Figures & data
Table 1. Particle size, zeta potential, and encapsulation efficiency of NPs are shown. Data represented as mean ± SD (n = 5).
Figure 2. In vitro release from the NPs, % cumulative GEM release versus time in PBS (pH 7.4) and PBS (pH 5.8). The data represent the mean ± SD (n = 6).
![Figure 2. In vitro release from the NPs, % cumulative GEM release versus time in PBS (pH 7.4) and PBS (pH 5.8). The data represent the mean ± SD (n = 6).](/cms/asset/9c98401a-6c42-48c3-be86-b1ed07d9497f/ianb_a_1260578_f0002_c.jpg)
Figure 3. Graph showing % fluorescent cells after 3 h incubation with PEG-FITC-NPs and FA-PEG-FITC-NPs. The data represent mean ± SD (n = 6).
![Figure 3. Graph showing % fluorescent cells after 3 h incubation with PEG-FITC-NPs and FA-PEG-FITC-NPs. The data represent mean ± SD (n = 6).](/cms/asset/a48b2d1f-6521-4436-91a7-5e2cf4eda4e7/ianb_a_1260578_f0003_c.jpg)
Figure 4. The fluorescence microscopy photomicrographs showing uptake of dye (FITC)-loaded NPs (FITC-NPs) in A549 cell line. The FITC-labeled FA-PEG-FITC-FANPs showed greater uptake in comparison with free FITC, PEG-FITC-NPs.
![Figure 4. The fluorescence microscopy photomicrographs showing uptake of dye (FITC)-loaded NPs (FITC-NPs) in A549 cell line. The FITC-labeled FA-PEG-FITC-FANPs showed greater uptake in comparison with free FITC, PEG-FITC-NPs.](/cms/asset/10053922-57d3-4159-88de-9be1f87a1516/ianb_a_1260578_f0004_c.jpg)
Figure 5. The toxicity of different concentrations of plain GEM, PEG-GEM-NPs, and FA-PEG-GEM-NPs was determined when these formulations were incubated with A549 cell for 48 h. The data represent mean ± SD (n = 6) different formulations.
![Figure 5. The toxicity of different concentrations of plain GEM, PEG-GEM-NPs, and FA-PEG-GEM-NPs was determined when these formulations were incubated with A549 cell for 48 h. The data represent mean ± SD (n = 6) different formulations.](/cms/asset/90272f00-0132-4802-8275-1d5fbabd07aa/ianb_a_1260578_f0005_c.jpg)
Figure 6. Plasma profiles of free drug, PEG-GEM-NPs, and FA-PEG-GEM-NPs at different time intervals. The data represent mean ± SD (n = 3).
![Figure 6. Plasma profiles of free drug, PEG-GEM-NPs, and FA-PEG-GEM-NPs at different time intervals. The data represent mean ± SD (n = 3).](/cms/asset/37a6bdc3-e890-416e-8445-cd9f6fab6890/ianb_a_1260578_f0006_c.jpg)
Table 2. Pharmacokinetic parameters in serum of Balb/c mice time. The data represented as mean ± SD (n = 3).
Figure 7. The bio-distribution of free GEM, GEM-loaded onto PEG-GEM-NPs, and FA-PEG-GEM-NPs in different deep-seated tissues at different time intervals. The data represent mean ± SD (n = 3).
![Figure 7. The bio-distribution of free GEM, GEM-loaded onto PEG-GEM-NPs, and FA-PEG-GEM-NPs in different deep-seated tissues at different time intervals. The data represent mean ± SD (n = 3).](/cms/asset/41bd7272-c6c7-47fd-a251-12da47693cf5/ianb_a_1260578_f0007_c.jpg)
Figure 8. Assessment of anti-tumor activity in tumor-bearing animal model by the estimation of tumor burden. The anti-tumor activity of free GEM, PEG-GEM-NPs, and FA-PEG-GEM-NPs on days, 3, 7, and 11. The data represent mean ± SD (n = 3).
![Figure 8. Assessment of anti-tumor activity in tumor-bearing animal model by the estimation of tumor burden. The anti-tumor activity of free GEM, PEG-GEM-NPs, and FA-PEG-GEM-NPs on days, 3, 7, and 11. The data represent mean ± SD (n = 3).](/cms/asset/69ebaebe-f7e3-471b-925b-7a9c925f6428/ianb_a_1260578_f0008_c.jpg)
Table 3. The toxicity profile of plane GEM, PEG-GEM-NPs, and FA-PEG-GEM-NPs. The data represented as mean ± SD (n = 3).