4.8 Article

Selenium-Doped Carbon Quantum Dots Act as Broad-Spectrum Antioxidants for Acute Kidney Injury Management

期刊

ADVANCED SCIENCE
卷 7, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/advs.202000420

关键词

acute kidney injury; carbon quantum dots; cisplatin; nanomedicine; positron emission tomography; rhabdomyolysis; selenium

资金

  1. University of Wisconsin-Madison
  2. National Institutes of Health [P30CA014520]
  3. Brazilian Science without Borders Program (SwB-CNPq)
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31771036, 51703132]
  5. Guangdong Province Natural Science Foundation of Major Basic Research and Cultivation Project [2018B030308003]
  6. Basic Research Program of Shenzhen [JCYJ20180507182413022, JCYJ20170412111100742]
  7. Fok Ying-Tong Education Foundation for Young Teachers in Higher Education Institutions of China [161032]
  8. NSF through the University of Wisconsin Materials Research Science and Engineering Center [DMR-1720415]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The manifestation of acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with poor patient outcomes, with treatment options limited to hydration or renal replacement therapies. The onset of AKI is often associated with a surfeit of reactive oxygen species. Here, it is shown that selenium-doped carbon quantum dots (SeCQDs) have broad-spectrum antioxidant properties and prominent renal accumulation in both healthy and AKI mice. Due to these properties, SeCQDs treat or prevent two clinically relevant cases of AKI induced in murine models by either rhabdomyolysis or cisplatin using only 1 or 50 mu g per mouse, respectively. The attenuation of AKI in both models is confirmed by blood serum measurements, kidney tissue staining, and relevant biomarkers. The therapeutic efficacy of SeCQDs exceeds amifostine, a drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration that also acts by scavenging free radicals. The findings indicate that SeCQDs show great potential as a treatment option for AKI and possibly other ROS-related diseases.

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