4.8 Article

Hollow Prussian Blue Nanozymes Drive Neuroprotection against Ischemic Stroke via Attenuating Oxidative Stress, Counteracting Inflammation, and Suppressing Cell Apoptosis

期刊

NANO LETTERS
卷 19, 期 5, 页码 2812-2823

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b04729

关键词

ischemic stroke; hollow Prussian blue; neuroprotection; nanozyme; reactive oxygen and nitrogen species

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [21788102, 81425015, 81725009]
  2. National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars [81425014]
  3. Shanghai Youth Science and Technology Talents Project [18YF1419000]
  4. Shanghai Collaborative Innovation Center for Translational Medicine [TM201724]
  5. Shanghai Key Discipline of Medical Imaging [2017ZZ02005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ischemic stroke is a devastating disease and one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide. Overproduction of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (RONS) following ischemic insult is known as a key factor in exacerbating brain damage. Thus, RONS scavengers that can block excessive production of RONS have great therapeutic potential. Herein, we propose an efficient treatment strategy in which an artificial nanozyme with multienzyme activity drives neuroprotection against ischemic stroke primarily by scavenging RONS. Specifically, through a facile, Bi3+-assisted, template-free synthetic strategy, we developed hollow Prussian blue nanozymes (HPBZs) with multienzyme activity to scavenge RONS in a rat model of ischemic stroke. The comprehensive characteristics of HPBZs against RONS were explored. Apart from attenuating oxidative stress, HPBZs also suppressed apoptosis and counteracted inflammation both in vitro and in vivo, thereby contributing to increased brain tolerance of ischemic injury with minimal side effects. This study provides a proof of concept for a novel class of neuroprotective nanoagents that might be beneficial for treatment of ischemic stroke and other RONS-related disorders.

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

4.8
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