Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Photosensitizer-Conjugated Hexagonal Upconverting Nanoparticles

Nahorniak, Mykhailo; Oleksa, Viktoriia; Vasylyshyn, Taras; Pop‐Georgievski, Ognen; Rydvalová, Eliška; Filipová, Marcela; Horák, Daniel

doi:10.3390/nano13091535

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This work is a continuation of our previous papers, in which we investigated the design and properties of small and large surface-engineered UCNPs with emphasis on their colloidal and chemical stability [39][40][41]. In this report, we compared the two types of UCNPs, small spherical (S-UCNPs) and large hexagonal (L-UCNPs), prepared by hightemperature coprecipitation of the respective lanthanide chlorides depending on the reaction conditions (Figure 1), in terms of morphology, cytotoxicity, and detection of DNA damage by the comet assay.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…In this report, we compared the two types of UCNPs, small spherical (S-UCNPs) and large hexagonal (L-UCNPs), prepared by hightemperature coprecipitation of the respective lanthanide chlorides depending on the reaction conditions (Figure 1), in terms of morphology, cytotoxicity, and detection of DNA damage by the comet assay. While the spherical particles were 25 nm in diameter, their hexagonal counterparts were ~120 nm in size; both types had a relatively narrow particle size distribution (Ð = 1.01), which is essential for biomedical applications as it allows control of particle properties and reproducibility of results [39]. Moreover, three non-toxic biocompatible polymer coatings, namely Ale-PEG, Ale-P(DMA-AEA), and PMVEMA, were selected to ensure the colloidal stability of the particles in media [40].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The toxicity escalates with higher dissolution rates. Therefore, it is necessary to encapsulate UCNPs with biocompatible polymers to mitigate these effects [39,40]. All types of selected coatings were shown to decrease particle degradation in different aqueous media, with the exception, of PMVEMA, which slightly increased particles' dissolution in water.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Toxicity of Large and Small Surface-Engineered Upconverting Nanoparticles for In Vitro and In Vivo Bioapplications

Machová Urdzíková,

Mareková,

Vasylyshyn

et al. 2024

IJMS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, spherical or hexagonal NaYF4:Yb,Er nanoparticles (UCNPs) with sizes of 25 nm (S-UCNPs) and 120 nm (L-UCNPs) were synthesized by high-temperature coprecipitation and subsequently modified with three kinds of polymers. These included poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) and poly(N,N-dimethylacrylamide-co-2-aminoethylacrylamide) [P(DMA-AEA)] terminated with an alendronate anchoring group, and poly(methyl vinyl ether-co-maleic acid) (PMVEMA). The internalization of nanoparticles by rat mesenchymal stem cells (rMSCs) and C6 cancer cells (rat glial tumor cell line) was visualized by electron microscopy and the cytotoxicity of the UCNPs and their leaches was measured by the real-time proliferation assay. The comet assay was used to determine the oxidative damage of the UCNPs. An in vivo study on mice determined the elimination route and potential accumulation of UCNPs in the body. The results showed that the L- and S-UCNPs were internalized into cells in the lumen of endosomes. The proliferation assay revealed that the L-UCNPs were less toxic than S-UCNPs. The viability of rMSCs incubated with particles decreased in the order S-UCNP@Ale-(PDMA-AEA) > S-UCNP@Ale-PEG > S-UCNPs > S-UCNP@PMVEMA. Similar results were obtained in C6 cells. The oxidative damage measured by the comet assay showed that neat L-UCNPs caused more oxidative damage to rMSCs than all coated UCNPs while no difference was observed in C6 cells. An in vivo study indicated that L-UCNPs were eliminated from the body via the hepatobiliary route; L-UCNP@Ale-PEG particles were almost eliminated from the liver 96 h after intravenous application. Pilot fluorescence imaging confirmed the limited in vivo detection capabilities of the nanoparticles.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Toxicity of Large and Small Surface-Engineered Upconverting Nanoparticles for In Vitro and In Vivo Bioapplications

Machová Urdzíková,

Mareková,

Vasylyshyn

et al. 2024

IJMS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison of the Differences between Two-Photon Excitation, Upconversion, and Conventional Photodynamic Therapy on Cancers in In Vitro and In Vivo Studies

Xu,

Law,

Leung

2024

Pharmaceuticals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a minimally invasive treatment for several diseases. It combines light energy with a photosensitizer (PS) to destroy the targeted cells or tissues. A PS itself is a non-toxic substance, but it becomes toxic to the target cells through the activation of light at a specific wavelength. There are some limitations of PDT, although it has been used in clinical studies for a long time. Two-photon excitation (TPE) and upconversion (UC) for PDT have been recently developed. A TPE nanoparticle-based PS combines the advantages of TPE and nanotechnology that has emerged as an attractive therapeutic agent for near-infrared red (NIR) light-excited PDT, whilst UC is also used for the NIR light-triggered drug release, activation of ‘caged’ imaging, or therapeutic molecules during PDT process for the diagnosis, imaging, and treatment of cancers. Methods: Nine electronic databases were searched, including WanFang Data, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science, Springer Link, SciFinder, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), without any language constraints. TPE and UCNP were evaluated to determine if they had different effects from PDT on cancers. All eligible studies were analyzed and summarized in this review. Results: TPE-PDT and UCNP-PDT have a high cell or tissue penetration ability through the excitation of NIR light to activate PS molecules. This is much better than the conventional PDT induced by visible or ultraviolet (UV) light. These studies showed a greater PDT efficacy, which was determined by enhanced generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reduced cell viability, as well as inhibited abnormal cell growth for the treatment of cancers. Conclusions: Conventional PDT involves Type I and Type II reactions for the generation of ROS in the treatment of cancer cells, but there are some limitations. Recently, TPE-PDT and UCNP-PDT have been developed to overcome these problems with the help of nanotechnology in in vitro and in vivo studies.

show abstract

Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Photosensitizer-Conjugated Hexagonal Upconverting Nanoparticles

Cited by 2 publications

References 35 publications

Toxicity of Large and Small Surface-Engineered Upconverting Nanoparticles for In Vitro and In Vivo Bioapplications

Toxicity of Large and Small Surface-Engineered Upconverting Nanoparticles for In Vitro and In Vivo Bioapplications

Comparison of the Differences between Two-Photon Excitation, Upconversion, and Conventional Photodynamic Therapy on Cancers in In Vitro and In Vivo Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About