Skip to main content
. 2015 Feb 15;5(5):515–529. doi: 10.7150/thno.10319

Figure 1.

Figure 1

(A-E). In vitro binding experiments for c(RGDyK)-MPIO. c(RGDyK)-MPIO binding to HUVEC-C following incubation with either SNAP (A) or PBS (C). Binding of RGD-MPIO was sparse to PBS-stimulated cells (B) and unconjugated MPIO binding to SNAP stimulated HUVEC-C (D) was significantly lower than that of c(RGDyK)-MPIO (white arrows). (E) Graph to show binding of c(RGDyK)-MPIO or unconjugated MPIO to HUVEC-C under static conditions , with or without blocking peptide (n = 2, 10 fields of view per coverslip, 40X magnification, P < 0.001). (F) c(RGDyK)-MPIO binding experiments under shear stress conditions. Graph to show comparison of c(RGDyK)-MPIO retention at different shear rates (n = 3 per condition, 10 fields of view, 400X magnification).