Near-Infrared-Activated Upconversion Nanoprobes for Sensitive Endogenous Zn2+ Detection and Selective On-Demand Photodynamic Therapy
Authors: Ping Hu
Ming-Yong Han
Lei Chen
Dongyuan Zhao
Qingsheng Wu
Lei Zhou
Ahmed Mohamed El-Toni
Rui Wang
Fan Zhang
Journal: Analytical Chemistry (2017)
Discipline: CHEMISTRY
Keywords: Photodynamic therapy; singlet oxygen; NIR-responsive; upconversion nanoprobe; Zn2+
Affiliations: Department
of Chemistry, Collaborative Innovation Center of Chemistry for Energy
Materials, State Key Laboratory of Molecular Engineering of Polymers, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, People’s Republic of China, State
Key Laboratory of High Performance Ceramics and Superfine Microstructures, Shanghai Institute of Ceramics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 200050, People’s Republic of China, Department
of Chemistry, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, People’s Republic of China, Institute of Materials Research and Engineering, 2 Fusionopolis Way, Singapore 138634, King
Abdullah Institute for Nanotechnology, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia

Abstract:  As a light-activated noninvasive cancer treatment paradigm, photodynamic therapy (PDT) has attracted extensive attention because of its high treatment efficacy and low side effects. Especially, spatiotemporal control of singlet oxygen (1O2) release is highly desirable for realizing on-demand PDT, which, however, still remains a huge challenge. To address this issue, a novel switchable near-infrared (NIR)-responsive upconversion nanoprobe has been designed and successfully applied for controlled PDT that can be optically activated by tumor-associated disruption of labile Zn2+ (denoted as Zn2+ hereafter) homeostasis stimuli. Upon NIR irradiation, this theranostic probe can not only quantitatively detect the intracellular endogenous Zn2+ in situ but also selectively generate a great deal of cytotoxic reactive oxygen species (ROS) for efficiently killing breast cancer cells under the activation of excessive endogenous Zn2+, so as to maximally avoid adverse damage to normal cells. This study aims to propose a new tumor-specific PDT paradigm and, more importantly, provide a new avenue of thought for efficient cancer theranostics based on our designed highly sensitive upconversion nanoprobes. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 Different groups, same HE staining images. ![file] , 
 Dear Zalmoxis Cardwellensis, thank you for concerning and helping us to point out the mistake. We apologize deeply for such an error. Upon receipt of your comment, we have responded immediately by sending the correct images and the raw data to the publisher waiting for the correction (Manuscript ID: ac-2020-026944, Title: Correction for Anal. Chem. 2017, 89, 3492u22123500. (DOI: 10.1021 acs.analchem.6b04548). Thank you again for helping us to find and correct this mistake. In the following research, we will be more carefully to avoid such mistake. Best Regards. , 
 Same mice in different groups ![file] , 
 #3 It seems to me that mice #1-5 werenu2019t the same one. Obvious differences could be found if the figures were enlarged and checked carefully. Mice #2-5 are obviously different (e.g., the apparent difference of the head in mice #4). Mice #1 looks very similar, but there still has some differences (indicated below). It happened several times in some biological labs since all mice and rats look the same. It is also possible that the subcutaneous tumor occasionally grew the same if the same person implanted the cancer cells. ![file] , 
 #4 Thanks very much for your reply. I said the same mice, not the same pictures. #1 #2 are obviously the same one (e.g., the same tumor, same ear, same stripe) . For #3 #4, although take pictures at different time (tumor grow up), the same ears, same blood vessels and same tumor morphology revealed the same mice. #5 although the pictures were taken at different angles, the same tumor shape without any doubt. I expect others to give objective evaluations. ![file] , 
 #1 Thanks for your reply. After carefully read your papers, I learned a lot. Besides the same images in this article, there are many same images in different articles. Plz see following: ![file] Furthermore, ![file] I sincerely hope the online correction and the author s statement could make up for all these  unconscious mistakes. Bests. , 
 Thank you so much for helping us to point out the mistakes. We apologize deeply for such an error. Different in vivo experiments of these two papers (Analytical Chemistry, 2017, 89, 3492-3500; Biomaterials, 2017, 141, 86-95.) were conducted by the first author inu00a0the sameu00a0period. With so many similar images (e.g., mice photos, H E images, etc.) stored, there was confusion when the data was exported, resulting in the images duplicated. The first author was the first time to do these in vivo experiments and didnu2019t organize them well. We apologize deeply for such an error and decide to repeat in vivo experiments with a responsible attitude. We will contact the Journal editorial office immediatelyu00a0after we repeat all experiments. We will be quite careful to pay attention to it in the future when we organize the experimental results. Best Regards. ,