4.7 Article

An Evaluation of the in vivo Safety of Nonporous Silica Nanoparticles: Ocular Topical Administration versus Oral Administration

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-08843-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute - Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI-15C1653]
  2. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea - Ministry of Education [2016R1D1A1B03931724]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016R1D1A1B03931724] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nonporous silica nanoparticles (SiNPs) have potential as promising carriers for ophthalmic drugs. However, the in vivo safety of ocular topical SiNPs remains unclear. This study investigated the in vivo safety of oral and ocular topical applications of 100 nm-sized SiNPs in Sprague-Dawley rats. The rats were divided into the following four groups: low-dose oral administration (total 100 mg/kg of SiNPs mixed with food for one week), high-dose oral administration (total 1000 mg/kg of SiNPs mixed with food for one week), ocular topical administration (10 mg/ml concentration, one drop, applied to the right eyes four times a day for one month), or a negative control (no SiNP treatment). The rats were observed for 12 weeks to investigate any signs of general or ocular toxicity. During the observation period, no differences were observed in the body weights, food and water intakes, behaviors and abnormal symptoms of the four groups. No animal deaths occurred. After 12 weeks, hematologic, blood biochemical parameters and ophthalmic examinations revealed no abnormal findings in any of the animals. The lack of toxicity of the SiNPs was further verified in autopsy findings of brain, liver, lung, spleen, heart, kidneys, intestine, eyeballs, and ovaries or testes.

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