4.6 Article

Efficacy of NGR peptide-modified PEGylated quantum dots for crossing the blood-brain barrier and targeted fluorescence imaging of glioma and tumor vasculature

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.nano.2016.08.029

关键词

Quantum dot; NGR; CD13; Brain glioma; Blood-brain barrier

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81201066, 81371674, 81471676, 81401505]
  2. Chongqing Natural Science Foundation Project [CSTC2013jcyjA10054, CSTC2014 jcyjA10050]
  3. Medical Research Projects of Chongqing Municipal Health Bureau [2013-1-018]
  4. Scientific Research Project of Health Bureau in Chongqing Municipal Health Bureau Traditional Chinese Medicine Scientific Research Project [ZY201402092]
  5. Chongqing Medical Research Project [20141004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Delivery of imaging agents to brain glioma is challenging because the blood-brain barrier (BBB) functions as a physiological checkpoint guarding the central nervous system from circulating large molecules. Moreover, the ability of existing probes to target glioma has been insufficient and needs to be improved. In present study, PEG-based long circulation, CdSe/ZnS quantum dots (QDs)-based nanoscale and fluorescence, asparagines-glycine-arginine peptides (NGR)-based specific CD13 recognition were integrated to design and synthesize a novel nanoprobe by conjugating biotinylated NGR peptides to avidin-PEG-coated QDs. Our data showed that the NGR-PEG-QDs were nanoscale with less than 100 nm and were stable in various pH (4.0 similar to 8.0). These nanomaterials with non-toxic concentrations could cross the BBB and target CD13-overexpressing glioma and tumor vasculature in vitro and in vivo, contributing to fluorescence imaging of this brain malignancy. These achievements allowed groundbreaking technological advances in targeted fluorescence imaging for the diagnosis and surgical removal of glioma, facilitating potential transformation toward clinical nanomedicine. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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