| Literature DB >> 36132698 |
Zhi-Xuan Chang1, Chien-Hsiu Li2, Yu-Chan Chang3, Chi-Ying F Huang1,4, Ming-Hsien Chan2, Michael Hsiao2,5.
Abstract
Given the high incidence and mortality of cancer, current research is focused on designing efficient diagnostic methods. At present, clinical diagnoses are made based on X-ray, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound, and fiber optic endoscopy. MRI is a powerful diagnostic tool because it is non-invasive, has a high spatial resolution, uses non-ionizing radiation, and has good soft-tissue contrast. However, the long relaxation time of water protons may result in the inability to distinguish different tissues. To overcome this drawback of MRI, magnetic resonance contrast agents can enhance the contrast, improve the sensitivity of MRI-based diagnoses, increase the success rate of surgery, and reduce tumor recurrence. This review focuses on using iron-platinum (FePt) nanoparticles (NPs) in T2-weighted MRI to detect tumor location based on dark-field changes. In addition, existing methods for optimizing and improving FePt NPs are reviewed, and the MRI applications of FePt NPs are discussed. FePT NPs are expected to strengthen MRI resolution, thereby helping to inhibit tumor development. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 36132698 PMCID: PMC9419603 DOI: 10.1039/d1na00613d
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanoscale Adv ISSN: 2516-0230
Various composite FePt NP materials have been used in biological MRI applications. This table lists the advantages obtained by different modifications to FePt NPs in terms of dispersion, diagnosis, stability, therapeutic, targeting, and biocompatibility
| Advantage | Modification | Particle size (DLS) |
| Cell type | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dispersion | Polymaleic anhydride polymer | 6 nm | 113 mM−1 s−1 (1.5T) | Cervical cancer (HeLa) | Slabu |
| CdS quantum dots/glutathione (GSH) | 353 ± 10 nm | 538.1 s−1 mg−1 mL (600 MHz) | RAW 264.7 cells | Jha | |
| Diagnosis | MnO/DSPE-PEG5000-folate (FA) | 33.65 nm | 8.14 mM−1 s−1 (3T) | Breast cancer (4T1 and MCF-7) | Yang |
| Liver cancer (HepG2) | |||||
| Cervical cancer (HeLa) | |||||
| Kaolinite/doxorubicin (DOX) | 200 nm | 29.32 mM−1 s−1 (4.7T) | Liver cancer (HepG2) | Chan | |
| F-MoS2 | 4 nm | n/a | Breast cancer (MCF-7) | Hu | |
| Metal–organic framework (MOF) | About 100 nm | 12.999 mM−1 s−1 | HepG2, HeLa, BRL-3A, L02, and MCF-7 | Meng | |
| Stability | Fe2O3-PEG-FA/DOX | 51 nm | 91.9 mM−1 s−1 (3 T) | Epidermoid carcinoma | Liu |
| Cervical cancer (KB) | |||||
| Fe3O4-PEG | 25.9 nm | 99.2 Hz mg−1 mL (9.4T) | Breast cancer (4T1.2-neu) | Yang | |
| Fe3O4 | 17.8 nm | 411.3 mM−1 s−1 (4.7T) | Epidermoid carcinoma | Yang | |
| Cervical cancer (KB) | |||||
| DOPAC (3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid) | 81.1 nm | 131.5 mM−1 s−1 (9.4T) | n/a | Kim | |
| Therapeutic | SiO2/Au | 40 nm | 47 mM−1 s−1 (2.35T) | Bladder cancer (RT4) | Kostevšek |
| Graphene oxide (GO) nanocomposites | 3–4 nm | 12.425 mM−1 s−1 (3T) | Breast cancer (MCF-7); cervical cancer (HeLa) | Ma | |
| PTTA-Eu3+-FA | 50 nm | 28.98 mM−1 s−1 | Breast cancer (4T1, MCF-7); cervical cancer (HeLa) | Yue | |
| GO | 3.05 nm | n/a | NSCLC (LLC, H60, H1975 and A549) | Chen | |
| Cervical cancer (HeLa) | |||||
| MGO/FU-MI | 243.6 nm | n/a | NSCLC (H1975 and A549) | Peng | |
| MnO | 12 nm | 60.8 mM−1 s−1 | Liver cell (L02) cancer (HepG2); breast cancer; (4T1); cervical cancer (HeLa) | Yang | |
| MoS2-FA | 3–4 nm | n/a | Breast cancer (4T1); cervical cancer (HeLa); breast cancer (MCF-7); liver cell (L02, BRL-3A) | Zhang | |
| MFP/GO | 5–10 nm | n/a | Lung cell (BEAS-2B); NSCLC (LLC, H1975 and A549) | Peng | |
| Black phosphorene (BP)/PEI-FA | 140 nm | 10.078 mM−1 s−1 | Breast cancer (4T1) | Yao | |
| FeO | 100 nm | 5.13 mM−1 s−1 | Breast cancer (4T1) | Shi | |
| MnO2/GO | 130 nm | n/a | Breast cancer (4T1) | Kou | |
| Targeting | GO-dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA)-PEG-FA | >100 nm | 12.425 mM−1 s−1 (3T) | Breast cancer (MCF-7) | Yue |
| Cervical cancer (HeLa) | |||||
| Liver cancer (HepG2) | |||||
| Biocompatibility | Cysteamine (Cys) | 254 nm | 16.9 mM−1 s−1 (3T) | NSCLC (H1975 and A549) | Sun |
| Cysteamine (Cys) | 12 nm | n/a | Bladder cancer | Chou | |
| Her2 antibody |
Fig. 1Organic functional group modification of FePt-CdS NPs. (a) Schematic showing the preparation process of water-soluble FePt NPs and FePt-CdS NPs. (b) Cell compatibility test. Addition of different concentrations of (c) 0.05 mL (d) 0.075 mL and (e) 0.1 mL polymeric FePt NPs. (f) MRI contrast analysis at different FePt NP concentrations. This figure has been reproduced from ref. 50 and 51 with permission from ACS Publications and Elsevier, copyright 2017 and 2019.
Fig. 2FePt NPs embedded in organic metal/ceramic fibers. (a) Schematic showing the process used to prepare metal-combined FePt alloy NPs. T2-weighted MRI signals of (b) FePt@MnO NPs and (c) FMDF NPs. (d) Tumor volume results and visible images of FMDF and FMDm NPs. (e) Inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry quantification of metal ion accumulation in different tissues. (f) Tumor H&E staining of the control, FMDm (without solvent exchange), and FMDF groups. (g) Schematic showing the preparation process of kaolinite-modified FePt NPs. The MRI results of the kaolinite-modified FePt NPs: (h) saturation magnetization, (i) contrast image, and (j) T2-weighted curve. This figure has been reproduced from ref. 52 and 53 with permission from ACS Publications, copyright 2019 and 2020.
Fig. 3Two-component iron nanocomposite for obtaining stable MRI images. (a) Schematic showing the process used to prepare FePt/Fe3O4 nanocomposites for conjugation with polymers. (b) T2-weighted MRI contrast image of FePt/Fe3O4 nanocomposites. (c) Quantification of MRI contrast. (d) Concentration course of FePt/Fe3O4 nanocomposites in MRI analysis. (e and k) The r2 slope of the concentration-dependent curve. (f) In vivo tumor monitoring for different injection times. (g) In vitro cell viability and (h) lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) leakage as a function of FePt/Fe3O4 nanocomposite concentration. (i) In vivo tumor size evaluation with magnetic treatment. (j) Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy characterization results of functional surface ligands. This figure has been reproduced from ref. 56 with permission from Future Science, copyright 2015.
Fig. 4Integration of inorganic metal materials with FePt NPs. Transmission electron microscopy images of (a) silica-coated FePt NPs, (b) FePt@SiO2 NPs after single Au seeding, and (c) FePt@SiO2 NPs after double Au seeding. (d) Quantification of the T2-weighted MRI signals corresponding to the uptake of different NPs in different cell lines. (e) The heating ability demonstrates the concentration-dependent curve. (f) Internalization of more NPs in tumor cells than (g) normal porcine urothelial (NPU) cells. This figure has been reproduced from ref. 59 with permission from the Royal Society of Chemistry, copyright 2018.
Fig. 5Fluorescent markers track FePt nanomaterials and confirm their therapeutic effects. Confocal images showed (a) the bright field under cell viewpoint with a confocal microscope and (b) the uptake of fluorescent FePt NPs. (c) An image merging (a) and (b). (d) Evaluation of tumor size over time and (e) visual images of the tumors in different treatment groups. This figure has been reproduced from ref. 69 with permission from ACS Publications, copyright 2017.
Fig. 6Modification of FePt NPs with organic molecules to increase biocompatibility and enhance the MRI signal. (a) Schematic showing the transformation of FePt nanocomposites with anti-Her2 monoclonal antibody. (b) Magnetic susceptibility analysis and (c) T2-weighted MRI results obtained with 3 mm and 12 nm FePt-anti-Her2 NPs. (d) T2-weighted MRI results with cysteine marking the concentration-dependent FePt NPs. (e) The r2 slope of the concentration-dependent curve of FePt NPs. This figure has been reproduced from ref. 45 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2018.