Comparison between Janus-Base Nanotubes and Carbon Nanotubes: A Review on Synthesis, Physicochemical Properties, and Applications

Abstract

Research interest in nanoscale biomaterials has continued to grow in the past few decades, driving the need to form families of nanomaterials grouped by similar physical or chemical properties. Nanotubes have occupied a unique space in this field, primarily due to their high versatility in a wide range of biomedical applications. Although similar in morphology, members of this nanomaterial family widely differ in synthesis methods, mechanical and physiochemical properties, and therapeutic applications. As this field continues to develop, it is important to provide insight into novel biomaterial developments and their overall impact on current technology and therapeutics. In this review, we aim to characterize and compare two members of the nanotube family: carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and janus-base nanotubes (JBNts). While CNTs have been extensively studied for decades, JBNts provide a fresh perspective on many therapeutic modalities bound by the limitations of carbon-based nanomaterials. Herein, we characterize the morphology, synthesis, and applications of CNTs and JBNts to provide a comprehensive comparison between these nanomaterial technologies.

Computation-aided Design of Rod-Shaped Janus Base Nanopieces for Improved Tissue Penetration and Therapeutics Delivery

“…The JBNp represents a groundbreaking class of materials, distinct from existing delivery systems in several key aspects. Unlike carbon nanotubes, JBNps are characterized by their unique DNA-mimicking chemical structure [18][19][20]. Furthermore, while they draw inspiration from DNA, JBNps diverge from DNA origami in that they do not comprise native DNA base pairs nor possess the conventional sugar-phosphate backbone; thereby, they are resistant to enzymatic cleavage [21,22].…”

In-Space Fabrication of Janus Base Nano-Matrix for Improved Assembly and Bioactivities

“…The JBNts incorporate proteins or RNAs between their bundles through positive/negative charge interactions. JBNps exhibit a rod-shaped morphology which is different from the spherical conventional delivery vehicles 7 . JBNms on the other hand are first-in-kind-injectable and multi-functional scaffolds that can be injected into tissue chips or “difficult-to-reach” locations in deep tissues.…”

Design of double functionalized carbon nanotube for amphotericin B and genetic material delivery

“…Transfection results showed that DFSWCNT can be applied as a vector for EGFP plasmid at DFSWCNT/EGFP plasmid mass ratio 2:1 or 5:1 which had high live transfected cells as well as high cell viability percentage. So, DFSWCNT could act as a vehicle in gene delivery systems [91][92][93] such as cationic niosomes [94][95][96] . The results of qualitative analysis of transfection efficiency via examination of HEK-293 cells under fluorescence microscopy 48 h after transfection can be observed in Fig.…”