4.6 Article

In vivo toxicity studies of europium hydroxide nanorods in mice

期刊

TOXICOLOGY AND APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY
卷 240, 期 1, 页码 88-98

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2009.07.009

关键词

Europium (III) hydroxide nanorods; Eu-III(OH)(3); Microwave; HUVECs; In vivo toxicity; Histology; ICPMS

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [HL70567]
  2. Minnesota Partnership for translational Nanotechnology in Cancer [UOFM-MEDICA 5P1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lanthanide nanoparticles and nanorods have been widely used for diagnostic and therapeutic applications in biomedical nanotechnology due to their fluorescence and pro-angiogenic properties to endothelial cells, respectively. Recently, we have demonstrated that europium (III) hydroxide [Eu-III(OH)(3)] nanorods, synthesized by the microwave technique and characterized by several physico-chemical techniques, can be used as pro-angiogenic agents which introduce future therapeutic treatment strategies for severe ischemic heart/limb disease, and peripheral ischemic disease. The toxicity of these inorganic nanorods to endothelial cells was supported by several in vitro assays. To determine the in vivo toxicity, these nanorods were administered to mice through intraperitoneal injection (IP) everyday over a period of seven days in a dose dependent (1.25 to 125 mg kg(-1) day(-1)) and time dependent manner (8-60 days). Bio-distribution of europium elements in different organs was analyzed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS). Short-term (S-T) and long-term (L-T) toxicity studies (mice euthanized on days 8 and 60 for S-T and L-T, respectively) show normal blood hematology and serum clinical chemistry with the exception of a slight elevation of liver enzymes. Histological examination of nanorod-treated vital organs (liver, kidney, spleen and lungs) showed no or only mild histological changes that indicate mild toxicity at the higher dose of nanorods. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.6
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