4.6 Review

Targeting gold nanocages to cancer cells for photothermal destruction and drug delivery

期刊

EXPERT OPINION ON DRUG DELIVERY
卷 7, 期 5, 页码 577-587

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.1517/17425240903571614

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [5DP1OD000798]
  2. David and Lucile Packard Foundation
  3. Harvard University
  4. NSF [ECS-0335765]
  5. Washington University in St Louis
  6. Washington University Molecular Imaging Center
  7. Alvin J Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital
  8. Washington University School of Medicine
  9. National Cancer Institute [P30 CA91842]
  10. Alafi Neuroimaging Laboratory
  11. Hope Center for Neurological Disorders
  12. NIH Neuroscience Blueprint Center [P30 NS057105]
  13. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P30CA091842] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  14. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [P30NS057105] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  15. OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH [DP1OD000798] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Areas covered in this review: This review discusses the use of gold nanocages, a new class of plasmonic nanoparticles, for photothermal applications. Gold nanocages are hollow, porous structures with compact sizes and precisely controlled plasmonic properties and surface chemistry. Also, a recent study of gold nanocages as drug-release carriers by externally controlling the opening and closing of the pores with a smart polymer whose conformation changes at a specific temperature is discussed. Release of the contents can be initiated remotely through near-infrared irradiation. Together, these topics cover the years from 2002 to 2009. What the reader will gain: The reader will be exposed to different aspects of gold nanocages, including synthesis, surface modification, in vitro studies, intial in vivo data and perspectives on future studies. Take home message: Gold nanocages are a promising platform for cancer therapy in terms of both photothermal destruction and drug delivery.

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