| Literature DB >> 25003520 |
Antonio Cervadoro1, Minjung Cho, Jaehong Key, Christy Cooper, Cinzia Stigliano, Santosh Aryal, Audrius Brazdeikis, James F Leary, Paolo Decuzzi.
Abstract
Iron oxide nanoparticles (IOs) are intrinsically theranostic agents that could be used for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and local hyperthermia or tissue thermal ablation. Yet, effective hyperthermia and high MR contrast have not been demonstrated within the same nanoparticle configuration. Here, magnetic nanoconstructs are obtained by confining multiple, ∼ 20 nm nanocubes (NCs) within a deoxy-chitosan core. The resulting nanoconstructs-magnetic nanoflakes (MNFs)-exhibit a hydrodynamic diameter of 156 ± 3.6 nm, with a polydispersity index of ∼0.2, and are stable in PBS up to 7 days. Upon exposure to an alternating magnetic field of 512 kHz and 10 kA m(-1), MNFs provide a specific absorption rate (SAR) of ∼75 W gFe(-1), which is 4-15 times larger than that measured for conventional IOs. Moreover, the same nanoconstructs provide a remarkably high transverse relaxivity of ∼500 (mM s)(-1), at 1.41T. MNFs represent a first step toward the realization of nanoconstructs with superior relaxometric and ablation properties for more effective theranostics.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25003520 PMCID: PMC4134184 DOI: 10.1021/am504270c
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ACS Appl Mater Interfaces ISSN: 1944-8244 Impact factor: 9.229
Figure 1Physicochemical properties of the magnetic nanoflakes (MNFs): (a) Schematic representation of a MNF. (b) Stability test over time in a PBS solution (average diameter =156 ± 3.6 nm; average PDI = 0.2 ± 0.007. (c) TEM image of the nanocubes (NCs) used for the MNF synthesis. The NC edge length is ∼20 nm; (d) SEM image of the MNFs; (e, f) TEM and SEM images of the MNFs showing the NCs confined within the polymeric matrix. MNFs appear as spherical nanoconstructs with an average size of ∼140 nm.
Physicochemical Properties of the MNFs Compared with Other Iron Oxide Nanocubes and Nanoparticles
| physical characterization | SAR (W gFe–1)/magnetic susceptibility | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| hydrodynamic size | 156.9 ± 3.6 nm | magnetic nanoflakes | 73.8 ± 2.3/0.21 | magnetic nanoflakes | 472 ± 27 |
| core size | ∼140 nm | single nanocubes | 1.25 ± 0.12 | WFION[ | 761 |
| PDI | 0.201 ± 0.007 a.u. | IONCs[ | 280 | FION[ | 324 |
| 37.9 ± 2.7 mV | IONCs[ | 102 | PVP-IO[ | 173 | |
| yielding | 50 ± 15 % | Feridex[ | 8 | Feridex[ | 133 |
Normalized to compare with our system, following the approximation SAR∝ fH2
Figure 2Magnetic properties of the magnetic nanoflakes (MNFs): (a) SQUID analysis of cycle magnetization showing the lack of any hysteresis loop and a magnetization saturation of ∼80 emu gFe–1. (b) Temperature increase over time for a 0.6 mL solution of MNFs (0.76 mgFe mL–1) exposed to an alternating magnetic field (512 kHz and 10 kA m–1 AMF) for 30 min. (c) Bar chart summarizing specific absorption rate (SAR = 73.8 ± 2.3 W gFe–1) and relaxivities (r1 = 4.98 ± 0.58 mM–1 s–1 and r2 = 475 ± 28 mM–1 s–1) of the MNFs. Note that the SAR of the MNFs is ∼60 times larger than that of the single NCs (1.25 ± 0.12 W gFe–1).
Figure 3Remote guidance of the Magnetic NanoFlakes (MNFs): (a) Schematic representation of the parallel plate flow chamber used for the experiments. A static magnet is placed underneath the chamber for the dragging experiments under flow. (b) Three individual images show the path of two individual MNFs under flow (yellow and white arrow) at three consecutive time points; also, a fluorescent corona is formed around the magnet by the MNFs continuously depositing. The image is obtained by stitching together multiple pics taken from the unmounted coverslip after the experiment. (c) Percentage of area covered by the deposited nanoparticles is plotted as a function of the separation distance y from the magnet edge. Up to 5% of the area is covered by MNFs at ∼1 mm away from the magnet.
Figure 4Cytotoxicity of the MNFs: (a) cell viability of HUVECs and (b) breast cancer MDB-MB-231. Cell viability is determined by MTT assay, at three different time points and four different MNF concentrations.
Figure 5Performance of the MNFs: (a) Bar chart for specific absorption rate (SAR) and magnetic susceptibility. SAR values have been normalized following the approximation SAR∝ fH2. Susceptibility values have been extrapolated by the cited publications. (b) Transverse relaxivity r2.