nnm-2021-0286 - Supporting Information
Figure S1. The TEM images of CuS nanoparticles
Figure S2. The TEM images of CuS@mSiO2 nanoparticles.
Figure S3. The size distribution histogram of CuS@mSiO2@MnO2 NCs
Figure S4. The hydrodynamic size of CuS@mSiO2 nanoparticles.
Figure S5. The surface potential of the CuS@mSiO2 nanoparticles.
Figure S6. The signal to noise ratio (SNR) of tumor before and after CuS@mSiO2@MnO2 injection
Figure S7. Radiosensitization effect of nanocomposites in vitro. (A) The relative cell viability of Hela cells upon indicated treatments. 6Gy X-ray was applied. (B) The surviving fraction of cells under incremental dose of X-ray irradiation with or without NCs (C) The surviving fraction of cells after receiving indicated treatments for 14 days after 6 Gy of X-ray irradiation. * P<0.01.
Figure S8. The uptaken of DOX by cancer cell with or without X-ray irradiation. The intensity of red fluorescence reflected the capacity of CuS@SiO2@MnO2 to release DOX.
Figure S9. Statistical analysis of TUNEL staining in different groups.
Figure S10. The expressions of Ki67 were examined by immunohistochemistry, the mean optical density is quantified by Image J software.
Figure S11. The expressions of GPX4 in different groups were examined by immunohistochemistry, the mean optical density is quantified by Image J software.
Figure S12. The biosafety of NCs and NCs/DOX (A) The representative images of major organs in mice after injection with PBS, NCs, NCs/DOX, respectively.
Table S1. Radiobiological parameters in different groups.
Abbreviations: D0 refers to the mean lethal dose; Dq refer to quasi-threshold dose; N represents the extrapolation number; SER: sensitization enhancement ratios