Figures & data
Figure 1. Physicochemical characterization of nanoparticles (A–D) and cytotoxicity study in vitro (E–G) (A): GEF-NPs particle size distribution; (B): Zeta Potential of GEF-NPs; (C): AFM image of GEF-NPs (scale bar =50 nm); (D): In vitro drug release of GEF-NPs and free GEF. Data are shown as means ± SD (n = 3). Cytotoxicity study in vitro: 24-h MTT and 48-h MTT was shown in Figure E and F, respectively. (G): The toxicity of PCEC to A549.
![Figure 1. Physicochemical characterization of nanoparticles (A–D) and cytotoxicity study in vitro (E–G) (A): GEF-NPs particle size distribution; (B): Zeta Potential of GEF-NPs; (C): AFM image of GEF-NPs (scale bar =50 nm); (D): In vitro drug release of GEF-NPs and free GEF. Data are shown as means ± SD (n = 3). Cytotoxicity study in vitro: 24-h MTT and 48-h MTT was shown in Figure E and F, respectively. (G): The toxicity of PCEC to A549.](/cms/asset/c23973c5-b2bd-4f9d-ab4a-d925f43dd72e/idrd_a_1384862_f0001_c.jpg)
Table 1. Characteristics of GEF-NPs.
Figure 2. In vitro cellular uptake of PCEC polymeric micelles (A–C), example of each group mice on PET imaging (D–F) and evaluation of antitumor efficiency(G–I) A: blank control; B: The mixture of Coumarin-6 and PCEC; C:Coumarin-6-labeled PCEC nanoparticles (×400); (D):NS group, (E):GEF group, (F):GEF-NPs group; Evaluation of antitumor efficiency in vivo (G) and body weight changes (H) after treatment on A549 tumor-bearing nude BALB/c mice. Each point represents the mean of tumor size ± SD (6≤N ≤ 12). (I): The fraction survival of each group.
![Figure 2. In vitro cellular uptake of PCEC polymeric micelles (A–C), example of each group mice on PET imaging (D–F) and evaluation of antitumor efficiency(G–I) A: blank control; B: The mixture of Coumarin-6 and PCEC; C:Coumarin-6-labeled PCEC nanoparticles (×400); (D):NS group, (E):GEF group, (F):GEF-NPs group; Evaluation of antitumor efficiency in vivo (G) and body weight changes (H) after treatment on A549 tumor-bearing nude BALB/c mice. Each point represents the mean of tumor size ± SD (6≤N ≤ 12). (I): The fraction survival of each group.](/cms/asset/e0230732-8a7a-4f33-8db2-e6ae541130da/idrd_a_1384862_f0002_c.jpg)
Figure 3. The tumor tissue apoptotic distribution (A–E) and cell-cycle distribution (F–J): (A–D): tumor tissue apoptotic distribution of different therapeutic effects on A549 tumor-bearing nude BALB/c mice; (E) Quantitative analysis of the proportion of cells in each group tumor tissue apoptotic distribution. (F–I): cell-cycle distribution of different therapeutic effects on A549 tumor-bearing nude BALB/c mice; (J): Quantitative analysis of the proportion of cells in each group cell-cycle distribution.
![Figure 3. The tumor tissue apoptotic distribution (A–E) and cell-cycle distribution (F–J): (A–D): tumor tissue apoptotic distribution of different therapeutic effects on A549 tumor-bearing nude BALB/c mice; (E) Quantitative analysis of the proportion of cells in each group tumor tissue apoptotic distribution. (F–I): cell-cycle distribution of different therapeutic effects on A549 tumor-bearing nude BALB/c mice; (J): Quantitative analysis of the proportion of cells in each group cell-cycle distribution.](/cms/asset/d1265134-df5d-49fd-9fb9-85364b0a3338/idrd_a_1384862_f0003_c.jpg)
Figure 4. Side effects evaluation: H&E staining sections of skin and lung of each group (Original magnification, ×200): (A): The level of TGF-β1 in blood; (B): The content of HYP in lung tissue. (C): The level of IL-6 in blood. *p < .05 and **p < .01.
![Figure 4. Side effects evaluation: H&E staining sections of skin and lung of each group (Original magnification, ×200): (A): The level of TGF-β1 in blood; (B): The content of HYP in lung tissue. (C): The level of IL-6 in blood. *p < .05 and **p < .01.](/cms/asset/6f576872-2cef-4c73-b7c4-7d4409be03a4/idrd_a_1384862_f0004_c.jpg)
Figure 5. Representative images of immunohistochemistry analysis of each group for the evaluation of ki67, CD31 and EGFR. (Original magnification, ×400) The quantification immunohistochemistry analysis of each group for the evaluation of ki67, CD31 and EGFR were Figure A–C respectively. *p < .05 and **p < .01.
![Figure 5. Representative images of immunohistochemistry analysis of each group for the evaluation of ki67, CD31 and EGFR. (Original magnification, ×400) The quantification immunohistochemistry analysis of each group for the evaluation of ki67, CD31 and EGFR were Figure A–C respectively. *p < .05 and **p < .01.](/cms/asset/f956d60b-a617-44cd-9e3f-0c80254cb1d8/idrd_a_1384862_f0005_c.jpg)