Additional file 1 of Tumor microenvironment responsive nano-herb and CRISPR delivery system for synergistic chemotherapy and immunotherapy
Creators: name: Jia, Yuanyuan
name: Yao, Yuhui
name: Fan, Lingyao
name: Huang, Qiqing
name: Wei, Guohao
name: Shen, Peiliang
name: Sun, Jia
name: Zhu, Gaoshuang
name: Sun, Zhaorui
name: Zhu, Chuandong
name: Han, Xin
Publisher: name: figshare
Year: 2024
Subjects: subject: Space Science
subject: Molecular Biology
subject: Pharmacology
subject: Biological Sciences not elsewhere classified
subject: Information Systems not elsewhere classified
subject: Cancer
subject: Plant Biology
subject: FOS: Biological sciences

description: Supplementary Material 1. Additional file 1 of Tumor Microenvironment Responsive Nano-herb and CRISPR Delivery System for Synergistic Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy. Fig. S1. TEM images of M(I+D)PH nanoparticles. Fig. S2. Hydrodynamic size distribution of M(I+D)PH in aqueous suspension measured by the DLS method. Fig. S3. The UV-vis spectra of H-MnO2. Fig. S4. Drugs release profiles from M(I+D) PH nanoparticles in different conditions within 24 h (n=3). Fig. S5. Agarose gel electrophoresis of M(I+D)PH compared to M(I+D)P. Fig. S6. 4T1 cells were treated with indicated groups and GFP-positive cells quantified using flow cytometry. Fig. S7. In vitro cytotoxicity of H-MnO2@HA nanoparticles at various concentrations in 4T1 cells for 24 h. Fig. S8. The statistical analysis of gene editing efficiency. Fig. S9. The statistical analysis of relative expression of PTPN2. Fig. S10. In vitro cytotoxicity of M(I+D)PH nanoparticles at various concentrations in 4T1 cells for 24 h. Fig. S11. The statistical analysis of apoptosis rate. Fig. S12. Representative photographs of colony formation derived from cells under indicated treatments. Fig. S13. Quantification of Calcein-AM (A). Quantification of PI (B). Fig. S14. Tumor cell viability inhibition and synergistic therapy with M(I+D)H treatment. The representative fluorescent images of cell viability were shown with different treatments in human breast cancer cells. Green, CFSE; Red, PI. Fig. S15. (A) Morphological changes of WT and ADR cells were observed under microscope. (B) Drug resistance to DOX treatment in WT and ADR cells. (C) Morphological changes of ADR cells were observed under indicated treatments. (D) Cell viability of ADR cells was quantified with PBS or M(I+D)PH treatments. Fig. S16. Hemolysis photographs and analysis of red blood cells with different treatments. Fig. S17. Biodistribution of M(I+D)PH via intravenously injection in mice determined using ICP-MS. Fig. S18. The statistical analysis of gene editing efficiency. Fig. S19. The statistical analysis of relative expression of PTPN2. Fig. S20. Blood routine examination and blood biochemistry data of healthy female mice at day 1, 3, and 7 after iv. injection of MH. Fig. S21. H&amp;E staining of major organs and tumor harvested from mice in different groups. Scale bar: 200 µm. Fig. S22. Antitumor immune effects in the spleen. Representative flow cytometry plots and the quantitative analysis of CD3+ and CD8+ T cells (A) Matured DCs (B) and matured Treg cells (C) in tumor tissues after different treatments. Table: Summary of full name and abbreviation.