4.1 Article

Comparative biodistribution studies of technetium-99m radiolabeled amphiphilic nanoparticles using three different reducing agents during the labeling procedure

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jlcr.3097

关键词

Tc-99m radiolabeling; amphiphilic nanoparticles; biodistribution; long circulatory; -Scintigraphy; stannic oxide radiocolloid interference

资金

  1. Ministry of Education and Science of the Rep. of Macedonia and TUBITAK, Turkey [03-1578/1]
  2. University 'Ss. Cyril and Methodius'-Skopje [02-151]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Considering the confusing biodistribution data through the literature and few reported alerts as well as our preliminary biodistribution results, we decided to evaluate the interaction and interference of the commonly present Tc-99m (technetium-99m)-stannic oxide colloid during the direct stannous chloride Tc-99m-labeling procedure and to assess its influence on the biodistribution pattern of amphiphilic poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) nanoparticles. In order to confirm our thesis, beside stannous chloride, we employed two different reducing agents that don't form colloidal particles. The use of sodium borohydride was previously reported in the literature, whereas sodium dithionite was adapted for the first time in the Tc-99m direct labeling procedure for nanoparticles. The results in our paper clearly differentiate among samples with and without colloidal impurities originating from the labeling procedure with a logical follow up of the radiochemical, physicochemical evaluation, and biodistribution studies clarifying previously reported data on stannic oxide colloidal interference. Tc-99m-nanoparticle complex labeled with sodium dithionite as reducing agent illustrated appropriate labeling efficacy, stability, and potential for further use in biodistribution studies thus providing solution for the problem of low-complex stability when sodium borohydride is used and colloidal stannic oxide interference for stannous chloride procedure. Copyright (c) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.1
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