Zebrafish Models for the Safety and Therapeutic Testing of Nanoparticles with a Focus on Macrophages

nanomaterials Review Zebrafish Models for the Safety and Therapeutic Testing of Nanoparticles with a Focus on Macrophages Alba Pensado-López 1,2 , Juan Fernández-Rey 1,2, Pedro Reimunde 3,4 , JoséCrecente-Campo 2, Laura Sánchez 1,*,† and Fernando Torres Andón2,*,†   Citation: Pensado-López, A.; Fernández-Rey, J.; Reimunde, P.; Crecente-Campo, J.; Sánchez, L.; Torres Andón, F. Zebrafish Models for the Safety and Therapeutic Testing of Nanoparticles with a Focus on Macrophages. Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784. https://doi.org/10.3390/ nano11071784 Academic Editor: Robyn L. Tanguay Received: 11 June 2021 Accepted: 7 July 2021 Published: 9 July 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 1Department of Zoology, Genetics and Physical Anthropology, Campus de Lugo, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 27002 Lugo, Spain; [email protected] (A.P.-L.); [email protected] (J.F.-R.) 2Center for Research in Molecular Medicine & Chronic Diseases (CIMUS), Campus Vida, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15706 Santiago de Compostela, Spain; [email protected] 3 Department of Physiotherapy, Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Universidade da Coruña, Campus de Oza, 15006 A Coruña, Spain; pedr[email protected] 4Department of Neurosurgery, Hospital Universitario Lucus Augusti, 27003 Lugo, Spain *Correspondence: [email protected] (L.S.); [email protected] (F.T.A.) † These authors have contributed equally to this work. Abstract: New nanoparticles and biomaterials are increasingly being used in biomedical research for drug delivery, diagnostic applications, or vaccines, and they are also present in numerous commercial products, in the environment and workplaces. Thus, the evaluation of the safety and possible therapeutic application of these nanomaterials has become of foremost importance for the proper progress of nanotechnology. Due to economical and ethical issues, in vitro and in vivo methods are encouraged for the testing of new compounds and/or nanoparticles, however in vivo models are still needed. In this scenario, zebrafish (Danio rerio) has demonstrated potential for toxicological and pharmacological screenings. Zebrafish presents an innate immune system, from early developmental stages, with conserved macrophage phenotypes and functions with respect to humans. This fact, combined with the transparency of zebrafish, the availability of models with fluorescently labelled macrophages, as well as a broad variety of disease models offers great possibilities for the testing of new nanoparticles. Thus, with a particular focus on macrophage– nanoparticle interaction in vivo , here, we review the studies using zebrafish for toxicological and biodistribution testing of nanoparticles, and also the possibilities for their preclinical evaluation in various diseases, including cancer and autoimmune, neuroinflammatory, and infectious diseases. Keywords: zebrafish; nanomaterial; nanoparticle; drug delivery; macrophage; immune system; innate immunity 1. Introduction Recent advances in nanotechnology offer the possibility to engineer a wide variety of new nanoparticles and biomaterials with potential application in medicine, but also with commercial interest, providing solutions for numerous sectors in society (i.e., electricity, cosmetics, food packaging, etc.) [ 1 , 2 ]. There is considerable evidence that nano- and microscale materials have unique biological interactions when compared with molecules or bulk materials [ 3 ]. Thus, safety assessment results are, of course, of paramount importance [ 4 ]. In the case of medical applications, nanomaterials are designed for drug delivery, imaging, diagnosis, sensing, and/or therapeutic purposes. Thus, the benefit/risk for the use of nanotechnologies in this case acquires a different dimension similar to the pharmacological/toxicological profile of other drugs [ 5 ]. For these studies, in silico and in vitro methods, including cell- and organ-based assays, are encouraged. However, animal tests are still needed [4,6]. Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano11071784 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/nanomaterials Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784 2 of 34 In this context, the zebrafish (Danio rerio) has become a well-established model for the toxicological and pharmacological screening of new drugs [ 7 ] and nanomaterials [ 8 ]. Rapid embryo development, small size and transparency, genetic and physiological conservation, ethical and economic advantages have made zebrafish stand out from all other in vivo models [ 9 ]. Furthermore, the innate branch of the immune system, including macrophage functions, is well-conserved between humans and the zebrafish, presenting a powerful model for the study of immunotoxicity and also diseases causing and/or caused by inflammatory disorders (i.e., cancer, autoimmune diseases or infectious diseases) [ 10 , 11 ]. Several zebrafish models with fluorescently labeled macrophages have been developed and optimized for studies with a particular focus on the role of macrophages in the toxicological or therapeutic effects of new compounds and nanomaterials. Thus, it is our purpose in this review to collect the information available related to the safety and biomedical testing of new nanomaterials using zebrafish models, with a particular focus on their interaction with macrophages, starting with toxicological and/or biodistribution experimentation, followed by preclinical testing of nanoparticles for therapeutic purposes. 2. Zebrafish Innate Immune System: Role of Macrophages The zebrafish immune system is able to develop both innate and adaptive responses. Despite differences in anatomical sites and time points with respect to mammals. Key cell types, molecular pathways, genetic programs, and transcription factors are highly conserved [ 12 ]. Whereas the innate immune system components are already present in early zebrafish embryo stages, the development of adaptive responses does not occur until 2–4 weeks post-fertilization (wpf), and complete immunocompetence is not achieved until 4–6 wpf [ 13 ]. Zebrafish innate immune system is composed of similar types of cells than mammals, being macrophages the first leukocytes in development and key players in directing the host immune response [ 14 ]. The origin of primitive macrophages in zebrafish occurs at 14–15 h post-fertilization (hpf). These cells migrate to the yolk sac, differentiate, and enter the circulation from 25 hpf [ 15 , 16 ]. The caudal hematopoietic tissue (CHT) at two days post-fertilization (dpf), equivalent to fetal liver or placenta in mammals, acts as a transient hematopoietic site and is a source of embryonic macrophages and neutrophils [ 17 , 18 ]. The thymus produces mature T-cells and the kidney, functional ortholog of mammalian bone marrow, produces myeloid, erythroid, thromboid, and lymphoid cells throughout adulthood [19,20]. Macrophages are phagocytic cells from the innate immune system which can display a wide variety of functions due to their plasticity, versatility and continuous adaptation and response to specific stimuli [ 21 ]. In mammals, macrophages have been classically classified according to their polarization extremes observed in the initiation or in the resolution of inflammatory processes [ 22 ]. And these cells have been respectively denominated as M1, classically activated or pro-inflammatory macrophages, versus the M2, alternatively activated or wound-healing macrophages [ 23 , 24 ] (Figure 1). These populations have been characterized in terms of gene expression, the pattern of surface molecules, and the production of biological mediators and metabolites [ 25 , 26 ]. An imbalance between M1 and M2 macrophages has been found in pathological tissues and correlated with a worse prognosis of the disease (i.e., high numbers of M1-like macrophages in arthritis or infiltration of M2-like macrophages in solid tumors) [ 21 , 27 ]. Furthermore, taking into account this knowledge, the reprogramming of M1-like macrophages towards M2- like anti-inflammatory effectors appears to be a reasonable strategy for the treatment of some autoimmune diseases [ 23 ], while the stimulation of M2-like immunosuppressive macrophages towards M1-like pro-inflammatory-anti-tumor effector cells is a promising approach for the treatment of cancer [21,25,28–31]. Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784 3 of 34 Nanomaterials 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 37 Figure 1. Macrophages originate from monocytes or tissue-resident macrophages. In response to different microenvironmental stimuli macrophages polarize towards an M1-like or M2-like phenotype, and the excessive accumulation of macrophages with a particular phenotype has been correlated with a poor prognosis in some diseases (on the right). In pathological tissues, these macrophages frequently contribute to the development and progression of the disease, thus their reprogramming towards an opposite polarization status has been recognized as an important therapeutic strategy. In 2015, Nguyen-Chi et al. provided a seminal report on the polarization of macrophages in zebrafish, showing a great similarity of the M1-like and M2-like phenotypes with respect to mammals [32]. They used the Tg(mpeg1:mCherryF) transgenic zebrafish line, which enables to track macrophages [33,34], and generated the Tg (tnfa:eGFP-F) line to label M1-macrophages expressing tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α). Following fin wounding-induced inflammation or Escherichia coli inoculation in zebrafish larvae, they observed a recruitment of macrophages to the wound after amputation or to the muscle after bacteria-inoculation. To characterize the M1/M2 polarization, they mated both lines to generate the Tg(tnfa:eGFP-F/mpeg1:mCherryF), sorted mCherry+/eGFP+ and mCherry+ cells during the early and late phases of inflammation, and compared their RNA expression patterns, observing high levels of tnfb, il1b and il6 pro-inflammatory markers of M1- like macrophages in double-labeled cells, while high levels of tgfb1, ccr2 and cxcr4b antiinflammatory markers were found in the M2-like macrophages only labeled with mCherry [24,32]. Similar results were obtained by Sanderson et al. using the Tg(irg1:EGFP)/Tg(mpeg1:mCherry) transgenic line, in which irg1 specifically labeled M1- like macrophages upon LPS inoculation or M2-like macrophages upon injection of human metastatic breast cancer cells [35]. Other zebrafish-macrophage-fluorescent reporter lines, such as Tg(mpeg1:eGFP)gl22 [33] or Tg(mpeg1:mCherry)UMSF001 [36], have enabled to track the precise behavior and physiology of these cells in vivo, during inflammatory, cancer or infectious processes, thus providing a highly valuable tool to study their role in the context of these pathologies, and also for the screening of new macrophage-targeted therapeutic approaches, including nanoparticles. Figure 1. Macrophages originate from monocytes or tissue-resident macrophages. In response to different microenvironmental stimuli macrophages polarize towards an M1-like or M2-like phenotype, and the excessive accumulation of macrophages with a particular phenotype has been correlated with a poor prognosis in some diseases (on the right). In pathological tissues, these macrophages frequently contribute to the development and progression of the disease, thus their reprogramming towards an opposite polarization status has been recognized as an important therapeutic strategy. In 2015, Nguyen-Chi et al. provided a seminal report on the polarization of macrophages in zebrafish, showing a great similarity of the M1-like and M2-like phenotypes with respect to mammals [ 32 ]. They used the Tg(mpeg1:mCherryF) transgenic zebrafish line, which enables to track macrophages [ 33 , 34 ], and generated the Tg (tnfa:eGFP-F) line to label M1-macrophages expressing tumor necrosis factorα (TNF- α ). Following fin woundinginduced inflammation or Escherichia coli inoculation in zebrafish larvae, they observed a recruitment of macrophages to the wound after amputation or to the muscle after bacteriainoculation. To characterize the M1/M2 polarization, they mated both lines to generate the Tg(tnfa:eGFP-F/mpeg1:mCherryF), sorted mCherry+/eGFP+ and mCherry+ cells during the early and late phases of inflammation, and compared their RNA expression patterns, observing high levels of tnfb,il1b and il6 pro-inflammatory markers of M1-like macrophages in double-labeled cells, while high levels of tgfb1,ccr2 and cxcr4b anti-inflammatory markers were found in the M2-like macrophages only labeled with mCherry [ 24 , 32 ]. Similar results were obtained by Sanderson et al. using the Tg(irg1:EGFP)/Tg(mpeg1:mCherry) transgenic line, in which irg1 specifically labeled M1-like macrophages upon LPS inoculation or M2-like macrophages upon injection of human metastatic breast cancer cells [ 35 ]. Other zebrafish-macrophage-fluorescent reporter lines, such as Tg(mpeg1:eGFP) gl22 [ 33 ] or Tg(mpeg1:mCherry) UMSF001 [ 36 ], have enabled to track the precise behavior and physiology of these cells in vivo , during inflammatory, cancer or infectious processes, thus providing a highly valuable tool to study their role in the context of these pathologies, and also for the screening of new macrophage-targeted therapeutic approaches, including nanoparticles. 3. Toxicological and Biodistribution Evaluation of Nanoparticles Using Zebrafish: Focus on Macrophages 3.1. Toxicological Studies The zebrafish is commonly used as an in vivo model for the toxicological evaluation of new compounds and nanomaterials, due to its reduced cost, ease of husbandry, and high fecundity rates [ 37 , 38 ]. Zebrafish and mammals present concordance in toxicological Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784 4 of 34 assays ranging from 64% to 100% [ 39 ]. Due to its short-life cycle, zebrafish can be used to evaluate intergenerational toxicity by exposing a generation (F0) to a compound and studying the effects on the next generations (F1, F2, etc.) [ 40 , 41 ]. Reproductive impairment can also be studied by assessing sperm motility, egg depositions, and steroid hormone levels [42,43]. The usual methods of exposure to new compounds or nanomaterials are microinjection and immersion [ 44 , 45 ]. A widely used harmonized approach is the OECD Fish Embryo Acute Toxicity (FET) Test [ 46 ]. The OECD guidelines present immersion exposure as the preferred method and propose that tests should be performed within the first 120 hpf (5 dpf) limit [ 47 , 48 ]. Nishimura et al. reviewed the methodology used in several zebrafishbased developmental toxicity tests and indicated that 5 hpf is the preferred time to start the exposure to a new sample, because at this point embryos are in the late blastula stage and dechorionation can be safely performed [ 49 ]. Variations of the FET test have served other researchers to develop assays destined to screen large libraries of compounds or to evaluate organ-specific drug toxicities. For example, Cornet et al. took advantage of the brief zebrafish development to combine in one test the study of cardio-, neuro-, and hepatotoxicity effects in the same individual, enabling recompilation of organ-specific toxicity data for 24 compounds [ 50 ]. In a different study, 91 compounds, including pesticides, drugs, and flame retardants, were screened for teratological and behavioral effects, by immersing dechorionated zebrafish embryos in solutions of the different chemicals [ 51 ]. In combination with in silico and in vitro assays, zebrafish models were used for the screening of compounds with anti-inflammatory activity from a library of more than 1200 chemicals [52]. Nanotoxicological studies are commonly divided into two fields: environmental health and nanomedicine safety [ 8 ]. In both fields, similar types of in vitro and in vivo assays are performed, which in the case of zebrafish models take into account endpoints such as death, hatching rate, developmental malformations, behavioral changes and gene-profiling to assess toxicity [ 8 , 53 , 54 ]. The main factors influencing nanotoxicological effects, such as composition, particle size, particle shape and surface charge [ 54 ], have been investigated in zebrafish [ 55 – 57 ]. Zeng et al. studied the effects of Ag nanoparticles (NPs) on zebrafish and found a decreased activity of enzymes implicated in oxidative stress, such as superoxide dismutase, hydrogen peroxide, and malondiadehyde [ 55 ]. Another study evaluated how the size of AgNPs could affect toxicity, revealing a higher sensitivity of zebrafish to 20 nm AgNPs versus 100 nm AgNPs [ 56 ]. To assess the effects of shape, Abramenko et al. followed OECD guidelines and observed that Ag nanoplates induce higher toxicity than spherical AgNPs [ 57 ]. The toxicity of AgNPs on neural development was also evaluated through the study of gfap and ngn1 genetic profiling [ 58 ]. The safety of other inorganic based NPs (Au, Mg, Si, Zn) has been studied in zebrafish following similar methodologies [ 59 – 63 ]. Synergistic toxicity of methylmercury, SiNPs and AuNPs including surfactants have also been evaluated in zebrafish, proving it as a useful model to explore the toxicological effects of different compounds in the same organism [ 64 , 65 ]. A more comprehensive toxicological methodology, using zebrafish, and focused on 21 endpoints, was used for the screening of several NPs, leading to the conclusion that surface charge is a major determinant for NP-toxicity [66]. Numerous organic-based nanomaterials have been also tested in zebrafish [ 67 – 70 ]. The toxicity of polyamidoamine and polypropylenimin dendrimers was tested in zebrafish following the FET method, and with a parallel test in dechorionated embryos, showing for both dendrimers a lower toxicity in chorionated embryos [ 67 ]. In a different study, nanographene oxide with an external layer of polyethilenglycol was microinjected in zebrafish to evaluate its toxicity profile and effect on angiogenesis [ 68 ]. In another study, Teijeiro-Valiño et al. examined the toxicity of polymeric nanocapsules with an outer shell of hyaluronic acid and protamine [69]. The interaction of NPs with macrophages was investigated using zebrafish models, having important implications in the biocompatibility-toxicity, as well as in the biodistribu- Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784 5 of 34 tion of the NPs (reviewed in the next section) [ 70 – 74 ]. On one hand, NPs may trigger direct cell toxicity through different molecular mechanisms [ 75 ], on the other hand numerous NPs can also trigger inflammatory responses when they are recognized as foreign agents by immune cells (i.e., macrophages) [ 5 ]. In response to NPs, the immune cells commonly produce soluble mediators, such as cytokines, chemokines, and complement factors, which result in the recruitment of more cells and development of acute or chronic inflammatory responses [ 76 ]. We should also remember that, in some cases, the inflammatory cells are capable of the biodegradation of NPs, e.g., through oxidative stress or enzymatic degradation (i.e., myeloperoxidase or eosinophil peroxidase) [ 77 ]. The balance of these responses is of foremost importance for immunotoxicological studies. As an example, graphene oxide immunotoxicity was evaluated by measuring glutathione, malondialdehyde, superoxide dismutase, catalase, and genetic profiling in adult zebrafish. TNF- α , IL-1 β and IL-6 expression levels were significantly increased in a dose-dependent manner [ 74 ]. Similarly, it has been reported that several types of metallic NPs, such as gold NPs (AuNPs), silver NPs (AgNPs), or zinc oxide NPS (ZnO-NPs), may induce oxidative stress and disrupt signaling pathways related to innate immune responses [ 78 – 80 ]. Other studies involving drugs, nanocarriers, and macrophages practiced their experiments on zebrafish [ 81 , 82 ]. For example, poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) NPs (PLGA-NPs) loaded with thioridazine were evaluated for toxicity and their therapeutic efficacy was tested in murine macrophages, human macrophages and zebrafish models [ 81 ]. These immunotoxicological studies, using zebrafish as in vivo model, demonstrate the relevance of safety assessment for nanomaterials with potential application in a variety of industrial sectors (i.e., cosmetics, paints, food package, etc.), and they also provide pharmacological/toxicological information of interest for their application with medical purposes. 3.2. Biodistribution Nanotechnology is commonly used to improve the biodistribution/pharmacokinetics of drugs. Thus, biodistribution moves from being determined by the drug’s physicochemical characteristics to be dictated by the NP’s-features. Besides, by tuning the physicochemical properties of the NPs, a preferential accumulation in specific organs and/or cell populations can be achieved [ 83 ]. Taking this into consideration, zebrafish is gaining importance in the nanomedicine field as a simple and reliable model to screen biodistribution of drugs and/or NPs. The transparency of the embryos [ 84 ] and the availability of transgenic lines offer the possibility to study in biodistribution studies the role of the interaction of NPs at the cellular level, for example, by using macrophage-labelled embryos [ 85 ]. In this context, different scenarios can happen depending on the aimed cellular and/or molecular target: macrophages can be the final target for the nanomedicine, such as in the case of autoimmune or infectious diseases, and nano-vaccines [ 86 ], or they can be a cellular population to be avoided, due to the undesirable clearance of the therapeutic entity mediated by these phagocytic cells, such as in the case of drugs targeted towards cancer cells or others [ 72 ]. Of note, in the context of cancer both approaches, targeting and/or avoiding macrophages, could be intended to improve the efficacy of certain drugs, directed towards macrophages (i.e., immunotherapy) or to cancer cells (i.e., chemotherapy), respectively [ 87 ]. The overall biodistribution of a NP is governed by the combined effect of the administration route, the dose and the nanostructure’s composition and properties (Figure 2). As previously described for the toxicity, the size, shape, charge and flexibility are also critical parameters that determine the final fate of the NPs [ 83 , 88 ]. The circulation time of NPs administered intravenously (i.v.) depends, mainly, on their interaction with immune and/or endothelial cells [ 89 ]. In fact, the majority of the NPs i.v. administered are cleared in the liver, by macrophages or by sinusoidal cells [ 85 , 90 ]. Part of these NPs are also captured by circulating monocytes/macrophages, and/or other immune cells, such as neutrophils, before reaching their target tissue, as it was recently shown for gelatine nanospheres [ 86 ] and liposomes [ 91 ]. In zebrafish, liposomes of 60 nm showed a decreased macrophage uptake as compared to larger 120 nm liposomes, which were more accumulated in the Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784 6 of 34 spleen [ 91 ]. Apart from immune cells, uptake by endothelial cells can also be responsible for the limited circulation time of certain NPs. For example, polystyrene (PS) NPs of 1000 nm were found adhered to the endothelium some minutes after the injection. On the contrary, with a lower adherence to the endothelium, 200 nm PS NPs showed a more prolonged circulation time. Our group evaluated the diffusion of NCs of different sizes and surface charges in zebrafish embryos [ 70 ]. These NPs are versatile nanosystems with applications in different fields, such as cancer, vaccination, and ocular diseases [ 92 – 95 ]. Both positively and negatively charged NCs of 70 nm spread faster and at a higher extent than medium size NCs (200 nm) after i.v. injection in zebrafish. Chitosan NCs (positively charged) were found to be attached to the endothelial cells of the blood vessels at a higher degree than inulin NCs (negatively charged). As a whole, zebrafish injected with the 70 nm chitosan NCs showed the highest intensity, due to the fluorescent-NCs, in the circulatory system, and also higher accumulation in other tissues, such as the brain and visceral organs. All NCs showed certain degree of co-localization with GFP-labelled macrophages. However, the positively charged NCs showed the highest accumulation in these cells. In relation to their particle size, 200 nm NCs interacted with macrophages from early time points (0.5 h), whereas 70 nm NCs presented less interaction at 0.5 h, but their accumulation in these cells increased with time. From this and other studies, it can be concluded that larger particles are commonly attached or captured by macrophages and/or endothelial cells, thus showing shorter circulation times. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 37 macrophages, but also to their reduced interaction with the endothelial cells [72]. The degree of PEGylation and its molecular weight also impacts on NPs biodistribution, showing decreased clearance by macrophages for liposomes decorated with a higher density of PEGs or increased molecular weight [91]. Other polymers with “shielding behaviour” have been used, such as polysarcosine or poly(N,N-dimethylacrylamide), showing an increase in NP-circulation time in zebrafish models [89]. Figure 2. Biodistribution of nanoparticles in zebrafish is related to their interaction with macrophages. The biodistribution of nanoparticles in zebrafish embryos is mainly dictated by (A) the administration route and (B) the physicochemical properties of the nanoparticles. Among the characteristics that most impact the circulation time after intravenous administration are the degree of PEGylation, the particle size, the surface charge and the shape of the particles. By tuning these properties, the uptake by macrophages can be minimized and the circulation time can be prolonged. Zebrafish models have also been used to study NP-biodistribution through other routes of administration. Upon intramuscular (i.m.) injection in zebrafish, NPs generally only spread along the muscle tissue close to the injection site, at least for short times [86]. As time goes by, the NPs are commonly internalized by macrophages to be cleared [86]. In our previously mentioned work, after i.m. injection, the 70 nm NCs disseminated further than 200 nm NCs, spreading through all the myomere and limited by myosepta [70]. Positively charged NCs (chitosan based) recruited more macrophages than negatively charged (inulin based) NCs, following a similar pattern to the i.v. route. To study the mucosal administration of new therapies using zebrafish, NPs can be simply incubated in water. Verrier and colleagues found that 200 nm PLA-NPs were able to cross the epithelial barrier of different mucosae (nasal, gills, gut, and skin) and be accumulated in antigen presenting cells, such as dendritic cells, macrophages and B cells in the gills and skin [100]. Interestingly, the NPs were able to enter the bloodstream through the gills, and to then Figure 2. Biodistribution of nanoparticles in zebrafish is related to their interaction with macrophages. The biodistribution of nanoparticles in zebrafish embryos is mainly dictated by ( A ) the administration route and ( B ) the physicochemical properties of the nanoparticles. Among the characteristics that most impact the circulation time after intravenous administration are the degree of PEGylation, the particle size, the surface charge and the shape of the particles. By tuning these properties, the uptake by macrophages can be minimized and the circulation time can be prolonged. Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784 7 of 34 Particle shape and flexibility have also an impact on NPs biodistribution. Generally elongated and rod-shaped NPs present a prolonged time in circulation compared with spherical particles, especially if they are flexible [ 96 ]. This effect was observed in different animal models (i.e., mice or pigs) [ 97 ], and also zebrafish [ 98 ]. In this case, the non-spherical NPs were poorly taken up by macrophages because of hydrodynamic shearing. However, other authors found that spherical NPs present prolonged circulation time versus NPs with fibrillar morphologies upon i.v. administration in zebrafish [ 99 ]. Overall, it is important to highlight that the final biodistribution and toxicological behaviour of a NP is orchestrated by the interplay between its different physicochemical properties (i.e., size, charge, and shape), and focusing only in one parameter can be misleading. The composition of the NP’s surface and/or its functionalization with specific molecules is also a key factor affecting its biodistribution. For instance, liposomes presented substantially higher circulation time after i.v. administration in zebrafish than PS NPs of similar size (nm) [ 72 ]. The different circulation patterns can be explained by the high affinity of PS NPs for the endothelium, while liposomes showed a slow macrophage-mediated clearance. With respect to decoration of NPs surface, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and other molecules have been used to avoid macrophage interaction, while ligands for specific receptors on macrophages-surface or other cells have been investigated. Functionalization with PEG chains is commonly implemented to “mask” a therapeutic agent from the immune system, reducing immunogenicity and antigenicity. PEGylated nanosystems show longer circulation times after i.v. administration than non-PEGylated ones, by reducing their interaction with opsonins and making NPs “invisible” to the immune system [ 72 , 89 ]. As an example, liposomes commonly cleared from the circulation by macrophages, when PEGylated, increased their circulation time, and their elimination by macrophages, although still occurring, is delayed [ 89 ]. In the case of PEGylated PS NPs, the increase in their circulation time has been attributed not only to their reduced capture by macrophages, but also to their reduced interaction with the endothelial cells [ 72 ]. The degree of PEGylation and its molecular weight also impacts on NPs biodistribution, showing decreased clearance by macrophages for liposomes decorated with a higher density of PEGs or increased molecular weight [ 91 ]. Other polymers with “shielding behaviour” have been used, such as polysarcosine or poly(N,N-dimethylacrylamide), showing an increase in NP-circulation time in zebrafish models [89]. Zebrafish models have also been used to study NP-biodistribution through other routes of administration. Upon intramuscular (i.m.) injection in zebrafish, NPs generally only spread along the muscle tissue close to the injection site, at least for short times [ 86 ]. As time goes by, the NPs are commonly internalized by macrophages to be cleared [ 86 ]. In our previously mentioned work, after i.m. injection, the 70 nm NCs disseminated further than 200 nm NCs, spreading through all the myomere and limited by myosepta [ 70 ]. Positively charged NCs (chitosan based) recruited more macrophages than negatively charged (inulin based) NCs, following a similar pattern to the i.v. route. To study the mucosal administration of new therapies using zebrafish, NPs can be simply incubated in water. Verrier and colleagues found that 200 nm PLA-NPs were able to cross the epithelial barrier of different mucosae (nasal, gills, gut, and skin) and be accumulated in antigen presenting cells, such as dendritic cells, macrophages and B cells in the gills and skin [ 100 ]. Interestingly, the NPs were able to enter the bloodstream through the gills, and to then reach internal organs, such as the liver and kidney. Our group showed the importance of surface composition in the ability of NCs to diffuse through the chorion before the zebrafish hatching [ 69 ]. The presence of a PEGylated surfactant is supposed to favour the diffusion of these NCs through the thick chorion barrier. Using hatched embryos, we demonstrated that hyaluronic acid NCs are not able to cross the epidermis. However, protamine-hyaluronic acid NCs were internalized and reached the yolk sac, the stomach, the esophagus and the olfactory pit. In this case, protamine, a well-known cell penetrating peptide, could be important to facilitate the internalization and transport through the zebrafish skin epithelium [ 69 ]. The particle size also influences de biodistribution by the mucosal routes. Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784 8 of 34 For instance, after incubation with zebrafish in water, coumarin nanocrystals of 70 nm showed better permeability across the chorion, blood brain barrier, blood retinal barrier and gastrointestinal barrier than their counterparts of 200 nm. Besides, the smaller nanocrystals accumulated at a higher extent in internal organs via lipid raft-mediated endocytosis [ 101 ]. The importance of the particle shape was demonstrated by Vijver and his group [ 102 ]. After waterborne exposure of zebrafish embryos to gold NPs of different shapes, the macrophage’s abundance was higher for urchin-shaped NPs compared to the spherical ones. 4. Preclinical Testing of Nanoparticles Using Zebrafish Models of Disease: Relevance of Macrophages 4.1. Cancer Due to its unique features, zebrafish tumor models, mainly induced by transgenesis or xenotransplantation, are increasingly being used for cancer research and discovery of new antitumoral drugs [ 103 ]. Xenografts are routinely performed by implantation of human or murine cancer cells into different anatomical sites of zebrafish embryos (yolk sac, duct of Cuvier or perivitelline space) to obtain heterotopic or eventually orthotopic in vivo tumor models. The injection of labeled cancer cells in “transparent zebrafish” allows to track their survival, progression, migration, and interaction with the host microenvironment [ 104 , 105 ]. For the transgenic models, genetically modified zebrafish lines, mainly based on the expression of human oncogenes driven by tissue-specific or ubiquitous promoters (e.g., BRAF V600E , HRAS G12V or KRAS G12V ) have been used [ 106 – 108 ]. While the transgenic models are commonly preferred for the mechanistic understanding of tumor development and/or interaction of cancer cells with the tumor microenvironment (TME), xenografts are more used for drug screenings. As the generation of stable transgenic zebrafish lines requires several months, it is technically challenging and less cost-effective when compared to the simple injection of tumor cells in xenografts [ 109 ]. In addition, xenograft models have been recently used to understand the metabolic and/or stem cell properties of cancer cells and they also offer the possibility to study patient-derived cancer cells in vivo [110,111]. The study of macrophages in tumors is nowadays a very active field of research. Tumors are complex tissues, comprising a heterogeneous population of cells plus the extracellular matrix they produce, which constitute the TME [ 112 – 115 ]. The cellular fraction is composed of malignant cancer cells, as well as endothelial cells, cancer-associated fibroblasts, and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs), with the latter being the latest the most abundant cell type [ 116 ]. In human tumors, TAMs originate mostly from circulating precursor monocytes, but resident macrophages can be originally present in the tissue, later developing in a tumor [ 117 ]. TAM infiltration in tumor tissues has been shown to support tumor growth, angiogenesis, invasion and metastasis, and their high density in tumors has been correlated with tumor progression and resistance to therapies [ 118 ]. The secretion of CSF-1, CCL2 and VEGF, by cancer cells, induce the recruitment of macrophages towards the TME, and the Th2 cytokines IL-4, IL-13, IL-10 and TGF- β , metabolic signals (i.e., lactic acid and hypoxia) produced also by Treg and TAMs are key drivers of immunosuppression [ 116 ]. With the aim to better mimic human tumors, including the TME, zebrafish xenografts are being continuously improved, using reporter lines for analysis of vasculature [ 119 ], neutrophils [ 120 ] and/or macrophages [ 32 , 33 , 35 ]. Orthotopic xenotransplantation, consisting in the injection of tumor cells in the equivalent anatomical site, and the use of patient-derived xenografts (PDX), allows the preservation of tumor cells’ original phenotype, and represents a further step to recapitulate the TME and tumor cell-host interactions [ 121 ]. The knowledge and practice acquired using these models will not only be useful for a better understanding of tumors, but also determinant for the development and evaluation of new antitumoral therapies [ 122 ], including nanotechnological strategies. An enormous variety of nano-oncologicals (nanostructures for the treatment of cancer) have been developed and evaluated with the main purpose to improve the delivery of pharmacological molecules to the TME and reduce off-target effects [ 123 – 125 ]. NPs have been designed to improve the efficacy of classical chemotherapies, immunomodulatory drugs, Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784 9 of 34 but also delicate molecules such as nucleic acids, and even new cellular therapies [ 126 , 127 ]. Main therapeutic strategies to target and impact on TAMs include: (i) inhibition of TAM recruitment to the tumor, (ii) direct killing of TAMs, (iii) re-education of TAM from their M2-like protumoral phenotype into a M1-like antitumoral phenotype [ 87 ]; offering promising opportunities to switch the tumor-promoting immune suppressive microenvironment, characteristic of tumors rich in macrophages, to one that kills tumor cells, is anti-angiogenic and promotes adaptive immune responses [87,128]. In this context, zebrafish models offer the possibility to test the antitumoral effect of new nano-oncologicals, not only at the level of tumor growth in vivo [ 109 ], but also at the cellular level within the tumor (i.e., cancer cells or TAMs in vivo ). Relevant examples of nano-oncologicals tested in zebrafish are reviewed below and summarized in Table 1. Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784 16 of 34 (FRET) imaging revealed that intact nanocrystals were found in the intestine and brain of adult zebrafish [ 215 , 216 ]. Moreover, other NPs with alleged neuroprotective effects for treating PD, such as polymeric NPs of Ginkgolide B, have shown correct bioavailability and cerebral accumulation in zebrafish models [217]. Similarly, as with PD, some authors have shown neuroprotective and neuroregenerative effects of different NPs in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) zebrafish models. Thereby, it has been shown that casein coated-gold nanoparticles ( β Cas AuNPs) in systemic circulation translocate across the blood brain barrier (BBB) of zebrafish larvae, sequester intracerebral A β 42 and its elicited toxicity in a nonspecific chaperone-like manner. This was evidenced by behavioral pathology, ROS, and neuronal dysfunction biomarkers assays, complemented by brain histology and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectroscopy. The capacity of β Cas AuNPs in recovering the mobility and cognitive function of adult zebrafish exposed to A β was demonstrated [ 218 ]. Other study evaluated the role of solid lipid NPs of quercetin (SLN-Q), a flavonoid with multiple pharmacological actions like vascular integrity and regulatory action on the BBB, using pentylenetetrazole (PTZ) induced cognitive impairment of Danio rerio species [ 219 ]. The intraperitoneal pretreatment of SLN- Q showed an attenuating effect in PTZ induced neurocognitive impairments, along with amelioration of biochemical changes (acetylcholinesterase activity, lipid peroxidation, and reduced glutathione levels), showing differences with fish treated with donepezil. Some authors have demonstrated with confocal image analyses that amphiphilic yellow-emissive carbon dots (Y-CDs) crossed the BBB of five-day old wild-type zebrafish, most probably by passive diffusion due to the amphiphilicity of Y-CDs; furthermore, Y-CDs were internalized by the cells, inhibiting the overexpression of human amyloid precursor protein (APP) and β-amyloid (Aβ) which is a major factor responsible for AD pathology [220]. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), a fatal neurodegenerative disease affecting the upper and lower motor neurons in the motor cortex and spinal cord, could be ameliorated by reducing the levels of superoxide dismutase I (SOD1). Thus, calcium phosphate lipid coated nanoparticles (CaP-lipid NPs) were developed and tested in zebrafish for the delivery of SOD1 antisense oligonucleotides (ASO) with success, and their preferential accumulation in the brain, blood stream, and spinal cord was observed [221]. In addition, the toxic profile of several NPs with potential interest for neurological diseases was also evaluated using zebrafish models. As examples, Carbamazepine or Tacrine were co-administered with PAMAM dendrimers and neurotoxicity, cardiotoxicity, or hepatotoxicity were evaluated in zebrafish larvae [ 222 , 223 ]. These reports provide satisfactory experience in the study of neuro-related disorders using zebrafish models and a good basis for their use as a screening platform to support new nanotechnologies for the treatment of these diseases. Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784 17 of 34 Table 2. Summary of nanoparticles tested in zebrafish models of autoimmune diseases: inflammatory bowel disease, type I diabetes mellitus, parkinson’s disease, alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Disease Disease Induction Zebrafish Stage Nanosystem NPs Delivery Remarkable Results Reference Inflammatory Bowel Disease Copper NPsinduced intestinal developmental defects From 0 hpf Copper NPs Immersion CuNPs cause intestinal developmental defects via inducing ER stress and ROS generation, which corresponds with elevated serum copper levels in IBD patients [174] Type 1 diabetes mellitus Glucose-induced diabetic zebrafish Adult EP/AgNPs Immersion Hyperglycemia amelioration [189] Type 1 diabetes mellitus STZ- induced diabetic retinopathy Adult Quercetin NPs Intraperitoneal injection Reduction of glycemia and improvement of morphological, behavioral and biochemical parameters linked to retinopathy [190] Type 1 diabetes mellitus -From 4 hpf pMHC-NPs Immersion Neither off-target toxicity, nor morphological abnormalities [191] Parkinson’s Disease MPTP-induced parkinsonism Adult BmE-PtNPs Intraperitoneal injection Significant reversion of toxic effects of MPTP by increasing the levels of dopamine, GSH, GPx, catalase, SOD and complex I, and reducing levels of MDA [211] Parkinson’s Disease MPTP-induced parkinsonism From 72 hpf Schisantherin nanocrystals Immersion Reversed dopaminergic neuronal loss and locomotion deficiency by the activation of the Akt/Gsk3βpathway [212] Parkinson’s Disease -From 0 hpf Titanium dioxide NPs Immersion Loss of dopaminergic neurons, ROS generation and cell death in hypothalamus. Increased Lewy bodies-related markers. [213] Parkinson’s Disease -Adult Silica NPs Immersion Changes in dopaminergic neurons with disturbed light/dark preference, dampened exploratory behavior, inhibited memory capability and PD-like behavior [62,214] Parkinson’s Disease -From 6 hpf Puerarin Nanocristals Immersion Promising anti-Parkinsonism NCs. Unaltered morphology, hatching, survival rate, body length and heart rate [215,216] Parkinson’s Disease -From 120 hpf Ginkgolide B-PEG-PCL NPs Immersion Correct bioavailability and cerebral accumulation in zebrafish models [217] Alzheimer’s Disease Aβinduced toxicity Adult Casein coated-gold NPs Retro-orbital injection Inhibition of Aβtoxicity and recover of the mobility and cognitive function [218] Alzheimer’s Disease PTZ- induced cognitive impairment Adult Solid lipid NPs of Quercetin Intraperitoneal injection Attenuation of PTZ-induced neurocognitive impairments and amelioration of biochemical changes [219] Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis -From 96 hpf ASO- CaP-lipid NPs Brain, spinal cord, intravenous and retro-orbital injection Successful delivery and preferential accumulation in brain, bloodstream and spinal cord [221] APP: Human amyloid precursor protein; ASO-CaP-lipid NPs: SOD1 antisense oligonucleotide-calcium phosphate lipid coated NPs; A β : β -amyloid; BmE-PtNPs: Bacopa monnieri platinum NPs; EP/AgNPs: Eysenhardtia polystachya-loaded silver NPs; ER: Endoplasmic reticulum; GSH: Glutathione; GSH-Px: Glutathione peroxidase; MDA: Malondialdehyde; MPTP: 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine; STZ: Streptozotocin; PEG-PCL NPs: Poly(ethylene glycol)-co-poly(ε-caprolactone); pMHC-NPs: Peptide-major histocompatibility complexes NPs; PTZ: Pentylenetetrazole; SOD: Superoxide dismutase. Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784 18 of 34 4.3. Infectious Diseases Zebrafish models have been largely used to study infectious diseases, taking advantage of its transparency, possibilities to study both innate and adaptive immunity, and feasibility for the highly controlled administration of pathogens, commonly through microinjection. Prospective treatments are mostly administered by microinjection too, although other routes such as intubation have been described [ 224 ]. Most of the studies reviewed in this section have been performed using zebrafish in the first month of life, which does not present a completely developed adaptive immune system but allows for the separate study of macrophages and neutrophils during pathogenic infection [ 225 , 226 ]. Transgenic lines that attach fluorescent proteins to robust macrophages markers, such as mpeg1 or csf1ra, have been used [ 227 ]. As an example, Palha et al. infected Tg(fn ϕ 1:mCherry) zebrafish larvae with two Chikungunya virus strains, one of which expressed GFP, allowing to follow infection progress and its quantification by flow cytometry. This work, using zebrafish, demonstrated similarities with the process in mammals and a critical role of the IFN response to control the infection. Furthermore, the differential role of macrophages and neutrophils was investigated using a transgenic metronidazole-inducible cell ablation system to deplete macrophages. Neutrophil depletion was studied in csf3r knockdown larvae that were highly susceptible to Chikungunya virus, exhibiting a high increase of virus transcripts and mortality [ 228 ]. In another study, selective depletion of macrophages by incubation in metronidazole reduced the virulence of infection caused by the Burkholderia cepacia complex, revealing the important role of these cells in the infectious process [ 229 ]. The easiness for monitoring macrophages in zebrafish allowed extensive studies of tuberculosis and facilitated the observation of granulomas caused by Mycobacterium marinum [ 230 – 232 ]. Clay et al. took advantage of the transparency of the zebrafish to report a dichotomous role of macrophages in early M. marinum infection. First, they performed dual fluorescent antibody detection of L-plastin and myeloperoxidase to confirm that only macrophages and not neutrophils phagocytose bacteria. Most bacteria were found in macrophages (L-plastin positive but MPO-negative). Second, they assessed whether macrophages upregulate inflammatory cytokines as a response to M. marinum. They injected separately the bacteria and similar-sized fluorescent beads into the hindbrain, demonstrating that macrophages migrated to the area in response to M. marinum but not in response to the beads. Macrophage-defective zebrafish embryos were created by the injection of morpholinos against the pu.1 gene to evaluate the role of macrophages on mycobacterial growth. Finally, the Tg(fli1:EGFP) transgenic line and pu.1 morphants were used to study bacteria dissemination through the vascular system and the role of macrophages. By injecting red fluorescent bacteria into the bloodstream, they found that control embryos had a higher number of extravascular bacteria than pu.1 morphants and bacteria injected in the hindbrain could only disseminate out of this space in the control zebrafish with macrophages [ 231 ]. Similarly, Davis and Ramakrishnan exploited zebrafish transparency to assess the role of macrophages in tuberculous infection through threedimensional differential interference contrast microscopy (3D DIC) and fluorescence in vivo microscopy. Embryos were infected with wild type and attenuated M. marinum, lacking the ESX-1/RD1 secretion system locus, throughout their experiments. Upon injection of the bacteria into the hindbrain ventricle and daily monitoring, infected macrophages recruited uninfected macrophages in a RD1-dependent manner. Further, the combination of 3D DIC with time-lapse microscopy showed that uninfected macrophages become infected quicker when they are recruited by RD1-competent bacteria. Zebrafish transparency also enabled close observation of the macrophage’s morphology both in WT and RD1 defective bacteria, which proved to be different. Finally, after proving that macrophages become infected when phagocyting dead infected macrophages, granuloma dissemination initiated by macrophages from primary granulomas was also observed. To assess the migration of infected macrophages, they used a bacteria strain that constitutively expresses the Kaede photoactivable protein [ 232 ]. Other pathogens relevant for humans (Candida albicans,Herpes simplex,Pseudomonas aeruginosa,Staphylococcus aureus,Streptococcus pneumonia) [ 233 – 236 ] Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784 19 of 34 and fish (Vibrio anguillarum,Aeromonas salmonicida,Yersinia ruckeria, etc.) [ 237 – 239 ] have also been studied using zebrafish models [ 240 , 241 ]. In relation with the study of tuberculosis, Oksanen et al. demonstrated that zebrafish is a useful model for preclinical DNA vaccine development. They vaccinated zebrafish with a combination of plasmids encoding for Ag85B, CFP-10, and ESAT-6, well known mycobacterial antigens, through intramuscular microinjection. Three weeks after immunisation, zebrafish were challenged with a high dose of M. marinum (20,500 CFU) by microinjection. Vaccinated fish showed increased survival and the analysis of the bacterial load by qPCR revealed that unvaccinated zebrafish had a higher load than the vaccinated group [ 242 ]. Taken together these studies are proof of the versatility of zebrafish to study pathogen infection and dissemination in vivo . Genetic-wise, besides an already existing repertoire of transgenic lines, Clay et al. proved D. rerio can be tailored to the needs of the researchers for the study of macrophages by the knockdown of key regulator genes [231]. Several nanotechnology-based-approaches have been developed for vaccination, prophylactic and therapeutic purposes, in the context of infectious diseases, and tested in zebrafish models (Table 3). With prophylactic purposes, Torrealba et al. generated inclusion bodies (IBs) containing TNF α or CCL4 [ 243 ]. The resulting nanostructures (IBs) showed good stability under different pH conditions (2.5 and 8). While IB TNFα were cylindrical with a diameter between 380–900 nm and an average length of 1134.6 ± 196.6 nm, the IB CCL4 showed spherical shape with a diameter between 220–850 nm. Both IBs were added to the cell culture of ATTC ® CRL-2643 (zebrafish liver cells) and RT-HKM (trout macrophages) to evaluate their uptake, showing positive results for both cell types. Further, treatment of RT-HKM with IB TNFα stimulated the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines. In vivo , zebrafish were immunised with IB TNFα , IB CCL4 , or IB iRFP-H6 (an IB containing a control protein) by microinjection and later challenged with P. aeruginosa. Zebrafish injected intraperitoneally with both types of IBs exhibited reduced mortality after a challenge with P. aeruginosa. Similar inclusion bodies were also used to encapsulate proteins of pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV), haemorrhagic septicaemia virus (VHSV) and viral nervous necrosis virus (VNNV) for the development of oral prophylactics [ 224 ]. IPNV-IBs were barrel shaped and porous with an average width and length of 607 and 734 nm, respectively. VHSV-IBs were round with a width and length of 488 and 608 nm. VNNV-IBs presented an irregular shape with spherical protrusions and a mean diameter of 422 nm. Gene expression analysis of trout macrophages stimulated in vitro with IPNV-IBs and VHSV-IBs showed upregulation of pro-inflammatory markers: vig1,gig2,stat1b,mx,irf7, and ccl4. In vivo uptake of the fluorescently labelled IBs was evaluated by intubating zebrafish adults with the IBs solutions and later analysing gut cells by flow cytometry. Uptake of VHSV-IBs or VNNV-IBs was observed by all fish, while IPNV-IBs were only taken up by 75% of fish. In another study, various recombinant vaccines based on glycoprotein G of viral haemorrhagic septicaemia virus encapsulated in NPs were developed. NPs were produced by complexing poly(I:C) with chitosan, size ranged from 100 to 550 nm with an average diameter of 368 ± 1.3 nm and an average surface charge of +36.2 mV. Fish vaccinated with NPs containing poly(I:C) showed lower mortality rates than non-vaccinated fish or fish vaccinated with NPs without poly(I:C) [ 244 ]. Chitosan was also used as a polymer to coat Piscirickettsia salmonis membrane nanovesicles for immunisation. The chitosan-coated NPs showed an average diameter of 182.2 ± 4.3 nm and a Z-potential of 31.2 ± 1.8 mV. Immunisation was successful and the upregulation of immune related genes (IL-8,IL-1 β , IL-10, and IL-6) was reported by analysis of kidney samples [ 245 ]. In essence, these articles provide evidence for the use of adult zebrafish as a valid model for immunological studies and as an economic platform for the testing of nano-based approaches designed to improve fish survival, which is of particular interest in aquaculture. Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784 20 of 34 Table 3. Summary of nanoparticles tested in zebrafish models of infectious diseases. Disease Induction Zebrafish Stage Nanosystem NPs Delivery Immune Cells Behavior Remarkable Results Reference Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection Adult Nanostructured cytokines (IBTNFα, IBCCL4)Intraperitoneal injection Interaction of IBs with immune cells Prophylactic potential in vivo [243] -Adult IPNV, VHSV and VNNV-encapsulated IBs Oral intubation -Successful NPs uptake in gut cells after oral administration [224] VHSV infection Adult Viral glycoprotein G encapsulated in chitosan-poly(I:C) NPs Intraperitoneal injection Upregulation of antiviral cytokines Significant protection against VHSV through induction of anti-viral state [244] Piscirickettsia salmonis infection Adult Chitosan-coated MVs from P. salmonis Intraperitoneal injection Upregulation of immune related genes Successful immunisation. Potential use of chitosan-coated MVs for vaccination [245] Streptococcus pneumonia infection From 48 hpf Auranofin-PLGA-NPs Immersion - Auranofin-NPs capability of decreasing the bacterial population compared to free drug [246] IBs: Inclusion bodies; IPNV: Pancreatic necrosis virus; VHSV: Viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus; VNNV: Viral nervous necrosis virus; MVs: Membrane nanovesicles; PLGA-NPs: Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) NPs; LPS: Lipopolysaccharide. Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784 21 of 34 In the search for anti-bacterial compounds to deal with antibiotic resistance, Díez- Martínez et al. assayed the anti-bacterial effect of Auranofin, an FDA-approved drug for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, free and encapsulated in nanocapsules of poly(lacticco-glycolic acid) (PLGA-NPs) in vivo using a zebrafish infection model of Streptococcus pneumoniae. PLGA-NPs loaded with Auranofin were spherical with a diameter of 60 nm and a negative surface charge ( − 30mV). Then, 48 hpf zebrafish embryos were infected by immersion with the pathogen and later treated with free auranofin or auranofin-PLGA- NPs, again by immersion. Encapsulated auranofin was more efficient at rescuing infected embryos in a dose dependent manner than the free drug. Moreover, when compared with encapsulated ampicillin, auranofin PLGA-NPs were still more efficient at increasing survival rates of infected fish [ 246 ]. As a cheap, high-throughput model organism, zebrafish could greatly contribute to the initial development of new approaches in the fight against antimicrobial resistance. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that zebrafish models are very useful for the study of infectious diseases and for the testing of new therapeutic approaches, including NPs. As described above, the evaluation of macrophage and/or neutrophil behavior in this context is of foremost interest, and zebrafish models offer an appropriate environment to study the role of these innate immune cells along the course of the disease and in response to treatment. 5. Conclusions In the last years, the use of zebrafish models in biomedical research has increased substantially to study the cellular and/or molecular basis of human diseases, and for the faster and more economic testing of new compounds, drugs, biomaterials, and nanoparticles. In Figure 3, we can clearly observe the rising number of studies published each year, including zebrafish or nanomaterials, related to toxicity, biodistribution, macrophages, cancer, infectious diseases, or other autoimmune disorders. Manuscripts with a focus on toxicity, macrophages, and cancer are the most frequent, and their number has been consistently increasing in the last decade. Only a few nanomaterials have still been tested in zebrafish models, but the number of this type of studies is also clearly increasing. In addition to economic and ethical issues, zebrafish models provide excellent opportunities for genetic modifications and for in vivo evaluation/tracking of innate immune cells, such as macrophages. Such unique features make zebrafish amenable to a multitude of methodologies and the establishment of disease models which have already proven viable to study the interaction of macrophages with nanoparticles. These technical advances have been used for a precise toxicological and/or biodistribution testing of nanomaterials with safety or medical purposes. Following a similar trend, we foresee an increase in the testing of nanotechnological approaches for the treatment of cancer, infectious disease, or other autoimmune disorders, using zebrafish models of disease, and providing further information about the role of macrophages in the initiation, progression, and remission of the disease over the course of the treatment. Ultimately, we expect that these studies will contribute to the safe use of nanotechnologies and to their translation towards the clinic, providing new solutions for patients. Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784 22 of 34 Nanomaterials 2021, 11, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/nanomaterials 5. Conclusions In the last years, the use of zebrafish models in biomedical research has increased substantially to study the cellular and/or molecular basis of human diseases, and for the faster and more economic testing of new compounds, drugs, biomaterials, and nanoparticles. In Figure 3, we can clearly observe the rising number of studies published each year, including zebrafish or nanomaterials, related to toxicity, biodistribution, macrophages, cancer, infectious diseases, or other autoimmune disorders. Manuscripts with a focus on toxicity, macrophages, and cancer are the most frequent, and their number has been consistently increasing in the last decade. Only a few nanomaterials have still been tested in zebrafish models, but the number of this type of studies is also clearly increasing. Figure 3. Number of publications each year in Pubmed for indicated terms from 2010 to 2020: (a) Nanomaterials and macrophages/Zebrafish and macrophages; (b) Nanomaterials and toxicity/Zebrafish and toxicity; (c) Nanomaterials and biodistributrion/Zebrafish and biodistribution; (d) Nanomaterials and cancer/Zebrafish and cancer; (e) Nanomaterials and autoimmunity/Zebrafish and autoimmunity; (f) Nanomaterials and infectious diseases/Zebrafish and infectious diseases. Figure 3. Number of publications each year in Pubmed for indicated terms from 2010 to 2020: ( a ) Nanomaterials and macrophages/Zebrafish and macrophages; ( b ) Nanomaterials and toxicity/Zebrafish and toxicity; ( c ) Nanomaterials and biodistributrion/Zebrafish and biodistribution; ( d ) Nanomaterials and cancer/Zebrafish and cancer; ( e ) Nanomaterials and autoimmunity/Zebrafish and autoimmunity; ( f ) Nanomaterials and infectious diseases/Zebrafish and infectious diseases. Author Contributions: J.F.-R., P.R. and J.C.-C. have contributed to writing and elaboration of Figures 2and 3, A.P.-L. to writing and elaboration of Figure 1 , the tables, review and editing. L.S. and F.T.A. to the writing, review, and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: A.P.-L. is supported by the Xunta de Galicia Pre-doctoral Fellowship (ED481A-2018/095); F.T.A. is recipient of a grant by the AECC (“Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer”, Spain). J.F.-R. was supported by a scholarship awarded by “Fundación Barrié”. Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784 23 of 34 Acknowledgments: The images used for the different figures were reproduced from Servier Medical Art under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/3.0). Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. Abbreviations AD Alzheimer’s disease AgNPs Silver NPs ALS Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis APCs Antigen-presenting cells APP Human amyloid precursor protein ASO-CaP-lipid NPs SOD1 antisense oligonucleotide-calcium phosphate lipid coated NPs AuNPs Gold NPs Aβ β-amyloid BBB Blood-brain-barrier BmE-PtNPs Bacopa monnieri platinum NPs CFSE Carboxyfluorescein succinimidyl ester CHT Caudal hematopoietic tissue cox-2 Cyclooxygenase-2 CuNPs Copper nanoparticles DOX Doxorubicin dpf Days post-fertilization dpi days post-injection EGF Epithelial growth factor EP/AgNPs Eysenhardtia polystachya-loaded silver NPs ER Endoplasmic reticulum FET Fish Embryo Acute Toxicity GFP Green fluorescent protein GSH Glutathione GSH-Px Glutathione peroxidase hpf Hours post-fertilization hpi Hours post-injection HSCs Hematopoietic stem cells i.m. Intramuscular i.v. Intravenously IBD Inflammatory bowel disease IBs Inclusion bodies IFN-γInterferon-γ IL Interleukin IPNV Pancreatic necrosis virus LPS Lipopolysaccharide MDA Malondialdehyde MPTP 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine mRNA Messenger RNA MVs Membrane nanovesicles NCs Nanocapsules NK Natural killer NPs Nanoparticles NQs Quercetin NPs NSAIDs Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs PAMAM Polyamidoamine PD Parkinson’s disease PDT Photodynamic therapy PDX Patient-derived xenografts Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784 24 of 34 PEG Polyethylene glycol PEG-PCL NPs Poly(ethylene glycol)-co-poly(ε-caprolactone) NPs PEG-PDPA NPs Poly(ethylene glycol)-block-poly(2-(diisopropyl amino) ethyl methacrylate) NPs PLA NPs Poly(Lactic Acid) NPs PLGA-NPs Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) NPs pMHC-NPs Peptide-major histocompatibility complexes NPs PMOsPOR-NH2Porous porphyrin-based organosilica NPs PORBSNs Non-porous porphyrin-based bridged silsesquioxane NPs PS Polystyrene PtPP-HA Kiteplatin-pyrophosphate-loaded hydroxyapatite NPs PTZ Pentylenetetrazole PU-NCs Puerarin nanocristals RA Rheumatoid arthritis RFP Red fluorescent protein ROS Reactive oxygen species SA-NCs Schisantherin nanocrystals siHIF Hypoxia-inducible factor 1a siRNA SiNPs Silica NPs SLN-Q Solid lipid NPs of quercetin SOD Superoxide dismutase STZ Streptozotocin T1DM Type 1 diabetes mellitus TAMs Tumor-associated macrophages Tf-DOX-ReSi-Au Redox-responsive silica-gold NPs functionalized with transferrin- DOX TGF-βTransforming growth factor-β TiO2 NPs Titanium dioxide NPs TME Tumor microenvironment TNF-αTumor necrosis factor-α TPE-PDT Two-photon-excited photodynamic therapy VEGF Vascular endothelial growth factor VHSV Viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus VNNV Viral nervous necrosis virus wpf Weeks post-fertilization Y-CDs Amphiphilic yellow-emissive carbon dots ZnO-NPs Zinc oxide NPs βCas AuNPs Casein coated-gold NPs References 1. Pelaz, B.; Alexiou, C.; Alvarez-Puebla, R.A.; Alves, F.; Andrews, A.M.; Ashraf, S.; Balogh, L.P.; Ballerini, L.; Bestetti, A.; Brendel, C.; et al. Diverse Applications of Nanomedicine. ACS Nano 2017,11, 2313–2381. [CrossRef] 2. Ramsden, J. Nanotechnology: An Introduction; William Andrew: Norwich, NY, USA, 2016. 3. Faria, M.; Björnmalm, M.; Thurecht, K.J.; Kent, S.J.; Parton, R.G.; Kavallaris, M.; Johnston, A.P.R.; Gooding, J.J.; Corrie, S.R.; Boyd, B.J.; et al. Minimum information reporting in bio–nano experimental literature. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2018 ,13, 777–785. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 4. Fadeel, B.; Farcal, L.; Hardy, B.; Vázquez-Campos, S.; Hristozov, D.; Marcomini, A.; Lynch, I.; Valsami-Jones, E.; Alenius, H.; Savolainen, K. Advanced tools for the safety assessment of nanomaterials. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2018 ,13, 537–543. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 5. Andón, F.T.; Fadeel, B. Nanotoxicology: Towards safety by design. In Nano-Oncologicals: New Targeting and Delivery Approaches; Alonso, M.J., Garcia-Fuentes, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Germany, 2014; pp. 391–424. [CrossRef] 6. Wang, H.; Brown, P.C.; Chow, E.C.Y.; Ewart, L.; Ferguson, S.S.; Fitzpatrick, S.; Freedman, B.S.; Guo, G.L.; Hedrich, W.; Heyward, S.; et al. 3D Cell Culture Models: Drug Pharmacokinetics, Safety Assessment, and Regulatory Consideration. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2021. [CrossRef] 7. Fazio, M.; Ablain, J.; Chuan, Y.; Langenau, D.M.; Zon, L.I. Zebrafish patient avatars in cancer biology and precision cancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2020,20, 263–273. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784 25 of 34 8. Jia, H.R.; Zhu, Y.X.; Duan, Q.Y.; Chen, Z.; Wu, F.G. Nanomaterials meet zebrafish: Toxicity evaluation and drug delivery applications. J. Control. Release 2019,311, 301–318. [CrossRef] 9. Zon, L.I. Zebrafish: A new model for human disease. Genome Res. 1999,9, 99–100. 10. Xie, Y.; Meijer, A.H.; Schaaf, M.J.M. Modeling inflammation in zebrafish for the development of anti-inflammatory drugs. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021,8. [CrossRef] 11. Astin, J.; Keerthisinghe, P.; Du, L.; Sanderson, L.; Crosier, K.; Crosier, P.; Hall, C. Innate immune cells and bacterial infection in zebrafish. In Methods in Cell Biology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; Volume 138, pp. 31–60. 12. Renshaw, S.A.; Trede, N.S. A model 450 million years in the making: Zebrafish and vertebrate immunity. Dis. Models Mech. 2012 , 5, 38–47. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 13. Lam, S.; Chua, H.; Gong, Z.; Lam, T.; Sin, Y. Development and maturation of the immune system in zebrafish, Danio rerio: A gene expression profiling, in situ hybridization and immunological study. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 2004,28, 9–28. [CrossRef] 14. de Jong, J.L.; Zon, L.I. Use of the zebrafish system to study primitive and definitive hematopoiesis. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2005 ,39, 481–501. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 15. Paik, E.J.; Zon, L.I. Hematopoietic development in the zebrafish. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 2010,54, 1127–1137. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 16. Herbomel, P.; Thisse, B.; Thisse, C. Ontogeny and behaviour of early macrophages in the zebrafish embryo. Development 1999 , 126, 3735–3745. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 17. Gore, A.V.; Pillay, L.M.; Venero Galanternik, M.; Weinstein, B.M. The zebrafish: A fintastic model for hematopoietic development and disease. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Dev. Biol. 2018,7, e312. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 18. Murayama, E.; Kissa, K.; Zapata, A.; Mordelet, E.; Briolat, V.; Lin, H.F.; Handin, R.I.; Herbomel, P. Tracing hematopoietic precursor migration to successive hematopoietic organs during zebrafish development. Immunity 2006,25, 963–975. [CrossRef] 19. Liang, D.; Jia, W.; Li, J.; Li, K.; Zhao, Q. Retinoic acid signaling plays a restrictive role in zebrafish primitive myelopoiesis. PLoS ONE 2012,7, e30865. [CrossRef] 20. Chen, A.T.; Zon, L.I. Zebrafish blood stem cells. J. Cell. Biochem. 2009,108, 35–42. [CrossRef] 21. Locati, M.; Curtale, G.; Mantovani, A. Diversity, Mechanisms, and Significance of Macrophage Plasticity. Annu. Rev. Pathol. 2020 , 15, 123–147. [CrossRef] 22. Varol, C.; Mildner, A.; Jung, S. Macrophages: Development and Tissue Specialization. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2015 ,33, 643–675. [CrossRef] 23. Funes, S.C.; Rios, M.; Escobar-Vera, J.; Kalergis, A.M. Implications of macrophage polarization in autoimmunity. Immunology 2018,154, 186–195. [CrossRef] 24. Mantovani, A.; Sozzani, S.; Locati, M.; Allavena, P.; Sica, A. Macrophage polarization: Tumor-associated macrophages as a paradigm for polarized M2 mononuclear phagocytes. Trends Immunol. 2002,23, 549–555. [CrossRef] 25. Murray, P.J. Macrophage Polarization. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 2017,79, 541–566. [CrossRef] 26. Bronte, V.; Brandau, S.; Chen, S.H.; Colombo, M.P.; Frey, A.B.; Greten, T.F.; Mandruzzato, S.; Murray, P.J.; Ochoa, A.; Ostrand- Rosenberg, S.; et al. Recommendations for myeloid-derived suppressor cell nomenclature and characterization standards. Nat. Commun. 2016,7, 12150. [CrossRef] 27. Sica, A.; Erreni, M.; Allavena, P.; Porta, C. Macrophage polarization in pathology. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. CMLS 2015 ,72, 4111–4126. [CrossRef] 28. Zhang, X.; Mosser, D.M. Macrophage activation by endogenous danger signals. J. Pathol. 2008,214, 161–178. [CrossRef] 29. Mosser, D.M.; Edwards, J.P. Exploring the full spectrum of macrophage activation. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2008 ,8, 958–969. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 30. Martinez, F.O.; Gordon, S. The M1 and M2 paradigm of macrophage activation: Time for reassessment. F1000Prime Rep. 2014 ,6, 13. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 31. Allavena, P.; Anfray, C.; Ummarino, A.; Andón, F.T. Therapeutic manipulation of tumor-associated macrophages: Facts and hopes from a clinical and translational perspective. Clin. Cancer Res. 2021,27, 3291–3297. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 32. Nguyen-Chi, M.; Laplace-Builhe, B.; Travnickova, J.; Luz-Crawford, P.; Tejedor, G.; Phan, Q.T.; Duroux-Richard, I.; Levraud, J.P.; Kissa, K.; Lutfalla, G.; et al. Identification of polarized macrophage subsets in zebrafish. eLife 2015 ,4, e07288. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 33. Ellett, F.; Pase, L.; Hayman, J.W.; Andrianopoulos, A.; Lieschke, G.J. mpeg1 promoter transgenes direct macrophage-lineage expression in zebrafish. Blood 2011,117, e49–e56. [CrossRef] 34. Nguyen-Chi, M.; Phan, Q.T.; Gonzalez, C.; Dubremetz, J.F.; Levraud, J.P.; Lutfalla, G. Transient infection of the zebrafish notochord with E. coli induces chronic inflammation. Dis. Models Mech. 2014,7, 871–882. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 35. Sanderson, L.E.; Chien, A.T.; Astin, J.W.; Crosier, K.E.; Crosier, P.S.; Hall, C.J. An inducible transgene reports activation of macrophages in live zebrafish larvae. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 2015,53, 63–69. [CrossRef] 36. Bernut, A.; Herrmann, J.L.; Kissa, K.; Dubremetz, J.F.; Gaillard, J.L.; Lutfalla, G.; Kremer, L. Mycobacterium abscessus cording prevents phagocytosis and promotes abscess formation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014,111, E943–E952. [CrossRef] 37. Johnston, H.J.; Verdon, R.; Gillies, S.; Brown, D.M.; Fernandes, T.F.; Henry, T.B.; Rossi, A.G.; Tran, L.; Tucker, C.; Tyler, C.R.; et al. Adoption of in vitro systems and zebrafish embryos as alternative models for reducing rodent use in assessments of immunological and oxidative stress responses to nanomaterials. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2018,48, 252–271. [CrossRef] Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784 32 of 34 193. Tateiwa, D.; Yoshikawa, H.; Kaito, T. Cartilage and Bone Destruction in Arthritis: Pathogenesis and Treatment Strategy: A Literature Review. Cells 2019,8, 818. [CrossRef] 194. Anfray, C.; Mainini, F.; Andón, F.T. Chapter 11—Nanoparticles for immunotherapy. In Frontiers of Nanoscience; Parak, W.J., Feliu, N., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; Volume 16, pp. 265–306. 195. Gambari, L.; Grassi, F.; Roseti, L.; Grigolo, B.; Desando, G. Learning from Monocyte-Macrophage Fusion and Multinucleation: Potential Therapeutic Targets for Osteoporosis and Rheumatoid Arthritis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 6001. [CrossRef] 196. Yang, X.; Chang, Y.; Wei, W. Emerging role of targeting macrophages in rheumatoid arthritis: Focus on polarization, metabolism and apoptosis. Cell Prolif. 2020,53, e12854. [CrossRef] 197. Li, P.; Zheng, Y.; Chen, X. Drugs for Autoimmune Inflammatory Diseases: From Small Molecule Compounds to Anti-TNF Biologics. Front. Pharmacol. 2017,8, 460. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 198. Yang, Y.; Guo, L.; Wang, Z.; Liu, P.; Liu, X.; Ding, J.; Zhou, W. Targeted silver nanoparticles for rheumatoid arthritis therapy via macrophage apoptosis and Re-polarization. Biomaterials 2020,264, 120390. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 199. Wu, H.; Su, S.; Wu, Y.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Chen, Q. Nanoparticle-facilitated delivery of BAFF-R siRNA for B cell intervention and rheumatoid arthritis therapy. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2020,88, 106933. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 200. Nguyen, T.H.; Le, H.D.; Kim, T.N.T.; The, H.P.; Nguyen, T.M.; Cornet, V.; Lambert, J.; Kestemont, P. Anti-Inflammatory and Antioxidant Properties of the Ethanol Extract of Clerodendrum Cyrtophyllum Turcz in Copper Sulfate-Induced Inflammation in Zebrafish. Antioxidants 2020,9, 192. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 201. Jiang, Y.; Li, H.Y.; Li, X.H.; Lu, J.; Zhang, Q.; Bai, C.G.; Chen, Y. Therapeutic effects of isothiocyanate prodrugs on rheumatoid arthritis. Bioorganic Med. Chem. Lett. 2018,28, 737–741. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 202. Wang, Y.M.; Xu, M.; Wang, D.; Yang, C.R.; Zeng, Y.; Zhang, Y.J. Anti-inflammatory compounds of “Qin-Jiao”, the roots of Gentiana dahurica (Gentianaceae). J. Ethnopharmacol. 2013,147, 341–348. [CrossRef] 203. Dorris, E.R.; Tazzyman, S.J.; Moylett, J.; Ramamoorthi, N.; Hackney, J.; Townsend, M.; Muthana, M.; Lewis, M.J.; Pitzalis, C.; Wilson, A.G. The Autoimmune Susceptibility Gene C5orf30 Regulates Macrophage-Mediated Resolution of Inflammation. J. Immunol. (Baltim. Md.) 2019,202, 1069–1078. [CrossRef] 204. Feng, H.; Zhang, Z.; Meng, Q.; Jia, H.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, R. Rapid Response Fluorescence Probe Enabled In Vivo Diagnosis and Assessing Treatment Response of Hypochlorous Acid-Mediated Rheumatoid Arthritis. Adv. Sci. (Weinh. Baden-Wurtt. Ger.) 2018 , 5, 1800397. [CrossRef] 205. Sunke, R.; Bankala, R.; Thirupataiah, B.; Ramarao, E.V.V.S.; Kumar, J.S.; Doss, H.M.; Medishetti, R.; Kulkarni, P.; Kapavarapu, R.K.; Rasool, M.; et al. InCl3 mediated heteroarylation of indoles and their derivatization via CH activation strategy: Discovery of 2-(1H-indol-3-yl)-quinoxaline derivatives as a new class of PDE4B selective inhibitors for arthritis and/or multiple sclerosis. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2019,174, 198–215. [CrossRef] 206. Gao, X.Y.; Li, K.; Jiang, L.L.; He, M.F.; Pu, C.H.; Kang, D.; Xie, J. Developmental toxicity of auranofin in zebrafish embryos. J. Appl. Toxicol. JAT 2017,37, 602–610. [CrossRef] 207. Stella, S.L., Jr.; Geathers, J.S.; Weber, S.R.; Grillo, M.A.; Barber, A.J.; Sundstrom, J.M.; Grillo, S.L. Neurodegeneration, Neuroprotection and Regeneration in the Zebrafish Retina. Cells 2021,10, 633. [CrossRef] 208. Lee, J.G.; Cho, H.J.; Jeong, Y.M.; Lee, J.S. Genetic Approaches Using Zebrafish to Study the Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis in Neurological Disorders. Cells 2021,10, 566. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 209. Zhang, W.; Mehta, A.; Tong, Z.; Esser, L.; Voelcker, N.H. Development of Polymeric Nanoparticles for Blood-Brain Barrier Transfer-Strategies and Challenges. Adv. Sci. (Weinh. Baden-Wurtt. Ger.) 2021,8, 2003937. [CrossRef] 210. Zorkina, Y.; Abramova, O.; Ushakova, V.; Morozova, A.; Zubkov, E.; Valikhov, M.; Melnikov, P.; Majouga, A.; Chekhonin, V. Nano Carrier Drug Delivery Systems for the Treatment of Neuropsychiatric Disorders: Advantages and Limitations. Molecules 2020 ,25, 5294. [CrossRef] 211. Nellore, J.; Pauline, C.; Amarnath, K. Bacopa monnieri Phytochemicals Mediated Synthesis of Platinum Nanoparticles and Its Neurorescue Effect on 1-Methyl 4-Phenyl 1,2,3,6 Tetrahydropyridine-Induced Experimental Parkinsonism in Zebrafish. J. Neurodegener. Dis. 2013,2013, 972391. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 212. Chen, T.; Li, C.; Li, Y.; Yi, X.; Lee, S.M.; Zheng, Y. Oral Delivery of a Nanocrystal Formulation of Schisantherin A with Improved Bioavailability and Brain Delivery for the Treatment of Parkinson’s Disease. Mol. Pharm. 2016,13, 3864–3875. [CrossRef] 213. Hu, Q.; Guo, F.; Zhao, F.; Fu, Z. Effects of titanium dioxide nanoparticles exposure on parkinsonism in zebrafish larvae and PC12. Chemosphere 2017,173, 373–379. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 214. Li, X.; Liu, B.; Li, X.L.; Li, Y.X.; Sun, M.Z.; Chen, D.Y.; Zhao, X.; Feng, X.Z. SiO 2 nanoparticles change colour preference and cause Parkinson’s-like behaviour in zebrafish. Sci. Rep. 2014,4, 3810. [CrossRef] 215. Chen, T.; Liu, W.; Xiong, S.; Li, D.; Fang, S.; Wu, Z.; Wang, Q.; Chen, X. Nanoparticles Mediating the Sustained Puerarin Release Facilitate Improved Brain Delivery to Treat Parkinson’s Disease. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019,11, 45276–45289. [CrossRef] 216. Xiong, S.; Liu, W.; Li, D.; Chen, X.; Liu, F.; Yuan, D.; Pan, H.; Wang, Q.; Fang, S.; Chen, T. Oral Delivery of Puerarin Nanocrystals To Improve Brain Accumulation and Anti-Parkinsonian Efficacy. Mol. Pharm. 2019,16, 1444–1455. [CrossRef] 217. Zhao, Y.; Xiong, S.; Liu, P.; Liu, W.; Wang, Q.; Liu, Y.; Tan, H.; Chen, X.; Shi, X.; Wang, Q.; et al. Polymeric Nanoparticles-Based Brain Delivery with Improved Therapeutic Efficacy of Ginkgolide B in Parkinson’s Disease. Int. J. Nanomed. 2020 ,15, 10453–10467. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784 33 of 34 218. Javed, I.; Peng, G.; Xing, Y.; Yu, T.; Zhao, M.; Kakinen, A.; Faridi, A.; Parish, C.L.; Ding, F.; Davis, T.P.; et al. Inhibition of amyloid beta toxicity in zebrafish with a chaperone-gold nanoparticle dual strategy. Nat. Commun. 2019,10, 3780. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 219. Rishitha, N.; Muthuraman, A. Therapeutic evaluation of solid lipid nanoparticle of quercetin in pentylenetetrazole induced cognitive impairment of zebrafish. Life Sci. 2018,199, 80–87. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 220. Zhou, Y.; Liyanage, P.Y.; Devadoss, D.; Rios Guevara, L.R.; Cheng, L.; Graham, R.M.; Chand, H.S.; Al-Youbi, A.O.; Bashammakh, A.S.; El-Shahawi, M.S.; et al. Nontoxic amphiphilic carbon dots as promising drug nanocarriers across the blood-brain barrier and inhibitors of β-amyloid. Nanoscale 2019,11, 22387–22397. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 221. Chen, L.; Watson, C.; Morsch, M.; Cole, N.J.; Chung, R.S.; Saunders, D.N.; Yerbury, J.J.; Vine, K.L. Improving the Delivery of SOD1 Antisense Oligonucleotides to Motor Neurons Using Calcium Phosphate-Lipid Nanoparticles. Front. Neurosci. 2017 ,11, 476. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 222. Igartúa, D.E.; Martinez, C.S.; Temprana, C.F.; Alonso, S.D.V.; Prieto, M.J. PAMAM dendrimers as a carbamazepine delivery system for neurodegenerative diseases: A biophysical and nanotoxicological characterization. Int. J. Pharm. 2018 ,544, 191–202. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 223. Igartúa, D.E.; Martinez, C.S.; Del, V.A.S.; Prieto, M.J. Combined Therapy for Alzheimer’s Disease: Tacrine and PAMAM Dendrimers Co-Administration Reduces the Side Effects of the Drug without Modifying its Activity. AAPS PharmSciTech 2020 ,21, 110. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 224. Thwaite, R.; Ji, J.; Torrealba, D.; Coll, J.; Sabés, M.; Villaverde, A.; Roher, N. Protein Nanoparticles Made of Recombinant Viral Antigens: A Promising Biomaterial for Oral Delivery of Fish Prophylactics. Front. Immunol. 2018,9, 1652. [CrossRef] 225. Sullivan, C.; Kim, C.H. Zebrafish as a model for infectious disease and immune function. Fish. Shellfish. Immunol. 2008 ,25, 341–350. [CrossRef] 226. Levraud, J.P.; Palha, N.; Langevin, C.; Boudinot, P. Through the looking glass: Witnessing host-virus interplay in zebrafish. Trends Microbiol. 2014,22, 490–497. [CrossRef] 227. Torraca, V.; Masud, S.; Spaink, H.P.; Meijer, A.H. Macrophage-pathogen interactions in infectious diseases: New therapeutic insights from the zebrafish host model. Dis. Model. Mech. 2014,7, 785–797. [CrossRef] 228. Palha, N.; Guivel-Benhassine, F.; Briolat, V.; Lutfalla, G.; Sourisseau, M.; Ellett, F.; Wang, C.H.; Lieschke, G.J.; Herbomel, P.; Schwartz, O.; et al. Real-time whole-body visualization of Chikungunya Virus infection and host interferon response in zebrafish. PLoS Pathog. 2013,9, e1003619. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 229. Mesureur, J.; Feliciano, J.R.; Wagner, N.; Gomes, M.C.; Zhang, L.; Blanco-Gonzalez, M.; van der Vaart, M.; O’Callaghan, D.; Meijer, A.H.; Vergunst, A.C. Macrophages, but not neutrophils, are critical for proliferation of Burkholderia cenocepacia and ensuing host-damaging inflammation. PLoS Pathog. 2017,13, e1006437. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 230. Bouz, G.; Al Hasawi, N. The zebrafish model of tuberculosis-no lungs needed. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2018 ,44, 779–792. [CrossRef] 231. Clay, H.; Davis, J.M.; Beery, D.; Huttenlocher, A.; Lyons, S.E.; Ramakrishnan, L. Dichotomous role of the macrophage in early Mycobacterium marinum infection of the zebrafish. Cell Host Microbe 2007,2, 29–39. [CrossRef] 232. Davis, J.M.; Ramakrishnan, L. The role of the granuloma in expansion and dissemination of early tuberculous infection. Cell 2009 , 136, 37–49. [CrossRef] 233. Chao, C.C.; Hsu, P.C.; Jen, C.F.; Chen, I.H.; Wang, C.H.; Chan, H.C.; Tsai, P.W.; Tung, K.C.; Wang, C.H.; Lan, C.Y.; et al. Zebrafish as a model host for Candida albicans infection. Infect. Immun. 2010,78, 2512–2521. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 234. Burgos, J.S.; Ripoll-Gomez, J.; Alfaro, J.M.; Sastre, I.; Valdivieso, F. Zebrafish as a new model for herpes simplex virus type 1 infection. Zebrafish 2008,5, 323–333. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 235. Phennicie, R.T.; Sullivan, M.J.; Singer, J.T.; Yoder, J.A.; Kim, C.H. Specific resistance to Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in zebrafish is mediated by the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator. Infect. Immun. 2010 ,78, 4542–4550. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 236. Rounioja, S.; Saralahti, A.; Rantala, L.; Parikka, M.; Henriques-Normark, B.; Silvennoinen, O.; Rämet, M. Defense of zebrafish embryos against Streptococcus pneumoniae infection is dependent on the phagocytic activity of leukocytes. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 2012,36, 342–348. [CrossRef] 237. Schmidt, J.G.; Korbut, R.; Ohtani, M.; Jørgensen, L.V.G. Zebrafish (Danio rerio) as a model to visualize infection dynamics of Vibrio anguillarum following intraperitoneal injection and bath exposure. Fish Shellfish. Immunol. 2017,67, 692–697. [CrossRef] 238. Lin, B.; Chen, S.; Cao, Z.; Lin, Y.; Mo, D.; Zhang, H.; Gu, J.; Dong, M.; Liu, Z.; Xu, A. Acute phase response in zebrafish upon Aeromonas salmonicida and Staphylococcus aureus infection: Striking similarities and obvious differences with mammals. Mol. Immunol. 2007,44, 295–301. [CrossRef] 239. Korbut, R.; Mehrdana, F.; Kania, P.W.; Larsen, M.H.; Frees, D.; Dalsgaard, I.; Jørgensen, L. Antigen Uptake during Different Life Stages of Zebrafish (Danio rerio) Using a GFP-Tagged Yersinia ruckeri. PLoS ONE 2016,11, e0158968. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 240. Lohi, O.; Parikka, M.; Rämet, M. The zebrafish as a model for paediatric diseases. Acta Paediatr. (Oslo Nor.) 2013 ,102, 104–110. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 241. Jørgensen, L.V.G. Zebrafish as a Model for Fish Diseases in Aquaculture. Pathogens 2020,9, 609. [CrossRef] 242. Oksanen, K.E.; Halfpenny, N.J.; Sherwood, E.; Harjula, S.K.; Hammarén, M.M.; Ahava, M.J.; Pajula, E.T.; Lahtinen, M.J.; Parikka, M.; Rämet, M. An adult zebrafish model for preclinical tuberculosis vaccine development. Vaccine 2013 ,31, 5202–5209. [CrossRef] Nanomaterials 2021,11, 1784 34 of 34 243. Torrealba, D.; Parra, D.; Seras-Franzoso, J.; Vallejos-Vidal, E.; Yero, D.; Gibert, I.; Villaverde, A.; Garcia-Fruitós, E.; Roher, N. Nanostructured recombinant cytokines: A highly stable alternative to short-lived prophylactics. Biomaterials 2016,107, 102–114. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 244. Kavaliauskis, A.; Arnemo, M.; Speth, M.; Lagos, L.; Rishovd, A.L.; Estepa, A.; Griffiths, G.; Gjøen, T. Protective effect of a recombinant VHSV-G vaccine using poly(I:C) loaded nanoparticles as an adjuvant in zebrafish (Danio rerio) infection model. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 2016,61, 248–257. [CrossRef] 245. Tandberg, J.; Lagos, L.; Ropstad, E.; Smistad, G.; Hiorth, M.; Winther-Larsen, H.C. The Use of Chitosan-Coated Membrane Vesicles for Immunization against Salmonid Rickettsial Septicemia in an Adult Zebrafish Model. Zebrafish 2018 ,15, 372–381. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 246. Díez-Martínez, R.; García-Fernández, E.; Manzano, M.; Martínez, Á.; Domenech, M.; Vallet-Regí, M.; García, P. Auranofin-loaded nanoparticles as a new therapeutic tool to fight streptococcal infections. Sci. Rep. 2016,6, 19525. [CrossRef]