4.6 Article

Effect of Elasticity of Silica Capsules on Cellular Uptake

期刊

LANGMUIR
卷 37, 期 40, 页码 11688-11694

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.1c01607

关键词

-

资金

  1. Project for Scientific Research Innovation Team of Young Scholar in Colleges and Universities of Shandong Province [2020KJC001]
  2. Innovation Project of Jinan Science and Technology Bureau [2020GXRC022]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province [ZR2018ZA0547]
  4. Translational Medicine Core Facility of Advanced Medical Research Institute at Shandong University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The elasticity of nanoparticles affects their cellular interactions, with stiff capsules showing higher cellular uptake compared to soft capsules, and influencing the uptake pathways.
Understanding the impact of the physicochemical properties of nanoparticles (NPs) on cellular uptake is important to design optimal drug-delivery nanocarriers. Therein, the influence of NP elasticity on bio-nano-interactions remains elusive due to the complexity of factors affecting cellular uptake. Herein, we synthesized SiO2 capsules with tunable elasticity using metal-organic frameworks as templates to investigate their interactions with cells. Young's moduli of the resultant water-filled SiO2 capsules with identical size, shape, composition, and surface charge can be controlled from 3.8 MPa to 4.7 GPa via the variation of capsule shell thickness. As a result, increased elasticity of SiO2 capsules results in higher cellular uptake. Stiff SiO2 capsules have almost 9 times as much cellular uptake as the soft ones. In addition, the elasticity of SiO2 capsules influences cellular uptake pathways, where the clathrin-mediated pathway is preferred for stiff capsules while the uptake of the soft capsules is mostly mediated by a caveolae-dependent pathway. This work confirms the important role of NP elasticity in nonspecific cell interactions, which can provide a foundational understanding for engineering drug-delivery nanocarriers.

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

4.6
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