| Literature DB >> 33144607 |
Viswanathan Karthika1,2, Mohamad S AlSalhi3,4, Sandhanasamy Devanesan2,5, Kasi Gopinath1, Ayyakannu Arumugam6, Marimuthu Govindarajan7,8.
Abstract
A hybrid and straightforward nanosystem that can be used simultaneously for cancer-targeted fluorescence imaging and targeted drug delivery in vitro was reported in this study. AEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33144607 PMCID: PMC7641167 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-76015-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Fourier transformed-infrared (FT-IR) spectra of graphene oxide (GO), chitosan (CS), Fe3O4, rGO/Fe3O4 (5%), and rGO/Fe3O4/CS (15%) nanocomposites.
Figure 2X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern of graphene oxide (GO), chitosan (CS), Fe3O4, rGO/Fe3O4 (3%), rGO/Fe3O4 (5%), rGO/Fe3O4/CS (5%), and rGO/Fe3O4/CS (15%) nanocomposites.
Figure 3Field emission-scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM) images and corresponding EDS spectra of graphene oxide (GO), chitosan (CS), Fe3O4, rGO/Fe3O4 (5%), and rGO/Fe3O4/CS (15%) nanocomposites.
Figure 4(A-C) High resolution-transmission electron microscopy (HR-TEM) images of rGO/Fe3O4/CS (15%) nanocomposites and (D) selected area electron diffraction (SAED) pattern of rGO/Fe3O4/CS (15%) nanocomposites.
Figure 5X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) survey spectra of rGO/Fe3O4/CS (15%) nanocomposites (A)—high-resolution spectra of rGO/Fe3O4/CS, (B)—C 1 s peak, (C)—O 1 s peak, and (D)—Fe 2p peak.
Figure 6Vibrating sample magnetometer (VSM) analysis of rGO/Fe3O4/CS (15%) nanocomposites.
Figure 7(A)—Microscopy images taken after microinjection in zebrafish embryos exposed to 30 µg/mL of graphene oxide (GO), chitosan (CS), Fe3O4, rGO/Fe3O4 (5%), and rGO/Fe3O4/CS (15%) for (24, 36, 48 h). (B)—Microscopy images of zebrafish chorions with and without nanoparticles (NPs) treatment (0.1 ng/nL, 72 h).
Figure 8(A)—Cumulative amount of DOX loading on rGO/Fe3O4/CS and rGO/Fe3O4/CS/FA nanocomposites, (B)–Linear fitting of the cumulative amount of DOX loading concentration, (C)—Cumulative percentage of pure DOX and rGO/Fe3O4/CS/FA/DOX drug releasing at different pH, (D)—Linear fitting of the cumulative percentage of drug release at different pH (P < 0.05).
Figure 9Relative cell viability of magnetic nano drug carrier (MNDC)/doxorubicin (DOX) and MNDC/DOX/folic acid (FA) loaded magnetic nano drug carrier (MNDC) against (A)—A549 and (B)—MCF-7 cancer cells at different concentrations (P < 0.05).
Figure 10Cellular uptake and localization of rGO/Fe3O4/CS/DOX (magnetic nano drug carrier (MNDC)/doxorubicin (DOX)) and rGO/Fe3O4/CS/DOX/FA (MNDC/DOX/folic acid (FA)) in A549 and MCF-7 cancer cells observed by bright field emission images.
Figure 11Cellular uptake and localization of rGO/Fe3O4/CS/DOX (magnetic nano drug carrier (MNDC)/doxorubicin (DOX)) and rGO/Fe3O4/CS/DOX/FA (MNDC/DOX/FA) in (A)—A549 and (B)—MCF-7 cancer cells observed by fluorescence microscopy images.
Figure 12(A)—Light microscopy images of biofilms with crystal violet strain, (B) confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) images of maturely formed microbial biofilms exposed to graphene oxide (GO), chitosan (CS), Fe3O4, rGO/Fe3O4 (5%), and rGO/Fe3O4/CS (15%) at 37 °C for 24 h. In the CLSM images, live microbes emit green light, while the dead cells were not colored.
Figure 13(A)—Total antioxidant capacity (μg/mg) and (B)—% radical 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) scavenging activity of graphene oxide (GO), chitosan (CS), Fe3O4, rGO/Fe3O4 (5%), and rGO/Fe3O4/CS (15%) (P < 0.05).