Nanomaterials are becoming important materials in several fields and industries thanks to their very reduced size and shape-related features. Scientists think that nanoparticles and nanostructured materials originated during the Big Bang process from meteorites leading to the formation of the universe and Earth. Since 1990, the term nanotechnology became very popular due to advances in imaging technologies that paved the way to specific industrial applications. Currently, nanoparticles and nanostructured materials are synthesized on a large scale and are indispensable for many industries. This fact fosters and supports research in biochemistry, biophysics, and biochemical engineering applications. Recently, nanotechnology has been combined with other sciences to fabricate new forms of nanomaterials that could be used, for instance, for diagnostic tools, drug delivery systems, energy generation/storage, environmental remediation as well as agriculture and food processing. In contrast with traditional materials, specific features can be integrated into nanoparticles, nanostructures, and nanosystems by simply modifying their scale, shape, and composition. This article first summarizes the history of nanomaterials and nanotechnology. Followed by the progress that led to improved synthesis processes to produce different nanoparticles and nanostructures characterized by specific features. The content finally presents various origins and sources of nanomaterials, synthesis strategies, their toxicity, risks, regulations, and self-aggregation.

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a hematological bone marrow malignancy that can be treated but is usually fatal. Medication resistance is the major cause of relapses due to cancer stem cells (CSCs). As a result, this study aimed to identify multiple myeloma cancer stem cells (MMCSCs) in the bone marrow of twelve MM patients with pathological complete response (pCR) after chemotherapy and to investigate the potential effect of Curcumin/Piperine (C/P) extract as an anti-MMCSCs treatment in twenty newly diagnosed patients. Methods: This study included twenty bone marrow (BM) samples from newly diagnosed MM patients and twelve BM samples from pCR patients after a year of treatment. The MTT test was performed to assess the treatment’s effective dosage. A flow cytometer was used to identify MMCSCs, cell cycle profile, extract’s apoptotic activity, and proliferation marker in the selected samples. Also, a colony formation test and stemness protein were investigated. Results: In newly diagnosed MM patients, the C/P extract suppressed MMCSCs by 64.71% for CD138-/CD19- and 38.31% for CD38++. In MM patients’ samples obtained after one year of treatment, the MMCSCs inhibition percentage reached 44.71% (P < 0.008) for CD138-/CD19- and 36.94% (P < 0.221) for CD38++. According to cell cycle analyses, the number of cells treated with C/P extract was significantly reduced in the S and G0/G1 phases (87.38%: 35.15%, and 4.83%: 2.17% respectively), with a rapid increase in the G2/M phases (1.1%: 2.2%.). MMCSCs apoptosis was identified using a flow cytometer and Annexin-V. Multiple myeloma stem cell (MMCSC) proliferation was inhibited. Clonogenicity was suppressed by 60%, and stemness protein expression was reduced by 70%. Conclusion: MMCSCs in the bone marrow of MM-pCR patients can be utilized as a prognostic tool to predict recurrent multiple myeloma incidence. Also, the therapeutic potential of C/P extract as a prospective anti-MM drug targeting MMCSCs.