Triazine and PAMAM dendrimers of similar size and number of cationic surface groups were compared for their ability to promote platelet aggregation. Triazine dendrimers (G3, G5 and G7) varied in molecular weight from 8 kDa–130 kDa and in surface groups 16–256. PAMAM dendrimers selected for comparison included G3 (7 kDa, 32 surface groups) and G6 (58 kDa, 256 surface groups). The treatment of human platelet-rich plasma (PRP) with low generation triazine dendrimers (0.01–1 µM) did not show any significant effect in human platelet aggregation in vitro; however, the treatment of PRP with larger generations promotes an effective aggregation. These results are in agreement with studies performed with PAMAM dendrimers, where large generations promote aggregation. Triazine dendrimers promote aggregation less aggressively than PAMAM dendrimers, a factor attributed to differences in cationic charge or the formation of supramolecular assemblies of dendrimers.

The preclinical safety assessment of novel nanotechnology-based drug products frequently relies on in vitro assays, especially during the early stages of product development, due to the limited quantities of nanomaterials available for such studies. The majority of immunological tests require donor blood. To enable such tests one has to prevent the blood from coagulating, which is usually achieved by the addition of an anticoagulant into blood collection tubes. Heparin, ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA), and citrate are the most commonly used anticoagulants. Novel anticoagulants such as hirudin are also available but are not broadly used. Despite the notion that certain anticoagulants may influence assay performance, a systematic comparison between traditional and novel anticoagulants in the in vitro assays intended for immunological characterization of nanotechnology-based formulations is currently not available. We compared hirudin-anticoagulated blood with its traditional counterparts in the standardized immunological assay cascade, and found that the type of anticoagulant did not influence the performance of the hemolysis assay. However, hirudin was more optimal for the complement activation and leukocyte proliferation assays, while traditional anticoagulants citrate and heparin were more appropriate for the coagulation and cytokine secretion assays. The results also suggest that traditional immunological controls such as lipopolysaccharide (LPS ) are not reliable for understanding the role of anticoagulant in the assay performance. We observed differences in the test results between hirudin and traditional anticoagulant-prepared blood for nanomaterials at the time when no such effects were seen with traditional controls. It is, therefore, important to recognize the advantages and limitations of each anticoagulant and consider individual nanoparticles on a case-by-case basis.