4.7 Review

Dendritic Structures Functionalized with Boron Clusters, in Particular Carboranes, and Their Biological Properties

期刊

PHARMACEUTICS
卷 15, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15082117

关键词

boron clusters; carborane; dendrimer; boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT); cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of boron clusters in nanoparticles for cancer treatment, particularly in dendrimers, is highlighted in this review. The synthesis methods and biological properties of boronated dendritic structures are discussed, along with their efficiency in animal models and potential for boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) experiments.
The presence of a large number of boron atoms in boron clusters make them attractive tools for the treatment of cancer using boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT). Since the quantity of boron atoms present in the target cell directly affects the effectiveness of BNCT, the idea of gathering a high number of boron atoms in a single entity has emerged many years ago. In this perspective, using hyper-branched macromolecules such as dendrimers appears as an interesting solution. In this review, we will first present the synthesis of diverse dendritic entities (dendrimers, dendrons, and Janus dendrimers) that incorporate boron clusters, in particular carboranes, anywhere in their structure. Four parts of this review present the synthesis of dendrimers having boron clusters on the surface, or inside their structure, of dendrons and of Janus dendrimers, bearing boron clusters. Practically all these boronated dendritic structures were synthesized with the objective to study their biological properties, but in fact only a few of them have been tested against cancerous cells, and even a smaller number was tested in BNCT experiments. The biological experiments are discussed in the fifth part of this review. A good efficiency is generally observed with the boronated dendrimers, even in animal models, with an increase in their mean survival time (MST).

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