This Title All WIREs
How to cite this WIREs title:
WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol
Impact Factor: 7.689

Understanding the mechanisms of silica nanoparticles for nanomedicine

Full article on Wiley Online Library:   HTML PDF

Can't access this content? Tell your librarian.

Abstract As a consequence of recent progression in biomedicine and nanotechnology, nanomedicine has emerged rapidly as a new discipline with extensive application of nanomaterials in biology, medicine, and pharmacology. Among the various nanomaterials, silica nanoparticles (SNPs) are particularly promising in nanomedicine applications due to their large specific surface area, adjustable pore size, facile surface modification, and excellent biocompatibility. This paper reviews the synthesis of SNPs and their recent usage in drug delivery, biomedical imaging, photodynamic and photothermal therapy, and other applications. In addition, the possible adverse effects of SNPs in nanomedicine applications are reviewed from reported in vitro and in vivo studies. Finally, the potential opportunities and challenges for the future use of SNPs are discussed. This article is categorized under: Nanotechnology Approaches to Biology > Nanoscale Systems in Biology Therapeutic Approaches and Drug Discovery > Emerging Technologies
(a) SEM image of MCM‐41 mesoporous silica nanoparticles; (b) TEM image of MCM‐41 (Reprinted with permission from Li et al. (2012). Copyright 2012 Royal Society of Chemistry)
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Fluorescence image, DAPI (blue), Col1a1, OSC, and OSP staining (all green) of MC3T3‐E1 cells exposure to 14% Sr‐BGNPs and their ionic release products (Sr‐BGNP concentration at 250 μg/ml) in basal and osteogenic conditions (3‐week culture period). Scale bar 150 mm (Reprinted with permission from Naruphontjirakul et al. (2018). Copyright 2018 Elsevier)
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Percentage wound contraction for control (untreated wound), collagen and Mu‐SM collagen treatment. Significant difference in the efficacy was observed throughout the treatment duration for both collagen and Mu‐SM loaded collagen compared to the untreated group (Reprinted with permission from Perumal et al. (2014). Copyright 2014 Elsevier)
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Quorum sensing in Gram‐negative bacteria. LuxI protein produces a signaling molecule termed as acyl homoserine lactones (AHL). With increasing the population density, an increase in the concentration of AHL is also observed. When it reaches to a certain threshold level, AHLs enter the cell and subsequently bind to LuxR‐type proteins to activate the expression of target genes (Reprinted with permission from Hayat et al. (2019). Copyright 2019 Future Science Group)
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
(a) Tumor growth curves of mice with different treatments. (b) Representative photographs of tumors obtained from mice at day 14 after different treatments. (c) H&E staining (top row) and CD31 staining (bottom row) of tumor slices at day 2 in mice of each group after treatment (Reprinted with permission from Yu et al. (2017). Copyright 2017 Elsevier)
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Schematic illustration of fabrication of bMSN (CpG/Ce6)‐neoantigen and mechanism of bMSN (CpG/Ce6)‐neoantigen nano‐vaccines for PDT‐enhanced cancer immunotherapy (Reprinted with permission from Xu et al. (2019). Copyright 2019 ACS Publications)
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Macrophage cell tracking PET imaging via bioorthogonal18F‐labeling in a tumor model. (a,b) Three‐dimensional reconstruction (upper) and transverse section (lower) combined PET‐CT images of 18F‐labeled azide ([18F]2; 11.1 MBq) in U87 MG tumor‐bearing mice treated with only normal RAW 264.7 cells (2 × 106 cells) 3 days earlier (control study; a) or in mice treated with DBCO‐MSNs‐RAW cells (2 × 106 cells; 0.1 ng Si/cell) 1, 3, 6, or 8 days earlier (cell tracking study; b), recorded 1 hr after injection of [18F]2. T = tumor, and (c) standardized uptake values (SUVs) in tumor area. (d) Immunofluorescence analysis of RAW264.7 cells in tumor tissue obtained from U87 MG tumor‐bearing mice treated with DBCO‐MSNs‐RAW cells 3 and 8 days earlier. (e) Biodistribution of [18F]2 inU87MG tumor‐bearing mice treated with DBCO‐MSNs‐RAW cells (cell tracking; white bar) or only RAW 264.7 cells 3 days earlier (control; gray bar), measured 1 hr after injection (Reprinted with permission from Jeong et al. (2019). Copyright 2019 Elsevier)
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Schematic illustration shows the intracellular ROS therapy and chemotherapy of DOX‐loaded [email protected] system triggered by pH in cancer cells (Reprinted with permission from Singh et al. (2019). Copyright 2019 ACS Publications)
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Schematic illustration (a) and TEM images of silica cross‐linked F108 micelles (b). Blood‐circulation time of silica cross‐linked F108 micelles determined by ICP‐OES (c) (Reprinted with permission from Niu et al. (2017). Copyright 2017 Royal Society of Chemistry; Zhao et al. (2016). Copyright 2016 Wiley)
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
TEM images: (a) molar reagent ratio, (b) the dopant to silica networks, (c) TEM images of MSNs prepared from TEOS/AEAPTMS with 12, 29,47, and 116 mM mesitylene (TMB), using a constant ammonium hydroxide concentration (13.8 mM) and stirring rate (650 rpm) (Reprinted with permission from Huang, Teng, Chen, Tang, and He (2010). Copyright 2010 Springer; Sun et al. (2017). Copyright 2017. Nature Publishing Group; Yang, Gong, Qian, et al. (2015). Copyright 2015 Elsevier)
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]

Browse by Topic

Therapeutic Approaches and Drug Discovery > Emerging Technologies
Nanotechnology Approaches to Biology > Nanoscale Systems in Biology

Access to this WIREs title is by subscription only.

Recommend to Your
Librarian Now!

The latest WIREs articles in your inbox

Sign Up for Article Alerts