4.7 Article

A Comparative Assessment of Mechanisms and Effectiveness of Radiosensitization by Titanium Peroxide and Gold Nanoparticles

Journal

NANOMATERIALS
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nano10061125

Keywords

nanoparticles; non-cytotoxic; radiosensitization; gold nanoparticles; titanium peroxide nanoparticles; reactive oxygen species; oxidative stress

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan [16K15581, 18K07552, 19K08121, 18H06179]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [18H06179, 18K07552, 16K15581, 19K08121] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The development of potentially safe radiosensitizing agents is essential to enhance the treatment outcomes of radioresistant cancers. The titanium peroxide nanoparticle (TiOxNP) was originally produced using the titanium dioxide nanoparticle, and it showed excellent reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation in response to ionizing radiation. Surface coating the TiOxNPs with polyacrylic acid (PAA) showed low toxicity to the living body and excellent radiosensitizing effect on cancer cells. Herein, we evaluated the mechanism of radiosensitization by PAA-TiOxNPs in comparison with gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) which represent high-atomic-number nanoparticles that show a radiosensitizing effect through the emission of secondary electrons. The anticancer effects of both nanoparticles were compared by induction of apoptosis, colony-forming assay, and the inhibition of tumor growth. PAA-TiOxNPs showed a significantly more radiosensitizing effect than that of AuNPs. A comparison of the types and amounts of ROS generated showed that hydrogen peroxide generation by PAA-TiOxNPs was the major factor that contributed to the nanoparticle radiosensitization. Importantly, PAA-TiOxNPs were generally nontoxic to healthy mice and caused no histological abnormalities in the liver, kidney, lung, and heart tissues.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available