Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 645

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

Multimodal silica nanoparticles are effective cancer-targeted probes in a model of human melanoma

Open access
Benezra, Miriam, Penate-Medina, Oula, Zanzonico, Pat B., Schaer, David, Ow, Hooisweng, Burns, Andrew, DeStanchina, Elisa, Longo, Valerie, Herz, Erik, Iyer, Srikant, Wolchok, Jedd, Larson, Steven M., Wiesner, Ulrich, Bradbury, Michelle S.·2011·Journal of Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Nanoparticle-based materials, such as drug delivery vehicles and diagnostic probes, currently under evaluation in oncology clinical trials are largely not tumor selective.To be clinically successful, the next generation of nanoparticle agents should be tumor selective, nontoxic, and exhibit favorable targeting and clearance profiles.Developing probes meeting these criteria is challenging, requiring comprehensive in vivo evaluations.Here, we describe our full characterization of an approximately 7-nm diameter multimodal silica nanoparticle, exhibiting what we believe to be a unique combination of structural, optical, and biological properties.This ultrasmall cancer-selective silica particle was recently approved for a first-in-human clinical trial.Optimized for efficient renal clearance, it concurrently achieved specific tumor targeting.Dye-encapsulating particles, surface functionalized with cyclic arginine-glycine-aspartic acid peptide ligands and radioiodine, exhibited high-affinity/avidity binding, favorable tumor-to-blood residence time ratios, and enhanced tumor-selective accumulation in α v β 3 integrin-expressing melanoma xenografts in mice.Further, the sensitive, real-time detection and imaging of lymphatic drainage patterns, particle clearance rates, nodal metastases, and differential tumor burden in a large-animal model of melanoma highlighted the distinct potential advantage of this multimodal platform for staging metastatic disease in the clinical setting.and comprehensively defined according to the following set of diagnostic criteria: favorable distribution and targeting kinetics (1, 5-9), efficient renal clearance (10, 11), extended circulation (blood residence) times (5, 12, 13), pronounced tissue signal amplification (5, 6, 14), and improved tumoral penetration (15).Recently reported design criteria have been proposed for advancing targeted probes to the clinic (11).These have largely been restricted to improving renal clearance properties of inorganic particles containing inherently toxic components.The relative lack of in vivo toxicology data associated with these probes has led to persistent and valid safety concerns ( 16), prompting a number of particle-design modifications (9, 17-19), including size, composition, and surface chemistry, that promote more rapid clearance through kidney (renal) or liver (hepatic) pathways (20).While such approaches may minimize toxicity, the ultimate fate and impact of residual particles in the reticuloendothelial system (RES; liver, spleen, lymph nodes, bone marrow) remains unclear, particularly if toxicity is related to prolonged organ residence times (16, 17).Accelerated particle clearance may also preclude certain clinical applications as a result of restrictions imposed upon the available imaging period.Further, while rapid particle extravasation may facilitate clearance and delivery to tumors, reduced receptor binding (5) and increased nonspecific tissue dispersal (21, 22) may also occur, increasing image background and, potentially, toxicity by prolonging retention.Only a relatively small percentage of new imaging agents undergoing comprehensive preclinical testing potentially satisfy diagnostic criteria for translation (2).Although a number of fluo-Authorship note: Miriam Benezra and Oula Penate-Medina contributed equally to this work.

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 · 10.1172/jci45600

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 645

Metadata

Authors
Benezra, M., Penate-Medina, O., Zanzonico, P. B., Schaer, D., Ow, H., Burns, A., DeStanchina, E., Longo, V., Herz, E., Iyer, S., Wolchok, J., Larson, S. M., Wiesner, U., & Bradbury, M. S.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Investigation
Published
2011-07-01
Volume
121
Issue
7
Pages
2768-2780
ISSN
0021-9738 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2063443915
Cited by
645
References
2
FWCI
26.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Multimodal silica nanoparticles are effective cancer-targeted probes in a model of human melanoma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1172/jci45600
The paper
Benezra, M., Penate-Medina, O., Zanzonico, P. B., Schaer, D., Ow, H., Burns, A., DeStanchina, E., Longo, V., Herz, E., Iyer, S., Wolchok, J., Larson, S. M., Wiesner, U., & Bradbury, M. S. (2011). Multimodal silica nanoparticles are effective cancer-targeted probes in a model of human melanoma. Journal of Clinical Investigation. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci45600

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.