4.7 Article

Cationized dextran nanoparticle-encapsulated CXCR4-siRNA enhanced correlation between CXCR4 expression and serum alkaline phosphatase in a mouse model of colorectal cancer

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NANOMEDICINE
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 4159-4168

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/IJN.S29823

关键词

nanoparticles; cationized dextran; colorectal cancer; serum ALP enzyme; CXCR4; siRNA

资金

  1. NSC [99-2314-B-011-001-MY3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The failure of colorectal cancer treatments is partly due to overexpression of CXCR4 by tumor cells, which plays a critical role in cell metastasis. Moreover, serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels are frequently elevated in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. A polysaccharide, dextran, was chosen as the vector of siRNA. Spermine was conjugated to oxidized dextran by reductive amination process to obtain cationized dextran, so-called dextran-spermine, in order to prepare CXCR4-siRNAs/dextran-spermine nanoparticles. The fabricated nanoparticles were used in order to investigate whether downregulation of CXCR4 expression could affect serum ALP in mouse models of colorectal cancer. Methods: Colorectal cancer was established in BALB/C mice following injection of mouse colon carcinoma cells CT.26WT through the tail vein. CXCR4 siRNA for two sites of the target gene was administered following injection of naked siRNA or siRNA encapsulated into nanoparticles. Results: In vivo animal data revealed that CXCR4 silencing by dextran-spermine nanoparticles significantly downregulated CXCR4 expression compared with naked CXCR4 siRNA. Furthermore, there was correlation between CXCR4 expression and serum ALP. Conclusion: CXCR4 siRNA/dextran-spermine nanoparticles appear to be highly effective, and may be suitable for further in vivo applications. Further research evaluation will be needed to determine the effect of CXCR4 silencing on serum ALP levels, which may be a useful marker to predict liver metastasis in colorectal cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据