CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of PEGylation on capture of dextran-coated magnetic nanoparticles in microcirculation

Chiu, Chien-Yu, Chung, Tze-Wen, Chen, Si-Yi, Ma, Yunn-Hwa·2019·International Journal of Nanomedicine
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s204844PMC PMC6613455
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 · 10.2147/ijn.s204844

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure S1 Cremaster muscle preparation of an anesthetized rat. Left cremaster muscle was spread with tension created by suture on a home-made platform. The muscle preparation was then subjected to laser speckle contrast imaging or cappillaroscipy from above.
Figure S1 Cremaster muscle preparation of an anesthetized rat. Left cremaster muscle was spread with tension created by suture on a home-made platform. The muscle preparation was then subjected to laser speckle contrast imaging or cappillaroscipy from above.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 1 Diameter and ς-potential of MNPs with or without PEG. Particle size and ζ-potential of MNPs were measured in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, A) or serum (B). The values shown are mean ± SE (n=3–4). *,#p<0.05 compared with the corresponding 250 nm particles and PEG(–) groups, respectively.
Figure 1 Diameter and ς-potential of MNPs with or without PEG. Particle size and ζ-potential of MNPs were measured in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, A) or serum (B). The values shown are mean ± SE (n=3–4). *,#p<0.05 compared with the corresponding 250 nm particles and PEG(–) groups, respectively.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Magnetic capture of MNP and subsequent flow changes in microvessels. MNPs (5 mg/kg, 250 nm) were administered intra-arterially to the left cremaster muscle with an NdFeB magnet placed underneath. MNP accumulation 1 to 14 mins after administration is illustrated as flux and photo images. The arrow in the flux images indicates the flow direction of the adjacent vessel. Representative capture of MNP in a microvessel with time were observed, followed by removal of the magnet (-Mag) 14 mins after MNP administration. Scale bar indicates 0.3 μm.
Figure 2 Magnetic capture of MNP and subsequent flow changes in microvessels. MNPs (5 mg/kg, 250 nm) were administered intra-arterially to the left cremaster muscle with an NdFeB magnet placed underneath. MNP accumulation 1 to 14 mins after administration is illustrated as flux and photo images. The arrow in the flux images indicates the flow direction of the adjacent vessel. Representative capture of MNP in a microvessel with time were observed, followed by removal of the magnet (-Mag) 14 mins after MNP administration. Scale bar indicates 0.3 μm.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure S2 Magnetic capture of MNP and subsequent flow changes in microvessels. MNPs (5 mg/kg) were administered intra-arterially to the left cremaster muscle with a NdFeB magnet placed underneath. MNP accumulation 1 to 14 mins after administration is illustrated as flux and photo images. The arrow in the flux images indicates the flow direction of the adjacent vessel. Patterns of magnetic capture of MNPs in microvessels (A–H) were observed.
Figure S2 Magnetic capture of MNP and subsequent flow changes in microvessels. MNPs (5 mg/kg) were administered intra-arterially to the left cremaster muscle with a NdFeB magnet placed underneath. MNP accumulation 1 to 14 mins after administration is illustrated as flux and photo images. The arrow in the flux images indicates the flow direction of the adjacent vessel. Patterns of magnetic capture of MNPs in microvessels (A–H) were observed.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Two-dimensional hemodynamic effects of magnetic capture of PEGylated MNPs in microvessels. RBC flow in cremaster microvessels of individual rats with administration of MNPs of 250- (A–C) or 50- (D–F) nm with (+) or without (−) PEG, as indicated, was monitored in a real-time manner. The arrowheads indicate administration of the particles. Speckle images of flow (Flux) with sites of flow acquisition are shown after administration of the particles (B and E; 5 mg/kg; +MNP) and subsequent magnet removal (-Mag). Effects of PEGylation on magnetic capture of MNPs are summarized (C and F; n=9–23). *,#,†P<0.05 compared with the corresponding basal, PEG(−) and +MNP groups, respectively.
Figure 3 Two-dimensional hemodynamic effects of magnetic capture of PEGylated MNPs in microvessels. RBC flow in cremaster microvessels of individual rats with administration of MNPs of 250- (A–C) or 50- (D–F) nm with (+) or without (−) PEG, as indicated, was monitored in a real-time manner. The arrowheads indicate administration of the particles. Speckle images of flow (Flux) with sites of flow acquisition are shown after administration of the particles (B and E; 5 mg/kg; +MNP) and subsequent magnet removal (-Mag). Effects of PEGylation on magnetic capture of MNPs are summarized (C and F; n=9–23). *,#,†P<0.05 compared with the corresponding basal, PEG(−) and +MNP groups, respectively.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Dynamic retention of MNP with PEG in the representative vessels in magnetic field. Magnetic capture of PEG(+) MNPs (250 nm; 5 mg/kg) in cremaster microcirculation was observed by capillaroscopy under gray and color mode 12–19 mins after administration of the MNPs and 1 min after removal of the magnet (-Mag). The red arrows indicate the flow direction of the adjacent vessel. The results are representative of 6 experiments. Scale bar indicates 50 μm.
Figure 4 Dynamic retention of MNP with PEG in the representative vessels in magnetic field. Magnetic capture of PEG(+) MNPs (250 nm; 5 mg/kg) in cremaster microcirculation was observed by capillaroscopy under gray and color mode 12–19 mins after administration of the MNPs and 1 min after removal of the magnet (-Mag). The red arrows indicate the flow direction of the adjacent vessel. The results are representative of 6 experiments. Scale bar indicates 50 μm.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure S3 Dynamic retention of MNP with PEG in the representative vessels without magnetic field. Without magnetic capture of PEGylated MNPs (250 nm; 5 mg/kg) in cremaster microcirculation was observed by capillaroscopy under gray and color mode 12–19 mins after administration of the MNPs. The red arrows indicate the flow direction of the adjacent vessel. The results are representative of 6 experiments. Scale bar indicates 50 μm.
Figure S3 Dynamic retention of MNP with PEG in the representative vessels without magnetic field. Without magnetic capture of PEGylated MNPs (250 nm; 5 mg/kg) in cremaster microcirculation was observed by capillaroscopy under gray and color mode 12–19 mins after administration of the MNPs. The red arrows indicate the flow direction of the adjacent vessel. The results are representative of 6 experiments. Scale bar indicates 50 μm.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Effects of size and PEGylation on retention of particles subjected to serum/RBC flow and magnetic field. In vitro circulation system (A) was established to observe particle retention in hydroxyethyl starch/RBC solution (B) or serum (C, D, E) at 2 mL/min and magnetic field. Summarized 2-D retention of particles of 50 vs 250 nm are presented in (D) and (E), respectively (n=3). Values are mean ± SEM. *p<0.05 compared with the corresponding PEG(−) groups, respectively.
Figure 5 Effects of size and PEGylation on retention of particles subjected to serum/RBC flow and magnetic field. In vitro circulation system (A) was established to observe particle retention in hydroxyethyl starch/RBC solution (B) or serum (C, D, E) at 2 mL/min and magnetic field. Summarized 2-D retention of particles of 50 vs 250 nm are presented in (D) and (E), respectively (n=3). Values are mean ± SEM. *p<0.05 compared with the corresponding PEG(−) groups, respectively.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 6 PEGylation attenuated MNP interaction with cultured endothelial cells. Human umbilical vein endothelial cell (HUVEC)-associated MNP was determined after incubation of 250 nm MNP (100 μg/mL; 19.7 μg/cm2) in the absence (-Mag) and presence (+Mag) of the magnet for up to 6 hrs after application of the magnet for 5 mins to facilitate sedimentation. Values are presented as mean ± SE (n=7). *,#P<0.05 compared with the corresponding control (0 hrs) and PEG(−) groups, respectively.
Figure 6 PEGylation attenuated MNP interaction with cultured endothelial cells. Human umbilical vein endothelial cell (HUVEC)-associated MNP was determined after incubation of 250 nm MNP (100 μg/mL; 19.7 μg/cm2) in the absence (-Mag) and presence (+Mag) of the magnet for up to 6 hrs after application of the magnet for 5 mins to facilitate sedimentation. Values are presented as mean ± SE (n=7). *,#P<0.05 compared with the corresponding control (0 hrs) and PEG(−) groups, respectively.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: 60

  1. [1]Wahajuddin AS. Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles: magnetic nanoplatforms as drug carriers. Int J Nanomed. 2012; 7: 3445– 3471. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S30320 PMC3405876 22848170 · DOI
  2. [2]Reddy LH, Arias JL, Nicolas J, Couvreur P. Magnetic nanoparticles: design and characterization, toxicity and biocompatibility, pharmaceutical and biomedical applications. Chem Rev. 2012; 112(11): 5818– 5878. doi: 10.1021/cr300068p 23043508 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [3]Singh D, McMillan JM, Liu XM, et al. Formulation design facilitates magnetic nanoparticle delivery to diseased cells and tissues. Nanomedicine. 2014; 9(3): 469– 485. doi: 10.2217/nnm.14.4 24646020 PMC4338921 · DOI
  4. [4]Shen L, Li B, Qiao Y. Fe3O4 nanoparticles in targeted drug/gene delivery systems. Materials. 2018; 11(2): 324. doi: 10.3390/ma11081451 PMC5849021 29473914 · DOI
  5. [5]Ulbrich K, Holá K, Šubr V, Bakandritsos A, Tuček J, Zbořil R. Targeted drug delivery with polymers and magnetic nanoparticles: covalent and noncovalent approaches, release control, and clinical studies. Chem Rev. 2016; 116(9): 5338– 5431. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00589 27109701 · DOI
  6. [6]Mody VV, Cox A, Shah S, Singh A, Bevins W, Parihar H. Magnetic nanoparticle drug delivery systems for targeting tumor. Appl Nanosci. 2013; 4(4): 385– 392. doi: 10.1007/s13204-013-0216-y · DOI
  7. [7]Amstad E, Textor M, Reimhult E. Stabilization and functionalization of iron oxide nanoparticles for biomedical applications. Nanoscale. 2011; 3(7): 2819– 2843. doi: 10.1039/c1nr10173k 21629911 · DOI
  8. [8]Janikowska A, Matuszak J, Lyer S, et al. A novel human artery model to assess the magnetic accumulation of SPIONs under flow conditions. Sci Rep. 2017; 7: 42314. doi: 10.1038/srep42314 28176885 PMC5296745 · DOI
  9. [9]Zhao Q, Wang L, Cheng R, et al. Magnetic nanoparticle-based hyperthermia for head & neck cancer in mouse models. Theranostics. 2012; 2(1): 113– 121. doi: 10.7150/thno.3854 22287991 PMC3267386 · DOI
  10. [10]Liu HL, Hua MY, Yang HW, et al. Magnetic resonance monitoring of focused ultrasound/magnetic nanoparticle targeting delivery of therapeutic agents to the brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010; 107(34): 15205– 15210. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003388107 20696897 PMC2930577 · DOI
  11. [11]Ma YH, Chen SY, Tu SJ, Yang HW, Liu HL. Manipulation of magnetic nanoparticle retention and hemodynamic consequences in microcirculation: assessment by laser speckle imaging. Int J Nanomed. 2012; 7: 2817– 2827. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S31730 PMC3383323 22745544 · DOI
  12. [12]Tu SJ, Wu SY, Wang FS, Ma YH. Retention assessment of magnetic nanoparticles in rat arteries with micro-computed tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2014; 59(5): 1271– 1281. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/5/1271 24556757 · DOI
  13. [13]Yang HW, Hua MY, Hwang TL, et al. Non-invasive synergistic treatment of brain tumors by targeted chemotherapeutic delivery and amplified focused ultrasound-hyperthermia using magnetic nanographene oxide. Adv Mater. 2013; 25(26): 3605– 3611. doi: 10.1002/adma.201301046 23712913 · DOI
  14. [14]Shen JM, Guan XM, Liu XY, Lan JF, Cheng T, Zhang HX. Luminescent/magnetic hybrid nanoparticles with folate-conjugated peptide composites for tumor-targeted drug delivery. Bioconj Chem. 2012; 23(5): 1010– 1021. doi: 10.1021/bc300008k 22486419 · DOI
  15. [15]Ma YH, Hsu YW, Chang YJ, Hua MY, Chen JP, Wu T. Intra-arterial application of magnetic nanoparticles for targeted thrombolytic therapy: a rat embolic model. J Magn Magn Mater. 2007; 311(1): 342– 346. doi: 10.1016/j.jmmm.2006.10.1204 · DOI
  16. [16]Schleich N, Po C, Jacobs D, et al. Comparison of active, passive and magnetic targeting to tumors of multifunctional paclitaxel/SPIO-loaded nanoparticles for tumor imaging and therapy. J Control Release. 2014; 194: 82– 91. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.07.059 25178270 · DOI · Paper page
  17. [17]Ma YH, Wu SY, Wu T, Chang YJ, Hua MY, Chen JP. Magnetically targeted thrombolysis with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator bound to polyacrylic acid-coated nanoparticles. Biomaterials. 2009; 30(19): 3343– 3351. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.02.034 19299010 · DOI
  18. [18]Yang HW, Hua MY, Lin KJ, et al. Bioconjugation of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator to magnetic nanocarriers for targeted thrombolysis. Int J Nanomed. 2012; 7: 5159– 5173. PMC3464084 23055728
  19. [19]Tadayon A, Jamshidi R, Esmaeili A. Targeted thrombolysis of tissue plasminogen activator and streptokinase with extracellular biosynthesis nanoparticles using optimized Streptococcus equi supernatant. Int J Pharm. 2016; 501(1–2): 300– 310. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2016.02.011 26873394 · DOI
  20. [20]Che E, Gao Y, Wan L, et al. Paclitaxel/gelatin coated magnetic mesoporous silica nanoparticles: preparation and antitumor efficacy in vivo. Microporous Mesoporous Mat. 2015; 204: 226– 234. doi: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2014.11.013 · DOI
  21. [21]Bai J, Wang JTW, Rubio N, et al. Triple-modal imaging of magnetically-targeted nanocapsules in solid tumours in vivo. Theranostics. 2016; 6(3): 342– 356. doi: 10.7150/thno.11918 26909110 PMC4737722 · DOI
  22. [22]Cui Y, Zhang M, Zeng F, Jin H, Xu Q, Huang Y. Dual-targeting magnetic PLGA nanoparticles for codelivery of paclitaxel and curcumin for brain tumor therapy. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2016; 8(47): 32159– 32169. doi: 10.1021/acsami.6b10175 27808492 · DOI
  23. [23]Liao J, Wei X, Ran B, Peng J, Qu Y, Qian Z. Polymer hybrid magnetic nanocapsules encapsulating IR820 and PTX for external magnetic field-guided tumor targeting and multifunctional theranostics. Nanoscale. 2017; 9(7): 2479– 2491. doi: 10.1039/c7nr00033b 28150848 · DOI
  24. [24]Varna M, Juenet M, Bayles R, Mazighi M, Chauvierre C, Letourneur D. Nanomedicine as a strategy to fight thrombotic diseases. Future Sci OA. 2015; 1(4). doi: 10.4155/fso.15.46 PMC5137979 28031907 · DOI
  25. [25]Chen JP, Liu CH, Hsu HL, Wu T, Lu YJ, Ma YH. Magnetically controlled release of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator from chitosan nanocomposites for targeted thrombolysis. J Mater Chem B. 2016; 4(15): 2578– 2590. doi: 10.1039/C5TB02579F 32263281 · DOI
  26. [26]Petros RA, DeSimone JM. Strategies in the design of nanoparticles for therapeutic applications. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010; 9(8): 615– 627. doi: 10.1038/nrd2591 20616808 · DOI · Paper page
  27. [28]Abboud M, Youssef S, Podlecki J, Habchi R, Germanos G, Foucaran A. Superparamagnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles, synthesis and surface modification. Mater Sci Semicond Process. 2015; 39: 641– 648. doi: 10.1016/j.mssp.2015.05.035 · DOI
  28. [29]Kolate A, Baradia D, Patil S, Vhora I, Kore G, Misra A. PEG – a versatile conjugating ligand for drugs and drug delivery systems. J Control Release. 2014; 192: 67– 81. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.06.046 24997275 · DOI
  29. [30]Rabanel JM, Hildgen P, Banquy X. Assessment of PEG on polymeric particles surface, a key step in drug carrier translation. J Control Release. 2014; 185: 71– 87. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.04.017 24768790 · DOI
  30. [31]Gref R, Domb A, Quellec P, et al. The controlled intravenous delivery of drugs using PEG-coated sterically stabilized nanospheres. Adv Drug Del Rev. 2012; 64(Supplement): 316– 326. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2012.09.008 PMC4144462 25170183 · DOI
  31. [32]Pelaz B, Del Pino P, Maffre P, et al. Surface functionalization of nanoparticles with polyethylene glycol: effects on protein adsorption and cellular uptake. ACS Nano. 2015; 9(7): 6996– 7008. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.5b01326 26079146 · DOI
  32. [33]Oberoi HS, Nukolova NV, Kabanov AV, Bronich TK. Nanocarriers for delivery of platinum anticancer drugs. Adv Drug Del Rev. 2013; 65(13–14): 1667– 1685. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2013.09.014 PMC4197009 24113520 · DOI
  33. [34]Fang RH, Hu CM, Zhang L. Nanoparticles disguised as red blood cells to evade the immune system. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2012; 12(4): 385– 389. doi: 10.1517/14712598.2012.661710 22332936 · DOI
  34. [35]Lim EK, Jang E, Lee K, Haam S, Huh YM. Delivery of cancer therapeutics using nanotechnology. Pharmaceutics. 2013; 5(2): 294. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics5020294 24300452 PMC3834952 · DOI
  35. [36]Hu FQ, Zhang YY, You J, Yuan H, Du YZ. pH triggered doxorubicin delivery of PEGylated glycolipid conjugate micelles for tumor targeting therapy. Mol Pharm. 2012; 9(9): 2469– 2478. doi: 10.1021/mp300002v 22827551 · DOI
  36. [37]Qu JB, Shao HH, Jing GL, Huang F. PEG-chitosan-coated iron oxide nanoparticles with high saturated magnetization as carriers of 10-hydroxycamptothecin: preparation, characterization and cytotoxicity studies. Colloid Surf B-Biointerfaces. 2013; 102: 37– 44. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2012.08.004 23000675 · DOI
  37. [38]Lu YC, Luo PC, Huang CW, et al. Augmented cellular uptake of nanoparticles using tea catechins: effect of surface modification on nanoparticle-cell interaction. Nanoscale. 2014; 6(17): 10297– 10306. doi: 10.1039/c4nr00617h 25069428 · DOI
  38. [39]Onyskiw PJ, Eniola-Adefeso O. Effect of PEGylation on ligand-based targeting of drug carriers to the vascular wall in blood flow. Langmuir. 2013; 29(35): 11127– 11134. doi: 10.1021/la402182j 23919766 · DOI
  39. [40]Siow WX, Chang YT, Babic M, Lu YC, Horak D, Ma YH. Interaction of poly-l-lysine coating and heparan sulfate proteoglycan on magnetic nanoparticle uptake by tumor cells. Int J Nanomed. 2018; 13: 1693– 1706. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S156029 PMC5866726 29599614 · DOI
  40. [41]Matuszak J, Zaloga J, Friedrich RP, et al. Endothelial biocompatibility and accumulation of SPION under flow conditions. J Magn Magn Mater. 2015; 380: 20– 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jmmm.2014.09.005 · DOI · Paper page
  41. [42]Friedrich RP, Janko C, Poettler M, et al. Flow cytometry for intracellular SPION quantification: specificity and sensitivity in comparison with spectroscopic methods. Int J Nanomed. 2015; 10: 4185– 4201. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S82714 PMC4492632 26170658 · DOI
  42. [43]Lu Q, Ye F, Yang X, et al. Accelerated recovery of endothelium function after stent implantation with the use of a novel systemic nanoparticle curcumin. Biomed Res Int. 2015; 2015(2015): 291871. doi: 10.1155/2015/291871 26167481 PMC4475764 · DOI
  43. [44]Zapotoczny S, Szczubialka K, Nowakowska M. Nanoparticles in endothelial theranostics. Pharmacol Rep. 2015; 67(4): 751– 755. doi: 10.1016/j.pharep.2015.05.018 26321277 · DOI
  44. [45]Silvestri A, Di Silvio D, Llarena I, et al. Influence of surface coating on the intracellular behaviour of gold nanoparticles: a fluorescence correlation spectroscopy study. Nanoscale. 2017; 9(38): 14730– 14739. doi: 10.1039/c7nr04640e 28948261 · DOI
  45. [46]Lin YL, Lin YC, Wang LJ, Ngo ST, Ma YH. Renal perfusion assessment using magnetic nanoparticles with 7T dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI in rats. J Magn Magn Mater. 2019; 475: 76– 82. doi: 10.1016/j.jmmm.2018.11.041 · DOI
  46. [47]Gultepe E, Reynoso FJ, Jhaveri A, et al. Monitoring of magnetic targeting to tumor vasculature through MRI and biodistribution. Nanomedicine (Lond). 2010; 5(8): 1173– 1182. doi: 10.2217/nnm.10.84 21039195 · DOI
  47. [48]Windberger U, Bartholovitsch A, Plasenzotti R, Korak KJ, Heinze G. Whole blood viscosity, plasma viscosity and erythrocyte aggregation in nine mammalian species: reference values and comparison of data. Exp Physiol. 2003; 88(3): 431– 440. 12719768
  48. [49]Bunker A. Poly(ethylene glycol) in drug delivery, why does it work, and can we do better? All atom molecular dynamics simulation provides some answers. Phys Procedia. 2012; 34: 24– 33. doi: 10.1016/j.phpro.2012.05.004 · DOI
  49. [50]Erkens R, Suvorava T, Kramer CM, Diederich LD, Kelm M, Cortese-Krott MM. Modulation of local and systemic heterocellular communication by mechanical forces: a role of endothelial nitric oxide synthase. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2017; 26(16): 917– 935. doi: 10.1089/ars.2016.6904 27927026 PMC5455615 · DOI
  50. [51]Lesniak A, Salvati A, Santos-Martinez MJ, Radomski MW, Dawson KA, Aberg C. Nanoparticle adhesion to the cell membrane and its effect on nanoparticle uptake efficiency. J Am Chem Soc. 2013; 135(4): 1438– 1444. doi: 10.1021/ja309812z 23301582 · DOI
  51. [52]Yu M, Huang S, Yu KJ, Clyne AM. Dextran and polymer polyethylene glycol (PEG) coating reduce both 5 and 30 nm iron oxide nanoparticle cytotoxicity in 2D and 3D cell culture. Int J Mol Sci. 2012; 13(5): 5554. doi: 10.3390/ijms13055554 22754315 PMC3382777 · DOI · Paper page
  52. [53]Yang HW, Hua MY, Liu HL, et al. Self-protecting core-shell magnetic nanoparticles for targeted, traceable, long half-life delivery of BCNU to gliomas. Biomaterials. 2011; 32(27): 6523– 6532. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.05.047 21645920 · DOI
  53. [54]Fleischer CC, Payne CK. Nanoparticle-cell interactions: molecular structure of the protein corona and cellular outcomes. Accounts Chem Res. 2014; 47(8): 2651– 2659. doi: 10.1021/ar500190q PMC4139184 25014679 · DOI
  54. [55]Sakulkhu U, Mahmoudi M, Maurizi L, Salaklang J, Hofmann H. Protein corona composition of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles with various physico-chemical properties and coatings. Sci Rep. 2014; 4: 5020. doi: 10.1038/srep05020 24846348 PMC5381372 · DOI
  55. [56]Escamilla-Rivera V, Solorio-Rodríguez A, Uribe-Ramírez M, et al. Plasma protein adsorption on Fe(3)O(4)-PEG nanoparticles activates the complement system and induces an inflammatory response. Int J Nanomed. 2019; 14: 2055– 2067. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S192214 PMC6438142 30988608 · DOI
  56. [57]Rahme K, Chen L, Hobbs RG, Morris MA, O’Driscoll C, Holmes JD. PEGylated gold nanoparticles: polymer quantification as a function of PEG lengths and nanoparticle dimensions. RSC Adv. 2013; 3(17): 6085– 6094.
  57. [58]Riedinger A, Guardia P, Curcio A, et al. Subnanometer local temperature probing and remotely controlled drug release based on azo-functionalized iron oxide nanoparticles. Nano Lett. 2013; 13(6): 2399– 2406. doi: 10.1021/nl400188q 23659603 · DOI
  58. [59]Xu Q, Ensign LM, Boylan NJ, et al. Impact of surface polyethylene glycol (PEG) density on biodegradable nanoparticle transport in mucus ex vivo and distribution in vivo. ACS Nano. 2015; 9(9): 9217– 9227. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.5b03876 26301576 PMC4890729 · DOI · Paper page
  59. [60]Li J, Sharkey CC, Huang D, King MR. Nanobiotechnology for the therapeutic targeting of cancer cells in blood. Cell Mol Bioeng. 2015; 8(1): 137– 150. doi: 10.1007/s12195-015-0381-z 25798204 PMC4361771 · DOI
  60. [61]Decuzzi P, Godin B, Tanaka T, et al. Size and shape effects in the biodistribution of intravascularly injected particles. J Control Release. 2010; 141(3): 320– 327. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2009.10.014 19874859 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 20

Metadata

Authors
Chiu, C.-Y., Chung, T.-W., Chen, S.-Y., & Ma, Y.-H.
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Nanomedicine
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2019-07
Volume
Volume 14
Pages
4767-4780
ISSN
1178-2013
DOI
10.2147/ijn.s204844
PMC
PMC6613455
Cited by
20
References
1
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (unspecified)

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