Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 317

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Passive versus Active Tumor Targeting Using RGD- and NGR-Modified Polymeric Nanomedicines

Open access
Kunjachan, Sijumon, Pola, Robert, Gremse, Felix, Theek, Benjamin, Ehling, Josef, Moeckel, Diana, Hermanns-Sachweh, Benita, Pechar, Michal, Ulbrich, Karel, Hennink, Wim E., Storm, Gert, Lederle, Wiltrud, Kiessling, Fabian, Lammers, Twan·2014·Nano Letters
DOI 10.1021/nl404391r
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) and the (over-) expression of angiogenesis-related surface receptors are key features of tumor blood vessels. As a consequence, EPR-mediated passive and Arg-Gly-Asp (RGD) and Asn-Gly-Arg (NGR) based active tumor targeting have received considerable attention in the last couple of years. Using several different in vivo and ex vivo optical imaging techniques, we here visualized and quantified the benefit of RGD- and NGR-based vascular vs EPR-mediated passive tumor targeting. This was done using ∼ 10 nm sized polymeric nanocarriers, which were either labeled with DY-676 (peptide-modified polymers) or with DY-750 (peptide-free polymers). Upon coinjection into mice bearing both highly leaky CT26 and poorly leaky BxPC3 tumors, it was found that vascular targeting did work, resulting in rapid and efficient early binding to tumor blood vessels, but that over time, passive targeting was significantly more efficient, leading to higher overall levels and to more efficient retention within tumors. Although this situation might be different for larger carrier materials, these insights indicate that caution should be taken not to overestimate the potential of active over passive tumor targeting.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/nl404391r

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 61 references

Cited by

See all 317

Metadata

Authors
Kunjachan, S., Pola, R., Gremse, F., Theek, B., Ehling, J., Moeckel, D., Hermanns-Sachweh, B., Pechar, M., Ulbrich, K., Hennink, W. E., Storm, G., Lederle, W., Kiessling, F., & Lammers, T.
Venue
Nano Letters
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2014-01-17
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
972-981
ISSN
  • 1530-6984 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-6992
DOI
10.1021/nl404391r
OpenAlex
W1996275708
Cited by
317
References
61
FWCI
16.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Passive versus Active Tumor Targeting Using RGD- and NGR-Modified Polymeric Nanomedicines. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/nl404391r
The paper
Kunjachan, S., Pola, R., Gremse, F., Theek, B., Ehling, J., Moeckel, D., Hermanns-Sachweh, B., Pechar, M., Ulbrich, K., Hennink, W. E., Storm, G., Lederle, W., Kiessling, F., & Lammers, T. (2014). Passive versus Active Tumor Targeting Using RGD- and NGR-Modified Polymeric Nanomedicines. Nano Letters. https://doi.org/10.1021/nl404391r

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.