Oya Tagit, Prof. Dr., Professor of Biointerfaces, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland
Oya Tagit, Prof. Dr., Professor of Biointerfaces, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland
Biography
Oya Tagit obtained her PhD at the MESA+ Institute for Nanotechnology, University of Twente, The Netherlands. Following a career in a highly international landscape (France, Singapore, Ireland) in both academia and industry, she currently leads the Group of Biointerfaces at FHNW. She is also PI and member of the executive committee at the Swiss Nanoscience Institute. Her research focuses on the development of engineered nanoparticles based on polymer, lipid, and hybrid materials for the treatment of complex diseases such as cancer and resistant bacterial infections. Her interdisciplinary and international team combines expertise in nanotechnology, materials chemistry, and biology to advance therapeutic and theranostic nanomedicines, with a strong emphasis on clinical translation. She has coordinated and participated in several research projects and consortia supported by competitive funding from governmental bodies, institutional foundations, and European Commission programs. In addition to mentoring PhD students and postdoctoral researchers, she actively contributes to the scientific community by organizing and participating in international conferences, reviewing for scientific journals, engaging in academic and industry collaborations, and serving on doctoral committees across Europe. She is also committed to outreach activities that promote women in science and innovation in nanomedicine.
Interview
NanoSphere: Tell us a bit about yourself—your background, journey, and what led you to where you are today.
Oya: It took me a quite non-linear journey to reach where I am today. Starting with a foundation in biology, I later specialized in biomaterials science and went on to pursue a PhD in nanotechnology. From early on, it has always been my ambition to address the unmet biomedical needs by developing advanced, non-traditional tools. When I first encountered the fascinating world of nanoscience, I was immediately drawn to its potential. I recognized that it held the key to the next-generation solutions in healthcare. Since then, my work has focused on exploring and developing a range of nanoscale tools, ranging from nanomedicines for immunotherapy to detection probes for early diagnosis of disease. My journey has taken me across an international landscape, through various roles in both academia and industry. Each experience has deepened my conviction in the power of nano to drive meaningful innovation in medicine. Today, together with my interdisciplinary team, I am committed to developing novel nanomedicines and translating these next-generation therapies into real-world solutions that improve patient outcomes and provide broader impact on public health.
NanoSphere: Hybrid nanocarriers—combining lipid and polymeric features—offer modularity but also complexity. From your experience, what are the key trade-offs in engineering hybrid systems for antimicrobial co-delivery compared to single-material systems?
Oya:Lipid- and polymer-based nanoformulations present distinct advantages and challenges. For instance, while lipid-based carriers, such as liposomes, are known for their excellent biocompatibility and established use in drug delivery, they often struggle with physical instability and difficulties in controlling size and surface properties, which can hinder consistent drug loading and release. On the other hand, polymer-based nanocarriers offer enhanced stability and versatility, especially in terms of encapsulating a range of drugs and responding to specific external stimuli. However, their synthetic nature can raise concerns about biodegradability and toxicity. In general, it is relatively easier to formulate, characterize, and scale up single component nanocarriers. On the other hand, co-encapsulation of significantly different drug types with precise control over multi-stage release is hard to achieve with these single-component systems. Hybrid nanocarriers that integrate both lipid and polymer components offer the potential to combine the complementary strengths of each system.
This enhanced functionality of hybrid nanoformulations is especially critical in antimicrobial co-delivery, where drug synergy, stability, and precise release kinetics are paramount. However, realizing this potential comes with considerable technical complexity. Developing these systems involves more intricate formulation design, synthesis, and characterization compared to nanoparticles formulated using only lipids or polymers. By their nature, hybrid nanoformulations involve multiple excipients and active components. This can lead to more stringent regulatory scrutiny regarding safety, biocompatibility, immunogenicity, and in vivo fate, potentially lengthening the approval process. Ultimately, the decision to pursue a hybrid approach hinges on whether its therapeutic advantages justify these added formulation and manufacturing hurdles for the specific application.
NanoSphere: Targeting specificity is a recurring challenge, especially in the context of resistant infections. How close are we to clinically viable nanocarriers that can distinguish between pathogenic and commensal microbiota, or even differentiate bacterial strains? Looking at the translational gap, what do you believe is currently underestimated in preclinical models when evaluating nanocarriers for antimicrobial therapy—and how should the field evolve to address that?
Oya:Targeting specificity is indeed a monumental challenge in the fight against resistant infections, especially when considering the delicate balance of the microbiome. We are not yet at the stage of clinically viable nanocarriers that can reliably distinguish between pathogenic and commensal microbiota or effectively differentiate bacterial strains across diverse infection scenarios. While significant progress has been made in preclinical research, the leap to clinical application for such precise targeting remains challenging.
Oya:Targeting specificity is indeed a monumental challenge in the fight against resistant infections, especially when considering the delicate balance of the microbiome. We are not yet at the stage of clinically viable nanocarriers that can reliably distinguish between pathogenic and commensal microbiota or effectively differentiate bacterial strains across diverse infection scenarios. While significant progress has been made in preclinical research, the leap to clinical application for such precise targeting remains challenging.
Considering the heterogeneity of pathogens, especially the strain-to-strain variation in surface markers, universal targeting remains a significant challenge. Many targeting strategies rely on surface ligands that bind to bacterial outer membrane components, but these structures can vary not only between species but also among clinical strains of the same species due to genetic plasticity, resistance evolution, or environmental adaptation. This variability limits the effectiveness of “one-size-fits-all” targeting ligands. To overcome this challenge, multiplexed targeting strategies could be employed, where nanocarriers are decorated with a panel of ligands that cover a broader range of phenotypes or recognize conserved elements across strains. Also, stimuli-responsive nanocarriers can be designed to release their cargo in response to e.g. pathogenic bacterial enzyme activity.
In addition to advancing smarter targeting strategies, there is a pressing need to develop in vitro and preclinical models that more accurately recapitulate the infection microenvironment. Conventional in vitro studies often oversimplify infection sites, neglecting essential aspects such as host immune responses, biological barriers, and the diversity of resident host cell types. Yet, the in vivo environment is highly complex and dynamic, shaped by interactions between pathogens, immune cells, stromal components, and tissue-specific factors. To improve translational relevance, next-generation models must integrate immune system components, including macrophages, neutrophils, and cytokine signaling, alongside relevant stromal and epithelial cells. Developing perfused in vitro models will also be key to mimicking the spatial and temporal complexity of real infections, enhancing the reliability of preclinical assessments.
The immune component must be more thoroughly studied in in vivo infection models as well. While initial preclinical studies typically focus on acute toxicity and bacterial burden, they often overlook critical aspects such as long-term immunogenicity, organ accumulation, and impact on organ function. These are important factors especially for chronic infections, where repeated dosing is needed. To address these gaps, preclinical models must evolve to incorporate longitudinal monitoring of both nanocarrier biodistribution and host immune responses to ensure both the efficacy and safety of nanocarrier systems to advance to clinical translation.
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?
Oya: As nanomedicine continues to advance, we must move beyond the proof-of-concept towards robust, translational strategies that fully account for biological complexity. This means designing smarter, more adaptable delivery systems while also developing preclinical models and analytical tools that reflect and study the realities of human physiology, immune interactions, and pathogen diversity. Thus, precision in design should be matched by precision in evaluation. In the end, the future of nanomedicine will not be defined by how sophisticated our materials are, but by how well we understand and integrate them into the complex biological environments they are meant to navigate.
Oya: As nanomedicine continues to advance, we must move beyond the proof-of-concept towards robust, translational strategies that fully account for biological complexity. This means designing smarter, more adaptable delivery systems while also developing preclinical models and analytical tools that reflect and study the realities of human physiology, immune interactions, and pathogen diversity. Thus, precision in design should be matched by precision in evaluation. In the end, the future of nanomedicine will not be defined by how sophisticated our materials are, but by how well we understand and integrate them into the complex biological environments they are meant to navigate.