| Literature DB >> 32466284 |
Maria Laura Coluccio1, Valentina Onesto1, Giovanni Marinaro2,3, Mauro Dell'Apa4, Stefania De Vitis1, Alessandra Imbrogno5, Luca Tirinato1, Gerardo Perozziello Enzo Di Fabrizio1,6, Patrizio Candeloro1, Natalia Malara1, Francesco Gentile4.
Abstract
The adhesion, proliferation, and migEntities:
Keywords: cancer cells; drug delivery; gold nanoparticles; nanoporous silicon; theranostics
Year: 2020 PMID: 32466284 PMCID: PMC7284777 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12050481
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Figure 1(a) An initial silicon chip of approximately 1 × 1 cm is electrochemical etched using a Teflon cell containing a solution of hydrofluoric acid (), D.I. (de-ionized) water, and methanol/ethanol in different ratios. (b) Upon activation of an external controlled voltage, positive ions in solution are accelerated towards the silicon substrate, creating pores within its structure. (c) Depending on the parameters of the process, including etching time, current and voltage intensity, and the concentration of the reagents in solution, one can obtain porous silicon surfaces with a tailored morphology. (d) The porous silicon sample is then placed in a baker along with a solution of hydrofluoric acid () and gold(III) chloride (). (e) The resulting electroless process enables the deposition of gold ions in solution on the autocatalytic porous-silicon surface. (f) By varying the parameters of the electroless process, including temperature, concentration, and time, one can produce substrates with controlled gold-nanoparticles shape, size, and density.
Figure 2(a–c) SEM micrographs of MeP1 substrates at different levels of magnification, the pores are less uniformly distributed over the sample surface with an average pore size of PS ≈ 11 nm. (d–f) SEM micrographs of MeP2 substrates at different levels of magnification, the pores are uniformly distributed over the sample surface with an average pore size of PS ≈ 21 nm. (g–i) SEM micrographs of clusters of gold nanoparticles deposited over the porous sample surfaces, the particles follow the profile of the samples without occluding the pores, the average particle size is ≈8 nm.
Figure 3(a) Atomic force microscopy (AFM) profile of MeP1 substrates functionalized with gold nanoparticles imaged over a sampling area of 1 × 1 μm, the height values of the profile fall within the 0–25 nm range. (b) Power spectrum density function associated to the topography of the MeP1 substrate, the slope of the function in the linear regime is indicative of the fractal dimension of the samples. (c) AFM profile of MeP2 substrates functionalized with gold nanoparticles imaged over a sampling area of 1 × 1 μm, the height values of the profile fall within the 0–50 nm range. (d) Power spectrum density function associated to the topography of the MeP2 substrate. (e) Luminescence of MeP1 and MeP2 samples under UV light, compared to the light emission of silicon. Contact angle of a drop of D.I. water measured on the porous surfaces before (f) and after (g) sample oxidation. (h) Values of porosity, pore size, roughness, fractal dimension, and characteristic size of the gold nanoparticles of the porous surfaces determined through analysis of SEM and AFM images of samples.
Figure 4Fluorescence images of MCF-7 cancer cells over MeP1, MeP2, and silicon surfaces after 24 h from seeding.
Figure 5(a) Image analysis of fluorescence images: the original images were segmented with a watershed algorithm to identify individual cells, and cell nodes were then connected using the Waxman algorithm to obtain the equivalent graph for each sample. (b) Values of adhering cells, (c) clustering coefficient, (d) characteristic path length, and (e) small-world-ness determined for the cultures of MCF-7 cell on , , and silicon surfaces from seeding.
Figure 6(a) Raman maps of MCF-7 cells acquired over a region of interest of 10 × 10 μm for MeP1, MeP2, and silicon surfaces, the maps show the Raman intensity measured at 1569 1/cm. (b) We show, for each of the considered surfaces (MeP1, MeP2, and Si), the first five principal components extracted from the Raman maps, and the spatial distribution of the principal components correlate with the Raman intensity maps previously reported. (c) The loading associated to the first principal component measured over MeP1, MeP2, and Si surfaces. (d) Ratio between the maximum and the mean intensity of the PC1 loading correspondent to MCF-7 cells cultivated over MeP1, MeP2, and Si samples.
Figure 7(a) Absolute and (b) normalized release profile of the anti-tumor drug measured for and substrates up to 15 days from the beginning of the delivery.
Figure 8Fluorescence images of MCF-7 cancer cells growing on Au-MeP1 substrates with and without the delivery of the antitumor agent PtCl(O,O′-acac)(DMSO), at different time frames. In the experiments, unfunctionalized silicon was used as a control.
Figure 9(a) Number of adhering cells on Au-MeP1 and Au-MeP2 substrates under and without the influence of the antitumor agent PtCl(O,O′-acac)(DMSO), at 36, 48, and 72 h from cell seeding, compared to plain silicon used as a control. All p values less than 0.05 are summarized with two asterisks. Efficacy of the antitumor drug on the cancer cells at different times from the initial release, for the (b) Au-MeP1 (c) and Au-MeP2 substrates.