Parameters governing gold nanoparticle X-ray radiosensitization of DNA in solution

Brun, Émilie; Sanche, Léon; Sicard-Roselli, Cécile

doi:10.1016/j.colsurfb.2009.03.025

Cited by 134 publications

(142 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

128

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On the one hand, we studied the different target medium soft tissues /water and on the other, the exclusion of secondary photons. In our method, maximum DEF was 2.0688 at 40KeV which was consistent with the previous Brun et al experimental method [24]. This dose enhancement could be due to the L-shell (11.9-14.4KeV) photoelectric effect.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Radiation dose enhancement of gold nanoparticle on different polymer gel dosimeters

Samuel

Srinivasan

Poopathi

2017

J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this work, we evaluated the dose enhancement produced by gold nanoparticle on ten different polymer gel dosimeters with a concentration of 7mgAu /g over a wide photon energy range of 15KeV to 20MeV and the results were compared with Soft tissue ICRU-44 produced. Our result showed that maximum DEF was observed at 40KeV, while it was almost negligible at higher energy range. Dose enhancement produced by AuNP on the gel dosimeter medium was varied compared to the reference ICRU-44 tissue, it was ± <1% for PAGAT, NIPAM, nPAG and ± <5% for PABIG, VIPAR, HEAG, BANG1, nMAG & ± <10% for MAGIC, ABAGIC gel dosimeters. Hence, we conclude that choosing the proper gel dosimeter is essential in dose enhancement study.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Theoretical dose enhancement factor was calculated using the following formula proposed by Corde et al [23]. The mass absorption coefficient was generated by using NIST WinXCOM [24]. A major part of the dose enhancement study was performed at 7mg/g concentration of gold.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiation dose enhancement of gold nanoparticle on different polymer gel dosimeters

Samuel

Srinivasan

Poopathi

2017

J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lin et al noticed a sudden increase at 50 keV due to shorter range of secondary electrons produced in water compared to electrons emitted from NP and concluded to a dose 15 times higher at 50 keV versus 250 keV (Lin et al, 2014). Considering experimental approaches and more precisely, in the keV region, using DNA as a probe, we demonstrated an unexpected shape of dose enhancement versus energy with a minimum around 40 keV where a maximum would be predicted only considering the ratio between mass energy absorption of gold and water (Brun et al, 2009;McMahon et al, 2011a). Maximal DNA degradation was highlighted at ca.…”

Section: Is There An Energy Dependency?mentioning

confidence: 76%

Actual questions raised by nanoparticle radiosensitization

Brun

Sicard-Roselli

2016

Radiation Physics and Chemistry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Subsequent studies have clarified that the degree of radiosensitization is influenced by radiation energy, drug concentration, particle size and cell type (2,6,11,19). Since malignant melanoma is a superficial radiation-resistant tumor, it may be a good indicator for the success of this treatment method; however, very few in vivo studies have been performed to investigate the effects in melanoma.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimal method of gold nanoparticle administration in melanoma‑bearing mice

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The present study assessed different methods of administering gold nanoparticles (GNPs) using different formulations to determine which of the methods achieved optimal radiosensitization. Cells from the B16F10 mouse melanoma cell line were implanted in the femoral area of mice, assigned to one of the eight following groups: i) Control; ii) intravenous (IV) injection of polyethylene glycol (PEG)-binding GNPs (Peg-GNPs) alone; iii) direct intratumoral (IT) injection of Peg-GNPs alone; iv) radiotherapy (RT)-alone; v) Peg-GNP IV + RT; vi) Peg-GNP IT + RT; vii) naked GNP (N-GNPs) IV + RT; and viii) N-GNP IT + RT. Injection volumes of the Peg-GNPs (particle size, 15 nm; dose, 2.8 mg/ml) and N-GNPs (particle size, 15 nm; dose, 200 mg Au/cc) were 0.3 and 0.2 ml per mouse, respectively, for IV and IT. The femoral area was irradiated with a single dose of 10 Gy. To evaluate the effects of GNPs, the current study measured the changes in the tumor volume ratio to the initial tumor volume over time and observed the survival rate. Administration of GNPs with RT did not improve the suppression of tumor growth or survival to a statistically significant extent. The administration of Peg-GNPs alone indicated a slight tumor suppressing effect at the early stage. The current study was not able to confirm the radiosensitization effect of GNPs in melanoma-bearing mice with tumors that were large in comparison to previous studies. Further research is required to validate the radiosensitizing effect on large tumors.

show abstract

Parameters governing gold nanoparticle X-ray radiosensitization of DNA in solution

Cited by 134 publications

References 48 publications

Radiation dose enhancement of gold nanoparticle on different polymer gel dosimeters

Radiation dose enhancement of gold nanoparticle on different polymer gel dosimeters

Actual questions raised by nanoparticle radiosensitization

Optimal method of gold nanoparticle administration in melanoma‑bearing mice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About