4.7 Article

Magnetic Nanoprobes for Spatio-Mechanical Manipulation in Single Cells

期刊

NANOMATERIALS
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nano11092267

关键词

iron oxide nanoparticles; magnetoferritin; magnetogenetics; remote particle manipulation

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [SFB1208]
  2. 'Freigeist fellowship' of VolkswagenFoundation
  3. Fonds der Chemischen Industrie
  4. State of North Rhine-Westphalia [INST 208/749-1 FUGG]
  5. DFG [INST 208/749-1 FUGG]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The properties of two different types of magnetic nanoparticles were investigated and their potential for biomedical applications was assessed. The study confirmed their biocompatibility in a living cell environment and found that magnetoferritin exhibited a higher magnetic force response inside cells compared to 'nanoflower' nanoparticles.
Magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) are widely known as valuable agents for biomedical applications. Recently, MNPs were further suggested to be used for a remote and non-invasive manipulation, where their spatial redistribution or force response in a magnetic field provides a fine-tunable stimulus to a cell. Here, we investigated the properties of two different MNPs and assessed their suitability for spatio-mechanical manipulations: semisynthetic magnetoferritin nanoparticles and fully synthetic 'nanoflower'-shaped iron oxide nanoparticles. As well as confirming their monodispersity in terms of structure, surface potential, and magnetic response, we monitored the MNP performance in a living cell environment using fluorescence microscopy and asserted their biocompatibility. We then demonstrated facilitated spatial redistribution of magnetoferritin compared to 'nanoflower'-NPs after microinjection, and a higher magnetic force response of these NPs compared to magnetoferritin inside a cell. Our remote manipulation assays present these tailored magnetic materials as suitable agents for applications in magnetogenetics, biomedicine, or nanomaterial research.

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