Biodegradable black phosphorus-based nanospheres for in vivo photothermal cancer therapy
Authors: Hanhan Xie
Paul K Chu
Hao Huang
Han Zhang
Zhibin Li
Zhengbo Sun
Quanlan Xiao
Yanhua Xu
Huaiyu Wang
Yuetao Zhao
Jundong Shao
Xue-Feng Yu
Journal: Nature Communications (2016)
Discipline: Multidisciplinary
Keywords: Photothermal therapy; PTT; nanoagents; biodegradability; toxicity
Affiliations: Institute of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen 518055, China., SZU-NUS Collaborative Innovation Center for Optoelectronic Science and Technology, and Key Laboratory of Optoelectronic Devices and Systems of Ministry of Education and Guangdong Province, College of Optoelectronic Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China., Department of Physics and Materials Science, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong 999077, China.

Abstract:  Photothermal therapy (PTT) offers many advantages such as high efficiency and minimal invasiveness, but clinical adoption of PTT nanoagents have been stifled by unresolved concerns such as the biodegradability as well as long-term toxicity. Herein, poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) loaded with black phosphorus quantum dots (BPQDs) is processed by an emulsion method to produce biodegradable BPQDs/PLGA nanospheres. The hydrophobic PLGA not only isolates the interior BPQDs from oxygen and water to enhance the photothermal stability, but also control the degradation rate of the BPQDs. The in vitro and in vivo experiments demonstrate that the BPQDs/PLGA nanospheres have inappreciable toxicity and good biocompatibility, and possess excellent PTT efficiency and tumour targeting ability as evidenced by highly efficient tumour ablation under near infrared (NIR) laser illumination. These BP-based nanospheres combine biodegradability and biocompatibility with high PTT efficiency, thus promising high clinical potential. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 Figure 4C. Brought to my attention by a reader. * Yellow boxes: Two of the MCF7 panels appear to overlap. ![file] , 
 Figure 1f ( BPQDs PLGA NSs ) and Figure S5B ( After irradiation ) appear to show an overlap. Could the authors please clarify if these are showing the same experiment? ![file] , 
 Correction, June 2021: https: www.nature.com articles s41467-021-23210-z  *This Article contains an error in Fig. 4c and Supplementary Figs. 5b and 6d. In Fig. 4c, the panel representing the MCF7 cells at 20u2009ppm was inadvertently duplicated. The correct version of Fig. 4c is [...] In Supplementary Fig. 5b, the two SEM images for u201cAfter irradiationu201d and u201c1 weeku201d were not measured on the same batch as the other two SEM images in the figure representing u201c4 weeksu201d and u201c8 weeksu201d. The correct version of Supplementary Fig. 5b is [...] In Supplementary Fig. 6d, the panel representing BPQDs PLGA NSs at 20u2009ppm was inadvertently duplicated . The correct version of Supplementary Fig. 6d is [...] The errors hasve [sic] not been corrected in the PDF or HTML versions of the Article.* , 
 Unfortunately, there are still several duplications left. I gave the figures in this paper another look and found additional concerns, not yet addressed in the Correction. Figure 4C: * Yellow boxes: Two overlapping panels (addressed in the Correction) * Pink boxes: Two overlapping panels (not yet addressed). ![file] , 
 The Supplementary Figure 6 duplication, addressed in the Correction, is worth showing here as well. I have marked that with cyan boxes. ![file] , 
 Figure 5C might also have some duplications, as found by ImageTwin. In most cases the same specimens appear to be representing different time points and or experimental conditions. ![file] ,