4.8 Article

Drug Loading of Anthracycline Antibiotics on Carbon Dots Using Circular Dichroism Spectrometry

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 93, 期 44, 页码 14773-14777

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.1c03385

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [1809060, 2041413]
  2. University of Miami, United States
  3. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  4. Division Of Materials Research [1809060] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Directorate For Engineering
  6. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [2041413] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nanoparticle drug delivery systems are currently a focus of nanomedicine studies, particularly in oncology where quantification of drug administration level is crucial for dosage and quality control of treatments. The proposed analytical protocol using circular dichroism spectrometry provides a feasible pathway to improve nano drug quantification procedures for different anthracycline drugs.
Drug delivery systems using nanoparticles are currently in the panorama of nanomedicine studies. In oncology, chemotherapeutic regimens using anthracycline antibiotics rely on the dosage of treatments to minimize the severity of side effects on the patient. Therefore, even in targeted delivery systems it is of great importance to quantify the level of drug administrated for dosage and quality control of the treatment. Herein, as a feasible pathway to shed light on improving nano drug quantification procedures, we proposed a simple analytical protocol to quantify the anthracyclines loaded on our nonchiral carbon nitride dots (CNDs) with circular dichroism spectrometry (CD). The calibration curves from the linear relation between ellipticity and concentration of the anthracycline drugs followed by measurements on the CNDs conjugates were used in achieving the quantification technique which showed different drug loading for each anthracycline used such as daunorubicin, doxorubicin, and epirubicin.

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