4.8 Article

Effect of Injection Routes on the Biodistribution, Clearance, and Tumor Uptake of Carbon Dots

期刊

ACS NANO
卷 7, 期 7, 页码 5684-5693

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/nn401911k

关键词

biodistribution; carbon dots; clearance; injection routes; translation tumor uptake

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2013CB733802]
  2. National Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [81201086, 81201129, 81101101, 51273165]
  3. Intramural Research Program of the NIBIB, NIH
  4. Henry M. Jackson Foundation
  5. NIH [K99/R00]
  6. Directorate For Engineering
  7. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [0967423] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The emergence of photoluminescent carbon-based nanomaterials has shown exciting potential in the development of benign nanoprobes. However, the in vivo kinetic behaviors of these particles that are necessary for clinical translation are poorly understood to date. In this study, fluorescent carbon dots (C-dots) were synthesized and the effect of three injection routes on their fate in vivo was explored by using both near-infrared fluorescence and positron emission tomography imaging techniques. We found that C-dots are efficiently and rapidly excreted from the body after all three injection routes. The clearance rate of C-dots is ranked as intravenous > intramuscular > subcutaneous. The particles had relatively low retention in the reticuloendothelial system and showed high tumor-to-background contrast. Furthermore, different injection routes also resulted in different blood clearance patterns and tumor uptakes of C-dots. These results satisfy the need for clinical translation and should promote efforts to further investigate the possibility of using carbon-based nanoprobes in a clinical setting. More broadly, we provide a testing blueprint for in vivo behavior of nanoplatforms under various injection routes, an important step forward toward safety and efficacy analysis of nanoparticles.

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