrovirals to HIV reservoirs in lymphoid tissue242,243,244. These systems have been delivered via parenteral and/or oral routes, and attempts to enhance targeting to lymphoid reservoirs have been made via the use of targeting ligands, such as folic acid and mannose, for immune cells242,243,244.
Unfortunately, although increases in lymphatic transport have been described, studies that show parallel increases in treatment benefit are less common. In one example, subcutaneous administration of indinavir in nanoparticles prolonged plasma residence times and enhanced lymph node concentrations of indinavir in HIV-2 infected macaques, leading to significantly reduced viral RNA load and increased CD4+ T cell numbers239. In a second example, a nanoformulated antiretroviral therapy targeted to the folic acid receptor increased drug levels in macrophage-rich regions of the spleen and lymph nodes and potently reduced viral loads, tissue viral RNA and numbers of HIV-1 p24+ cells in a mouse model of HIV247.
Clinical application of lymphatic drug delivery
Although substantial advances in lymphatic drug delivery have been made in recent years, a relatively small number of current or previously marketed pharmaceutical products have been designed to intentionally increase lymphatic delivery to achieve pharmacokinetic or therapeutic benefits. Testosterone undecanoate provides one obvious example248. A series of recent clinical trials to evaluate the utility of intranodal delivery of vaccines provide a further example of a direct attempt to enhance therapy through delivery to lymph nodes51,179,180,181,182. In reality, many parenteral or orally administered vaccines are likely to be taken up into the lymphatic system to promote an immune response51,177. However, it seems likely that most were not designed with this property in mind. Similarly, several orally administered highly lipophilic drugs, parenterally administered biologics (for example, modified or unmodified proteins and antibodies) and macromolecular and nanoparticulate delivery systems that are currently on the market or in clinical trials have properties that suggest the likelihood of lymphatic transport, but this has rarely been explored (or exploited).
To date, the majority of macromolecular biologics and delivery systems have been developed for the treatment of cancer or inflammatory diseases29. As such, uptake of these systems via the lymphatic system may play an important part in their capacity to eradicate cancer metastases and alleviate inflammation, even though this has not been directly demonstrated in patients. This is likely to be especially true in the growing number of examples whereby administration routes are being switched from intravenous to subcutaneous administration to promote acceptance of the treatment by patients. Indeed, some of these materials (for example, liposomal doxorubicin and PEGylated interferons) have been shown in preclinical studies to readily enter the lymph and under some circumstances to enhance the treatment of cancer metastases by targeting lymph nodes85,86,185. The potential importance of lymphatic delivery to clinical outcomes is further supported by a recent clinical study that described enhanced suppression of HIV replication in lymphoid tissues in patients with increased lymph node concentrations of antiretrovirals38.
The lack of substantial clinical evidence of lymph targeting approaches reflects the fact that assessment of lymphatic drug exposure in humans is complex and has therefore rarely been attempted (with the exception of a handful of studies that have quantified uptake via the collection of lymph nodes or thoracic lymph193,248). Instead, lymphatic delivery is most often studied in rodents and occasionally in larger animal species (for example, pigs, dogs and sheep)249. How accurately various animal, in vitro and in silico models predict lymphatic distribution in humans remains unknown. In the past, the quantitation of lymphatic transport in humans has required invasive surgery to cannulate the lymph duct or to collect lymph nodes. Recent advances in lymphatic imaging29,250 and in minimally invasive techniques to catheterize the thoracic lymph duct in humans251 suggest that more detailed studies to collect lymph and/or quantify lymphatic delivery in humans are increasingly possible. The availability of these models, coupled with further work to validate in vitro and in silico models, looks set to substantially enhance the ability to predict and quantitate lymphatic delivery in humans and, in doing so, to support translation of lymphatic drug delivery advances to the clinic.
Historically, the lymphatics have been seen largely as a 'sewerage system' for the clearance of fluid, proteins and debris from the interstital space and as a transport mechanism for dietary fat. As such, drug absorption into the lymphatics or drug targeting to the lymphatics has been viewed as possible, even likely in some cases, but of little importance. However, recent increases in our understanding of the central role of the lymphatics in regulating diseases such as cancer, transplant rejection, infection, inflammation and metabolic disease has reinvigorated interest in the lymphatic system (and the cells contained within it) as a drug target. Accumulating evidence to support the benefit of targeting therapeutic and protective vaccines to APCs in the lymph and lymph nodes provides further impetus to research this area.
Looking forward, drug delivery efforts will continue to be driven by a more detailed understanding of lymphatic biology, particularly the mechanisms of uptake and entry into the lymph and the role of the lymphatics in disease. Progress in materials and pharmaceutical sciences — especially the construction of macromolecular conjugates and constructs with specific lymphatic affinity — will further advance efforts to promote lymphatic targeting. Areas of focus will probably revolve around the increasing realization that lymphatic access is not simply a function of size but instead harnesses a range of transport and metabolic processes. Finally, although it is apparent that the lymphatics and lymphoid tissues have a central role in a range of diseases, it is equally apparent that this is highly interactive and that the same disease states also affect lymphatic structure and function. Future efforts might usefully address the impact of disease-mediated changes in lymphatic function on lymphatic access of drugs, vaccines and drug delivery systems to better drive the development of robust lymphotropic delivery vehicles.
Girard, J. P., Moussion, C. & Forster, R. HEVs, lymphatics and homeostatic immune cell trafficking in lymph nodes. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 12, 762–773 (2012).
Randolph, G. J. & Miller, N. E. Lymphatic transport of high-density lipoproteins and chylomicrons. J. Clin. Invest. 124, 929–935 (2014).
Miller, N. E. et al. Secretion of adipokines by human adipose tissue in vivo: partitioning between capillary and lymphatic transport. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 301, E659–E667 (2011).
Wiig, H. & Swartz, M. A. Interstitial fluid and lymph formation and transport: physiological regulation and roles in inflammation and cancer. Physiol. Rev. 92, 1005–1060 (2012).
Starling, E. H. On the absorption of fluids from the connective tissue spaces. J. Physiol. 19, 312–326 (1896).
Levick, J. R. & Michel, C. C. Microvascular fluid exchange and the revised Starling principle. Cardiovasc. Res. 87, 198–210 (2010).
Mortimer, P. S. & Rockson, S. G. New developments in clinical aspects of lymphatic disease. J. Clin. Invest. 124, 915–921 (2014).
Card, C. M., Yu, S. S. & Swartz, M. A. Emerging roles of lymphatic endothelium in regulating adaptive immunity. J. Clin. Invest. 124, 943–952 (2014).
Pabst, O. & Mowat, A. M. Oral tolerance to food protein. Mucosal Immunol. 5, 232–239 (2012).
Lichtenstein, L. et al. Angptl4 protects against severe proinflammatory effects of saturated fat by inhibiting fatty acid uptake into mesenteric lymph node macrophages. Cell. Metabolism 12, 580–592 (2010).
Macpherson, A. J. & Smith, K. Mesenteric lymph nodes at the center of immune anatomy. J. Exp. Med. 203, 497–500 (2006).
Dixon, J. B. Lymphatic lipid transport: sewer or subway? Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 21, 480–487 (2010).
Martel, C. et al. Lymphatic vasculature mediates macrophage reverse cholesterol transport in mice. J. Clin. Invest. 123, 1571–1579 (2013). A report on the important role of lymphatic vessels in facilitating HDL-mediated reverse cholesterol transport from tissues and atherosclerotic plaques to the systemic circulation, ultimately for excretion via the liver.
Lim, H. Y. et al. Lymphatic vessels are essential for the removal of cholesterol from peripheral tissues by SR-BI-mediated transport of HDL. Cell. Metabolism 17, 671–684 (2013). This article confirms the important role of lymphatic vessels in facilitating HDL-mediated reverse cholesterol transport from tissues, and provides evidence that HDL enters the lymphatics by active transcytosis across LECs via SRB1.
Harvey, N. L. The link between lymphatic function and adipose biology. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1131, 82–88 (2008).
Pond, C. M. Adipose tissue and the immune system. Prostaglandins Leukot. Essent. Fatty Acids 73, 17–30 (2005).
Harvey, N. L. et al. Lymphatic vascular defects promoted by Prox1 haploinsufficiency cause adult-onset obesity. Nat. Genet. 37, 1072–1081 (2005). This report highlights the links between lymphatics and adipose function and the development of obesity.
Sawane, M. et al. Apelin inhibits diet-induced obesity by enhancing lymphatic and blood vessel integrity. Diabetes 62, 1970–1980 (2013).
Blum, K. S. et al. Chronic high-fat diet impairs collecting lymphatic vessel function in mice. PLoS ONE 9, e94713 (2014).
Arngrim, N., Simonsen, L., Holst, J. J. & Bulow, J. Reduced adipose tissue lymphatic drainage of macromolecules in obese subjects: a possible link between obesity and local tissue inflammation? Int. J. Obes. 37, 748–750 (2013).
Savetsky, I. L. et al. Obesity increases inflammation and impairs lymphatic function in a mouse model of lymphedema. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 307, H165–H172 (2014).
Weitman, E. S. et al. Obesity impairs lymphatic fluid transport and dendritic cell migration to lymph nodes. PLoS ONE 8, e70703 (2013).
Kim, C. S. et al. Visceral fat accumulation induced by a high-fat diet causes the atrophy of mesenteric lymph nodes in obese mice. Obesity 16, 1261–1269 (2008).
Alitalo, K. The lymphatic vasculature in disease. Nat. Med. 17, 1371–1380 (2011). A review of advances in our current understanding of the role of lymphatics in pathological change and disease.
Kesler, C. T., Liao, S., Munn, L. L. & Padera, T. P. Lymphatic vessels in health and disease. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Syst. Biol. Med. 5, 111–124 (2013).
Wang, Y. & Oliver, G. Current views on the function of the lymphatic vasculature in health and disease. Genes Dev. 24, 2115–2126 (2010).
Swartz, M. A. & Lund, A. W. Lymphatic and interstitial flow in the tumour microenvironment: linking mechanobiology with immunity. Nat. Rev. Cancer 12, 210–219 (2012).
Dieterich, L. C., Seidel, C. D. & Detmar, M. Lymphatic vessels: new targets for the treatment of inflammatory diseases. Angiogenesis 17, 359–371 (2014).
Proulx, S. T. et al. Expansion of the lymphatic vasculature in cancer and inflammation: new opportunities for in vivo imaging and drug delivery. J. Control. Release 172, 550–557 (2013).
von der Weid, P. Y., Rehal, S. & Ferraz, J. G. Role of the lymphatic system in the pathogenesis of Crohn's disease. Curr. Opin. Gastroenterol. 27, 335–341 (2011).
Alessio, S. et al. VEGF-C-dependent stimulation of lymphatic function ameliorates experimental inflammatory bowel disease. J. Clin. Invest. 124, 3863–3878 (2014).
Huggenberger, R. et al. An important role of lymphatic vessel activation in limiting acute inflammation. Blood 117, 4667–4678 (2011).
Zhang, Q. et al. Increased lymphangiogenesis in joints of mice with inflammatory arthritis. Arthritis Res. Ther. 9, R118 (2007).
Baluk, P. et al. TNF-α drives remodeling of blood vessels and lymphatics in sustained airway inflammation in mice. J. Clin. Invest. 119, 2954–2964 (2009).
Machnik, A. et al. Macrophages regulate salt-dependent volume and blood pressure by a vascular endothelial growth factor-C-dependent buffering mechanism. Nat. Med. 15, 545–552 (2009).
Ribera, J. et al. Increased nitric oxide production in lymphatic endothelial cells causes impairment of lymphatic drainage in cirrhotic rats. Gut 62, 138–145 (2012).
Jones, D. & Min, W. An overview of lymphatic vessels and their emerging role in cardiovascular disease. J. Cardiovasc. Dis. Res. 2, 141–152 (2011).
Fletcher, C. V. et al. Persistent HIV-1 replication is associated with lower antiretroviral drug concentrations in lymphatic tissues. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 2307–2312 (2014). The data presented in this article links persistent HIV replication with low antiretroviral drug concentrations in lymphatic tissues in humans. Increasing drug distribution to lymph may therefore provide a treatment benefit.
Pantaleo, G. et al. Lymphoid organs function as major reservoirs for human-immunodeficiency-virus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 88, 9838–9842 (1991).
Giannini, C. et al. Association between persistent lymphatic infection by hepatitis C virus after antiviral treatment and mixed cryoglobulinemia. Blood 111, 2943–2945 (2008).
Bennuru, S. & Nutman, T. B. Lymphangiogenesis and lymphatic remodeling induced by filarial parasites: implications for pathogenesis. PLoS Pathog. 5, e1000688 (2009).
Feldmann, H. & Geisbert, T. W. Ebola haemorrhagic fever. Lancet 377, 849–862 (2011).
Deitch, E. A. Gut lymph and lymphatics: a source of factors leading to organ injury and dysfunction. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1207, E103–E111 (2010).
Kerjaschki, D. et al. Lymphatic endothelial progenitor cells contribute to de novo lymphangiogenesis in human renal transplants. Nat. Med. 12, 230–234 (2006).
Wang, X. et al. Mechanism of oral tolerance induction to therapeutic proteins. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 65, 759–773 (2013).
Swartz, M. A., Hirosue, S. & Hubbell, J. A. Engineering approaches to immunotherapy. Sci. Transl. Med. 4, 148rv9 (2012).
Trevaskis, N. L., Charman, W. N. & Porter, C. J. Lipid-based delivery systems and intestinal lymphatic drug transport: a mechanistic update. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 60, 702–716 (2008).
Ryan, G. M., Kaminskas, L. M. & Porter, C. J. Nano-chemotherapeutics: maximising lymphatic drug exposure to improve the treatment of lymph-metastatic cancers. J. Control. Release 193, 241–256 (2014).
Yáñez, J. A., Wang, S. W. J., Knemeyer, I. W., Wirth, M. A. & Alton, K. B. Intestinal lymphatic transport for drug delivery. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 63, 923–942 (2011).
Supersaxo, A., Hein, W. R. & Steffen, H. Effect of molecular-weight on the lymphatic absorption of water-soluble compounds following subcutaneous administration. Pharm. Res. 7, 167–169 (1990). The first paper to describe the relationship between molecular mass of proteins and lymphatic uptake from interstitial injection sites in sheep.
Irvine, D. J., Swartz, M. A. & Szeto, G. L. Engineering synthetic vaccines using cues from natural immunity. Nat. Mater. 12, 978–990 (2013).
Charman, S. A., McLennan, D. N., Edwards, G. A. & Porter, C. J. H. Lymphatic absorption is a significant contributor to the subcutaneous bioavailability of insulin in a sheep model. Pharm. Res. 18, 1620–1626 (2001).
Charman, S. A., Segrave, A. M., Edwards, G. A. & Porter, C. J. H. Systemic availability and lymphatic transport of human growth hormone administered by subcutaneous injection. J. Pharm. Sci. 89, 168–177 (2000).
Kota, J. et al. Lymphatic absorption of subcutaneously administered proteins: influence of different injection sites on the absorption of darbepoetin alfa using a sheep model. Drug Metab. Dispos. 35, 2211–2217 (2007).
McLennan, D. et al. Pharmacokinetic model to describe the lymphatic absorption of r-methu-leptin after subcutaneous injection to sheep. Pharm. Res. 20, 1156–1162 (2003).
McLennan, D. et al. The absorption of darbepoetin alfa occurs predominantly via the lymphatics following subcutaneous administration to sheep. Pharm. Res. 23, 2060–2066 (2006).
McLennan, D. N. et al. Lymphatic absorption is the primary contributor to the systemic availability of epoetin alfa following subcutaneous administration to sheep. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 313, 345–351 (2005).
Oussoren, C., Zuidema, J., Crommelin, D. J. & Storm, G. Lymphatic uptake and biodistribution of liposomes after subcutaneous injection. II. Influence of liposomal size, lipid composition and lipid dose. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1328, 261–272 (1997). The first paper to establish the influence of size and composition on lymphatic uptake and retention of model delivery systems (liposomes).
Reddy, S. T. et al. Exploiting lymphatic transport and complement activation in nanoparticle vaccines. Nat. Biotech. 25, 1159–1164 (2007).
Reed, A. L., Rowson, S. A. & Dixon, J. B. Demonstration of ATP-dependent, transcellular transport of lipid across the lymphatic endothelium using an in vitro model of the lacteal. Pharm. Res. 30, 3271–3280 (2013).
Laakkonen, P. et al. Antitumor activity of a homing peptide that targets tumor lymphatics and tumor cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 9381–9386 (2004).
Laakkonen, P., Porkka, K., Hoffman, J. A. & Ruoslahti, E. A tumor-homing peptide with a targeting specificity related to lymphatic vessels. Nat. Med. 8, 751–755 (2002).
Parker, J. C., Gilchrist, S. & Cartledge, J. T. Plasma–lymph exchange and interstitial distribution volumes of charged macromolecules in the lung. J. Appl. Physiol. 59, 1128–1136 (1985).
Stylianopoulos, T. et al. Diffusion of particles in the extracellular matrix: the effect of repulsive electrostatic interactions. Biophys. J. 99, 1342–1349 (2010).
Kaminskas, L. M. et al. PEGylation of polylysine dendrimers improves absorption and lymphatic targeting following SC administration in rats. J. Control. Release 140, 108–116 (2009). This article shows that PEGylation of the therapeutic protein interferon-α2 increases lymphatic distribution and ultimately increases therapeutic efficacy against a lymph-resident cancer.
Rao, D. A., Forrest, M. L., Alani, A. W., Kwon, G. S. & Robinson, J. R. Biodegradable PLGA based nanoparticles for sustained regional lymphatic drug delivery. J. Pharm. Sci. 99, 2018–2031 (2010).
Harvey, A. J. et al. Microneedle-based intradermal delivery enables rapid lymphatic uptake and distribution of protein drugs. Pharm. Res. 28, 107–116 (2011).
Lambert, P. H. & Laurent, P. E. Intradermal vaccine delivery: will new delivery systems transform vaccine administration? Vaccine 26, 3197–3208 (2008).
Nicolas, J.-F. & Guy, B. Intradermal, epidermal and transcutaneous vaccination: from immunology to clinical practice. Expert Rev. Vaccines 7, 1201–1214 (2008).
Bocci, V., Pessina, G. P., Paulesu, L. & Nicoletti, C. The lymphatic route. VI. Distribution of recombinant interferon-α2 in rabbit and pig plasma and lymph. J. Biolog. Response Mod. 7, 390–400 (1988).
Feng, L. et al. Roles of dextrans on improving lymphatic drainage for liposomal drug delivery system. J. Drug Target. 18, 168–178 (2010).
Pessina, G. P., Bocci, V., Carraro, F., Naldini, A. & Paulesu, L. The lymphatic route. IX. Distribution of recombinant interferon-α 2 administered subcutaneously with oedematogenic drugs. Physiol. Res. 42, 243–250 (1993).
Liu, H. et al. Structure-based programming of lymph-node targeting in molecular vaccines. Nature 507, 519–522 (2014). A pioneering article that uses targeted delivery to the lymphatics to enhance vaccination. This was achieved by the conjugation of peptides to lipids that bind to albumin and 'hitchhike' onto transport pathways from the interstitium into the lymphatics.
Jiang, G. et al. Hyaluronic acid–polyethyleneimine conjugate for target specific intracellular delivery of siRNA. Biopolymers 89, 635–642 (2008).
Fogal, V., Zhang, L., Krajewski, S. & Ruoslahti, E. Mitochondrial/cell-surface protein p32/gC1qR as a molecular target in tumor cells and tumor stroma. Cancer Res. 68, 7210–7218 (2008).
Karmali, P. P. et al. Targeting of albumin-embedded paclitaxel nanoparticles to tumors. Nanomedicine 5, 73–82 (2009).
Luo, G. et al. LyP-1-conjugated nanoparticles for targeting drug delivery to lymphatic metastatic tumors. Int. J. Pharm. 385, 150–156 (2010).
Yan, Z. et al. LyP-1-conjugated PEGylated liposomes: a carrier system for targeted therapy of lymphatic metastatic tumor. J. Control. Release 157, 118–125 (2012).
Desgrosellier, J. S. & Cheresh, D. A. Integrins in cancer: biological implications and therapeutic opportunities. Nat. Rev. Cancer 10, 9–22 (2010).
Andorko, J., Hess, K. & Jewell, C. Harnessing biomaterials to engineer the lymph node microenvironment for immunity or tolerance. AAPS J. 17, 323–338 (2014). A summary of the mechanisms by which materials can be engineered to promote delivery to cells within the lymphatics to enhance vaccination and tolerance induction.
Zeng, Q. et al. Cationic micelle delivery of Trp2 peptide for efficient lymphatic draining and enhanced cytotoxic T-lymphocyte responses. J. Control. Release 200, 1–12 (2015).
Wang, C. et al. Lymphatic-targeted cationic liposomes: a robust vaccine adjuvant for promoting long-term immunological memory. Vaccine 32, 5475–5483 (2014).
Azad, A. K., Rajaram, M. V. & Schlesinger, L. S. Exploitation of the macrophage mannose receptor (CD206) in infectious disease diagnostics and therapeutics. J. Cytol. Mol. Biol. 1, 1000003 (2014).
Kwon, Y. J., James, E., Shastri, N. & Fréchet, J. M. J. In vivo targeting of dendritic cells for activation of cellular immunity using vaccine carriers based on pH-responsive microparticles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 18264–18268 (2005).
Dahlberg, A. M. et al. The lymphatic system plays a major role in the intravenous and subcutaneous pharmacokinetics of trastuzumab in rats. Mol. Pharm. 11, 496–504 (2014).
Ryan, G. M. et al. PEGylated polylysine dendrimers increase lymphatic exposure to doxorubicin when compared to PEGylated liposomal and solution formulations of doxorubicin. J. Control. Release 172, 128–136 (2013).
Tseng, Y. C., Xu, Z., Guley, K., Yuan, H. & Huang, L. Lipid–calcium phosphate nanoparticles for delivery to the lymphatic system and SPECT/CT imaging of lymph node metastases. Biomaterials 35, 4688–4698 (2014).
Iliff, J. J. et al. Brain-wide pathway for waste clearance captured by contrast-enhanced MRI. J. Clin. Invest. 123, 1299–1309 (2013).
Iliff, J. J. et al. A paravascular pathway facilitates CSF flow through the brain parenchyma and the clearance of interstitial solutes, including amyloid β. Sci. Transl. Med. 4, 147ra111 (2012). This article provides the first description of the glymphatic system — a brain-wide paravascular pathway for CSF and ISF exchange that facilitates the clearance of solutes and waste from the brain.
Iliff, J. J. et al. Cerebral arterial pulsation drives paravascular CSF-interstitial fluid exchange in the murine brain. J. Neurosci. 33, 18190–18199 (2013).
Xie, L. et al. Sleep drives metabolite clearance from the adult brain. Science 342, 373–377 (2013).
Yang, L. et al. Evaluating glymphatic pathway function utilizing clinically relevant intrathecal infusion of CSF tracer. J. Transl. Med. 11, 107 (2013).
Aspelund, A., et al. A dural lymphatic vascular system that drains brain interstitial fluid and macromolecules. J. Exp. Med. 212, 991–999 (2015).
Louveau, A., et al. Structural and functional features of central nervous system lymphatic vessels. Nature 523, 337–341 (2015).
Shackleford, D., Porter, C. H. & Charman, W. in Prodrugs Vol. 5 (eds Stella, V. et al.) 653–682 (Springer, 2007).
Lambert, D. M. Rationale and applications of lipids as prodrug carriers. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 11 (Suppl. 2), S15–S27 (2000).
Kunisawa, J., Kurashima, Y. & Kiyono, H. Gut-associated lymphoid tissues for the development of oral vaccines. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 64, 523–530 (2012).
Bakhru, S. H., Furtado, S., Morello, A. P. & Mathiowitz, E. Oral delivery of proteins by biodegradable nanoparticles. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 65, 811–821 (2013).
Florence, A. T. Nanoparticle uptake by the oral route: fulfilling its potential? Drug Discov. Today Technol. 2, 75–81 (2005).
Khoo, S. M., Shackleford, D. M., Porter, C. J., Edwards, G. A. & Charman, W. N. Intestinal lymphatic transport of halofantrine occurs after oral administration of a unit-dose lipid-based formulation to fasted dogs. Pharm. Res. 20, 1460–1465 (2003). This article uses a dog model to demonstrate the potential for even a single capsule of lipid to promote significant intestinal lymphatic drug transport.
Caliph, S. M., Charman, W. N. & Porter, C. J. Effect of short-, medium-, and long-chain fatty acid-based vehicles on the absolute oral bioavailability and intestinal lymphatic transport of halofantrine and assessment of mass balance in lymph-cannulated and non-cannulated rats. J. Pharm. Sci. 89, 1073–1084 (2000).
Trevaskis, N. L. et al. A mouse model to evaluate the impact of species, sex, and lipid load on lymphatic drug transport. Pharm. Res. 30, 3254–3270 (2013). An article describing a mesenteric lymph duct cannulated mouse model to evaluate intestinal lymphatic drug transport and provides a cross comparison of preclinical species.
Charman, W. N. & Stella, V. J. Estimating the maximum potential for intestinal lymphatic transport of lipophilic drug molecules. Int. J. Pharm. 34, 175–178 (1986). The first paper to suggest the importance of logP and lipid solubility in indicating the potential for drug absorption via the intestinal lymphatics.
Myers, R. A. & Stella, V. J. Factors affecting the lymphatic transport of penclomedine (NSC-338720), a lipophilic cytotoxic drug — comparison to DDT and hexachlorobenzene. Int. J. Pharm. 80, 51–62 (1992).
Trevaskis, N. L., Shanker, R. M., Charman, W. N. & Porter, C. J. The mechanism of lymphatic access of two cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors (CP524,515 and CP532,623) and evaluation of their impact on lymph lipoprotein profiles. Pharm. Res. 27, 1949–1964 (2010).
Choo, E. F. et al. The role of lymphatic transport on the systemic bioavailability of the Bcl-2 protein family inhibitors navitoclax (ABT-263) and ABT-199. Drug Metab. Dispos. 42, 207–212 (2014). This article demonstrates significant intestinal lymphatic transport of a clinical drug candidate in dogs.
Gershkovich, P. et al. The role of molecular physicochemical properties and apolipoproteins in association of drugs with triglyceride-rich lipoproteins: in-silico prediction of uptake by chylomicrons. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 61, 31–39 (2009).
Gershkovich, P. & Hoffman, A. Uptake of lipophilic drugs by plasma derived isolated chylomicrons: linear correlation with intestinal lymphatic bioavailability. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 26, 394–404 (2005).
Lawless, E., Griffin, B., O'Mahony, A. & O'Driscoll, C. Exploring the impact of drug properties on the extent of intestinal lymphatic transport — in vitro and in vivo studies. Pharm. Res. 32, 1817–1829 (2014).
Lu, Y. et al. Biomimetic reassembled chylomicrons as novel association model for the prediction of lymphatic transportation of highly lipophilic drugs via the oral route. Int. J. Pharm. 483, 69–76 (2015).
Holm, R. & Hoest, J. Successful in silico predicting of intestinal lymphatic transfer. Int. J. Pharm. 272, 189–193 (2004).
Lipinski, C. A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B. W. & Feeney, P. J. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 46, 3–26 (2001).
Hopkins, A. L., Keseru, G. M., Leeson, P. D., Rees, D. C. & Reynolds, C. H. The role of ligand efficiency metrics in drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 13, 105–121 (2014).
Han, S. et al. Targeted delivery of a model immunomodulator to the lymphatic system: comparison of alkyl ester versus triglyceride mimetic lipid prodrug strategies. J. Control. Release 177, 1–10 (2014). This article reports glyceride mimetic prodrugs that are more efficiently transported into the intestinal lymph following oral delivery compared with alkyl ester or amide prodrugs, and that they enhance drug delivery to MLNs.
Sugihara, J., Furuuchi, S., Nakano, K. & Harigaya, S. Studies on intestinal lymphatic absorption of drugs. I. Lymphatic absorption of alkyl ester derivatives and alpha-monoglyceride derivatives of drugs. J. Pharmacobiodyn. 11, 369–376 (1988).
Sugihara, J., Furuuchi, S., Ando, H., Takashima, K. & Harigaya, S. Studies on intestinal lymphatic absorption of drugs. II. Glyceride prodrugs for improving lymphatic absorption of naproxen and nicotinic-acid. J. Pharmacobiodyn. 11, 555–562 (1988).
Dahan, A. et al. The oral absorption of phospholipid prodrugs: in vivo and in vitro mechanistic investigation of trafficking of a lecithin–valproic acid conjugate following oral administration. J. Control. Release 126, 1–9 (2008).
Sakai, A., Mori, N., Shuto, S. & Suzuki, T. Deacylation-reacylation cycle: a possible absorption mechanism for the novel lymphotropic antitumor agent dipalmitoylphosphatidylfluorouridine in rats. J. Pharm. Sci. 82, 575–578 (1993).
Hussain, N., Jaitley, V. & Florence, A. T. Recent advances in the understanding of uptake of microparticulates across the gastrointestinal lymphatics. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 50, 107–142 (2001).
Yun, Y., Cho, Y. W. & Park, K. Nanoparticles for oral delivery: targeted nanoparticles with peptidic ligands for oral protein delivery. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 65, 822–832 (2013).
Pasetti, M. F., Simon, J. K., Sztein, M. B. & Levine, M. M. Immunology of gut mucosal vaccines. Immunol. Rev. 239, 125–148 (2011).
Attili-Qadri, S. et al. Oral delivery system prolongs blood circulation of docetaxel nanocapsules via lymphatic absorption. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 17498–17503 (2013).
Pridgen, E. M. et al. Transepithelial transport of Fc-targeted nanoparticles by the neonatal Fc receptor for oral delivery. Sci. Transl. Med. 5, 213ra167 (2013).
Neutra, M. R. & Kozlowski, P. A. Mucosal vaccines: the promise and the challenge. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 6, 148–158 (2006).
Schulz, O. et al. Intestinal CD103+, but not CX3CR1+, antigen sampling cells migrate in lymph and serve classical dendritic cell functions. J. Exp. Med. 206, 3101–3114 (2009).
Rescigno, M. Intestinal dendritic cells. Adv. Immunol. 107, 109–138 (2010).
Niess, J. H. et al. CX3CR1-mediated dendritic cell access to the intestinal lumen and bacterial clearance. Science 307, 254–258 (2005).
Clark, M. A., Hirst, B. H. & Jepson, M. A. Lectin-mediated mucosal delivery of drugs and microparticles. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 43, 207–223 (2000).
Hussain, N. & Florence, A. Utilizing bacterial mechanisms of epithelial cell entry: invasin-induced oral uptake of latex nanoparticles. Pharm. Res. 15, 153–156 (1998).
Fievez, V. et al. Targeting nanoparticles to M cells with non-peptidic ligands for oral vaccination. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 73, 16–24 (2009).
Jin, Y. et al. Goblet cell-targeting nanoparticles for oral insulin delivery and the influence of mucus on insulin transport. Biomaterials 33, 1573–1582 (2012).
Reineke, J. J. et al. Unique insights into the intestinal absorption, transit, and subsequent biodistribution of polymer-derived microspheres. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 13803–13808 (2013).
Desai, M. P., Labhasetwar, V., Amidon, G. L. & Levy, R. J. Gastrointestinal uptake of biodegradable microparticles: effect of particle size. Pharm. Res. 13, 1838–1845 (1996).
Jani, P., Halbert, G. W., Langridge, J. & Florence, A. T. Nanoparticle uptake by the rat gastrointestinal mucosa: quantitation and particle size dependency. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 42, 821–826 (1990).
Ebel, J. A. Method for quantifying particle absorption from the small intestine of the mouse. Pharm. Res. 7, 848–851 (1990).
Jenkins, P. G. et al. The quantitation of the absorption of microparticles into the intestinal lymph of Wistar rats. Int. J. Pharm. 102, 261–266 (1994).
Lefevre, M. E., Joel, D. D. & Schidlovsky, G. Retention of ingested latex particles in Peyer's patches of germfree and conventional mice. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 179, 522–528 (1985).
Hussain, N., Jani, P. U. & Florence, A. T. Enhanced oral uptake of tomato lectin-conjugated nanoparticles in the rat. Pharm. Res. 14, 613–618 (1997).
Ralay-Ranaivo, B. et al. Novel self assembling nanoparticles for the oral administration of fondaparinux: synthesis, characterization and in vivo evaluation. J. Control. Release 194, 323–331 (2014).
Zhang, N. et al. Lectin-modified solid lipid nanoparticles as carriers for oral administration of insulin. Int. J. Pharm. 327, 153–159 (2006).
Florence, A. T., Sakthivel, T. & Toth, I. Oral uptake and translocation of a polylysine dendrimer with a lipid surface. J. Control. Release 65, 253–259 (2000).
Ryan, G. M. et al. Pulmonary administration of PEGylated polylysine dendrimers: absorption from the lung versus retention within the lung is highly size-dependent. Mol. Pharm. 10, 2986–2995 (2013).
Lycke, N. Recent progress in mucosal vaccine development: potential and limitations. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 12, 592–605 (2012).
Meeusen, E. N. Exploiting mucosal surfaces for the development of mucosal vaccines. Vaccine 29, 8506–8511 (2011).
Stano, A. et al. PPS nanoparticles as versatile delivery system to induce systemic and broad mucosal immunity after intranasal administration. Vaccine 29, 804–812 (2011).
Stano, A., Nembrini, C., Swartz, M. A., Hubbell, J. A. & Simeoni, E. Nanoparticle size influences the magnitude and quality of mucosal immune responses after intranasal immunization. Vaccine 30, 7541–7546 (2012).
Rytting, E., Nguyen, J., Wang, X. & Kissel, T. Biodegradable polymeric nanocarriers for pulmonary drug delivery. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 5, 629–639 (2008).
Patton, J. S., Fishburn, C. S. & Weers, J. G. The lungs as a portal of entry for systemic drug delivery. Proc. Am. Thorac. Soc. 1, 338–344 (2004).
Schraufnagel, D. E. Lung lymphatic anatomy and correlates. Pathophysiology 17, 337–343 (2010).
Pabst, R. & Tschernig, T. Bronchus-associated lymphoid tissue. Am. J. Respir. Cell. Mol. Biol. 43, 137–141 (2010).
Geiser, M. Update on macrophage clearance of inhaled micro- and nanoparticles. J. Aerosol Med. Pulm. Drug Deliv. 23, 207–217 (2010).
Wanner, A., Salathe, M. & O'Riordan, T. G. Mucociliary clearance in the airways. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 154, 1868–1902 (1996).
Kambouchner, M. & Bernaudin, J. F. Intralobular pulmonary lymphatic distribution in normal human lung using D2-40 antipodoplanin immunostaining. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 57, 643–648 (2009).
Botelho, M. F. et al. Visualization of deep lung lymphatic network using radioliposomes. Rev. Port. Pneumol. 17, 124–130 (in Portuguese) (2011).
Hanatani, K. et al. Molecular weight-dependent lymphatic transfer of fluorescein isothiocyanate-labeled dextrans after intrapulmonary administration and effects of various absorption enhancers on the lymphatic transfer of drugs in rats. J. Drug Target 3, 263–271 (1995).
Choi, H. S. et al. Rapid translocation of nanoparticles from the lung airspaces to the body. Nat. Biotech. 28, 1300–1303 (2010).
Li, A. V. et al. Generation of effector memory T cell-based mucosal and systemic immunity with pulmonary nanoparticle vaccination. Sci. Transl. Med. 5, 204ra130 (2013).
Videira, M. A. et al. Lymphatic uptake of pulmonary delivered radiolabelled solid lipid nanoparticles. J. Drug Target 10, 607–613 (2002).
Latimer, P. et al. Aerosol delivery of liposomal formulated paclitaxel and vitamin E analog reduces murine mammary tumor burden and metastases. Exp. Biol. Med. (Maywood) 234, 1244–1252 (2009).
Mohammad, A. K., Amayreh, L. K., Mazzara, J. M. & Reineke, J. J. Rapid lymph accumulation of polystyrene nanoparticles following pulmonary administration. Pharm. Res. 30, 424–434 (2013).
Mackay, C. R., Marston, W. L. & Dudler, L. Naive and memory T cells show distinct pathways of lymphocyte recirculation. J. Exp. Med. 171, 801–817 (1990).
Braun, A. Afferent lymph-derived T cells and DCs use different chemokine receptor CCR7-dependent routes for entry into the lymph node and intranodal migration. Nat. Immunol. 12, 879–887 (2011).
Moghimi, S. M. & Bonnemain, B. Subcutaneous and intravenous delivery of diagnostic agents to the lymphatic system: applications in lymphoscintigraphy and indirect lymphography. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 37, 295–312 (1999).
Sensken, S.-C., Bode, C. & Gräler, M. H. Accumulation of fingolimod (FTY720) in lymphoid tissues contributes to prolonged efficacy. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 328, 963–969 (2009).
Manolova, V. et al. Nanoparticles target distinct dendritic cell populations according to their size. Eur. J. Immunol. 38, 1404–1413 (2008). The first demonstration of the relative importance of direct drainage versus transport after cellular uptake compared to lymph node uptake of particles after interstitial injection.
Moghimi, S. M. et al. Surface engineered nanospheres with enhanced drainage into lymphatics and uptake by macrophages of the regional lymph nodes. FEBS Lett. 344, 25–30 (1994).
Oussoren, C. et al. Lymphatic uptake and biodistribution of liposomes after subcutaneous injection: IV. Fate of liposomes in regional lymph nodes. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1370, 259–272 (1998).
Reddy, S. T., Rehor, A., Schmoekel, H. G., Hubbell, J. A. & Swartz, M. A. In vivo targeting of dendritic cells in lymph nodes with poly(propylene sulfide) nanoparticles. J. Control. Release 112, 26–34 (2006). An article demonstrating the size dependency of lymphatic uptake, lymph node retention and lymph node dendritic cell uptake of nanoparticles.
Sixt, M. et al. The conduit system transports soluble antigens from the afferent lymph to resident dendritic cells in the T cell area of the lymph node. Immunity 22, 19–29 (2005).
Caserta, S., Alessi, P., Guarnerio, J., Basso, V. & Mondino, A. Synthetic CD4+ T cell-targeted antigen-presenting cells elicit protective antitumor responses. Cancer Res. 68, 3010–3018 (2008).
Moon, J. J. et al. Enhancing humoral responses to a malaria antigen with nanoparticle vaccines that expand Tfh cells and promote germinal center induction. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 1080–1085 (2012). A key paper demonstrating that targeting delivery to lymph nodes enhances vaccination. See also references 207 and 209.
Oussoren, C. & Storm, G. Liposomes to target the lymphatics by subcutaneous administration. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 50, 143–156 (2001).
Takakura, Y., Matsumoto, S., Hashida, M. & Sezaki, H. Enhanced lymphatic delivery of mitomycin C conjugated with dextran. Cancer Res. 44, 2505–2510 (1984).
Kim, C. K. & Han, J. H. Lymphatic delivery and pharmacokinetics of methotrexate after intramuscular injection of differently charged liposome-entrapped methotrexate to rats. J. Microencapsul. 12, 437–446 (1995).
Kaminskas, L. M. et al. Methotrexate-conjugated PEGylated dendrimers show differential patterns of deposition and activity in tumor-burdened lymph nodes after intravenous and subcutaneous administration in rats. Mol. Pharm. 12, 432–443 (2015).
Nune, S. K., Gunda, P., Majeti, B. K., Thallapally, P. K. & Forrest, M. L. Advances in lymphatic imaging and drug delivery. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 63, 876–885 (2011).
Shackleford, D. M. et al. Contribution of lymphatically transported testosterone undecanoate to the systemic exposure of testosterone after oral administration of two andriol formulations in conscious lymph duct-cannulated dogs. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 306, 925–933 (2003).
White, K. L. et al. Lymphatic transport of methylnortestosterone undecanoate (MU) and the bioavailability of methylnortestosterone are highly sensitive to the mass of coadministered lipid after oral administration of MU. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 331, 700–709 (2009).
Surampudi, P. et al. Single, escalating dose pharmacokinetics, safety and food effects of a new oral androgen dimethandrolone undecanoate in man: a prototype oral male hormonal contraceptive. Andrology 2, 579–587 (2014).
Khoo, S. M., Edwards, G. A., Porter, C. J. H. & Charman, W. N. A conscious dog model for assessing the absorption, enterocyte-based metabolism, and intestinal lymphatic transport of halofantrine. J. Pharm. Sci. 90, 1599–1607 (2001).
Trevaskis, N. L. et al. Intestinal lymphatic transport enhances the post-prandial oral bioavailability of a novel cannabinoid receptor agonist via avoidance of first-pass metabolism. Pharm. Res. 26, 1486–1495 (2009).
Trevaskis, N. L., Porter, C. J. & Charman, W. N. An examination of the interplay between enterocyte-based metabolism and lymphatic drug transport in the rat. Drug Metab. Dispos. 34, 729–733 (2006).
Zhang, Z. et al. A self-assembled nanocarrier loading teniposide improves the oral delivery and drug concentration in tumor. J. Control. Release 166, 30–37 (2013).
Garzonaburbeh, A., Poupaert, J. H., Claesen, M., Dumont, P. & Atassi, G. 1,3-dipalmitoylglycerol ester of chlorambucil as a lymphotropic, orally administrable anti-neoplastic agent. J. Med. Chem. 26, 1200–1203 (1983).
Kaminskas, L. M. et al. PEGylation of interferon α2 improves lymphatic exposure after subcutaneous and intravenous administration and improves antitumour efficacy against lymphatic breast cancer metastases. J. Control. Release 168, 200–208 (2013).
Li, S., Goins, B., Hrycushko, B. A., Phillips, W. T. & Bao, A. Feasibility of eradication of breast cancer cells remaining in postlumpectomy cavity and draining lymph nodes following intracavitary injection of radioactive immunoliposomes. Mol. Pharm. 9, 2513–2522 (2012).
Cai, S., Xie, Y., Davies, N. M., Cohen, M. S. & Forrest, M. L. Carrier-based intralymphatic cisplatin chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Ther. Delivery 1, 237–245 (2010).
Qin, L. et al. Polymeric micelles for enhanced lymphatic drug delivery to treat metastatic tumors. J. Control. Release 171, 133–142 (2013).
Rafi, M. et al. Polymeric micelles incorporating (1,2-diaminocyclohexane)platinum (II) suppress the growth of orthotopic scirrhous gastric tumors and their lymph node metastasis. J. Control. Release 159, 189–196 (2012).
Kourtis, I. C. et al. Peripherally administered nanoparticles target monocytic myeloid cells, secondary lymphoid organs and tumors in mice. PLoS ONE 8, e61646 (2013).
Liu, R. et al. Prevention of nodal metastases in breast cancer following the lymphatic migration of paclitaxel-loaded expansile nanoparticles. Biomaterials 34, 1810–1819 (2013).
Cai, S., Xie, Y., Bagby, T. R., Cohen, M. S. & Forrest, M. L. Intralymphatic chemotherapy using a hyaluronan–cisplatin conjugate. J. Surg. Res. 147, 247–252 (2008).
Akamo, Y. et al. Chemotherapy targeting regional lymph nodes by gastric submucosal injection of liposomal adriamycin in patients with gastric carcinoma. Jpn J. Cancer Res. 85, 652–658 (1994).
Khullar, O. V. et al. Nanoparticle migration and delivery of paclitaxel to regional lymph nodes in a large animal model. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 214, 328–337 (2012).
Ling, R. et al. Lymphatic chemotherapy induces apoptosis in lymph node metastases in a rabbit breast carcinoma model. J. Drug Target. 13, 137–142 (2005).
Yang, F. et al. Magnetic functionalised carbon nanotubes as drug vehicles for cancer lymph node metastasis treatment. Eur. J. Cancer 47, 1873–1882 (2011).
Zhao, C. et al. Local targeted therapy of liver metastasis from colon cancer by galactosylated liposome encapsulated with doxorubicin. PLoS ONE 8, e73860 (2013).
Dane, K. Y. et al. Nano-sized drug-loaded micelles deliver payload to lymph node immune cells and prolong allograft survival. J. Control. Release 156, 154–160 (2011).
Trevaskis, N. L., Charman, W. N. & Porter, C. J. Targeted drug delivery to lymphocytes: a route to site-specific immunomodulation? Mol. Pharm. 7, 2297–2309 (2010).
Okanobo, A., Chauhan, S. K., Dastjerdi, M. H., Kodati, S. & Dana, R. Efficacy of topical blockade of interleukin-1 in experimental dry eye disease. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 154, 63–71 (2012).
Shinriki, S. et al. Interleukin-6 signalling regulates vascular endothelial growth factor-C synthesis and lymphangiogenesis in human oral squamous cell carcinoma. J. Pathol. 225, 142–150 (2011).
Polzer, K. et al. Tumour necrosis factor blockade increases lymphangiogenesis in murine and human arthritic joints. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 67, 1610–1616 (2008).
Pal, I. & Ramsey, J. D. The role of the lymphatic system in vaccine trafficking and immune response. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 63, 909–922 (2011).
Woodruff, M. C. et al. Trans-nodal migration of resident dendritic cells into medullary interfollicular regions initiates immunity to influenza vaccine. J. Exp. Med. 211, 1611–1621 (2014).
Senti, G., Johansen, P. & Kundig, T. M. Intralymphatic immunotherapy. Curr. Opin. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 9, 537–543 (2009).
Senti, G. et al. Intralymphatic allergen administration renders specific immunotherapy faster and safer: a randomized controlled trial. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 17908–17912 (2008). A clinical trial demonstrating the benefit of intralymphatic administration to induce allergen tolerance and reduce allergen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis.
Jewell, C. M., Bustamante López, S. C. & Irvine, D. J. In situ engineering of the lymph node microenvironment via intranodal injection of adjuvant-releasing polymer particles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 15745–15750 (2011).
Maloy, K. J. et al. Intralymphatic immunization enhances DNA vaccination. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 3299–3303 (2001).
De Titta, A. et al. Nanoparticle conjugation of CpG enhances adjuvancy for cellular immunity and memory recall at low dose. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 19902–19907 (2013).
Xu, Z. et al. Multifunctional nanoparticles co-delivering Trp2 peptide and CpG adjuvant induce potent cytotoxic T-lymphocyte response against melanoma and its lung metastasis. J. Control. Release 172, 259–265 (2013).
Moon, J. J. et al. Interbilayer-crosslinked multilamellar vesicles as synthetic vaccines for potent humoral and cellular immune responses. Nat. Mater. 10, 243–251 (2011).
St John, A. L., Chan, C. Y., Staats, H. F., Leong, K. W. & Abraham, S. N. Synthetic mast-cell granules as adjuvants to promote and polarize immunity in lymph nodes. Nat. Mater. 11, 250–257 (2012).
Jeanbart, L. et al. Enhancing efficacy of anticancer vaccines by targeted delivery to tumor-draining lymph nodes. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2, 436–447 (2014).
Thomas, S. N., Vokali, E., Lund, A. W., Hubbell, J. A. & Swartz, M. A. Targeting the tumor-draining lymph node with adjuvanted nanoparticles reshapes the anti-tumor immune response. Biomaterials 35, 814–824 (2014).
Kim, S. H., Lee, K. Y. & Jang, Y. S. Mucosal immune system and M cell-targeting strategies for oral mucosal vaccination. Immune Netw. 12, 165–175 (2012).
Zhu, Q. et al. Large intestine-targeted, nanoparticle-releasing oral vaccine to control genitorectal viral infection. Nat. Med. 18, 1291–1296 (2012).
Ballester, M. et al. Nanoparticle conjugation and pulmonary delivery enhance the protective efficacy of Ag85B and CpG against tuberculosis. Vaccine 29, 6959–6966 (2011).
Nembrini, C. et al. Nanoparticle conjugation of antigen enhances cytotoxic T-cell responses in pulmonary vaccination. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, E989–E997 (2011). This article demonstrates enhanced immunization and protection against influenza-ova infection via pulmonary administration of lymph node-targeted antigens in nanoparticles with CpG relative to administration of soluble antigens with CpG.
Faria, A. M. C. & Weiner, H. L. Oral tolerance: therapeutic implications for autoimmune diseases. Clin. Dev. Immunol. 13, 143–157 (2006).
Miller, S. D., Turley, D. M. & Podojil, J. R. Antigen-specific tolerance strategies for the prevention and treatment of autoimmune disease. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 7, 665–677 (2007).
Weiner, H. L., da Cunha, A. P., Quintana, F. & Wu, H. Oral tolerance. Immunol. Rev. 241, 241–259 (2011).
Scandling, J. D., Busque, S., Shizuru, J. A., Engleman, E. G. & Strober, S. Induced immune tolerance for kidney transplantation. N. Engl. J. Med. 365, 1359–1360 (2011).
Faria, A. M. C. & Weiner, H. L. Oral tolerance. Immunol. Rev. 206, 232–259 (2005).
Burks, A. W., Laubach, S. & Jones, S. M. Oral tolerance, food allergy, and immunotherapy: implications for future treatment. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 121, 1344–1350 (2008).
Worbs, T. et al. Oral tolerance originates in the intestinal immune system and relies on antigen carriage by dendritic cells. J. Exp. Med. 203, 519–527 (2006).
Spahn, T. W. et al. Mesenteric lymph nodes are critical for the induction of high-dose oral tolerance in the absence of Peyer's patches. Eur. J. Immunol. 32, 1109–1113 (2002).
Spahn, T. W. et al. Induction of oral tolerance to cellular immune responses in the absence of Peyer's patches. Eur. J. Immunol. 31, 1278–1287 (2001).
Kraus, T. A. et al. Induction of mucosal tolerance in Peyer's patch-deficient, ligated small bowel loops. J. Clin. Invest. 115, 2234–2243 (2005).
Fujihashi, K. et al. Peyer's patches are required for oral tolerance to proteins. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 3310–3315 (2001).
Suzuki, H. et al. Ovalbumin-protein sigma 1 M-cell targeting facilitates oral tolerance with reduction of antigen-specific CD4+ T cells. Gastroenterology 135, 917–925 (2008).
Masuda, K., Horie, K., Suzuki, R., Yoshikawa, T. & Hirano, K. Oral delivery of antigens in liposomes with some lipid compositions modulates oral tolerance to the antigens. Microbiol. Immunol. 46, 55–58 (2002).
Kim, W. et al. Suppression of collagen-induced arthritis by single feeding of poilylactic-poilyglycolic acid entrapping immunodominant peptide of type II collagen: involvement of CD4+ IL-10+ T cells in Peyer's pathces. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 62, 168–168 (2003).
Goldmann, K., Hoffmann, J., Eckl, S., Spriewald, B. M. & Ensminger, S. M. Attenuation of transplant arteriosclerosis by oral feeding of major histocompatibility complex encoding chitosan-DNA nanoparticles. Transplant Immunol. 28, 9–13 (2013).
Pecquet, S. et al. Oral tolerance elicited in mice by β-lactoglobulin entrapped in biodegradable microspheres. Vaccine 18, 1196–1202 (2000).
Shirali, A. C. et al. Nanoparticle delivery of mycophenolic acid upregulates PD-L1 on dendritic cells to prolong murine allograft survival. Am. J. Transplant. 11, 2582–2592 (2011).
Maldonado, R. A. et al. Polymeric synthetic nanoparticles for the induction of antigen-specific immunological tolerance. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E156–E165 (2015). Provides an innovative approach to enhance and prolong tolerance induction via the administration of 'tolerogenic' nanoparticles loaded with antigens and the tolerogenic immunomodulator rapamycin that are efficiently transport to lymphoid organs and captured by resident APCs.
Capini, C. et al. Antigen-specific suppression of inflammatory arthritis using liposomes. J. Immunol. 182, 3556–3565 (2009).
Getts, D. R. et al. Microparticles bearing encephalitogenic peptides induce T-cell tolerance and ameliorate experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. Nat. Biotech. 30, 1217–1224 (2012).
Kinman, L. et al. Lipid-drug association enhanced HIV-1 protease inhibitor indinavir localization in lymphoid tissues and viral load reduction: a proof of concept study in HIV-2287-infected macaques. J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. 34, 387–397 (2003).
Freeling, J. P., Koehn, J., Shu, C., Sun, J. & Ho, R. J. Y. Long-acting three-drug combination anti-HIV nanoparticles enhance drug exposure in primate plasma and cells within lymph nodes and blood. AIDS 28, 2625–2627 (2014).
Freeling, J. P. & Ho, R. J. Y. Anti-HIV drug particles may overcome lymphatic drug insufficiency and associated HIV persistence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E2512–E2513 (2014).
das Neves, J., Amiji, M. M., Bahia, M. F. & Sarmento, B. Nanotechnology-based systems for the treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 62, 458–477 (2010).
Edagwa, B. J., Zhou, T., McMillan, J. M., Liu, X. M. & Gendelman, H. E. Development of HIV reservoir targeted long acting nanoformulated antiretroviral therapies. Curr. Med. Chem. 21, 4186–4198 (2014).
Sosnik, A., Chiappetta, D. A. & Carcaboso, Á. M. Drug delivery systems in HIV pharmacotherapy: what has been done and the challenges standing ahead. J. Control. Release 138, 2–15 (2009).
Lalanne, M. et al. Synthesis and biological evaluation of two glycerolipidic prodrugs of didanosine for direct lymphatic delivery against HIV. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 17, 2237–2240 (2007).
Skanji, R. et al. A new nanomedicine based on didanosine glycerolipidic prodrug enhances the long term accumulation of drug in a HIV sanctuary. Int. J. Pharm. 414, 285–297 (2011).
Puligujja, P. et al. Pharmacodynamics of long-acting folic acid-receptor targeted ritonavir-boosted atazanavir nanoformulations. Biomaterials 41, 141–150 (2015).
Horst, H. J. et al. Lymphatic absorption and metabolism of orally administered testosterone undecanoate in man. Klin. Wochenschr. 54, 875–879 (1976). One of the very few studies to have quantified drug uptake into the lymph in humans.
Edwards, G. A., Porter, C. J., Caliph, S. M., Khoo, S. M. & Charman, W. N. Animal models for the study of intestinal lymphatic drug transport. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 50, 45–60 (2001).
Seeger, M. & Bewig, B. Ultrasound imaging of the thoracic duct. N. Engl. J. Med. 359, e28 (2008).
Nadolski, G. & Itkin, M. Thoracic duct embolization for the management of chylothoraces. Curr. Opin. Pulm. Med. 19, 380–386 (2013).
Thomas, S. N. & Schudel, A. Overcoming transport barriers for interstitial-, lymphatic-, and lymph node-targeted drug delivery. Curr. Opin. Chem. Engineer. 7, 65–74 (2015).
Miteva, D. O. Transmural flow modulates cell and fluid transport functions of lymphatic endothelium. Circ. Res. 106, 920–931 (2010).
Banerji, S. et al. LYVE-1, a new homologue of the CD44 glycoprotein, is a lymph-specific receptor for hyaluronan. J. Cell Biol. 144, 789–801 (1999).
Dixon, J. B., Raghunathan, S. & Swartz, M. A. A tissue-engineered model of the intestinal lacteal for evaluating lipid transport by lymphatics. Biotechnol. Bioengineer. 103, 1224–1235 (2009).
John, T. A., Vogel, S. M., Tiruppathi, C., Malik, A. B. & Minshall, R. D. Quantitative analysis of albumin uptake and transport in the rat microvessel endothelial monolayer. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol. 284, L187–L196 (2003).
Schubert, W. et al. Caveolae-deficient endothelial cells show defects in the uptake and transport of albumin in vivo. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 48619–48622 (2001).
Mendelsohn, A. R. & Larrick, J. W. Sleep facilitates clearance of metabolites from the brain: glymphatic function in aging and neurodegenerative diseases. Rejuven. Res. 16, 518–523 (2013).
Thrane, V. R. et al. Paravascular microcirculation facilitates rapid lipid transport and astrocyte signaling in the brain. Sci. Rep. 3, 2582 (2013).
Florence, A. T. & Hussain, N. Transcytosis of nanoparticle and dendrimer delivery systems: evolving vistas. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 50 (Suppl. 1), 69–89 (2001).
des Rieux, A., Fievez, V., Garinot, M., Schneider, Y. J. & Preat, V. Nanoparticles as potential oral delivery systems of proteins and vaccines: A mechanistic approach. J. Control. Release 116, 1–27 (2006).
Hunter, A. C., Elsom, J., Wibroe, P. P. & Moghimi, S. M. Polymeric particulate technologies for oral drug delivery and targeting: a pathophysiological perspective. Nanomedicine 8, S5–S20 (2012).
Ravi, P. R., Aditya, N., Kathuria, H., Malekar, S. & Vats, R. Lipid nanoparticles for oral delivery of raloxifene: optimization, stability, in vivo evaluation and uptake mechanism. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 87, 114–124 (2014).
Sun, M. et al. Intestinal absorption and intestinal lymphatic transport of sirolimus from self-microemulsifying drug delivery systems assessed using the single-pass intestinal perfusion (SPIP) technique and a chylomicron flow blocking approach: Linear correlation with oral bioavailabilities in rats. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 43, 132–140 (2011).
Zhang, Z. et al. Bile salts enhance the intestinal absorption of lipophilic drug loaded lipid nanocarriers: mechanism and effect in rats. Int. J. Pharm. 452, 374–381 (2013).
Fu, C. et al. The absorption, distribution, excretion and toxicity of mesoporous silica nanoparticles in mice following different exposure routes. Biomaterials 34, 2565–2575 (2013).
Dahan, A. & Hoffman, A. Evaluation of a chylomicron flow blocking approach to investigate the intestinal lymphatic transport of lipophilic drugs. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 24, 381–388 (2005).
Bernard, A., Carlier, H. & Caselli, C. Biochemical and ultrastructural study of actidione-cycloheximide effect on fat intestinal absorption in the rat (author's transl). J. Physiol. (Paris). 76, 147–157 (1980) (in French).
Alitalo, A. & Detmar, M. Interaction of tumor cells and lymphatic vessels in cancer progression. Oncogene 31, 4499–4508 (2012).
Hwee, Y. L. et al. Hypercholesterolemic mice exhibit lymphatic vessel dysfunction and degeneration. Am. J. Pathol. 175, 1328–1337 (2009).
Liao, S. et al. Impaired lymphatic contraction associated with immunosuppression. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 18784–18789 (2011).
Bagby, T. R. et al. Lymphatic trafficking kinetics and near-infrared imaging using star polymer architectures with controlled anionic character. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 47, 287–294 (2012).
Karlsson, M. et al. “Tolerosomes” are produced by intestinal epithelial cells. Eur. J. Immunol. 31, 2892–2900 (2001).
Menard, S., Cerf-Bensussan, N. & Heyman, M. Multiple facets of intestinal permeability and epithelial handling of dietary antigens. Mucosal Immunol. 3, 247–259 (2010).
Wang, Y. H. et al. Chylomicrons promote intestinal absorption and systemic dissemination of dietary antigen (ovalbumin) in mice. PLoS ONE 4, e8442 (2009).
Jang, M. H. et al. Intestinal villous M cells: an antigen entry site in the mucosal epithelium. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 6110–6115 (2004).
Neutra, M. R. & Kraehenbuhl, J. P. in Mucosal Immunology 3rd edn (eds Mestecky, J. et al.) 111–130 (Elsevier, 2005).
Caliph, S. M. et al. The impact of lymphatic transport on the systemic disposition of lipophilic drugs. J. Pharm. Sci. 102, 2395–2408 (2013).
Carrasco, Y. R. & Batista, F. D. B cells acquire particulate antigen in a macrophage-rich area at the boundary between the follicle and the subcapsular sinus of the lymph node. Immunity 27, 160–171 (2007).
Junt, T. Subcapsular sinus macrophages in lymph nodes clear lymph-borne viruses and present them to antiviral B cells. Nature 450, 110–114 (2007).
The title of this article was inspired by, and modified from, an excellent review of lymphatic lipid transport by J. B. Dixon (cited as reference 12 in this article). The authors gratefully acknowledge the reviewers of this article and the insightful comments provided by M. Swartz.
C.J.H.P. and N.L.T. are named inventors on a patent application in the area of lymph-targeted prodrugs.
Biochemical complexes of lipids and soluble apolipoproteins that transport lipids in lymph fluid and blood to tissues throughout the body. The largest and least dense lipoproteins, chylomicrons, are assembled in the small intestine. Very low-density lipoproteins (VLDLs) and the smallest and most dense lipoproteins, high-density lipoproteins (HDLs), are assembled in both the liver and the intestine. Low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) are formed following removal of lipids from VLDL by tissues.
- Initial lymphatic capillaries
Small blind-ended lymphatic vessels in the tissue periphery that have a discontinuous basement membrane, lack smooth muscle and are characterized by button-like interendothelial junctions and short anchoring filaments that are tethered to elastin fibres in the surrounding tissue. Initial lymphatics are adapted for the uptake of fluid and cells.
- Collecting lymphatic vessels
These lymphatic vessels are characterized by a continuous smooth muscle cell layer and the presence of semilunar valves that facilitate the unidirectional transport of lymph and associated components. Afferent collecting lymphatics carry lymph into lymph nodes whereas efferent collecting lymphatics carry lymph from lymph nodes.
- Thoracic lymph duct
The largest lymphatic vessel, sometimes called the left thoracic lymph duct, that collects most of the lymph in the body apart from the lymph draining the right thorax, arm, head and neck. The latter drain instead into the right lymphatic duct. Lymph empties from the thoracic lymph duct into the systemic circulation at the junction of the left subclavian and left internal jugular veins.
- Antigen presenting cells
(APCs). A heterogeneous group of immune cells that initiate the cellular immune response by processing and presenting antigens for recognition by lymphocytes such as T cells. Classical APCs include dendritic cells, macrophages, Langerhans cells and B cells.
A state of immune unresponsiveness to an antigen that results from the suppression of immune responses to antigens that have been administered or encountered previously.
The formation of new lymphatic vessels from pre-existing lymphatic vessels.
- Glymphatic system
A recently identified paravascular pathway that enables the exchange of cerebrospinal fluid with interstitial fluid in the brain and provides a function similar to the lymphatic system elsewhere in the body. In this way, the glymphatics facilitate the clearance of solutes and waste products from the brain.
The logarithm of the ratio of the concentrations of un-ionized solute (drug) in two immiscible liquid phases (usually octanol and water) at equilibrium. LogP provides one measure of drug lipophilicity, with high logP values indicating higher lipophilicity.
The affinity of a molecule for a lipophilic environment (lipid or lipid-like). Lipophilic literally means 'fat loving'.
- Rule of 5
Limits to a series of molecular properties of drugs (logP, molecular weight, hydrogen bond donors and acceptors), suggested by Lipinski to increase the likelihood of good oral absorption.
- Mesenteric lymphatic vessels
The lymphatic vessels that collect lymph from the intestine. This includes the initial lymphatic capillaries ('lacteals'), pre-nodal (afferent) collecting lymphatic vessels and the post-nodal (efferent) mesenteric lymph duct. The mesenteric lymph duct collects almost all lymph from the small intestine.
- High endothelial venules
(HEVs). Specialized post-capillary venules that are characterized by plump, as opposed to thin, endothelial cells. HEVs are found in lymph nodes and other lymphoid tissues and support high levels of lymphocyte extravasation from the blood into these tissues.
About this article
Cite this article
Trevaskis, N., Kaminskas, L. & Porter, C. From sewer to saviour — targeting the lymphatic system to promote drug exposure and activity. Nat Rev Drug Discov 14, 781–803 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd4608
This article is cited by
Journal of Nanobiotechnology (2022)
Nature Communications (2022)
Amphiphile-CpG vaccination induces potent lymph node activation and COVID-19 immunity in mice and non-human primates
npj Vaccines (2022)
Gene Therapy (2022)
Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology (2022)