4.7 Article

Synthesis and characterization of quantum dots designed for biomedical use

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS
卷 466, 期 1-2, 页码 382-389

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2014.03.037

关键词

Nanoparticles; Quantum dots; Cytotoxicity; Biocompatibility

资金

  1. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (BMBF)
  2. National Research Foundation (NRF) [SUA 10/006]
  3. DST/NRF South African Research Chairs Initiative
  4. NRF Knowledge Field Development (KFD) Competitive Support for Unrated Researchers (CSUR) grant
  5. Rhodes University
  6. DST/Mintek Nanotechnology Innovation Centre (NIC) Sensors, South Africa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) have become promising nanoparticles for a wide variety of biomedical applications. However, the major drawback of QDs is their potential toxicity. Here, we determined possible cytotoxic effects of a set of QDs by systematic photophysical evaluation in vitro as well as in vivo. QDs were synthesized by the hydrothermal aqueous route with sizes in the range of 2.0-3.5 nm. Cytotoxic effects of QDs were studied in the human pancreatic carcinoid cell line BON. Cadmium telluride QDs with or without zinc sulfide shell and coated with 3-mercaptopropionic acid (MPA) were highly cytotoxic even at nanomolar concentrations. Capping with (L)-glutathione (GSH) or thioglycolic acid (TGA) reduced the cytotoxicity of cadmium telluride QDs and cadmium selenide QDs. Determination of the toxicity of QDs revealed IC50 values in the micromolar range. In vivo studies showed good tolerability of CdSe QDs with ZnS shell and GSH capping. We could demonstrate that QDs with ZnS shell and GSH capping exhibit low toxicity and good tolerability in cell models and living organisms. These QDs appear to be promising candidates for biomedical applications such as drug delivery for enhanced chemotherapy or targeted delivery of light sensitive substances for photodynamic therapy. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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