CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 60

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exosome mimetics derived from bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells deliver doxorubicin to osteosarcoma in vitro and in vivo

Wang, Jinkui, Li, Mujie, Jin, Liming, Guo, Peng, Zhang, Zhaoxia, Zhanghuang, Chenghao, Tan, Xiaojun, Mi, Tao, Liu, Jiayan, Wu, Xin, Wei, Guanghui, He, Dawei·2022·Drug Delivery
DOI 10.1080/10717544.2022.2141921PMC PMC9662035
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1080/10717544.2022.2141921

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. Representative scheme for EM-Dox preparation and treatment of EM-Dox against osteosarcoma of the tibia.
Figure 1. Representative scheme for EM-Dox preparation and treatment of EM-Dox against osteosarcoma of the tibia.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 2. Characterization of EM-Dox, Exos, and EMs. A: TEM images of EM-Dox, Exos, and EMs. This image shows a typical structure of EM-Dox, Exos, and EMs (scale bar 200 nm). B: Size distributions of EM-Dox, Exos, and EMs. The yields of EMs and Exos measured as the total protein (C) and particle number (D) from 1 × 107 BMSCs. E: Characterization of Exos and EMs by ECL Western blotting. The positive exosomal markers Alix, CD63, and Tsg101. (*p < .05, **p < .01, or ***p < .001).
Figure 2. Characterization of EM-Dox, Exos, and EMs. A: TEM images of EM-Dox, Exos, and EMs. This image shows a typical structure of EM-Dox, Exos, and EMs (scale bar 200 nm). B: Size distributions of EM-Dox, Exos, and EMs. The yields of EMs and Exos measured as the total protein (C) and particle number (D) from 1 × 107 BMSCs. E: Characterization of Exos and EMs by ECL Western blotting. The positive exosomal markers Alix, CD63, and Tsg101. (*p < .05, **p < .01, or ***p < .001).CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 3. A: Ammonium sulfate transmembrane concentration gradient active load doxorubicin schematic. B: Encapsulation efficiency of EM-Dox in different doxorubicin concentrations. C: The release amount of doxorubicins at different time points. D:The drug release profile of EM-Dox in PBS with pH 7.4 and pH 5.5, respectively.
Figure 3. A: Ammonium sulfate transmembrane concentration gradient active load doxorubicin schematic. B: Encapsulation efficiency of EM-Dox in different doxorubicin concentrations. C: The release amount of doxorubicins at different time points. D:The drug release profile of EM-Dox in PBS with pH 7.4 and pH 5.5, respectively.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 4. Effects of storage conditions on EM-Dox size and Dox leakage rate. A and B: DLS of enriched EM-Dox after storage at 4 °C and room temperature. C: Average EM-Dox size change for each storage temperature. D: Average EM-Dox zeta potential change for each storage temperature. E: Dox leakage of EM-Dox for each storage temperature. (ns, not significant, *p < .05, **p < .01, or ***p < .001).
Figure 4. Effects of storage conditions on EM-Dox size and Dox leakage rate. A and B: DLS of enriched EM-Dox after storage at 4 °C and room temperature. C: Average EM-Dox size change for each storage temperature. D: Average EM-Dox zeta potential change for each storage temperature. E: Dox leakage of EM-Dox for each storage temperature. (ns, not significant, *p < .05, **p < .01, or ***p < .001).CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 5. Representative fluorescent microscope images show the distribution of EM-Dox after 1, 6, and 9 h in 143B (A) and MG63 (B); the scale bar was 20 µm.
Figure 5. Representative fluorescent microscope images show the distribution of EM-Dox after 1, 6, and 9 h in 143B (A) and MG63 (B); the scale bar was 20 µm.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 6. Cytotoxic activity of EM-Dox in 143B (A) and MG63 (B) osteosarcoma cells. (*p < 0.05).
Figure 6. Cytotoxic activity of EM-Dox in 143B (A) and MG63 (B) osteosarcoma cells. (*p < 0.05).CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 7. The chromatograms of EM-Dox and the concentration–time profiles of EM-Dox in plasma after EM-Dox administration. A: A blank plasma sample without EM-Dox; (B) a real plasma sample collected after intravenous administration of 3 mg/kg EM-Dox 24 h. C: Concentration–time curve of EM-Dox after 3 mg/kg of EM-Dox administration.
Figure 7. The chromatograms of EM-Dox and the concentration–time profiles of EM-Dox in plasma after EM-Dox administration. A: A blank plasma sample without EM-Dox; (B) a real plasma sample collected after intravenous administration of 3 mg/kg EM-Dox 24 h. C: Concentration–time curve of EM-Dox after 3 mg/kg of EM-Dox administration.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 8. In vivo biodistribution of EMs. A: NIR fluorescent images of mice at 6, 24, 48 h after injection (n = 3 per group). B: Quantified tumor accumulation of EMs or LP. C: Representative ex vivo biodistribution of EMs or LP (lung, heart, liver, spleen, kidney, and tumor). D: Fluorescence quantification of organs. (*p < .05). LP, lipidosome.
Figure 8. In vivo biodistribution of EMs. A: NIR fluorescent images of mice at 6, 24, 48 h after injection (n = 3 per group). B: Quantified tumor accumulation of EMs or LP. C: Representative ex vivo biodistribution of EMs or LP (lung, heart, liver, spleen, kidney, and tumor). D: Fluorescence quantification of organs. (*p < .05). LP, lipidosome.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 9. Therapeutic effects of EM-Dox in vivo. A: The timeline of the orthotopic tumor therapy model. B: The images of excised orthotopic 143B tumors from mice (n = 6 per group) treated with PBS, EMs, free Dox, or EM-Dox. C: Tumorous hind limbs at the endpoint were quantified by weight. D: Tumor progression was measured by a caliper. EM-Dox dramatically inhibit tumor growth. E: No significant difference was shown in mouse body weight during the treatment. (***p < .001, or **p < .01). Dox, doxorubicin; EM-Dox, doxorubicin-loaded exosome mimetics.
Figure 9. Therapeutic effects of EM-Dox in vivo. A: The timeline of the orthotopic tumor therapy model. B: The images of excised orthotopic 143B tumors from mice (n = 6 per group) treated with PBS, EMs, free Dox, or EM-Dox. C: Tumorous hind limbs at the endpoint were quantified by weight. D: Tumor progression was measured by a caliper. EM-Dox dramatically inhibit tumor growth. E: No significant difference was shown in mouse body weight during the treatment. (***p < .001, or **p < .01). Dox, doxorubicin; EM-Dox, doxorubicin-loaded exosome mimetics.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 10. A and B: After treatments, creatine kinase (CK) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels in mice. C and D: ALT and AST levels in mice after treatments. E and F: Urea and Crea levels in mice after treatments. (ns, not significant, *p < .05, or **p < .01).
Figure 10. A and B: After treatments, creatine kinase (CK) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels in mice. C and D: ALT and AST levels in mice after treatments. E and F: Urea and Crea levels in mice after treatments. (ns, not significant, *p < .05, or **p < .01).CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. 10.1038/nbt.1807 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.05.030 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2012.03.020 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1002/jev2.12163 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1016/j.molmed.2018.01.006 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1007/s40124-015-0075-y · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.2147/IJN.S131786 · DOI
  8. 10.1038/s41598-017-14725-x · DOI
  9. 10.2147/IJN.S210731 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1002/adfm.202008326 · DOI
  11. 10.1002/mrm.25376 · DOI
  12. 10.1007/978-1-4419-0284-9_12 · DOI
  13. 10.1021/nn402232g · DOI
  14. 10.1038/gt.2017.8 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.nano.2015.10.012 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1002/jcp.30101 · DOI
  17. 10.7150/thno.18299 · DOI
  18. 10.1039/D0BM01296C · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1016/j.cclet.2021.11.078 · DOI
  20. 10.1002/adhm.202000573 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.bbcan.2021.188539 · DOI
  22. Meyers PA. (2015). Systemic therapy for osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book e644-7. PMID: 25993235.
  23. 10.1002/sctm.17-0055 · DOI
  24. 10.1080/20013078.2019.1692401 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1111/jcmm.16290 · DOI
  26. 10.1038/srep38541 · DOI
  27. 10.3324/haematol.2020.251454 · DOI
  28. 10.1038/nrm.2017.125 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1124/mol.119.115725 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2021.07.004 · DOI
  31. 10.3389/fonc.2022.805978 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Zhang XB, Zhang RH, Su X, et al. (2021). Exosomes in osteosarcoma research and preclinical practice. Am J Transl Res 13:882–97. PMID: 33841628; PMCID: PMC8014357.
  33. 10.1166/jbn.2019.2798 · DOI
  34. 10.1002/advs.201801899 · DOI
  35. 10.1038/mt.2011.164 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 60

Metadata

Authors
Wang, J., Li, M., Jin, L., Guo, P., Zhang, Z., Zhanghuang, C., Tan, X., Mi, T., Liu, J., Wu, X., Wei, G., & He, D.
Venue
Drug Delivery
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2022-11-09
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
3291-3303
ISSN
  • 1071-7544
  • 1521-0464
DOI
10.1080/10717544.2022.2141921
PMC
PMC9662035
Cited by
60
References
2
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Special Key Project of Chongqing Technology Innovation and Application Development (jscx-)

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