Most people who buy cosmetic lotions and potions know that while the people working behind the department store makeup counters may wear white lab coats, the stuff they sell is more about packaging than science.
But a Northwestern University team is bucking that image, reporting today that they’ve created a way to regulate genes affecting the skin -- merely by applying moisturizer.
Not only could their technology pave the way for cosmetics that actually work, but it also might also prove to be a valuable weapon in fighting melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, or diseases like psoriasis, and wounds like the intractable sores that often plague diabetics.
“This is a blockbuster in the ways we will treat diseases of the skin,” said Chad Mirkin, director of the International Institute for Nanotechnology and the George B. Rathmann Professor of Chemistry at Northwestern said. “We’re talking about ailments, scarring, wound healing, ways of regulating them or retarding them.”
In a research paper published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Mirkin and his colleagues describe not a drug, exactly, but a way of delivering small sections of nucleic acids (DNA and RNA are nucleic acids) called short interfering RNA, or siRNA, to cells. The cells take up the siRNA, which then alters the way a gene inside each cell can be read by the protein-making system.
The team used gold particles with a diameter of 13 nanometers. (One nanometer is 1-billionth of a meter. A typical strand of human hair is roughly 60,000 nanometers wide.) They coated the particles with siRNA to create what they call “spherical nucleic acid nanoparticle conjugates,” or SNAs. Millions of SNAs were then added to a commercially available petroleum-based skin moisturizer and the mixture was applied to mice and to lab-grown human skin.
In their key experiment in mice, they used their new system to tamp down the activity of a gene called epidermal growth factor receptor, or EGFR, that’s involved in the growth of melanoma. As its name implies, EGFR receives messages from the epidermal growth factor protein. So toning down EGFR will interrupt the message; growth will be reduced or stop.
After mice were treated with the mixture three times per week for three weeks, the expression of the EGFR gene was reduced by 65 percent.
'Impressive' results
Steve Dowdy, professor of cellular and molecular medicine at the University of California San Diego, and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator specializing in RNA inhibition and ways to deliver siRNAs, called that result “impressive.”
But EGFR was just a proof-of-principle target. The delivery system could, in theory, carry targeted siRNA to regulate any number of genes, including ones related to skin aging.
Mirkin’s enthusiasm for the possibilities of the new therapy is rare. It’s unusual for a scientist to rave about his work in such terms, especially one in the field of siRNA, which has a checkered history filled with scientific frustrations and failed companies.
Ten years ago, scientists predicted a new era of siRNA therapies, but the hype machine ran into a roadblock: how to deliver siRNAs into cells and make them regulate the target gene and not cause any collateral damage.
The issue mainly has been size, Dowdy explained. Two million years of evolution have created cells that do a good job of keeping foreign stuff out. In order to enter a cell passively, a substance has to be about 1 nanometer or less, one reason why small molecule drugs -- pills -- are so tough to create. Another problem is that cell membranes carry a negative charge. They repel negatively charged molecules, like siRNAs.
“It’s like trying to squeeze an elephant through the top of your desk,” Dowdy said.
Mirkin explained that his team’s delivery system relies on so-called “scavenger receptors” on the cell surface to grab the nano SNAs and gobble them up. Once the SNAs were inside the cell, they were able to begin silencing the EGFR gene.
Dowdy said he’s “cautious” about Mirkin’s claims for SNAs, given the history of other delivery systems that have been tried. So far no solution has been perfect, though siRNA technology is being tested in human clinical trials.
Another issue is the nanospheres themselves. For example, the Food and Drug Administration has yet to rule on the use of nanoparticles in sunscreens until more data can be gathered on what effects, if any, the particles might have if they pass through skin and enter the bloodstream. Last week, the agency announced that the tiny technology needs more safety testing before it can be used in consumer goods.
But Dowdy did agree that for use on skin -- especially in cases like psoriasis or diabetic wounds where the skin surface has already been compromised, Mirkin’s group may be onto something.
Mirkin certainly hopes so. He’s founded a company called Aurasense Therapeutics. Just as Botox was originally meant to be used for muscle disorders, but now makes heaps of money thanks to its wrinkle-fighting properties, Aurasense stands to reap a windfall if anybody can walk up to a counter and buy a lotion or cream that really will reduce the signs of aging.
“I’ve never been more excited about anything,” Mirkin said.
Still, whether nano-delivered gene regulation is going to be the next Botox remains to be seen.
Brian Alexander (www.BrianRAlexander.com) is co-author, with Larry Young PhD., of "The Chemistry Between Us: Love Sex and the Science of Attraction," (www.TheChemistryBetweenUs.com) to be published Sept. 13.
Related stories:


No mention of possible mutations in the RNA strands due to naturally occurring radiation? I would imagine packaging to prevent this would be paramount.
Certainly, but siRNA doesn't work that way. It is merely an inhibitor of protein translation. Basically the RNA has a complementary sequence to a sequence on the protein's RNA. It binds to it and physically blocks the production of the protein and results in the degradation of the protein's RNA. It's all a bit technical, but if there were a mutation in the siRNA drug then it simply wouldn't work as well.
siRNA's are short oligonucleotides that are modified at both 5' and 3' ends. There would be essentially zero chance of "mutation" as you know it, these are synthesized molecules with 100% perfect assembly. And radagast, you're close with your description, but not quite, on the mechanisms of siRNA. There are many good reviews out there, dating back 20 years or so. Greg Hannon is a pioneer of this work, as is Craig Mellow and Andrew Fire (obviously).
It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.
So these nanoparticles are designed to travel through cell walls. And what stops them? Where do they end up? Bloodstream, kidney, urine, ocean, fish, people? What then?
Gold nanoparticles have been used for years to deliver genes and other chemicals into cells. These are simply small pieces of gold. The cells take them up and the RNA piggy backs. The particles don't simply zip around from cell to cell. The RNA is incredibly labile so I wouldn't worry about contamination of streams etc. In fact there is an enzyme that is absolutely everywhere in nature - on your skin, on countertops, in water, in dirt - everywhere, that does nothing but chew up stray bits of RNA. It is the bane of all RNA researchers, constantly destroying experiments even in the cleanest labs. RNA is also everywhere in nature. Touch something. You just coated your finger in RNA.
Once the RNA gets into the cells it does what it does and is processed through the cell's siRNA apparatus. After that there is no more RNA. The effects are transient. The gold particles will be excreted or shed with the skin. From there they are inert.
Thanks for the reply. I feel a little better about medical applications. I do continue to read about heavy metals accumulating in rivers near the processing facilities that use nano technology on an industrial level, though.
Again, radagast, I hate to be pedantic, but your descriptions, while close enough for the lay person, aren't entirely correct. This experiment highlights the efficacy conundrum with nanoparticles. They are physiologically entering the bylayer by exploiting orphan/scavenger receptors, and important proof of principal. Yes, molecular biologists have been able to get these gold particles in cells (again obvious if you've been around the EM/TEM). But targeting them to live cells is novel.
And your information about RNAses, while correct, isn't exactly parallel to oligonucleotides, as I'm sure you're aware of. Further, you must know about the DICER-RISC, no? Its not as though this siRNA simply eats up mRNA...you are very astute in pointing out that these affects are indeed transient, at best. Application would depend very much on conditions and concentrations, as we know all too well.
No worrys peepel. King Obama ken tak car of us all. Gus looke how he has helpped public skools. Why, even I myself has ben helppped by ourr grate aMeriCan public skols. We shood all bow down and prays to King O for he is ourr Saveyour.
I ken nott wate untils He makes us all Socialists, as he is doing now. Isant it wonderful to be told whut to do each and evry day??? Today, I go to welfare office and get my money. Then I go to Democrat offices and give all my money to them to get King O reelekteketed. Then I go help all the immigrants the Democrats have allowed into the US so they will vot for King O. This is fun. We tell everyone we obeying the Constitution, but we laughs at that stupid old paper. I kant wate for King O to write his "NEW" Constitution that allows non US citizens to be President. !!!! Wow, I can hardelee waigt. Ifs I be ever to seee hisselfs, I will ax him a qwekshun like "can I be a Socialist two?
troll. We're talking about RNA, not your redneck paranoia, but perhaps that should be the start of a new seed - "RWING and his constant need to denigrate himself by being a useless troll."
The only thing I would worry about is what happens when you stop treatment? Sure, the proteins can be blocked by the application of siRNAs, but there are often feedback mechanisms in gene expression. Basically if the protein isn't getting made then it isn't letting it's gene know that it is out there doing its job. That often can result in increased gene expression of that protein as the gene tries to compensate. Eventually you might need to increase the does of siRNA to counter these increases and if you stop, the levels of the protein that you are trying to block could skyrocket making the problem you were avoiding worse. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would like to see data on expression levels following treatment, especially for something that is supposed to regulate cancer.
Ok, so finally by your 3rd post do I understand your experience and knowledge base of the subject. I'm afraid that while you are, at the most fundamental tier, not "wrong", that what you describe isn't really what is going on with this process. Proteins "blocked"? Transcriptional regulation of EGFR via positive feedback loops? Circumventing the UPS? Yeah, none of these are actually observed datum, and for one who brings up oncogenes, feedback loops, and and elevated expression values, I would kind of expect a little more. I mean, you've heard of myc? p53? mTOR? There are only about 30k citations in Pubmed right now...
When you're ready for human testing in psoriasis, CALL ME! Oh, I'll need gallons since it's pretty much all over and a shampoo for my scalp... can I put it inside my ears?
RWING is so obviously a stinking bigot.
I wonder if this could possibly help with more serious skin disorders such as Epidermolysis Bullosa, which is a skin disorder where blistering occurs due to friction. There's a defect in the skin layers that allows friction to create painful blisters very easily. We all get blisters, but people with this disorder gets them so much faster than a normal person that it impacts their everyday life. It's fatal for some people due to infection and it can cause skin cancer. For my family, they have the least severe type, which I'm very grateful for, but hard to explain to young children who get blisters that have to be opened and cared for regularly. It gets quite emotional at times. My children only get blisters on their hands and feet, although mostly on their feet. They are the "lucky" ones. Some get blisters all over their body to include in their esophagus and require repeated surgeries. The humidity and heat make it much worse so Summer is especially difficult. My husband is in his mid 40's and there has been nothing all this time that really works. To learn more about disorder this go to www.debra.org. They don't receive much funding for research so awareness is so important.
With the incidence of skin cancer rising dramaticlly as it is now, this is a good thing, however it usually takes a least 5 years once a new drug is tested on humans before it is available,,,,,,so lather up with sun screen everyone and have a happy and healthy 4th!!!!
Can it make me look like Hugh Jackman?