纳米粒子与细胞相互作用的力学–化学偶联研究进展

doi:10.3866/PKU.WHXB201905076

物理化学学报 >> 2020, Vol. 36 >> Issue (1): 1905076.doi: 10.3866/PKU.WHXB201905076

所属专题：庆祝唐有祺院士百岁华诞专刊

纳米粒子与细胞相互作用的力学–化学偶联研究进展

展金秀^1,²,冯峰^1,²,许敏^1,²,姚立^1,^2,*(),葛茂发^1,^2,*()

¹ 中国科学院化学研究所，北京分子科学国家研究中心，分子动态与稳态结构实验室，中国科学院分子科学科教融合卓越创新中心，北京 100190
² 中国科学院大学，北京 100049

收稿日期:2019-05-28 录用日期:2019-07-08 发布日期:2019-07-18
通讯作者: 姚立,葛茂发 E-mail:yaoli@iccas.ac.cn;gemaofa@iccas.ac.cn
作者简介:姚立，出生于1979年。毕业于中国科学院化学研究所，获理学博士学位。中国科学院化学研究所研究员，博士生导师。长期从事分子细胞相互作用与纳米生物技术研究|葛茂发，出生于1970年。毕业于吉林大学，获理学博士学位。中国科学院化学研究所研究员，博士生导师。研究方向包括大气化学、环境化学、环境催化、纳米材料和污染控制技术
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(21778055);国家自然科学基金(21573250);国家重点研发计划(2018YFA0208800);北京市自然科学基金(L172048)

Progress in Chemo–Mechanical Interactions between Nanoparticles and Cells

Jinxiu Zhan^1,²,Feng Feng^1,²,Min Xu^1,²,Li Yao^1,^2,*(),Maofa Ge^1,^2,*()

¹ Beijing National Laboratory for Molecular Sciences, State Key Laboratory for Structural Chemistry of Unstable and Stable Species, CAS Research/Education Center for Excellence in Molecular Sciences, Institute of Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, P. R. China
² University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, P. R. China

Received:2019-05-28 Accepted:2019-07-08 Published:2019-07-18
Contact: Li Yao,Maofa Ge E-mail:yaoli@iccas.ac.cn;gemaofa@iccas.ac.cn
Supported by:
the National Natural Science Foundation of China(21778055);the National Natural Science Foundation of China(21573250);the National Key Research and Development Program of China(2018YFA0208800);the Beijing Natural Science Foundation, China(L172048)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

纳米粒子在生物医学和大气环境领域的广泛研究使得其生物安全性越来越受到重视。目前已经有许多研究关注纳米粒子与细胞的相互作用及细胞毒性问题。本综述从细胞力学-化学偶联的角度总结了近五年来有关纳米粒子与细胞相互作用的研究进展。首先介绍了与细胞力学-化学偶联性质相关的分子基础以及目前检测细胞机械性质的纳米技术，然后重点讨论了纳米粒子对细胞粘附、骨架、刚度和迁移性质的影响。在此基础上，进一步指出了纳米生物力学-化学偶联的挑战与展望。

关键词: 纳米粒子, 细胞, 机械信号转导, 相互作用, 力学-化学偶联

Abstract:

The biosafety of nanoparticles is gaining extensive attention due to their dichotomous effects in fields of biomedicine and atmospheric chemistry. A number of studies have been carried out focusing on the cytotoxicity of nanoparticles and their interactions with cells. However, the mechanism of nanoparticle–cell interactions remains unclear. Here, we review the latest progress in the study of nanoparticle-cell interactions from a cellular chemo-mechanical perspective. Cell mechanics play an important role in cell differentiation, proliferation, apoptosis, polarization, adhesion, and migration. An understanding of the effects of nanoparticles on cell mechanics is therefore needed in order to enhance comprehension of nanoparticle–cell interactions. Firstly, the main molecules and signal pathways related to mechanical chemistry are introduced from three perspectives: cell surface adhesion receptors, the cytoskeleton, and the nucleus. Specifically, integrins and cadherins play a critical role in sensing both the external mechanical force and the force of cell transmission. Actin and microtubules, which are two components of the cytoskeletal network, act as a bridge in mechanical conduction. The nucleus can also be mechanically stressed by the surrounding cytoskeleton through the contraction of the matrix. The nuclear envelope also plays important roles in sensing mechanical signals and in adjusting the morphology and function of the nucleus. We summarize the major nanoparticle-based tools used in the laboratory for the study of cell mechanics, which includes traction force microscopy, atomic force microscopy, optical tweezers, magnetic manipulation, micropillars, and force-induced remnant magnetization spectroscopy. In addition, we discuss the effects that nanoparticles have on cell mechanics. Nanoparticles interact with the adhesion of molecules on the cell membrane surface and on cell cytoskeletal proteins, which further affects the mechanical properties involved in cell stiffness, cell adhesion, and cell migration. Overall, the general conclusions regarding the effects of nanoparticles on cell mechanics are as follows: (1) Nanoparticles can affect cell adhesion by disrupting tight and adherent junctions, and by regulating cell-extracellular matrix adhesion; (2) Nanoparticles can interact with cytoskeletal proteins (actins and tubulins) leading to structural reorganization or disruption of microtubules and F-actin; (3) Cell stiffness changes with the structural reorganization of the cytoskeleton; (4) Cell migration ability can be affected through changes in the cytoskeleton, cell adhesion, and the expression of cell migration-related proteins/molecules. To develop the nano-biosafety evaluation system, future studies should attempt to gain a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms involved with regards to nanoparticles and cell mechanics. Ultimately, further development of new methods and technologies based on nano-mechanical chemistry for diagnosis and treatment purposes are expected, given the wide application of nanomaterials in the biomedical field.

Key words: Nanoparticle, Cell, Mechanotransduction, Interaction, Mechanochemical coupling

展金秀,冯峰,许敏,姚立,葛茂发. 纳米粒子与细胞相互作用的力学–化学偶联研究进展[J]. 物理化学学报, 2020, 36(1), 1905076. doi: 10.3866/PKU.WHXB201905076

Jinxiu Zhan,Feng Feng,Min Xu,Li Yao,Maofa Ge. Progress in Chemo–Mechanical Interactions between Nanoparticles and Cells[J]. Acta Physico-Chimica Sinica 2020, 36(1), 1905076. doi: 10.3866/PKU.WHXB201905076

链接本文: https://www.whxb.pku.edu.cn/CN/10.3866/PKU.WHXB201905076

https://www.whxb.pku.edu.cn/CN/Y2020/V36/I1/1905076

图/表 4

图1

图2

图3

表1

纳米粒子对细胞机械性质的影响"

Particle type	Size and zeta potential	Cell types	Incubation conditions	Impacts on cell mechanics	Ref.
Iron-iron oxide	16 ± 1.5 nm	BAC	5, 10, 20, 50 μg·mL^?1;	Increase in Young’s modulus of BACs with	55
core-shell MNPs			3 days	the increase of NP concentration.
Ag NPs	20 nm	USC	0–64 μg·mL^?1;	Increase in actin polymerization and	53
			5 × 10³ cells·well^?1; 24 h	cytoskeletal tension, activation of RhoA
Nano-Si64 and	63.88 ± 10.35,	L-02	10, 20, 50 μg·mL^?1;	Change in quantity and distribution of	50
Nano-Si46	46.15 ± 5.53 nm;		1×10⁵ cells·mL^?1;	cytoskeleton through extra ROS and Ca²⁺
	negatively charged		24 h	leading to abnormal mitosis and cytokinesis
AgNPs	52.3 ± 8.7 nm (single NP);	MG-63	0.5, 5, 10, 20 μg·mL^?1;	Destruction of F-actin in quantity and	51
	201 nm (aggregates);		2 × 10⁴ cells·well^?1;	structure, decrease in expressions of ALP,
			24, 48, 72 h	OCN and COL-I in a dose-dependent manner
TiO₂-PEG NPs	100, 200, 300 nm	NCI-H292	100 μg·mL^?1;	NP-mediated promotion of the lysosomal	58
			8 × 10⁴ cells?cm^?²;	degradation of integrin beta 1, thus leading to
			3 h	reduced expression of pFAK and cytoskeletal
				reduced expression of pFAK and cytoskeletal
Fullerenol NPs	1.72 ± 0.14 nm	MCF-7,	200 μg·mL^?1;	Lowered stiffness and restrained migration,	47
		MDA-MB-231	5 × 10⁵ cells·well^?1;	decrease in the number and length of
			24 h;	filopodia, change in cancer cell adhesion and
				motility through the inhibition of integrin to
				form clusters on filopodias
GO Nanosheets	2 nm (thickness);	A549	50 μg·mL^?1;	Retardation of cell migration through	57
	397.6 ± 62.4 nm;		6 h, 24 h	nanosheet-mediated disruption of intracellular
	?34.8 ± 1.0 mV			actin filaments.
Ag NPs and	10 nm	CCD-1072Sk	0.1, 1, 10 μg·mL^?1;	Reduce in collagen and laminin production	59
Au NPs			5×10³/8-well;	and cell migration, increase in the formation
			24 h	of stress fibers and the number of cell
				protrusions, impaired cell polarity.
SPIONs	132.4 nm; ?25.37 mV	VFF	20, 40, 80 μg·cm^?2; 24 h	Decrease in VFF adhesion	49
Si NPs and	7 nm	MSC	100 μg·mL^?1’;	Structural reorganization of cortical	56
SiB NPs			3 × 10³ cells?cm^?²;	cytoskeleton with subsequent stiffness
			1 and 24 h	increase and concomitant F-actin content
TiO₂	15–50 nm (single NP);	TR146	125, 1250 μmol?L^?1;	Increase of long vinculin near the cell–cell	5
SiO₂	272 ± 4, 236 ± 25 236 ± 9		90 000 cells?cm^?²;	boundary and traction force, low level of MT
HA	nm (aggregates); negatively		12 h	acetylation, maturation of FAs, destabilization
	charged			of MT networks, promotion of cell adhesion
				and retardation in cell migration
TiO₂ NPs	18–23 nm;≈?20 mV	MCF-7, MDA-MB-231,	0–40 μg·mL^?1;	Destruction of adherence junctions which	48
SiO₂ NPs		SW620	0.5 and 24 h	induced endothelial leakiness and promoted
Au NPs				the metastasis of breast cancer cells
Magnetoliposomes	14.0，4.2–4.8，4.2	NPCs and	500, 1000 μg·mL^?1;	Reduce in cellular proliferation, expression of	52
Endorem	and 4.0 nm	hBOECs	5×10⁴ cells·well^?1;	FAK and distribution of actin cytoskeleton
Resovist			24 h	and microtubule network
very small organic
particles

表1

参考文献 59

1	Grabinski C. ; Schaeublin N. ; Wijaya A. ; D'Couto H. ; Baxamusa S. H. ; Hamad-Schifferli K. ; Hussain S. M. ACS Nano 2011, 5 (4), 2870. doi: 10.1021/nn103476x
2	Pati R. ; Das I. ; Mehta R. K. ; Sahu R. ; Sonawane A. Toxicol. Sci. 2016, 150 (2), 454. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfw010
3	Li J. C. ; Mao H. L. ; Kawazoe N. ; Chen G. P. Biomater. Sci. 2017, 5 (2), 173. doi: 10.1039/c6bm00714g
4	Rotsch C. ; Radmacher M. Biophys. J. 2000, 78 (1), 520. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3495(00)76614-8
5	Tay C. Y. ; Cai P. Q. ; Setyawati M. I. ; Fang W. R. ; Tan L. P. ; Hong C. H. L. ; Chen X. D. ; Leong D. T. Nano Lett. 2014, 14 (1), 83. doi: 10.1021/nl4032549
6	Li Y. ; Jing L. ; Yu Y. B. ; Yu Y. ; Duan J. C. ; Yang M. ; Geng W. J. ; Jiang L. Z. ; Li Q. L. ; Sun Z. W. Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 2015, 32 (6), 636. doi: 10.1002/ppsc.201400180
7	Nakayama K. H. ; Surya V. N. ; Gole M. ; Walker T. W. ; Yang W. G. ; Lai E. S. ; Ostrowski M. A. ; Fuller G. G. ; Dunn A. R. ; Huang N. F. Nano Lett. 2016, 16 (1), 410. doi: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b04028
8	Hynes R. O. Cell 2002, 110 (6), 673. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(02)00971-6
9	Guo W. J. ; Giancotti F. G. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2004, 5 (10), 816. doi: 10.1038/nrm1490
10	Mitra S. K. ; Hanson D. A. ; Schlaepfer D. D. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2005, 6 (1), 56. doi: 10.1038/nrm1549
11	Li Z. H. ; Lee H. J. ; Zhu C. Exp. Cell Res. 2016, 349 (1), 85. doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2016.10.001
12	Geiger B. ; Yamada K. M. CSH Perspect. Biol. 2011, 3 (5), 21. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a005033
13	Jiang G. Y. ; Giannone G. ; Critchley D. R. ; Fukumoto E. ; Sheetz M. P. Nature 2003, 424 (6946), 334. doi: 10.1038/nature01805
14	Kukkurainen S. ; Maatta J. A. ; Saeger J. ; Valjakka J. ; Vogel V. ; Hytonen V. P. Mol. Biosyst. 2014, 10 (12), 3217. doi: 10.1039/c4mb00341a
15	Yao M. X. ; Goult B. T. ; Chen H. ; Cong P. W. ; Sheetz M. P. ; Yan J. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 7. doi: 10.1038/srep04610
16	Mitra S. K. ; Schlaepfer D. D. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 2006, 18 (5), 516. doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2006.08.011
17	Beningo K. A. ; Dembo M. ; Kaverina I. ; Small J. V. ; Wang Y. L. J. Cell Biol. 2001, 153 (4), 881. doi: 10.1083/jcb.153.4.881
18	Scarpa E. ; Szabo A. ; Bibonne A. ; Theveneau E. ; Parsons M. ; Mayor R. Dev. Cell 2015, 34 (4), 421. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2015.06.012
19	Yao M. X. ; Qiu W. ; Liu R. C. ; Efremov A. K. ; Cong P. W. ; Seddiki R. ; Payre M. ; Lim C. T. ; Ladoux B. ; Mege R. M. ; et al Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 11. doi: 10.1038/ncomms5525
20	Mui K. L. ; Chen C. S. ; Assoian R. K. J. Cell Sci. 2016, 129 (6), 1093. doi: 10.1242/jcs.183699
21	Auernheimer V. ; Lautscham L. A. ; Leidenberger M. ; Friedrich O. ; Kappes B. ; Fabry B. ; Goldmann W. H. J. Cell Sci. 2015, 128 (18), 3435. doi: 10.1242/jcs.172031
22	Gasparski A. N. ; Beningo K. A. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2015, 586, 20. doi: 10.1016/j.abb.2015.07.017
23	Kiefel H. ; Bondong S. ; Hazin J. ; Ridinger J. ; Schirmer U. ; Riedle S. ; Altevogt P. Cell Adhes. Migr. 2012, 6 (4), 374. doi: 10.4161/cam.20832
24	Colombo F. ; Meldolesi J. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2015, 36 (11), 769. doi: 10.1016/j.tips.2015.08.004
25	Bershadsky A. ; Chausovsky A. ; Becker E. ; Lyubimova A. ; Geiger B. Curr. Biol. 1996, 6 (10), 1279. doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(02)70714-8
26	Padmakumar V. C. ; Libotte T. ; Lu W. S. ; Zaim H. ; Abraham S. ; Noegel A. A. ; Gotzmann J. ; Foisner R. ; Karakesisoglou L. J. Cell Sci. 2005, 118 (15), 3419. doi: 10.1242/jcs.02471
27	Haque F. ; Lloyd D. J. ; Smallwood D. T. ; Dent C. L. ; Shanahan C. M. ; Fry A. M. ; Trembath R. C. ; Shackleton S. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2006, 26 (10), 3738. doi: 10.1128/mcb.26.10.3738-3751.2006
28	Luxton G. W. G. ; Gomes E. R. ; Folker E. S. ; Vintinner E. ; Gundersen G. G. Science 2010, 329 (5994), 956. doi: 10.1126/science.1189072
29	Guilluy C. ; Osborne L. D. ; Van Landeghem L. ; Sharek L. ; Superfine R. ; Garcia-Mata R. ; Burridge K. Nat. Cell Biol. 2014, 16 (4), 376. doi: 10.1038/ncb2927
30	Fanucchi S. ; Shibayama Y. ; Burd S. ; Weinberg M. S. ; Mhlanga M. M. Cell 2013, 155 (3), 606. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.09.051
31	Dekker J. ; Mirny L. Cell 2016, 164 (6), 1110. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.02.007
32	Uhler C. ; Shivashankar G. V. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2017, 18 (12), 717. doi: 10.1038/nrm.2017.101
33	Lv L. W. ; Tang Y. M. ; Zhang P. ; Liu Y. S. ; Bai X. S. ; Zhou Y. S. Tissue Eng. Part B-Rev. 2018, 24 (2), 112. doi: 10.1089/ten.teb.2017.0287
34	Jaalouk D. E. ; Lammerding J. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2009, 10 (1), 63. doi: 10.1038/nrm2597
35	Schwarz U. S. ; Soine J. R. D. Biochim. Biophys. Acta-Mol. Cell Res. 2015, 1853 (11), 3095. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2015.05.028
36	Muller D. J. ; Dufrene Y. F. Trends Cell Biol. 2011, 21 (8), 461. doi: 10.1016/j.tcb.2011.04.008
37	Ahmed W. W. ; Fodor E. ; Betz T. Biochim. Biophys. Acta-Mol. Cell Res. 2015, 1853 (11), 3083. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2015.05.022
38	Castillo M. ; Ebensperger R. ; Wirtz D. ; Walczak M. ; Hurtado D. E. ; Celedon A. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B 2014, 102 (8), 1779. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.33167
39	Berret J. F. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 10134. doi: 10.1038/ncomms10134
40	Etoc F. ; Lisse D. ; Bellaiche Y. ; Piehler J. ; Coppey M. ; Dahan M. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2013, 8 (3), 193. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2013.23
41	Tan J. L. ; Tien J. ; Pirone D. M. ; Gray D. S. ; Bhadriraju K. ; Chen C. S. Pro. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2003, 100 (4), 1484. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0235407100
42	Yao L. ; Xu S. J. Angew. Chem.-Int. Edit. 2013, 52 (52), 14041. doi: 10.1002/anie.201007297
43	Yao L. ; Li Y. ; Tsai T. W. ; Xu S. J. ; Wang Y. H. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2013, 52 (52), 14041. doi: 10.1002/anie.201307419
44	Yao L. ; Xu S. J. J. Phys. Chem. B 2012, 116 (33), 9944. doi: 10.1021/jp304335a
45	Zhang D. ; Feng F. ; Li Q. L. ; Wang X. Y. ; Yao L. Biomaterials 2018, 173, 22. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.04.045
46	Yu C. ; Zhang D. ; Feng X. ; Chai Y. ; Lu P. ; Li Q. ; Feng F. ; Wang X. ; Li Y. ; et al Nanoscale 2019, 11 (16), 7648. doi: 10.1039/c8nr10338k
47	Qin Y. ; Chen K. ; Gu W. ; Dong X. ; Lei R. ; Chang Y. ; Bai X. ; Xia S. ; Zeng L. ; Zhang J. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2015, 16 (1), 54. doi: 10.1186/s12951-018-0380-z
48	Peng F. ; Setyawati M. I. ; Tee J. K. ; Ding X. G. ; Wang J. P. ; Nga M. E. ; Ho H. K. ; Leong D. T. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2019, 14 (3), 279. doi: 10.1038/s41565-018-0356-z
49	Pottler M. ; Fliedner A. ; Schreiber E. ; Janko C. ; Friedrich R. P. ; Bohr C. ; Dollinger M. ; Alexiou C. ; Durr S. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2017, 12 (1), 284. doi: 10.1186/s11671-017-2045-5
50	Li Y. ; Jing L. ; Yu Y. ; Yu Y. ; Duan J. ; Yang M. ; Geng W. ; Jiang L. ; Li Q. ; Sun Z. Part. Part. Sys. Charact. 2015, 32 (6), 636. doi: 10.1002/ppsc.201400180
51	Xie H. ; Wang P. ; Wu J. Artif. Cells Nanomed Biotechnol. 2019, 47 (1), 260. doi: 10.1080/21691401.2018.1552594
52	Soenen S. J. H. ; Nuytten N. ; De Meyer S. F. ; De Smedt S. C. ; De Cuyper M. Small 2010, 6 (7), 832. doi: 10.1002/smll.200902084
53	Qin H. ; Zhu C. ; An Z. ; Jiang Y. ; Zhao Y. ; Wang J. ; Liu X. ; Hui B. ; Zhang X. ; Wang Y. Int. J. Nanomed. 2014, 9, 2469. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S59753
54	Calzado-Martin A. ; Encinar M. ; Tamayo J. ; Calleja M. ; Paulo A. S. ACS Nano 2016, 10 (3), 3365. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.5b07162
55	Mao H. ; Li J. ; Dulinska-Molak I. ; Kawazoe N. ; Takeda Y. ; Mamiya H. ; Chen G. Biomater. Sci. 2015, 3 (9), 1284. doi: 10.1039/c5bm00141b
56	Ogneva I. V. ; Buravkov S. V. ; Shubenkov A. N. ; Buravkova L. B. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2014, 9 doi: 10.1186/1556-276x-9-284
57	Tian X. ; Yang Z. ; Duan G. ; Wu A. ; Gu Z. ; Zhang L. ; Chen C. ; Chai Z. ; Ge C. ; Zhou R. Small 2017, 13 (3) doi: 10.1002/smll.201602133
58	Sun Q. ; Kanehira K. ; Taniguchi A. Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 2018, 19 (1), 271. doi: 10.1080/14686996.2018.1444318
59	Vieira L. F. A. ; Lins M. P. ; Viana I. ; Dos Santos J. E. ; Smaniotto S. ; Reis M. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2017, 12 (1), 200. doi: 10.1186/s11671-017-1982-3

[1]	段欣漩, Sendeku Marshet Getaye, 张道明, 周道金, 徐立军, 高学庆, 陈爱兵, 邝允, 孙晓明. 钨掺杂镍铁水滑石高效电催化析氧反应[J]. 物理化学学报, 2024, 40(1): 2303055 - .
[2]	罗耀武, 王定胜. 单原子催化剂电子结构调控实现高效多相催化[J]. 物理化学学报, 2023, 39(9): 2212020 -0 .
[3]	卢俊文, 张书南, 周浩志, 黄超杰, 夏林, 刘晓放, 罗虎, 王慧. 负载Ir单原子和团簇的α-MoC催化剂用于高效催化CO₂加氢制CO[J]. 物理化学学报, 2023, 39(11): 2302021 - .
[4]	邵长香, 曲良体. 水的气-液相转变获取电能研究进展[J]. 物理化学学报, 2023, 39(10): 2306004 - .
[5]	吴明亮, 章烨晖, 付战照, 吕之阳, 李强, 王金兰. 原子尺度钴基氮碳催化剂对析氧反应的构效关系的研究[J]. 物理化学学报, 2023, 39(1): 2207007 -0 .
[6]	毛赫南, 王晓工. 影响高浓度氧化石墨烯分散液流变行为的重要因素及群体平衡动力学分析[J]. 物理化学学报, 2022, 38(4): 2004025 - .
[7]	孙志聪, 罗二桂, 孟庆磊, 王显, 葛君杰, 刘长鹏, 邢巍. 采用薄层氮化碳促进的高性能钯基催化剂用于甲酸分解制氢[J]. 物理化学学报, 2022, 38(3): 2003035 - .
[8]	陈志洋, 唐雅婷, 吕泽, 孟霄汉, 梁前伟, 冯建国. 香茅油纳米乳剂的构建、表征、抗菌性能和细胞毒性[J]. 物理化学学报, 2022, 38(12): 2205053 - .
[9]	李宇明, 刘海超. 负载Pt-WO_x催化剂上甘油选择氢解合成1, 3-丙二醇[J]. 物理化学学报, 2022, 38(10): 2207014 - .
[10]	李喜宝, 刘积有, 黄军同, 何朝政, 冯志军, 陈智, 万里鹰, 邓芳. 全有机S型异质结PDI-Ala/S-C₃N₄光催化剂增强光催化性能[J]. 物理化学学报, 2021, 37(6): 2010030 - .
[11]	李聪明, 陈阔, 王晓月, 薛楠, 杨恒权. 探究Cu/ZnO相互作用对CO₂加氢制甲醇反应性能的影响[J]. 物理化学学报, 2021, 37(5): 2009101 - .
[12]	阙海峰, 江华宁, 王兴国, 翟朋博, 孟令佳, 张鹏, 宫勇吉. 二维材料范德华间隙的利用[J]. 物理化学学报, 2021, 37(11): 2010051 - .
[13]	吴智伟, 丁伟璐, 张雅琴, 王艳磊, 何宏艳. 咪唑类离子液体与酪氨酸相互作用及机理的密度泛函理论研究[J]. 物理化学学报, 2021, 37(10): 2002021 - .
[14]	王苗, 郑虹宁, 许菲. 异氰酸苯酯诱导的类胶原多肽自组装[J]. 物理化学学报, 2021, 37(10): 1911039 - .
[15]	李凯旋, 张泰隆, 李会增, 李明珠, 宋延林. 纳米粒子的精准组装[J]. 物理化学学报, 2020, 36(9): 1911057 - .

纳米粒子与细胞相互作用的力学–化学偶联研究进展

Progress in Chemo–Mechanical Interactions between Nanoparticles and Cells

RichHTML

PDF

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 4

参考文献 59

相关文章 15

Metrics

推荐阅读 0