Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Nov 25.
Published in final edited form as: Dalton Trans. 2020 Nov 25;49(45):16419–16424. doi: 10.1039/d0dt01182g

Responsive Fluorinated Nanoemulsions for 19F Magnetic Resonance Detection of Cellular Hypoxia

Rahul T Kadakia 1,, Da Xie 1,, Hongyu Guo 1, Bailey Bouley 1, Mung Yu 1, Emily L Que 1
PMCID: PMC7688550  NIHMSID: NIHMS1614343  PMID: 32692342

Abstract

We report two highly fluorinated Cu-based imaging agents, CuL1 and CuL2, for detecting cellular hypoxia as nanoemulsion formulations. Both complexes retained their initial quenched 19F MR signals due to paramagnetic Cu2+; however, both complexes displayed a large signal increase when the complex was reduced. DLS studies showed that the CuL1 nanoemulsion (NE CuL1) had a hydrodiameter of approximately 100 nm and that it was stable for four weeks post-preparation. Hypoxic cells incubated with NE CuL1 showed that 40% of the Cu2+ taken up was reduced in low oxygen environments.

Graphical Abstract

graphic file with name nihms-1614343-f0005.jpg

A highly fluorinated Cu2+ complex for 19F MR sensing of cellular hypoxia as nanoemulsion formulations.

Introduction

Hypoxia in solid tumor cancers results from inadequate O2 delivery to these rapidly dividing cells, resulting in O2 deficiency. This leads to increased levels of hypoxia inducible factor (HIF-1), which regulates the cells’ ability to adapt to the new environment.1, 2 If left untreated, the cells can become resistant to chemotherapy and cause malignant proliferation.36 Therefore, early diagnosis of hypoxic cancer cells is vital for tumor excision to avoid metastasis and secondary malignant tumor growths. An additional effect of hypoxia is a more reducing intracellular environment, which can be used for selective targeting of therapeutic and diagnostic agents. Among the imaging agents that have been developed to target hypoxia,714 64CuATSM (ATSM = diacetyl-bis(N4-methylthiosemicarbazone)) has been used as a positron emission tomography (PET) agent that functions via reduction of the Cu2+ complex and retention in hypoxic cells, however this agent requires the use of radioactive materials.15, 16

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most widely used imaging modality to diagnose cancer and can be used to image whole organisms with high depth penetration without employing ionizing radiation. However, early tumor detection is difficult as the spatial and contrast resolution between cancerous growths and surrounding normal tissue is poor. As an emerging alternative, 19F MRI can be used as there is no detectable fluorine in the body and, thus, any signal present will originate from exogenous agents. Moreover, the 19F nucleus provides comparable characteristics: 100% isotopic abundancy, nuclear spin of ½, 83% MR signal receptivity compared to 1H, and further, the carbon-fluorine bond is biostable.17

Previously, we have demonstrated the use of fluorinated CuATSM imaging agents as “turn-on” probes for cellular hypoxia.79 These agents use paramagnetic Cu2+, which serves as a powerful paramagnetic relaxation enhancement (PRE) source that attenuates 19F MR signal due to T2 shortening.79, 1721 Following reduction to Cu+ in hypoxic cells and subsequent demetallation, the 19F signal is fully restored, furnishing a signal turn-on in this environment. For these agents to be a viable option for in vivo studies, the need for elevated fluorine concentration on individual probes increases, to allow an overall brighter MRI signal. Unfortunately, the hydrophobic CuATSM scaffold and fluorine atoms decrease aqueous solubility. Therefore, synthesizing a highly fluorinated CuATSM complex also requires a new delivery formulation: nanoemulsions.

Nanoemulsions are nano-sized liquid particles that consist of an oil droplet core, which assists in the dissolution of hydrophobic molecules, and a layer of emulsifier, which is necessary to reduce excess interfacial energy and prevent aggregation (Figure 1).22, 23 Common emulsifiers are amphiphilic molecules such as phospholipids and pegylated molecules.24 Importantly, a number of 19F MRI nanoemulsion formulations have been employed to deliver perfluorinated carbon-based agents for in vivo imaging.2529 By encapsulating the prepared Cu2+-based probes into nanoemulsions, we envisioned that the complexes would maintain high fluorine spin density while staying miscible within the aqueous environment. Herein, we present two CuATSM-derived complexes, CuL1 and CuL2 (Figure 1), with 18 and 36 equivalent fluorines, respectively. The CuL1 complex forms stable nanoemulsions that display “turn-on” in 19F MR modalities upon reduction, and preferential signal turn-on in hypoxic cells.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

(A) Chemical structures for CuL1 and CuL2. (B) Oil-in-water- nanoemulsion composition.

Results and discussion

Structural characterization

CuL1 and CuL2 incorporate multiple perfluoro-tert-butyl units to confer high fluorine density and a glucosamine moiety to tune the overall lipophilicity of the whole complex. Their syntheses are described in full in the Supporting Information. Single crystals of CuL1 were grown by evaporation of a concentrated ethanol solution at room temperature and brown, needle-like crystals were collected. The X-ray structure (Figure S1) confirmed a square-planar Cu2+ center embedded in the [N2S2] pocket, similar to the parent CuATSM complex.30 Interestingly, hydrogen bonds were observed between two different glucosamine motifs within the crystal packing. The average distance between Cu2+ and 19F nuclei was measured as 8.4 Å, a distance at which Cu2+ would attenuate the 19F MR signal.17 Single crystals of CuL2 did not form.

Solution state characterization

19F NMR characterization.

To characterize the effect of Cu2+ on the 19F NMR signal in our complexes, we obtained spectra and measured relaxation times of H2L1, CuL1, H2L2, and CuL2. The 19F NMR spectra (Figure S2) of CuL1 and CuL2 demonstrated that Cu2+ broadens the 19F signal in these complexes as compared to their respective ligands H2L1 and H2L2. The relaxation times (Table 1) of the fluorine atoms decreased by roughly 30-fold for T1 and 100-fold for T2. The larger fold of decrease in T2 is consistent with the longer electronic relaxation time T1e of the square planar Cu2+ center.31, 32 The singlet peak observed for all prepared ligands and complexes indicated that the fluorine atoms are all magnetically equivalent, which is a benefit for maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in 19F MR-based sensing.

Table 1 -.

19F NMR parameters for 3 mM H2L1, CuL1, H2L2, and CuL2 in d6-DMSO at room temperature at 9.4 T.

H2L1 CuL1 H2L2 CuL2
δ (ppm) −70.0 −69.9 −70.0 −70.0
T1 (ms) 590 20.4 675 22.2
T2 (ms) 360 N/Aa 333 N/Aa
T2* (ms) 157 4.3 78.2 2.2
a

Due to the fast transverse relaxation for CuL1 and CuL2, the T2 was too short to be measured.

Cyclic voltammetry.

To understand the redox properties of CuL1 and CuL2, the Cu2+/Cu+ redox potentials were determined by cyclic voltammetry in DMF (Figure S3). Measured half potentials of −0.62 V for CuL1 and −0.60 V for CuL2 were close to the reported values for the parent CuATSM complex (−0.63 V vs. SCE), revealing the potential for these complexes to target hypoxic cells.33 Due to the presence of the quaternary carbon, the electron-withdrawing perfluoro-tert-butoxide and glucosamine moiety did not significantly change the reduction potential of the Cu2+ centers. This observation also indicates other R groups (instead of glucosamine) could be incorporated into this molecular scaffold to further functionalize or solubilize the complex. The ΔEp values of CuL1 and CuL2 indicate that the reduction of CuL1 is quasi-reversible while the reduction of CuL2 is irreversible. Considering the different coordination preferences between Cu+ and Cu2+, the large bulkiness of the functional groups on H2L2 could result in a lower stability for [Cu+L2] than [Cu+L1], thus making the reduction process for CuL2 less reversible than CuL1.

Preparation of nanoemulsion

Formulation.

To improve incorporation of these complexes into aqueous media, an oil-in-water nanoemulsion formulation strategy was employed. H2L1, CuL1, H2L2, and CuL2 nanoemulsions (namely, NE H2L1, NE CuL1, NE H2L2, and NE CuL2) were prepared following published literature.26 Lecithin, Milli-Q water, and safflower oil were mixed and heated at 80 °C to form the emulsion mixture. H2L1, CuL1, H2L2, and CuL2 were dissolved in DMSO and the hot, pre-made emulsion was added directly to the DMSO solution, vortexed to create a crude emulsion, and ultrasonicated at 0 °C to afford a stock nanoemulsion (Scheme S2). Unfortunately, upon reduction of NE CuL2 with Na2S2O4, both NE CuL2 and the reduced NE CuL2 gave similar T2* values and chemical shifts, making them difficult to differentiate under MR settings. Therefore, all future studies were performed with NE CuL1.

Size determination.

The size distribution of NE CuL1 was evaluated by dynamic light scattering (DLS). In water and various buffered environments, NE CuL1 displayed a hydrodynamic diameter of ~100 nm with PDI ≤ 0.20 (Table 2). These results are consistent with reported results on similar systems34, 35 and suggest effective formation of the nanoemulsion formulation. Transmission electronic microscopy (TEM) was employed to visualize the morphology of the prepared NE CuL1, using neutral ammonium phosphomolybdate staining to improve contrast.23 Therefore, as shown in Figure 2, the nanoemulsions appeared as bright sphere-like structures with a size distribution of 81 ± 19 nm, well correlated with DLS results. Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS) of a single nanoemulsion revealed an even inner distribution of copper and sulfur elements, further confirming the successful preparation of a nanoemulsion containing the CuL1 complex.

Table 2 –

Size distribution of NE CuL1 in water and different buffers determined by dynamic light scattering (DLS).

Solvent/Buffer Average Size (nm) PDI
Water 93.3 ± 0.7 0.20
PBS 94.5 ± 0.3 0.18
HEPES 97.9 ± 0.2 0.20
RPMI (w/o FBS) 98.0 ± 0.4 0.19
DMEM (w/o FBS) 105.7 ± 0.8 0.16
Figure 2.

Figure 2.

(A) Representative TEM image of NE CuL1 negatively stained with neutral ammonium phosphomolybdate. Inset: Expanded view of a single nanoemulsion. (B) Size distribution of NE CuL1 (n=104). (C) Copper and sulfur elemental profiling of a single NE CuL1 particle by Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS).

Nanoemulsion stability.

The stability of both ligand and complex nanoemulsions was assessed by DLS (size) and 19F NMR (fluorine content). The stability of the NE CuL1 was also assessed by inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) to evaluate the copper content within the nanoemulsion. As shown in Figure S4, at 100 μM [Cu2+], the prepared NE CuL1 displayed great aqueous stability with marginal change (< 5%) in both its average size and the polydispersity index (PDI). However, at 5 mM [Cu2+], the NE CuL1 is prone to aggregation and showed an increase in its average hydrodynamic diameter and a decrease in PDI. Interestingly, although the size distribution of 5 mM NE CuL1 changed over the course of 28 days, the copper leaching was minimal (< 5%), similar to the 100 μM NE CuL1. Additionally, a 100 μM sample of the NE H2L1 was subjected to DLS and 19F NMR analysis over the course of four weeks after preparation. Compared to the NE CuL1, the leaching of H2L1 within NE H2L1 was much faster when studied by 19F NMR, especially at a higher ligand concentration (Figure S5). While the 0.5 mM NE H2L1 showed 6% leaching after two weeks, the 5 mM NE H2L1 leaching increased to 20% during the same time. The increased cargo leaching for NE H2L1, as compared to NE CuL1, is likely due to a more polar nature of H2L1 that encouraged its escape from the nanoemulsion.

Relaxation time determination.

To understand the MR properties of CuL1 and H2L1 within their nanoemulsion environments, 19F NMR spectra were taken for each nanoemulsion (Figure 3A). NE H2L1 displayed an intense singlet peak at −70.5 ppm. On the other hand, NE CuL1 gave a very broad peak at −70.7 ppm. Fluorine relaxation times (T1 and T2) were measured for both nanoemulsions (Table 3). NE H2L1 had a T1 of 380 ms and a T2 of 7.0 ms, which was much shorter compared to that of the DMSO solution of H2L1. The large decrease in T2 is likely due to the viscous safflower oil core of the nanoemulsion and potential intermolecular aggregation due to hydrogen bonding between the glucose motifs as observed in the crystal packing. The T1 relaxation time of NE CuL1 was too short to measure and the T2* was 0.4 ms, consistent with its broad and nearly quenched signal.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

(A) 19F NMR spectra of 1.0 mM NE H2L1, NE CuL1, and reduced NE CuL1. (B) Phantom 19F MRI of 1.0 mM NE H2L1, NE CuL1, and reduced NE CuL1.

Table 3 –

19F NMR parameters of 0.5 mM NE H2L1, NE CuL1, and reduced NE CuL1 at room temperature.

NE H2L1 NE CuL1 NE CuL1 + Na2S2O4
δ (ppm) −70.5 −70.7a −70.5
T1 (ms) 380 N/Ab 440
T2 (ms) 7.0 N/Ab 4.4
T2* (ms) 7.0 0.4 4.4
a

The peak for NE CuL1 was broad.

b

Due to the fast transverse relaxation for NE CuL1, the T1 and T2 were too short to be measured.

Redox behavior.

To determine if the chemical reduction of CuL1 would successfully happen inside the nanoemulsion, 1.0 mM test-tube reactions between Na2S2O4 and NE CuL1 were carried out (Figure 3A). Upon addition of Na2S2O4, the characteristic orange-brownish color of CuL1 disappeared immediately, and the whole nanoemulsion system turned off-white, consistent with reduction of Cu2+ to Cu+. The 19F NMR characteristics of the reduced system were similar to the NE H2L1 (δ = −70.5 ppm; T1 = 0.44 s; T2 = 4.4 ms) (Table 3). Therefore, while being encapsulated inside the nanoemulsion, CuL1 was likely converted to H2L1 upon reduction. We note that there was no significant change to the 19F NMR of NE H2L1 in the presence of Na2S2O4 (Figure S6).

The reduction of the Cu2+ center within the nanoemulsion was further confirmed via UV-vis absorption and EPR spectroscopy (Figures S7). Before reduction, the UV-vis absorption spectrum of NE CuL1 displayed a characteristic Cu2+ d-d absorption peak at 480 nm36 and the EPR spectral pattern was well correlated to a square planar Cu2+ center37, 38 with giso = 2.061 and ACu = 106 G. Post reduction, all these spectral features were lost, consistent with reduction of Cu2+. Importantly, the UV-vis absorption spectrum of NE CuL1 was recovered upon exposing the reduced NE CuL1 to air, indicating that the binding of Cu2+ by H2L1 was not perturbed by the presence of the nanoemulsion formulation.

Phantom MR images.

Phantom 19F MR imaging for 1.0 mM NE H2L1, NE CuL1, and reduced NE CuL1 were performed. Fast-low-angle-shot (FLASH) pulse sequence was applied to allow tracking of species with short T2 values. As shown in Figure 3B, Cu2+ effectively quenches the 19F MR signal and the signal-to-noise ratio for NE CuL1 was on the same level as noise (SNR = 2.2). On the other hand, an intense signal was captured for the NE H2L1 (SNR = 12) and the reduced NE CuL1 (SNR = 7.6), each with the same 19F concentration as the NE CuL1. These results demonstrated a “turn-on” response in the 19F MR imaging modality when CuL1 is reduced and converted to H2L1 within nanoemulsion formulations and hold promise for potential 19F MR imaging-based studies.

Cell studies

Cytotoxicity and cell uptake.

To evaluate the nanoemulsion’s ability to act as a biological probe, cell studies were performed with MCF-7 breast cancer cells. Cytotoxicity of the NE CuL1 was tested using a Live/Dead assay under both normoxic and hypoxic conditions. Fluorescence imaging data showed >95% viability of the nanoemulsion incubated cells in both normoxic and hypoxic environments (Figure S8). To track the copper content of the MCF-7 cells, cell uptake studies were performed on normoxic and hypoxic cells after 2, 4, and 6-hour incubation (ICP-OES). As shown in Figure S9, a gradual increase in copper uptake was observed for increasing incubation times. At 6 hours, the cellular copper level was 3.2 ± 0.1 fmol/cell, which should give a cellular fluorine content of ~60 fmol/cell. When comparing the copper uptake between normoxic and hypoxic conditions, we saw no differences. This similarity could be due to the fact that CuL1 was encapsulated in the nanoemulsion and uptake and retention of the nanoemulsion is not dependent on the oxygen level. Uptake studies at 4 °C, a temperature at which energy-dependent active transportation is blocked, showed 9-fold less cellular copper content after 4 hours compared to studies at 37 °C, consistent with an energy-dependent cell uptake pathway. The energy-dependent cell uptake of the NE CuL1 correlated well with the vesicular character of these formulations.24

To visualize the uptake of NE CuL1, MCF-7 cells were incubated with a fluorescent ZnSalen complex that has been reported to stain the hydrophobic interior of lipid droplets (Figure 4A).39 MCF-7 cells were incubated with NE CuL1 only, with the fluorescent dye only, and with both fluorescent dye and NE CuL1, respectively. As expected, no fluorescence was observed within the cells when only NE CuL1 was administered (Figure 4A top). With incubation of the fluorescent dye itself, cellular fluorescence was weak (Figure 4A middle). When the cells were treated with both NE CuL1 and the fluorescent dye (Figure 4A bottom), an intense intracellular fluorescence was observed, exhibiting an enhancement of fluorescence by nearly 3-fold compared to cells incubated with the fluorescent molecule only (Figure 4B). A closer look at the image revealed dot-like red fluorescence inside the cytoplasm, corresponding to the vesicular character of the nanoemulsions. These results further confirmed efficient uptake of the nanoemulsions into cells.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

(A) Confocal images of MCF-7 cells incubated with NE CuL1 (top row), the fluorescent dye (middle row), and both NE CuL1 and the fluorescent dye (bottom row). (B) Quantitative comparison of intracellular fluorescence of ~100 cells at different incubation conditions. (C) Whole cell 19F NMR of NE H2L1 (top) and NE CuL1 (middle) in normoxic (20% O2) environment and NE CuL1 (bottom) in hypoxic (0.1% O2) environment.

Cellular hypoxia reduction studies.

NE CuL1 was employed for hypoxia detection through 19F NMR spectroscopy (Figure 4C). As a positive control, normoxic MCF-7 breast cancer cells were first cultured with 100 μM NE H2L1 for 4 hours. The cells were collected, transferred into an NMR tube, and a 19F NMR spectrum was taken with 5-fluorocytosine (5FC) as external reference. A broad peak was recorded at −70.6 ppm. This result indicated that inside the cytosol, the NE H2L1 stayed intact and its fluorine signal was detectable. Additional MCF-7 cells were incubated with NE CuL1 under both normal (20%) and low (0.1%) oxygen tension. Only under the low oxygen tension was a peak at −70.6 ppm observed, indicating the selective reduction of NE CuL1 in the cells grown under hypoxic conditions. At 20% O2, no ligand signal was detected; the trace signal of perfluoro-tert-butanol might have come from the slight decomposition of the complex inside the cells. To quantify the cellular reduction of copper inside the cells, the reduced copper content was estimated by 19F NMR spectroscopy (where the peak integration represents the fluorine content of the reduced complex and therefore the amount of copper follows the molar ratio between Cu and F with CuL1, which is 1:18), and the total copper content quantified via ICP-OES. It was therefore determined that roughly 40% of CuL1 was reduced in the cytosol under hypoxic conditions.

Conclusions

In summary, we demonstrated a CuATSM-based nanoemulsion sensor system that selectively displays 19F NMR signal in hypoxic cells. CuATSM derivative, CuL1, was embedded within oil-in-water nanoemulsions which displayed ideal morphology and aqueous stability. Switching of the 19F MR signal via tuning of copper redox state was demonstrated by adding chemical reducing agents and the effective reduction of copper was verified by spectroscopic methods. Selective detection of cellular hypoxia was further achieved in breast cancer cells grown under both normoxic (20% O2) and severe hypoxic (0.1% O2) conditions, where ~40% of the Cu2+ uptaken (~ 1.3 fmol/cell) was estimated to be reduced by cellular machinery. These results thus provide solid evidence that responsive oil-in-water nanoemulsion systems can be used to detect changes in cellular environments using 19F magnetic resonance. Ongoing work includes synthesizing a complex with a larger T2* and higher cellular uptake for in vivo applications.

Supplementary Material

esi
cif

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by start-up funds from UT-Austin (EQ), a grant from the Welch Foundation (F-1883) (EQ). We thank Dr. Vincent Lynch for X-ray crystallography support. We acknowledge the Biomedical Imaging Center at UT Austin for access to their facilities. Some NMR spectra were obtained on a Bruker AVIII HD 500 that was funded by an NIH grant (J. Sessler, 1 S10 OD021508-01).

Footnotes

Electronic Supplementary Information (ESI) available. CCDC 1993045. For ESI and CCDC, see DOI: 10.1039/d0dt01182g

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

References

  • 1.Greijer AE and van der Wall E, J Clin Pathol, 2004, 57, 1009–1014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hammond EM, Asselin MC, Forster D, O’Connor JP, Senra JM and Williams KJ, Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol), 2014, 26, 277–288. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Vaupel P, Mayer A and Höckel M, Methods Enzymol, 2004, 381, 335–354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wilson WR and Hay MP, Nat Rev Cancer, 2011, 11, 393–410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Padhani AR, Krohn KA, Lewis JS and Alber M, Eur Radiol, 2007, 17, 861–872. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gillies RJ and Gatenby RA, Cancer Metastasis Rev, 2007, 26, 311–317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Xie D, Kim S, Kohli V, Banerjee A, Yu M, Enriquez JS, Luci JJ and Que EL, Inorg Chem, 2017, 56, 6429–6437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Xie D, King TL, Banerjee A, Kohli V and Que EL, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2016, 138, 2937–2940. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kadakia RT, Xie D, Martinez D, Yu M and Que EL, Chem Commun (Camb), 2019, 55, 8860–8863. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Pacheco-Torres J, López-Larrubia P, Ballesteros P and Cerdán S, NMR Biomed, 2011, 24, 1–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Do QN, Ratnakar JS, Kovács Z and Sherry AD, ChemMedChem, 2014, 9, 1116–1129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Takahashi S, Piao W, Matsumura Y, Komatsu T, Ueno T, Terai T, Kamachi T, Kohno M, Nagano T and Hanaoka K, J Am Chem Soc, 2012, 134, 19588–19591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yang DJ, Wallace S, Cherif A, Li C, Gretzer MB, Kim EE and Podoloff DA, Radiology, 1995, 194, 795–800. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lopci E, Grassi I, Chiti A, Nanni C, Cicoria G, Toschi L, Fonti C, Lodi F, Mattioli S and Fanti S, Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2014, 4, 365–384. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Vāvere AL and Lewis JS, Dalton Trans, 2007, 4893–4902. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Vaquero JJ and Kinahan P, Annu Rev Biomed Eng, 2015, 17, 385–414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Xie D, Yu M, Kadakia RT and Que EL, Acc Chem Res, 2019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Enriquez JS, Yu M, Bouley BS, Xie D and Que EL, Dalton Trans, 2018, 47, 15024–15030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Chen H, Tang X, Gong X, Chen D, Li A, Sun C, Lin H and Gao J, Chem Commun (Camb), 2020, 56, 4106–4109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mizukami S, Takikawa R, Sugihara F, Hori Y, Tochio H, Wälchli M, Shirakawa M and Kikuchi K, J Am Chem Soc, 2008, 130, 794–795. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Chalmers KH, De Luca E, Hogg NH, Kenwright AM, Kuprov I, Parker D, Botta M, Wilson JI and Blamire AM, Chemistry, 2010, 16, 134–148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Singh Y, Meher JG, Raval K, Khan FA, Chaurasia M, Jain NK and Chourasia MK, Journal of Controlled Release, 2017, 252, 28–49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Klang V, Matsko NB, Valenta C and Hofer F, Micron, 2012, 43, 85–103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Jaiswal M, Dudhe R and Sharma PK, 3 Biotech, 2015, 5, 123–127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kislukhin AA, Xu H, Adams SR, Narsinh KH, Tsien RY and Ahrens ET, Nature Materials, 2016, 15, 662. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Tirotta I, Mastropietro A, Cordiglieri C, Gazzera L, Baggi F, Baselli G, Bruzzone MG, Zucca I, Cavallo G, Terraneo G, Baldelli Bombelli F, Metrangolo P and Resnati G, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2014, 136, 8524–8527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Janjic JM and Ahrens ET, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology, 2009, 1, 492–501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Nakamura T, Matsushita H, Sugihara F, Yoshioka Y, Mizukami S and Kikuchi K, Angew Chem Int Ed Engl, 2015, 54, 1007–1010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Akazawa K, Sugihara F, Minoshima M, Mizukami S and Kikuchi K, Chem Commun (Camb), 2018, 54, 11785–11788. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Cowley AR, Dilworth JR, Donnelly PS, Labisbal E and Sousa A, J Am Chem Soc, 2002, 124, 5270–5271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Bertini I, Turano P and Vila AJ, Chem. Rev, 1993, 93, 2833–2932. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bertini I, Luchinat C, Parigi G and Ravera E, NMR of Paramagnetic Molecules, Elsevier, Boston, 2 edn., 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Dearling JL, Lewis JS, Mullen GE, Welch MJ and Blower PJ, J Biol Inorg Chem, 2002, 7, 249–259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Janjic JM, Srinivas M, Kadayakkara DK and Ahrens ET, J Am Chem Soc, 2008, 130, 2832–2841. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Patel SK, Williams J and Janjic JM, Biosensors, 2013, 3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mukherjee R, Comprehensive Coordination Chemistry II, Pergamon, Oxford, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Peisach J and Blumberg WE, Arch Biochem Biophys, 1974, 165, 691–708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Ushio S and Addison AW, J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans, 1979, 600–608. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tang J, Zhang Y, Yin HY, Xu G and Zhang JL, Chem Asian J, 2017, 12, 2533–2538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

esi
cif

RESOURCES