4.4 Article

How Does Plasma Activated Media Treatment Differ From Direct Cold Plasma Treatment?

期刊

ANTI-CANCER AGENTS IN MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 805-814

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/1871520618666180406121734

关键词

Cold atmospheric plasma; plasma activated media; reactive oxygen and nitrogen species; MTT assay; Ar plasma

资金

  1. SRC program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  2. Kwangwoon University
  3. Korean Government (MEST) [NRF-2016K1A4A3914113, 20100027963]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of the paper is to investigate the optimum condition for generation of Plasma Activated Media (PAM), where it can deactivate the cancer cells while minimum damage for normal cells. Background: Over past few years, cold atmospheric Plasma-Activated Media (PAM) have shown its promising application in plasma medicine for treatment of cancer. PAM has a tremendous ability for selective anti-cancer capacity in vitro and in vivo. Methods: We have analyzed the radicals in air using the optical emission spectroscopy and in culture media using chemical analysis. Further, we have tested the toxicity of PAM using MTT assay. Results: We observed that more cancer cell death is for the Ar plasma followed by the Ar-N-2 plasma, and the least cell death was observed for the Ar-O-2 plasma at all treatment times both by direct treatment and through PAM treatment. The concentration of the RNS species is high for Ar-N-2 plasma in gas as well as inside the culture media compared to that for pure Ar plasma. However, the difference is significantly less between the Ar plasma treatments and the Ar-N-2 plasma treatments, showing that ROS is the main factor contributing to cell death. Conclusion: Among all three feeding gas plasmas the best system is Ar-O-2 plasma for direct treatments towards the cancer cells. In addition, the best system for PAM preparation is Ar-N-2 at low time treatments (1 min and 2 min) because it has no effect on normal cells, but kills the cancer cells.

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

4.4
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