4.8 Article

The inhibition of human bladder cancer growth by calcium carbonate/CaIP6 nanocomposite particles delivering AIB1 siRNA

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 1246-1254

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.09.068

关键词

Calcium carbonate; Nanocomposite; Gene therapy; siRNA delivery; AIB1; Bladder cancer

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [30900539]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [09ykpy35]
  3. Science and Information Technology Foundation of Guangzhou [2011J2200065]
  4. Guangdong Provincial Science and Technology Foundation [2008B030301112, 2010B031600036]
  5. National Basic Research Program of China [2010CB934700]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previously, we reported that inorganic amorphous calcium carbonate (ACC) hybrid nanospheres functionalized with Ca(II)-IP6 compound (CaIP6) is a promising gene vector in vitro. Here, nonviral gene carrier, ACC/CaIP6 nanocomposite particles (NPACC/CaIP6), was evaluated for efficient in vitro and in vivo delivery of small interfering RNA (siRNA) targeting human Amplified in breast cancer 1 (AIB1). The nanoparticle is capable of forming ACC/CaIP6 nanoparticle-siRNA complexes and transferring siRNA into targeted cells with high transfection efficiency. Meanwhile the ACC/CaIP6 nanoparticle-siRNA complexes have no obvious cytotoxicity for human bladder cancer 124 cells. Furthermore, NPACC/CaIP6 effectively protected the encapsulated siRNA from degradation, AIB1 knockdown mediated by ACC/CaIP6/siRNA complexes transfection resulted in cells proliferation inhibition, apoptosis induction and cell cycle arrest in vitro. NPACC/CaIP6 exhibited well tissues penetrability in localized siRNA delivering, intratumoral injection of NPACC/CalP6/siAIB1 could attenuate tumor growth and downregulation of PI3K/Akt signaling pathway in vivo. We conclude that ACC/CaIP6 nanoparticle is a promising system for effective delivery of siRNA for cancer gene therapy. (C) 2012 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