3.8 Article

CHARACTERIZATION AND TOXICITY OF CARBON DOT-POLY(LACTIC-CO-GLYCOLIC ACID) NANOCOMPOSITES FOR BIOMEDICAL IMAGING

期刊

NANO LIFE
卷 3, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

WORLD SCIENTIFIC PUBL CO PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1142/S1793984413400023

关键词

Carbon dots; carbon nanocomposites; quantum dots; cytotoxicity

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [MCB-1052623, CMMI-0900377, EEC-0914790]
  2. NSEC: Center for Affordable Nanoengineering of Polymeric Biomedical Devices at The Ohio State University
  3. The William G. Lowrie Family

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) have achieved initial success as biomedical imaging agents. However, significant cytotoxicity in the biological environment prohibits their use in vivo. Here, we introduce nanocomposites composed of carbon dots (C-dots) in poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) carriers as possible imaging agents for in vivo applications. An initial hurdle to clinical use is overcome by synthesizing C-dots with commercially available carbon black precursors, permitting scalable nanomanufacturing. These fluorescent nanoparticles, which have a mean diameter of similar to 1 nm, display a disordered graphitic structure. To overcome a second clinical hurdle (i.e., rapid renal clearance of nanoparticles < similar to 6 nm in diameter), C-dots were encapsulated in biodegradable PLGA nanospheres. The resulting nanocomposites showed a mean diameter of 344 +/- 23nm, which should reduce renal clearance. With further optimization, nanocarriers could be optimized to sizes < 200 nm to reduce accumulation in the reticuloendothelial system (RES). Toxicity of both C-dots and C-dot-PLGA nanocomposites was evaluated using HepG2 liver cell lines. Unlike QDs, which can induce toxicological responses at concentrations as low as 0.005 mg/mL, C-dots exhibited cytotoxicity at concentrations greater than 0.2 mg/mL, while their derived nanocomposites did not exhibit cytotoxicity at any concentration tested (i.e., 0.02 mg/mL, 0.1 mg/mL and 0.2 mg/mL).

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

3.8
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