Photoporation Using Carbon Nanotubes for Intracellular Delivery of Molecules and Its Relationship to Photoacoustic Pressure

Abstract

Exposure of carbon-black (CB) nanoparticles to near-infrared nanosecond-pulsed laser energy can cause efficient intracellular delivery of molecules by photoporation. Here, cellular bioeffects of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) and single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) are compared to those of CB nanoparticles. In DU145 prostate-cancer cells, photoporation using CB nanoparticles transitions from (i) cells with molecular uptake to (ii) nonviable cells to (iii) fragmented cells with increasing laser fluence, as seen previously. In contrast, photoporation with MWCNTs causes uptake and, at higher fluence, fragmentation, but does not generate nonviable cells, and SWCNTs show little evidence of bioeffects, except at extreme laser conditions, which generate nonviable cells and fragmentation, but no significant uptake. These different behaviors cannot be explained by photoacoustic pressure output from the particles. All particle types emit a single, ≈100 ns, mostly positive-pressure pulse that increases in amplitude with laser fluence. Different particle types emit different peak pressures, which are highest for SWCNTs, followed by CB nanoparticles and then MWCNTs, which does not correlate with cellular bioeffects between different particle types. This study concludes that cellular bioeffects depend strongly on the type of carbon nanoparticle used during photoporation and that photoacoustic pressure is unlikely to play a direct mechanistic role in the observed bioeffects.

Cellular bioeffects of photoporation depend on laser energy and carbon nanoparticle type. Nanosecond-pulsed laser irradiation yields different cellular bioeffects for carbon-black nanoparticles, multi-walled carbon nanotubes, or single-walled carbon nanotubes. Energy mechanisms associated with multi-walled nanotubes produce the highest intracellular uptake with high cell viability. Lack of bioeffects correlation with photoacoustic pressure suggests it may not play a mechanistic role.

http://ift.tt/2jbDHrC