4.8 Article

Dual-aptamer-based delivery vehicle of doxorubicin to both PSMA (+) and PSMA (-) prostate cancers

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 32, 期 8, 页码 2124-2132

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.11.035

关键词

Drug delivery; PSMA (+) and PSMA (-) prostate cancer cells; A10 RNA aptamer; DUP-1 peptide aptamer; Differential pulse voltammetry; Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticle

资金

  1. Korea Research Foundation [KRF-2008-314-C00218]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [NRF-2010-0019914]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2008-314-C00218, 2010-0019914, 과06A1202, 314-2008-1-C00218] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have designed a dual-aptamer complex specific to both prostate-specific membrane antigens (PSMA) (+) and (-) prostate cancer cells. In the complex, an A10 RNA aptamer targeting PSMA (+) cells and a DUP-1 peptide aptamer specific to PSMA (-) cells were conjugated through streptavidin. Doxorubicin-loaded onto the stem region of the A10 aptamer was delivered not only to PSMA (+) cells but to PSMA (-) cells, and eventually induced apoptosis in both types of prostate cancer cells. Cell death was monitored by measuring guanine concentration in cells using differential pulse voltammetry (DPV), a simple and rapid electrochemical method, and was further confirmed by directly observing cell morphologies cultured on the transparent indium tin oxide (ITO) glass electrode and checking their viabilities using a trypan blue assay. To investigate the in vivo application of the dual-aptamer system, both A10 and DUP-1 aptamers were immobilized on the surface of thermally cross-linked superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (TCL-SPION). Selective cell uptakes and effective drug delivery action of these probes were verified by Prussian blue staining and trypan blue staining, respectively. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
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