Skip to main content
. 2024 Oct 22;15(1):526–541. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2024.10.006

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Characterization of HFn@Fe/siGPX4. (A) Particle diameter distribution of HFn@Fe/siGPX4. (B) Zeta potential of HFn@Fe/siGPX4 at different pH. Data are presented as mean ± SD (n = 3). (C) TEM image of HFn in pH 7.4 buffer with negative staining using 2 % phosphotungstic acid. Scale bar = 20 nm. (D) HRTEM image of HFn@Fe/siGPX4 without negative staining. Scale bar = 200 nm. (E) EDS mapping of HFn@Fe/siGPX4. Scale bar = 100 nm. (F) Internalization efficiency of HFn@Fe/siGPX4 with different Fe3+ to siGPX4 ratios. Data are presented as mean ± SD (n = 3). (G) Internalization efficiency of HFn@Fe/siGPX4 with different siGPX4 to HFn ratios. Data are presented as mean ± SD (n = 3). (H) Gene encapsulation efficiency of different siGPX4 to HFn ratios detected by AGE. (I) RNase stability of naked siGPX4 and HFn@Fe/siGPX4, co-incubated with RNase A at 37 °C for 0, 2, 4, 6 and 8 h, detected by AGE. (J) Fe 2p XPS spectrum of HFn@Fe/siGPX4 after storing in PBS at 4 °C for 14 days. (K) EPR spectra showing the production of ·OH by Fe2++H2O2 and HFn@Fe/siGPX4+H2O2. ∗∗P < 0.01,∗∗∗P < 0.001, ∗∗∗∗P < 0.0001. ns, not significant.