Skip to main content
. 2022 Mar 17;13:1413. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-28744-4

Fig. 6. SP@AMF shows more comprehensive radioprotection on the whole small intestine compared with the enteric capsules of AMF (Cap@AMF).

Fig. 6

a The filling of drug powder into enteric capsules. b Fluorescence images of the mice’s gastrointestinal tract at 0, 1.5, 3, 4.5, and 6 h after the oral administration of Cap@FITC or SP@FITC (with equal amount of FITC). c–f Represented images (c) and the quantification (e) of the regenerating crypts (indicated by red dotted lines) in the small intestine (duodenum, jejunum, and ileum) at day 3 after being treated by sham irradiation + PBS (PBS group),12 Gy abdominal X-ray (IR) + PBS, IR + Cap@AMF, and IR + SP@AMF (n = 6 biologically independent animals). Represented images of the fibrosis formation (d) and the scoring of delayed radiation injury (f) at day 30 after treatments (n = 6 biologically independent animals). Scale bar = 100 µm. The data show means + SD. P was calculated using two-tailed t-test. *P versus IR + PBS group (*< 0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001, n.s., no significance). Experiment was repeated three times independently with similar results. g Body weight of the mice (n = 6 biologically independent animals). The data show means ± SD. P was calculated using two-tailed t-test. h Survival curves of mice exposed to a fatal dose of abdominal IR (n = 15 biologically independent animals). Median survival: PBS, undefined (>60 days); IR + PBS, 14 d; IR + Cap@AMF, 33 d; IR + SP@AMF, undefined (>60 days). P was calculated using Log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test.