Fig. 2: Preparation and characterization of Nano-sapper.
a Nano-sapper was prepared via reversed-phase microemulsion followed by thin-film hydration. MP, α-mangostin phosphate; LMWP, low molecular weight protamine. b Schematic representation of plasmid encoding 6 × His tag fused LIGHT. c, d Visual appearance and size distribution of Nano-sapper were detected by DLS and TEM. The experiments were repeated twice independently. e Representative images of the transfection efficiency of EGFP coding Nano-sapper in activated NIH3T3 and KPC1199 cells. Scale bars, 100 μm. The experiments were repeated three times independently. f Relative mRNA expression of EGFP in activated NIH3T3 and KPC1199 cells. NC, negative control, the non-EGFP coding vector plasmid-loaded nanoparticle (FHK-pVector@CaMP), positive control was the commercial reagent, lipofectamine LTX with PLUSTM Reagent (n = 3 biologically independent samples). g The expression of EGFP in tumor. Scale bars, 100 μm. The experiments were repeated three times independently. h The expressions of 6 × His-tagged LIGHT in different organs were quantified by ELISA (n = 3 mice). Data are presented as mean ± s.d. One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni multiple comparisons post-test was used for (f) and two-tailed unpaired Student’s t-test was used for (h). ns, not significant. Error bars represent s.d. Source data of (h) are provided as a Source Data file.
