Experimental Methods and Data‑Analysis Tools for Single‑Cell Epitranscriptome Profiling

Cui et al. Sig Transduct Target Ther 7, 334 (2022). 

The epitranscriptome—the collection of chemical modifications that decorate RNA molecules—adds a dynamic and complex layer of regulation to gene expression. More than 170 distinct RNA modifications have been catalogued, but until recently our ability to map these modifications was limited to bulk samples, obscuring the underlying cellular heterogeneity. Advances in single‑cell RNA sequencing (scRNA‑seq) coupled with bespoke chemical or enzymatic methods now permit the detection of epitranscriptomic marks at or near single‑base resolution in individual cells. This review summarises the current state of experimental approaches for profiling four of the most prevalent and functionally important modifications—N6‑methyladenosine (m6A), 5‑methylcytosine (m5C), pseudouridine (Ψ) and adenosine‑to‑inosine (A‑to‑I) editing—alongside the bioinformatic tools required to analyse such data. We highlight how these technologies are revealing the role of RNA modifications in development, ageing, host–pathogen interactions and across the tree of life, and we discuss the remaining technical and computational challenges that must be overcome to fully interpret the single‑cell epitranscriptome.

1 Single Cell Epitranscriptome Profiling: Basics

RNA molecules are not just passive messengers between DNA and protein. They are sculpted by a diverse set of chemical modifications that influence splicing, export, stability and translation. Collectively these marks constitute the epitranscriptome, a regulatory layer that is installed by writers, removed by erasers and interpreted by reader proteins. Although more than 170 modifications have been described, the majority of functional knowledge comes from abundant RNA species such as tRNAs and rRNAs because their high copy number facilitated early mapping efforts. Internal modifications on messenger RNAs (mRNAs)—notably m6A, m5C, Ψ and A‑to‑I editing—were reported decades ago but only became accessible to high‑throughput studies with the advent of next‑generation sequencing technologies. The distribution of m6A, for example, is biased toward the 3′ untranslated region and near the stop codon, underscoring the importance of precise localisation for understanding function.

Bulk epitranscriptomic studies average signals across thousands or millions of cells, masking cell‑to‑cell variability. In tissues with complex cellular compositions this averaging can confound interpretation—for instance, an apparent change in modification level might reflect a shift in cell‑type proportions rather than altered modification dynamics. By integrating scRNA‑seq with epitranscriptomic detection, researchers can now deconvolve this heterogeneity, correlating a cell’s identity with the modification landscape of its transcripts. These single‑cell approaches allow questions such as whether a particular modification guides lineage commitment, mediates stress responses or modulates viral replication to be addressed directly.

2 Experimental methodologies for single‑cell RNA modification profiling

The central technical obstacle for single‑cell epitranscriptomics is the minute amount of RNA available from a single cell. Methods developed for bulk samples often require microgram quantities of input and labour‑intensive enrichment steps that are incompatible with picogram‑scale starting material. To surmount these challenges, investigators have adapted existing techniques for low input or devised new strategies that bypass problematic steps altogether. Below, we outline key approaches for each modification and summarise their advantages and limitations.

2.1 Detecting m6A

Antibody‑based enrichment • Early m6A mapping relied on immunoprecipitation (m6A‑seq/MeRIP‑seq) in which fragmented RNA is incubated with an m6A‑specific antibody to enrich modified fragments. These methods provided transcriptome‑wide maps but offered only regional (~100–200 nt) resolution and required substantial input material. picoMeRIP‑seq optimises recovery from picogram‑scale input and has enabled profiling in scarce cell types (e.g., single oocytes) by minimising losses during purification. scm6A‑seq takes a multiplexing approach: RNA from individual cells is fragmented, dual‑barcoded and pooled for a single immunoprecipitation, reducing batch effects and enabling relative quantification across cells. However, antibody dependence and coarse resolution remain limitations.

Enzyme‑based detection • The antibody‑free method DART‑seq (Deamination Adjacent to RNA modification Targets sequencing) uses a fusion of the m6A‑binding YTH domain with the cytidine deaminase APOBEC1. When expressed in cells, this fusion enzyme induces C‑to‑U edits adjacent to m6A sites. These edits manifest as C‑to‑T mutations during sequencing, marking the modification with single‑base precision. Adaptations such as scDART‑seq or transgenic DART mice extend this approach to single cells in culture and in vivo. The main drawbacks are that the fusion protein must be introduced into the cells and that only m6A sites with nearby cytosines can be detected.

Direct RNA sequencing (DRS) • Oxford Nanopore Technologies’ sequencers measure ionic current as native RNA passes through a nanopore. Modified bases alter this current signature, allowing m6A to be detected without immunoprecipitation or reverse transcription. Machine‑learning models (e.g., m6Anet or SingleMod) have been trained to call modifications from these signals. While DRS provides single‑molecule, single‑base resolution and retains full‑length transcript information, its application to single cells is currently hampered by comparatively high input requirements, limited throughput and higher error rates.

2.2 Detecting m5C

Bisulfite sequencing • The gold standard for mapping m5C is RNA bisulfite sequencing (RNA‑BS‑seq). Sodium bisulfite converts unmodified cytosines to uracil, while methylated cytosines are resistant and remain unchanged. After reverse transcription and sequencing, genuine m5C sites appear as cytosines in the reads. The harsh chemical treatment degrades RNA, a serious problem for single‑cell samples. Variants such as UBS‑seq (Ultrafast Bisulfite Sequencing) use ammonium bisulfite to shorten reaction times and reduce degradation, but true single‑cell RNA‑BS‑seq remains a challenge. Antibody‑based m5C‑RIP‑seq and mechanism‑based approaches like Aza‑IP exist but suffer from low resolution or only detect targets of specific methyltransferases.

2.3 Detecting pseudouridine (Ψ)

CMC‑based chemical labelling • Ψ is traditionally mapped using N‑cyclohexyl‑N′‑(2‑morpholinoethyl)carbodiimide metho‑p‑toluenesulfonate (CMC). CMC reacts with Ψ to form a bulky adduct that causes reverse transcriptase to stall one nucleotide downstream. Techniques such as Pseudo‑Seq and PSI‑seq leverage these termination events to identify Ψ sites. While single‑base resolution is possible, the protocols require large amounts of RNA and multiple purification steps, making them incompatible with single‑cell samples. Recent improvements streamline library construction, but routine single‑cell detection is not yet feasible.

Cui et al. Sig Transduct Target Ther 7, 334 (2022). 

2.4 Detecting A‑to‑I editing

A‑to‑I editing, catalysed by ADAR enzymes, is unique among RNA modifications because it creates a base that base‑pairs like guanosine. During cDNA synthesis and sequencing, edited positions therefore appear as A‑to‑G mismatches relative to the reference genome. In principle, standard scRNA‑seq data contain information on editing events. In practice, low per‑cell coverage means that very few reads support any given site. To increase confidence, researchers pool reads from cells of the same type—creating “pseudo‑bulk” datasets—and use variant calling pipelines to distinguish true edits from genomic polymorphisms or sequencing errors. Although this sacrifices single‑cell resolution, it allows cell‑type‑specific editing patterns to be characterised without specialised library preparation.

Table 1 – Comparison of methods for single‑cell RNA modification detection

Modification	Representative method	Key principle	Strengths	Limitations
m6A	picoMeRIP‑seq	Antibody enrichment of fragments	Picogram‑scale input; no genetic modification required	Low spatial resolution; antibody dependency
m6A	scm6A‑seq	Dual barcoding and pooled immunoprecipitation	Reduces batch effects; relative quantification across cells	Low resolution; complex library prep
m6A	scDART‑seq	Fusion of m6A reader and cytidine deaminase induces C‑to‑U edits	Antibody‑free; single‑base resolution; compatible with in vivo models	Requires expression of fusion protein; only detects sites with nearby cytosines
m5C	UBS‑seq	Bisulfite conversion leaves methylated Cs untouched	Single‑base resolution; established chemistry	Harsh conditions degrade RNA; high input requirement
Ψ	Pseudo‑Seq/PSI‑seq	CMC adduct induces reverse‑transcription stops	Single‑base resolution	Requires high RNA input; labour‑intensive; not yet single‑cell compatible
A‑to‑I	scRNA‑seq plus variant calling	Inosine is read as guanosine	No special library prep; leverages existing scRNA‑seq datasets	Low coverage necessitates pseudo‑bulking; sensitive to SNP contamination

3 Computational pipelines for data analysis

Single‑cell epitranscriptomic datasets pose unique computational challenges. Unlike conventional scRNA‑seq data, reads may carry deliberate mismatches (e.g., C‑to‑T conversions in bisulfite sequencing or DART‑seq) or truncate at modification sites. Furthermore, the sparse capture of transcripts in single cells results in many missing values. There is currently no universal pipeline; instead, researchers assemble bespoke workflows using specialised tools at each step.

3.1 Alignment and quality control

Aligning reads to a reference genome is complicated by the presence of systematic mismatches. For bisulfite data, reference genomes with C‑to‑T conversions are used so that methylated and unmethylated cytosines align correctly. DART‑seq and similar data require tolerant alignment settings so that edited bases are not discarded as errors. Quality control involves standard scRNA‑seq metrics—library size, gene count per cell, fraction of mitochondrial reads—and modification‑specific metrics such as bisulfite conversion efficiency. Deduplication using unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) is essential to obtain accurate modification counts.

3.2 Modification site calling and quantification

The strategy for identifying modified sites depends on the experimental design:

• Peak‑based calling – For enrichment methods (e.g., MeRIP‑seq), algorithms adapted from ChIP‑seq (such as MACS2) identify peaks where read coverage is enriched over a control input. Specialised packages like MeTPeak or MeRIPtools implement statistical tests suited to m6A data.
• Variant‑based calling – For approaches that induce mutations (A‑to‑I, DART‑seq, bisulfite sequencing), variant callers are used to detect mismatches at specific positions. Tools such as scAllele or RESIC work with scRNA‑seq data but still require pooling across cells for adequate depth.
• Signal‑based calling – For nanopore DRS, machine‑learning models examine raw ionic current traces to classify each k‑mer as modified or unmodified. Software like m6Anet, SingleMod, Tombo or EpiNano are examples in this rapidly evolving domain.
• Predictive modelling – An alternative is to infer modification levels from gene expression and sequence context. Models such as Scm6A and SigRM use features like the expression of writers, erasers and readers, motif presence and local sequence composition to predict m6A status. While indirect, these approaches leverage vast existing scRNA‑seq datasets and circumvent the need for specialised library preparation.

3.3 Downstream analysis

Once modifications are called, they can be integrated into single‑cell analysis frameworks (e.g., Seurat or Scanpy) as additional “assays” alongside gene expression. Researchers cluster cells based on their modification profiles, perform trajectory inference to study dynamic changes and test for differential modification between cell types or conditions. The sparse and often binary nature of modification data necessitates new statistical models for differential analysis. Pipelines such as scDown aim to provide an end‑to‑end workflow, but the field remains fragmented and rapidly evolving.

Table 2 – Examples of bioinformatic tools for single‑cell epitranscriptomic analysis

Category	Tool	Function/Notes	Supported modifications
Peak calling	MeTPeak / MeRIPtools	Identify enriched regions from antibody‑based data	m6A (MeRIP‑seq)
Variant calling	scAllele, RESIC	Call SNVs or RNA edits from pooled scRNA‑seq	A‑to‑I, DART‑seq, SNPs
Bisulfite analysis	MethSCAn	Analyse single‑cell bisulfite‑seq (principles extend to RNA‑BS‑seq)	m5C
Nanopore analysis	m6Anet, SingleMod	Detect modifications from nanopore current signals	m6A (and other modifications)
Predictive modelling	SigRM, Scm6A	Infer modification status from gene expression and sequence	m6A
Downstream analysis	Seurat, Scanpy, scDown	Clustering, trajectory analysis and integration	Any derived modification matrix

4 Applications across the tree of life

Epitranscriptomic marks are conserved across kingdoms, but their functions and regulation are often lineage‑specific. Single‑cell approaches are uncovering how these modifications contribute to development, stress responses and host–pathogen interactions in diverse organisms.

4.1 Animal systems

Neurobiology – In the mouse brain, scDART‑seq has revealed cell‑type‑specific m6A landscapes. Microglia display notably low m6A levels compared with neurons and other glia, and many m6A sites show age‑dependent dynamics. These findings implicate m6A in neural development and ageing.

Early development – Low‑input methods such as picoMeRIP‑seq and scm6A‑seq have mapped the dynamic m6A landscape during oocyte maturation and early embryogenesis. These maps suggest that m6A deposition is tightly regulated during the earliest cell fate decisions.

Hematopoiesis – By pooling scRNA‑seq reads within clusters, researchers have identified lineage‑specific A‑to‑I editing patterns in human haematopoietic stem and progenitor cells. Editing at sites within the 3′ UTR of EIF2AK2 changes as cells commit to different lineages, hinting at a role for RNA editing in balancing self‑renewal and differentiation.

4.2 Plants

In plants, m6A influences flowering, embryogenesis and responses to abiotic stress. Although single‑cell epitranscriptomic studies in plants remain nascent, the core m6A machinery is conserved. Interestingly, the m6A consensus motif differs: while mammals often modify RRACH motifs, plants exhibit a URUAY motif and frequently possess an expanded repertoire of writer, eraser and reader genes, particularly in long‑lived tree species. Applying single‑cell methodologies to plant systems is expected to illuminate how these epitranscriptomic dialects mediate development and environmental adaptation.

4.3 Host–virus interactions

Viruses co‑opt and manipulate host epitranscriptomic machinery to their advantage. Herpesviruses such as HSV‑1 mislocalise the host m6A writer complex to reduce m6A levels on both viral and host transcripts, possibly dampening antiviral responses. Flaviviruses (e.g., Dengue and Zika) have been studied using viscRNA‑Seq, which captures both host and viral RNA from the same cell; this revealed extreme heterogeneity in viral load and identified host factors with virus‑specific effects. Coronaviruses, including SARS‑CoV‑2, decorate their genomes with m6A, pseudouridine and 2′‑O‑methylation to promote replication and evade innate immunity. Retroviruses such as HIV‑1 enhance host m6A writer activity, altering m6A patterns on specific host transcripts and modulating viral replication in a cell‑type‑specific manner. Single‑cell approaches are essential for dissecting these finely tuned interactions because viral burden and host responses vary dramatically between individual cells.

4.4 Microbial systems

Single‑cell epitranscriptomics in microbes is technically challenging but offers intriguing insights:

• Bacteria – Lack of poly(A) tails and overwhelming rRNA content complicate scRNA‑seq. Specialised protocols like MATQ‑seq and RiboD‑PETRI address these issues. Initial nanopore studies suggest that m6A on bacterial mRNA is scarce and may arise from off‑target activity of tRNA/rRNA methyltransferases rather than regulatory events. However, stress conditions can alter bacterial modification landscapes, indicating potential roles in adaptation.
• Archaea – Archaea feature unique modifications (e.g., archaeosine) and complex processing intermediates in their rRNAs. Nanopore sequencing has mapped many of these modifications, but the archaeal mRNA epitranscriptome remains largely unexplored.
• Fungi – Filamentous fungi perform widespread mRNA A‑to‑I editing using adenosine deaminases acting on tRNA (ADATs), especially during sexual reproduction. This editing frequently creates nonsynonymous codon changes and can provide fitness advantages by producing both edited and unedited protein isoforms. Combining single‑cell transcriptomics with epitranscriptomic mapping is beginning to reveal how fungal pathogens coordinate these processes during host infection.

5 Summary and outlook

Single‑cell epitranscriptomics has transitioned from concept to reality thanks to innovations in chemistry, enzymology and sequencing. These methods reveal cell‑type‑specific and dynamic patterns of RNA modifications that were invisible in bulk data and are beginning to illuminate how the epitranscriptome shapes development, ageing and immune responses. Nonetheless, significant hurdles remain. Sparse transcript capture forces reliance on pseudo‑bulk strategies that sacrifice true single‑cell resolution, and no routine single‑cell methods exist for some modifications (notably pseudouridine). The rapid pace of experimental development has outstripped progress in bioinformatics, leaving many groups to assemble ad hoc pipelines.

Looking ahead, the field is likely to progress along several fronts. Multi‑modal sequencing strategies that can detect multiple modification types on the same molecule will provide a more holistic view of RNA regulation. Spatial epitranscriptomics will situate modification patterns within their tissue context, clarifying how microenvironment influences the epitranscriptome. CRISPR‑based RNA editing tools, which fuse programmable Cas proteins to deaminases or methyltransferases, promise to enable targeted writing or erasing of modifications, allowing direct tests of causality. As methods mature and become more accessible, single‑cell epitranscriptomic profiling is poised to deliver new biomarkers for disease diagnosis, prognostication and therapy monitoring.

References

 Birkedal U, Christensen-Dalsgaard M, Krogh N, et al., Profiling of ribose methylations in RNA by high-throughput sequencing, Angewandte Chemie, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201408362

Cusanovich DA, Daza R, Adey A, et al., Multiplex single-cell profiling of chromatin accessibility by combinatorial cellular indexing, Science, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab1601

Dominissini D, Nachtergaele S, Moshitch-Moshkovitz S, et al., The dynamic N1-methyladenosine methylome in eukaryotic messenger RNA, Nature, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16998

Garcia-Campos MA, Edelheit S, Toth U, et al., Deciphering the m6A code via antibody-independent quantitative profiling, Cell, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.06.013

Jin W, Tang Q, Wan M, et al., Genome-wide detection of DNase I hypersensitive sites in single cells and FFPE tissue samples, Nature, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15740

Jonkhout N, Tran J, Smith MA, et al., The RNA modification landscape in human disease, RNA, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1261/rna.063503.117

Ke S, Alemu EA, Mertens C, et al., A majority of m6A residues are in the last exons, allowing the potential for 3’ UTR regulation, Genes & Development, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.269415.115

Lein E, Borm LE, Linnarsson S, The promise of spatial transcriptomics for neuroscience in the era of molecular cell typing, Science, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan6827

Li X, Xiong X, Wang K, et al., Transcriptome-wide mapping reveals reversible and dynamic N1-methyladenosine methylome, Nature Chemical Biology, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.2040

Li Y, Wang Y, Vera-Rodriguez M, et al., Single-cell m6A mapping in vivo using picoMeRIP–seq, Nature Biotechnology, 2023, doi:10.1038/s41587-023-01831-7

Limbach PA, Crain PF, McCloskey JA, Summary: the modified nucleosides of RNA, Nucleic Acids Research, 1994, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/22.12.2183

Meyer Kate D, Saletore Y, Zumbo P, et al., Comprehensive analysis of mRNA methylation reveals enrichment in 3‘UTRs and near stop codons, Cell, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.05.003

Meyer KD, DART-seq: an antibody-free method for global m6A detection, Nature Methods, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0570-0

Molinie B, Wang J, Lim KS, et al., m6A-LAIC-seq reveals the census and complexity of the m6A epitranscriptome, Nature Methods, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3898

Mooijman D, Dey SS, Boisset J-C, et al., Single-cell 5hmC sequencing reveals chromosome-wide cell-to-cell variability and enables lineage reconstruction, Nature Biotechnology, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3598

Muraro MJ, Dharmadhikari G, Grün D, et al., A single-cell transcriptome atlas of the human pancreas, Cell Systems, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2016.09.002

Peterson VM, Zhang KX, Kumar N, et al., Multiplexed quantification of proteins and transcripts in single cells, Nature Biotechnology, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3973

Ramsköld D, Luo S, Wang YC, et al., Full-length mRNA-seq from single-cell levels of RNA and individual circulating tumor cells, Nature Biotechnology, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2282

Schaefer M, Kapoor U, Jantsch MF, Understanding RNA modifications: the promises and technological bottlenecks of the ‘epitranscriptome’, Open Biology, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsob.170077

Shinde H, Dudhate A , Kadam US, Hong JC, RNA methylation in plants: An overview. Frontiers in Plant Science; https://10.3389/fpls.2023.1132959

Shinde, H. and Kadam US. Growing prospects of RNA therapeutics: A case of METTL5 and 18S rRNA m6A modification. Molecular Therapy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymthe.2023.12.005

Smallwood SA, Lee HJ, Angermueller C, et al., Single-cell genome-wide bisulfite sequencing for assessing epigenetic heterogeneity, Nature Methods, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3035

Squires JE, Patel HR, Nousch M, et al., Widespread occurrence of 5-methylcytosine in human coding and non-coding RNA, Nucleic Acids Research, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks144

Stoeckius M, Hafemeister C, Stephenson W, et al., Simultaneous epitope and transcriptome measurement in single cells, Nature Methods, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4380

Stubbington MJT, Rozenblatt-Rosen O, Regev A, et al., Single-cell transcriptomics to explore the immune system in health and disease, Science, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan6828

Tegowski M, Flamand MN, Meyer KD, scDART-seq reveals distinct m6A signatures and mRNA methylation heterogeneity in single cells, Molecular Cell, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2021.12.038

Wang Y, Xiao Y, Dong S, et al., Antibody-free enzyme-assisted chemical approach for detection of N6-methyladenosine, Nature Chemical Biology, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41589-020-0525-x

Wei CM, Gershowitz A, Moss B, Methylated nucleotides block 5’ terminus of HeLa cell messenger RNA, Cell, 1975, https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(75)90158-0

Yao H, Gao C-C, Zhang D, et al., scm6A-seq reveals single-cell landscapes of the dynamic m6A during oocyte maturation and early embryonic development, Nature Communications, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-35958-7

Zhang Z, Chen L-Q, Zhao Y-L, et al., Single-base mapping of m6A by an antibody-independent method, Science Advances, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax0250

Zheng GXY, Terry JM, Belgrader P, et al., Massively parallel digital transcriptional profiling of single cells, Nature Communications, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14049

Zhu C, Gao Y, Guo H, et al., Single-cell 5-formylcytosine landscapes of mammalian early embryos and ESCs at single-base resolution, Cell Stem Cell, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2017.02.013

 

 

RNA Nanotech: Next-Generation Medical Imaging and Precision Therapy

RNA Nanotechnology 

Once seen as just a genetic messenger, ribonucleic acid (RNA) is now known to be a master regulator of our cells. This makes it a powerful tool for new diagnostics and therapies. However, using RNA in medicine is tough because it's fragile and can't easily get into cells. Nanotechnology solves this problem by providing tiny, engineered vehicles that protect, deliver, and even image RNA molecules with incredible precision. This review covers the fusion of these two fields, known as theranostics—the merging of therapy and diagnostics into a single nanoplatform. We explore the key types of nanocarriers, from programmable DNA and RNA structures to clinically-proven lipid and polymer nanoparticles. We'll show how they are used for RNA interference (RNAi), advanced molecular imaging, and powerful combination therapies, especially for cancer. Finally, we'll discuss the remaining challenges to bringing these technologies to patients and look toward a future of intelligent, stimuli-responsive nanomedicines set to revolutionize healthcare.

The Dawn of RNA-Centric Nanomedicine

The New Power of RNA: From Messenger to Medicine

For decades, the "central dogma" of biology cast RNA as a simple go-between, carrying instructions from DNA to the cell's protein factories. That view has been completely overturned. We now know there's a huge world of non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs)—like microRNAs (miRNAs) and small interfering RNAs (siRNAs)—that act as a sophisticated operating system, controlling almost every aspect of how our genes are expressed.

This discovery has opened two revolutionary paths in medicine:

 Therapy: The natural process of RNA interference (RNAi), where small RNAs can silence specific genes, has been turned into a powerful therapeutic tool. The ability to selectively "turn off" genes that cause disease offers a new way to treat everything from genetic disorders to cancer.

Diagnostics: The levels of certain ncRNAs change dramatically in disease states, making them highly specific and sensitive biomarkers. These molecular fingerprints can be used for early diagnosis and for tracking a disease's progression in real-time.

Nanotechnology: The Essential Toolkit 🛠️

Despite its potential, using "naked" RNA as a drug is nearly impossible. In the body, it's quickly destroyed by enzymes, filtered out by the kidneys, and blocked by the cell's membrane. Nanotechnology provides the perfect solution. By wrapping RNA in a custom-designed nanoparticle, we can shield it from destruction, help it stay in the body longer, and guide it to the right target cells. This powerful partnership—the biological insight of RNA's role and the engineering solution of nanoparticles—is the foundation of RNA nanomedicine.

The Theranostic Dream: See and Treat

Modern nanotechnology goes beyond simple delivery. It allows us to build multifunctional platforms that combine diagnostics and therapeutics into a single system—a concept called theranostics. A theranostic nanoparticle can carry a therapeutic RNA to treat a tumor while also carrying an imaging agent (like a fluorescent dye or magnetic particle). This allows doctors to non-invasively see where the drug is going, confirm it has reached its target, and monitor the treatment's effect in real-time. This moves medicine from a static "diagnose, then treat" model to a dynamic, personalized process.

The Architectural Toolkit: A Survey of Nanoplatforms

The success of any RNA nanomedicine depends on its carrier. The field has developed a diverse array of nanoplatforms, each with unique strengths. The trend is moving away from single-material carriers toward hybrid systems that combine the best features of different classes.

Nucleic Acid Nanostructures: Ultimate Programmability

The predictable A-T and G-C base pairing of nucleic acids makes them the perfect building blocks for creating precisely defined nanostructures from the bottom up.

 DNA Origami and Framework Nucleic Acids (FNAs): Think of this as molecular LEGOs. Scientists can fold long DNA strands into custom 2D and 3D shapes—like boxes, tubes, and cages—using short "staple" strands. These FNAs act as molecular breadboards to arrange RNA, targeting molecules, and imaging agents with sub-nanometer precision. They can even be designed as tiny DNA nanomachines with logic gates that require multiple molecular signals (e.g., two different disease biomarkers) to activate, making diagnostics incredibly specific.

RNA-Based Architectures: RNA itself is a versatile building block, and nanostructures made from RNA are often more biocompatible inside a cell than those made from DNA. The phi29 pRNA three-way junction (3WJ) is a stable and modular motif used to build various structures that can carry siRNA for cancer therapy.

Aptamers: These are short DNA or RNA strands that fold into unique shapes to bind to specific targets like proteins on a cancer cell's surface. Often called "chemical antibodies," they are smaller, less likely to cause an immune reaction, and easier to produce. They serve as both targeting agents to guide nanoparticles to their destination and as biosensors within a nanodevice.

Soft Matter Nanocarriers: The Clinical Workhorses

Lipid- and polymer-based systems are the most clinically advanced platforms for RNA delivery and are the basis for the first FDA-approved RNAi drug and the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

 Lipid-Based Nanoparticles (LNPs): LNPs are the current gold standard. A typical LNP has four parts: an ionizable lipid to bind the RNA and help it escape from cellular compartments, a helper phospholipid for structure, cholesterol for stability, and a PEGylated lipid to create a "stealth" coating that helps it evade the immune system. The clinical success of Patisiran (an siRNA-LNP) and the mRNA vaccines proves the power of this platform.

Polymeric Nanoparticles: The chemical diversity of polymers allows for a huge range of nanocarriers like micelles and polyplexes. Chemists can create "smart" polymers that respond to the unique conditions of a tumor, such as its acidity. For example, a nanoparticle can be designed to have a neutral charge in the blood but become positively charged in the acidic tumor environment, enhancing its uptake by cancer cells.

Inorganic and Biomimetic Systems: Expanding Functionality

While soft matter excels at delivery, inorganic and biomimetic materials bring unique physical properties and enhanced biocompatibility to the table.

 Metallic and Oxide Nanoparticles: These offer functions impossible with organic materials. Gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) can absorb light and convert it into localized heat to kill cancer cells (photothermal therapy, PTT). Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) act as powerful contrast agents for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), allowing for deep-tissue, non-invasive imaging.

 Luminescent Nanocrystals: For high-sensitivity imaging, quantum dots (QDs) and upconversion nanoparticles (UCNPs) are much brighter and more stable than traditional dyes. UCNPs are especially useful because they absorb deep-penetrating near-infrared (NIR) light and convert it to visible light, enabling high-contrast imaging deep inside the body with minimal side effects.

 Emerging Platforms: Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs) are crystal-like materials with incredibly high porosity, making them like tiny sponges that can hold a huge amount of drug cargo. At the other end of the spectrum, biomimetic systems use nature's own designs. This includes using exosomes (natural vesicles secreted by cells) as drug carriers or camouflaging synthetic nanoparticles with the membranes of red blood cells or even cancer cells to create a "stealth" nanomedicine that can evade the immune system.

Illuminating Biology: Nano-Enhanced RNA Imaging

A key goal of RNA nanotheranostics is to see where specific RNA molecules are and what they're doing inside a living cell. This is vital for early diagnosis and for checking if a therapy is working. Nanotechnology allows us to move beyond simply counting RNA molecules to dynamically imaging them with single-molecule sensitivity.

Amplifying the Signal for Rare RNAs

Many important RNAs are present in very low numbers, making them hard to detect. Nanotechnology provides clever, enzyme-free ways to amplify the signal from a single RNA molecule. Methods like Catalytic Hairpin Assembly (CHA) use the energy stored in DNA hairpins to start a chain reaction. When a target RNA binds, it triggers the assembly of a large DNA complex that releases a bright fluorescent signal, making one molecule easy to see.

Multimodal and Super-Resolution Imaging

Nanotechnology is also pushing the limits of what we can see. Super-resolution microscopy techniques like DNA-PAINT can overcome the physical limits of light to map the location of hundreds of different molecules within a single cell.

Furthermore, by combining imaging types in one nanoparticle—for instance, a fluorescent dye for cellular detail and an MRI agent for whole-body imaging—researchers can connect the dots from the microscopic to the macroscopic scale. This is the heart of theranostic imaging, where you can track a drug's delivery via MRI and then confirm its therapeutic effect at the cellular level.

From Diagnosis to Prognosis

These technologies are enabling a powerful shift from diagnostic to prognostic imaging. It's no longer just about if a biomarker is present, but where it is. For example, researchers found that it wasn't the total amount of a cancer-related mRNA that mattered, but its specific location in the "feet" of cancer cells that predicted whether the tumor would metastasize. This kind of spatial information gives a much richer, more predictive picture of a patient's disease.

Precision Intervention: RNA-Targeted Nanotherapeutics

While imaging provides the map, the ultimate goal is to intervene. RNAi is a powerful way to silence disease-causing genes, and nanotechnology is the key to delivering these therapies to the right place at the right time.

The Nanoparticle's Journey: Overcoming Barriers

A nanoparticle injected into the bloodstream faces a treacherous journey.

 Survival: It must first be shielded from enzymes that would destroy its RNA cargo.

 Evasion: It must evade capture by immune cells, which is often achieved by coating it with a polymer like polyethylene glycol (PEG), creating a "stealth" effect.

Accumulation: It often relies on the Enhanced Permeability and Retention (EPR) effect, where leaky blood vessels in tumors allow nanoparticles to enter and become trapped.

 Entry and Escape: Once at the target, it must get inside the cell and then perform the "great escape" from a cellular compartment called the endosome to release its RNA payload into the cytoplasm where it can work.

"Smart" Nanomedicine: On-Demand Therapy 💡

To maximize effectiveness and minimize side effects, "smart" nanocarriers are designed to release their payload only in response to specific triggers.

 Internal Triggers: The unique environment of a tumor—which is often acidic, low in oxygen, and rich in certain enzymes—can be used as a trigger. Nanoparticles can be built with chemical bonds that break only under these conditions, ensuring drug release happens specifically inside the tumor.

 External Triggers: External energy sources like light or ultrasound give doctors even more control. A clinician can shine a near-infrared laser on a tumor to activate nanoparticles that have accumulated there, triggering drug release or generating heat to kill cancer cells with incredible precision in both space and time.

Synergistic Therapies: A Multi-Pronged Attack

The true power of RNA nanomedicine comes from using it in combination therapies that attack cancer from multiple angles.

 Overcoming Drug Resistance: Cancer cells often become resistant to chemotherapy by pumping the drug out or blocking cell death pathways. A nanoparticle can deliver both a chemo drug and an siRNA that silences the gene responsible for resistance, making the tumor vulnerable again.

 Remodeling the Tumor Ecosystem: The most advanced strategies treat a tumor not just as a ball of bad cells but as a complex organ. Nanoparticles are being designed to deliver drugs that not only kill cancer cells directly but also shut down their metabolism, cut off their blood supply, and—most importantly—re-engage the immune system. By delivering siRNA that disables immunosuppressive cells in the tumor, these nanomedicines can remove the "brakes" on the immune system, unleashing a patient's own T cells to attack the cancer.

Bridging the Gap: From Lab to Clinic

Despite amazing preclinical results, bringing RNA nanotheranostics to patients is challenging. It will require a massive interdisciplinary effort to create the next generation of intelligent nanomedicines.

Comparing the Nanocarrier Platforms

Choosing the right nanocarrier is critical. The table below summarizes the key platforms.

Platform Type	Core Materials	Key Strengths	Key Limitations	Clinical Status
Nucleic Acid Scaffolds	DNA, RNA	Unmatched programmability and precision for building complex devices.	Lower payload capacity; potential immunogenicity.	Preclinical
Lipid Nanoparticles (LNPs)	Lipids, Cholesterol	Clinically validated; high efficiency for RNA delivery.	Potential toxicity; requires cold storage.	Approved
Polymeric Nanoparticles	PLGA, PEI	Highly versatile; can be designed to be "smart" and biodegradable.	Complex to manufacture; potential toxicity.	Early Clinical Trials
Inorganic Nanoparticles	Au, Fe3O4, UCNPs	Unique physical properties for imaging (MRI) and therapy (PTT).	Long-term toxicity concerns; non-biodegradable.	Preclinical
Hybrid/Biomimetic	MOFs, Exosomes	Excellent biocompatibility (biomimetic); huge drug capacity (MOFs).	Difficult to manufacture and scale up.	Preclinical

Hurdles on the Clinical Path

Biocompatibility and Toxicity: The long-term safety of nanomaterials is a major concern. We need to be sure they don't accumulate in the body or cause unintended immune reactions.

Manufacturing (CMC): Scaling up the production of complex nanoparticles from the lab to an industrial, GMP-compliant process is a huge technical and logistical hurdle.

Biological Complexity: Human biology is messy. The EPR effect, for instance, varies greatly from patient to patient. Ensuring nanoparticles reach every cancer cell in a dense, solid tumor is still a major challenge.

The Future: Autonomous Nanomedicine 🤖

The future is bright and will be driven by integrating nanotechnology with other cutting-edge fields.

 AI and Gene Editing: Artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to predict how nanoparticles will behave in the body, dramatically speeding up the design process. And by combining nanocarriers with CRISPR-Cas gene editing tools, we can move from temporarily silencing genes to permanently curing genetic diseases.

 Autonomous Theranostics: The ultimate vision is to create autonomous nanorobots—"doctors in a cell"—that can patrol the body, identify diseased cells using logic-gated sensors, and execute a tailored therapeutic response on their own. The building blocks for these systems are already being developed in labs around the world, heralding a new era of proactive, personalized, and incredibly precise medicine.

References

1. Wang, et al., 2019, In Situ Imaging of RNA with High Signal-to-Noise Ratio Using Enzyme-Free and Cation-Assisted DNA Circuit, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.9b01511 
2.  Wang, et al., 2024, Therapeutic applications of RNA nanostructures, https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2024/ra/d4ra03823a
3.  Wang, et al., 2024, RNA nanostructures for targeted drug delivery and imaging, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10984137/
4.  Haque, et al., 2016, Advancement of the Emerging Field of RNA Nanotechnology, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.6b05737
5.  Guo, et al., 2014, Stable RNA nanoparticles as potential new generation drugs for cancer therapy, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3955949/
6.  Damase, et al., 2022, The Progress and Promise of RNA Medicine: An Arsenal of Targeted Treatments, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.2c00024
7.  Whitehead, et al., 2014, Bioengineered Nanoparticles for siRNA delivery, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3972625/
8.  Tatiparti, et al., 2013, Recent Developments in Nanoparticle-Based siRNA Delivery for Cancer Therapy, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3703404/
9.  Al-Busaidi, et al., 2025, A review of RNA nanoparticles for drug/gene/protein delivery in advanced therapies: Current state and future prospects, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39765293/
10.  Resnier, et al., 2017, siRNA Delivery Strategies: A Comprehensive Review of Recent Developments, https://www.mdpi.com/2079-4991/7/4/77
11.  Varela-Rial, et al., 2025, Advances in Nano-Drug Delivery for Tumor Microenvironment and Drug Resistance—Insights from the Special Issue “Nano-Drug Delivery Systems for Targeting the Tumor Microenvironment and Simultaneously Overcoming Drug Resistance Properties”, https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4923/17/7/942
12.  Javed, et al., 2023, Nanoparticles as Drug Delivery Systems: A Review of the Implication of Nanoparticles' Physicochemical Properties on Responses in Biological Systems, https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/15/7/1596
13.  Stankiewicz, et al., 2023, Nanomedicine-Based Advances in Brain Cancer Treatment—A Review, https://www.mdpi.com/2571-6980/6/3/28
14.  Wang, et al., 2024, DNA-based nanostructures for RNA delivery, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11195427/
15.  Zhang, et al., 2019, Chemistries for DNA Nanotechnology, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00570
16.  Zhang, et al., 2025, Editorial: Recent advancements in RNA technologies, from diagnostics to therapeutics and vaccines, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2025.1550225/full
17.  Liu, et al., 2015, Combinatorial Synthesis and Evaluation of Trialkyl Galloyl Amidoamine Ionizable Lipids for mRNA Formulation, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/jacs.5c09030
18.  Oh, et al., 2023, RNA Combined with Nanoformulation to Advance Therapeutic Technologies, https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8247/16/12/1634
19.  Hu, et al., 2020, DNA Nanostructures: Current Challenges and Opportunities for Cellular Delivery, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsnano.0c06136
20.  Guo, et al., 2021, Thermostability, Tunability, and Tenacity of RNA as Rubbery Anionic Polymeric Materials in Nanotechnology and Nanomedicine—Specific Cancer Targeting with Undetectable Toxicity, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00009