Dr. Giovanna Lollo, Associate Professor of Pharmaceutical Technology, University Claude Bernard Lyon 1
Giovanna Lollo, Associate Professor of Pharmaceutical Technology, University Claude Bernard Lyon 1
Biography
Giovanna Lollo is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Pharmacy of the University Claude Bernard Lyon 1 (France), where she conducts research within the Laboratory of Automation, Process Engineering and Pharmaceutical Engineering (LAGEPP-CNRS 5007). She obtained her PharmD in 2007 from the University of Naples Federico II (Italy), followed by a specialization in Hospital Pharmacy. In 2012, she completed her PhD in Pharmaceutical Technology under the supervision of Prof. Maria José Alonso at the University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain). She then joined the Translational Micro- and Nanomedicine Unit (MINT) laboratory led by Prof. Jean-Pierre Benoit at the University of Angers (France) as a postdoctoral researcher, focusing on innovative nanomedicine strategies for immune modulation in cancer therapy. Dr. Lollo’s research adopts a strongly multidisciplinary approach, centered on the design and physicochemical characterization of original nanosystems for the delivery of small molecules and nucleic acids. Her work focuses on overcoming complex biological barriers to achieve precise therapeutic targeting while minimizing systemic side effects. Since 2024, she has been appointed to the Institut Universitaire de France (IUF) within the Innovation Chair. She is co-coordinator of a European project funded by the ERA4Health program, coordinator of an AFM-Téléthon project, and principal investigator of several international and national initiatives funded by Transcan, the French National Research Agency (ANR), the ARC Foundation, and, more recently, the PEPR Biotherapy program. Dr. Lollo has authored more than 50 scientific publications and is the inventor of four patents, including one successfully licensed. She contributed to the ITMO Pharmacology white paper in France, helping to define future strategic directions for the field. She also serves as Associate Editor for the Journal of Controlled Release and Drug Delivery and Translational Research.
Interview
NanoSphere: Tell us a bit about yourself—your background, journey, and what led you to where you are today.
Giovanna: My research journey began during my pharmacy studies, where I became fascinated by pharmaceutical technology and, in particular, by the idea that designing a medicine requires working at the crossroads of chemistry, biology, and physiology. I was inspired by how this discipline brings together diverse scientific fields to address complex therapeutic challenges. Thanks to the Erasmus program during my bachelor’s degree, I had the opportunity to join Prof. Maria José Alonso’s group at the University of Santiago de Compostela in Spain, where I subsequently pursued my PhD. This experience was transformative. It introduced me to the international drug-delivery community and showed me that science has no real boundaries, intellectual or geographical. Under her mentorship, I learned the value of scientific freedom and the importance of collaborations that emerge naturally through shared ideas and curiosity. I later continued my journey in France as a postdoctoral researcher with Prof. Jean-Pierre Benoit, where I explored more deeply the interplay between nanomedicine and the immune system. Contributing to the development of the European NICHE consortium (EuroNanoMed 2 programm) reinforced my commitment to multidisciplinary and collaborative research. Since then, my work has consistently been shaped by the two elements that defined my early path: scientific motivation and the opportunities opened by collaborations. These principles continue to guide my efforts in advancing nanomedicine. Today at the University of Lyon, I benefit from an exceptional ecosystem for multidisciplinary research. Collaborating closely with clinicians from the Hospices Civils de Lyon allows us to co-design the next generation of nanomedicines grounded in real patient needs.
NanoSphere: You’ve worked on multiple nanomedicine platforms — PLGA nanoparticles, lipid nanocapsules, and immuno-nanotherapies. From your perspective, what differentiates these systems most in terms of clinical translation potential?
Giovanna: Yes, I have worked across different nanomedicine platforms, each selected according to the nature of the active ingredient, the administration route, and the pathological context. What truly differentiates these systems in terms of clinical translation is their level of technological maturity, manufacturing simplicity, and biological predictability. A key point, often underestimated, is the need to consider encapsulation from the very beginning of drug-development programs. Identifying the need for a specific carrier early on helps us understand the physiological barriers involved and choose the most suitable delivery system. At the same time, robust and reproducible manufacturing processes are essential for progressing any nanomedicine from preclinical evaluation to clinical application. In our work, we have used PLGA nanoparticles for their stability, versatility, and strong regulatory track record (1). In parallel, we have explored lipid nanocapsules (LNCs) for their scalability and flexibility, particularly for nucleic acid delivery such as therapeutic RNAs (2). Ultimately, the choice of platform is guided by the balance between biological requirements and technological feasibility, with the aim of developing nanomedicines that are not only effective but truly translatable to the clinic.
NanoSphere: Your recent work on nanoparticle delivery of AMPK activators for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy is very patient-focused. What do you see as the biggest barrier to moving neuromuscular nanomedicines closer to the clinic? Looking back at your cancer nanomedicine work (MINT INSERM-CNRS lab, EuroNanoMed2), what lessons carry over to your current efforts in muscular and autoimmune diseases? Are there common hurdles in tumor vs. non-tumor indications?
Giovanna: In recent years, we have begun and are now advancing our exploration of nanomedicine strategies for musculoskeletal disorders. From my perspective, the biggest barrier to bringing neuromuscular nanomedicines closer to the clinic is the intrinsic complexity of skeletal muscle as a therapeutic target. As we discussed in our review on nanomedicine for musculoskeletal disorders, skeletal muscle is a large, highly structured, and relatively impermeable tissue, with a dense extracellular matrix that restricts nanoparticle penetration. These barriers become even more pronounced in conditions such as Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), where fibrosis, chronic inflammation, and ongoing degeneration further hinder delivery (1,3). Even when intravenous administration allows nanoparticles to access the extensive capillary network of muscle, they still face rapid clearance, opsonization, plasma protein binding, and potential instability or immunogenicity in circulation. Given that patients with neuromuscular diseases require lifelong and repeated treatments, biocompatibility and biodegradability of delivery systems become absolutely essential. Another major challenge is the limited translatability of preclinical models. Rodent models do not fully recapitulate human disease architecture or immune responses, making early integration of patient-derived samples and close clinical collaboration indispensable. Our recent work using PLGA nanoparticles to deliver AMPK activators clearly illustrated this point: while the system performed well in vitro and in mice, the distinct structural and inflammatory features of dystrophic human muscle significantly influenced nanoparticle behavior, highlighting the need for delivery systems specifically designed for diseased tissues (1). This translational perspective is central to our ongoing PEPR project, “Medication Using Specialized Cell-targeted Lipid Nanoparticle Encapsulation in Neuromuscular Disorders” (MUSCLE), where we work hand-in-hand with clinicians and neuromuscular disease experts to establish a roadmap for next-generation nanomedicines using RNAs. Looking back at my earlier work in cancer nanomedicine, at the MINT lab at the University of Angers and within the EuroNanoMed2 program, I see that many lessons directly apply. In oncology, we learned that the tumor microenvironment, with its immune infiltrates, vascular abnormalities, and acidity, can both enable and restrict nanoparticle efficacy. The same principle holds in neuromuscular and autoimmune diseases: delivery ultimately depends on the biological barriers, not just on nanoparticle design. This concept was exemplified in our Biomaterials work with Dr. Ilaria Marigo and Prof. Vincenzo Bronte from the Veneto Institute of Oncology, where we demonstrated that gemcitabine-loaded lipid nanocapsules can selectively target monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells, showing how the immune contexture shapes nanoparticle fate and therapeutic impact (4). Our ongoing collaboration with Prof. Susanna Mandruzzato from the University of Padova strengthens this view. In glioblastoma, one of the most challenging environments due to the blood–brain barrier and profound immunosuppression, our recent publications show that nanoparticle–immune interactions can be purposefully modulated, whether by inducing immunogenic cell death or by tuning nanoparticle size and charge to target specific myeloid populations (5,6). Together, these studies underline one key message: nanomedicine succeeds only when materials are co-designed with biology. Delivery systems must be developed with a deep understanding of the disease microenvironment we truly want to reach the clinic.
Giovanna: In recent years, we have begun and are now advancing our exploration of nanomedicine strategies for musculoskeletal disorders. From my perspective, the biggest barrier to bringing neuromuscular nanomedicines closer to the clinic is the intrinsic complexity of skeletal muscle as a therapeutic target. As we discussed in our review on nanomedicine for musculoskeletal disorders, skeletal muscle is a large, highly structured, and relatively impermeable tissue, with a dense extracellular matrix that restricts nanoparticle penetration. These barriers become even more pronounced in conditions such as Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), where fibrosis, chronic inflammation, and ongoing degeneration further hinder delivery (1,3). Even when intravenous administration allows nanoparticles to access the extensive capillary network of muscle, they still face rapid clearance, opsonization, plasma protein binding, and potential instability or immunogenicity in circulation. Given that patients with neuromuscular diseases require lifelong and repeated treatments, biocompatibility and biodegradability of delivery systems become absolutely essential. Another major challenge is the limited translatability of preclinical models. Rodent models do not fully recapitulate human disease architecture or immune responses, making early integration of patient-derived samples and close clinical collaboration indispensable. Our recent work using PLGA nanoparticles to deliver AMPK activators clearly illustrated this point: while the system performed well in vitro and in mice, the distinct structural and inflammatory features of dystrophic human muscle significantly influenced nanoparticle behavior, highlighting the need for delivery systems specifically designed for diseased tissues (1). This translational perspective is central to our ongoing PEPR project, “Medication Using Specialized Cell-targeted Lipid Nanoparticle Encapsulation in Neuromuscular Disorders” (MUSCLE), where we work hand-in-hand with clinicians and neuromuscular disease experts to establish a roadmap for next-generation nanomedicines using RNAs. Looking back at my earlier work in cancer nanomedicine, at the MINT lab at the University of Angers and within the EuroNanoMed2 program, I see that many lessons directly apply. In oncology, we learned that the tumor microenvironment, with its immune infiltrates, vascular abnormalities, and acidity, can both enable and restrict nanoparticle efficacy. The same principle holds in neuromuscular and autoimmune diseases: delivery ultimately depends on the biological barriers, not just on nanoparticle design. This concept was exemplified in our Biomaterials work with Dr. Ilaria Marigo and Prof. Vincenzo Bronte from the Veneto Institute of Oncology, where we demonstrated that gemcitabine-loaded lipid nanocapsules can selectively target monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells, showing how the immune contexture shapes nanoparticle fate and therapeutic impact (4). Our ongoing collaboration with Prof. Susanna Mandruzzato from the University of Padova strengthens this view. In glioblastoma, one of the most challenging environments due to the blood–brain barrier and profound immunosuppression, our recent publications show that nanoparticle–immune interactions can be purposefully modulated, whether by inducing immunogenic cell death or by tuning nanoparticle size and charge to target specific myeloid populations (5,6). Together, these studies underline one key message: nanomedicine succeeds only when materials are co-designed with biology. Delivery systems must be developed with a deep understanding of the disease microenvironment we truly want to reach the clinic.
NanoSphere: If there’s one key message or insight you’d like to share with readers about the future of nanomedicine, what would it be?
Giovanna: For me, the key message is simple: nanomedicine will only move forward if we embrace transdisciplinarity. To design nanomedicines that are truly translatable, we must understand the full complexity of the diseases we aim to treat and allow clinical needs to guide technological innovation. Technical innovation must be grounded in biological relevance, clinical feasibility, and real-world transferability. Only by building solutions with biology, and with clinicians, from the very beginning will we unlock the true therapeutic potential of nanosystems.
Giovanna: For me, the key message is simple: nanomedicine will only move forward if we embrace transdisciplinarity. To design nanomedicines that are truly translatable, we must understand the full complexity of the diseases we aim to treat and allow clinical needs to guide technological innovation. Technical innovation must be grounded in biological relevance, clinical feasibility, and real-world transferability. Only by building solutions with biology, and with clinicians, from the very beginning will we unlock the true therapeutic potential of nanosystems.
NanoSphere: Finally, how do you see communities like NanoSphere contributing to the field? What kind of knowledge exchange would be most impactful for researchers trying to cross the preclinical-to-clinical bridge?
Giovanna: Initiatives like NanoSphere are especially valuable because they connect researchers working at all stages of translation, from fundamental science to clinical application. This mission is reinforced by a growing ecosystem of scientific communities. The Controlled Release Society (CRS) Global Society has long fostered links between basic research and delivery-focused innovation, and the recent CRS BeNeLux and France Local Chapter provides a dedicated European platform uniting academia and industry while engaging early-career scientists. The Nanomedicine European Technology Platform (ETPN) plays a similarly important role by bringing together the European drug-delivery community around shared strategic priorities. In France, SFNano has been instrumental in structuring the national nanomedicine landscape and supporting high-quality scientific exchange on nanomedicine design and development. What researchers need most today is genuine multidisciplinary dialogue, spaces where scientific innovation can be discussed alongside regulatory expectations, manufacturing challenges, clinical endpoints, and patient needs. These exchanges are essential for helping nanomedicines successfully cross the preclinical-to-clinical bridge.
Giovanna`s references
- Andreana I, et al. Nanoparticle delivery of AMPK activator 991 prevents its toxicity and improves muscle homeostasis in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev. 2025 doi: 10.1016/j.omtm.2025.101564.
- Adretto V, et al., Hybrid core-shell particles for mRNA systemic delivery. J Control Release. 2023 doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2022.11.042.
- Andreana I, et al. Nanomedicine for Gene Delivery and Drug Repurposing in the Treatment of Muscular Dystrophies. Pharmaceutics. 2021 doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13020278.
- Sasso MS, et al. Low dose gemcitabine-loaded lipid nanocapsules target monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells and potentiate cancer immunotherapy. Biomaterials. 2016 doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.04.010.
- Tushe A, et al. Drug-loaded nanoparticles induce immunogenic cell death and efficiently target cells from glioblastoma patients. Nanomedicine (Lond). 2025 doi: 10.1080/17435889.2025.2497747.
- Pinton L, et al. Targeting of immunosuppressive myeloid cells from glioblastoma patients by modulation of size and surface charge of lipid nanocapsules. J Nanobiotechnology. 2020 doi: 10.1186/s12951-020-00589-3.