Advertisement

Cerium Dioxide CeO2-x and Orthovanadate (Gd0.9Eu0.1VO4) Nanoparticles for Protection of Living Body from X-Ray Induced Damage

  • G. GrygorovaEmail author
  • V. Klochkov
  • Ye. Mamotyuk
  • Yu. Malyukin
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series A: Chemistry and Biology book series (NAPSA)

Abstract

The effectiveness of CeO2−x and GdEuVO4 nanoparticles in radioprotection in model animals during radiation exposure has been shown. Nanoparticles were injected per os by two different schemes – once and during 15 days. For the 15-days scheme of GdEuVO4 nanoparticles injection during 30 days of observation the survival of animals irradiated with a dose of 6.0 Gy was 100 %; for ceria it was 90 % for ceria. It was revealed that 7.0 Gy radiation dose is lethal. These results can serve as a motivation to consider inorganic nanoparticles as the basis for new drugs possessing by radioprotective effect.

Keywords

Cerium Oxide Absorb Dose Rate Cerium Dioxide Radioprotective Effect Free Radical Concentration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Cheryl HB (2013) Harnessing cerium oxide nanoparticles to protect normal tissue from radiation damage. Transl Cancer Res 2:343–358Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Colon J, Herrera L, Smith J, Patil S, Komanski C, Kupelian P, Baker CH (2009) Protection from radiation-induced pneumonitis using cerium oxide nanoparticles. Nanomed Nanotechnol Biol Med 5:225–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Daroczi B, Kari G, McAleer MF, Wolf JC, Rodeck U, Dicker AP (2006) In vivo radioprotection by the fullerene nanoparticle DF-1 as assessed in a zebrafish model. Clin Cancer Res 12:7086–7091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    European convention for the protection of vertebrate animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes (1986) Council of Europe, Strasbourg, p 53Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Karakoti A, Singh S, Dowding JM, Seal S, Self WT (2010) Redox-active radical scavenging nanomaterials. Chem Soc Rev 39:4422–4432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klochkov VK, Malyshenko AI, Sedyh OO, Malyukin, Yu V (2011) Wet-chemical synthesis and characterization of luminescent colloidal nanoparticles: ReVO4:Eu3+ (Re = La, Gd, Y) with rod-like and spindle-like shape. Funct Mater 1:111–115Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klochkov VK, Grigorova AV, Sedyh OO, Malyukin YV (2012) The influence of agglomeration of nanoparticles on their superoxide dismutase-mimetic activity. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 409:176–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mamotyuk EM, Klochkov VK, Grygorova GV, Yefimova SL, Malyukin Yu V (2015) Radioprotective effect of CeO2 and GdEuVO4 nanoparticles in “in vivo” experiments. In: Nanoscience advances in CBRN agents detection, information and energy security. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 193–197Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Menon A, Nair CKK, Dhanya KC (2012) Nanomedicine in radiation protection. Pushpagiri Med J 3:137–140Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tarnuzzer RW, Colon J, Patil S, Seal S (2005) Vacancy engineered ceria nanostructures for protection from radiation-induced cellular damage. Nano Lett 5:2573–2577ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vavrova J, Řezačova M, Pejchal J (2012) Fullerene nanoparticles and their anti-oxidative effects: a comparison to other radioprotective agents. J Appl Biomed 10:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Grygorova
    • 1
    Email author
  • V. Klochkov
    • 1
  • Ye. Mamotyuk
    • 2
  • Yu. Malyukin
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Scintillation Materials of NAS of UkraineKharkivUkraine
  2. 2.Grigoriev Institute for Medical Radiology-National Academy of Medical Science of UkraineKharkivUkraine

Personalised recommendations