4.5 Article

Water-Soluble Pillararene- Functionalized Graphene Oxide for In Vitro Raman and Fluorescence Dual-Mode Imaging

期刊

CHEMPLUSCHEM
卷 79, 期 3, 页码 462-469

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cplu.201300408

关键词

amphiphiles; fluorescence spectroscopy; graphene; host-guest systems; Raman spectroscopy

资金

  1. Singapore National Research Foundation [NRF2009NRF-RF001-015]
  2. Singapore National Research Foundation CREATE program-Singapore Peking University Research Centre for a Sustainable Low-Carbon Future
  3. NTU-A*Star Centre of Excellence for Silicon Technologies (A*Star SERC) [112 351 0003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study provides a successful preparation of biocompatible hybrid materials (1-GO and 2-GO) by the integration of graphene oxide (GO) with water-soluble pillararenes (bolaamphiphile 1 and tadpolelike amphiphile 2) for dual-mode Raman and fluorescence bioimaging in vitro. The investigations show that pillararenes 1 and 2 were loaded onto the surface of GO through strong hydrogen-bonding interactions. Aqueous suspensions of 1-GO and 2-GO are stable and can be kept for a long time. After confirming their good biocompatibility by using the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay, the 1-GO and 2-GO hybrids were endocytosed by HeLa cells for in vitro Raman imaging. It was found that 1-GO presents better Raman imaging than 2-GO. When a fluorescent guest molecule, bipyridinium derivative 3, was added into the suspensions of the hybrids, the suspensions of 1-GO and 2-GO were as stable as the original. The suspensions of the inclusion complexes (1-GO3 and 2-GO3) formed from 1-GO and 2-GO with 3 can also be endocytosed by HeLa cells to enable in vitro fluorescence imaging to be performed. It was found that 1-GO3 performs better than 2-GO3. The current research has determined the capacities of pillararene-modified GO for combined bioimaging, which paves the way for using these biocompatible materials towards dual-mode diagnostics.

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

4.5
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