O visualize the nanoparticles they were labeled with 6-coumarin. The cellular

O visualize the nanoparticles they were labeled with 6-coumarin. The cellular uptake assay shows that the normal primary BMECs could take up ENPs and NPs (Fig. 3.C and D), which are internalized in the cells through fluid-phase pinocytosis and endocytosis. However, the fluorescence intensity of the TNF-ainduced BMECs is higher for the ENPs than for the NPs (Fig. 3.A and B) which accounts for the TNF-a-induced BMECs could take up the ENPs better than the NPs. And the injured BMECs could take up the ENPs better than the normal cells (Fig. 3.A and C). The MedChemExpress Tramiprosate results show that EGFP-EGF1 could enhance the location concentration of PLGA nanoparticles in the injured BMECs because of its ability to target these 115103-85-0 TFexpressing cells [19]. As the in vitro release experiments show, siRNAs can be released from the nanoparticles (Fig. 2). Moreover, the Cy3-labeled-siRNAs (Red) and the 6-coumarin labeled ENPs (Green) can be determined in the injured BMECs at the same time after transfection (Fig. 4.D). It illustrates the released siRNAs can enter the injured primary BMECs by the ENPs. All of these results show that the ENPs have the capacity for targeted delivery to specific cells. Second, when the TFsiRNA was transfected into the injured BMECs by the ENPs or NPs, it guided sequence-specific gene silencing of the target mRNAs that they were perfectly complemented by directing the RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC) to mediate site-specific cleavage and to destroy the mRNA [33]. The results were shown in the mRNA and protein levels we can see an efficient downregulation of TF in the injured BMECs. However, the gene knockdown efficiency is apparently different for the treatments using the siRNA/ENPs and the siRNA/NPs. It’s possible that more of the TF-siRNA carried by the ENPs could enter the injured BMECs than that carried by the NPs because the new carrier has the targeted delivery. The efficient gene silencing shows that the new carrier has the capacity for persistently activate RNAi with a high efficiency. The use of traditional carriers, such as liposomes and viral vectors, is limited by safety issues, such acute toxicity, cellular immune response, and quality control. However, PLGA is approved byFigure 7. The TF activity was determined using the TF activity assay kit. The relative fold of TF activity was normalized using the normal BMECs. **P,0.01, 11P,0.01, ##P,0.05. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060860.ga higher cytotoxicity over a 24 h time period than the cells transfected with ENPs or NPs which exhibited almost no cytotoxicity. In the primary BMECs transfected, the cell viability was 96.5162.95 with ENP transfection and 96.2862.02 with NP transfection as compared with only 74.8262.57 with Lipofectamine 2000 transfection (Fig. 5.A). Moreover, there was no significant dose-dependent cytotoxicity for the different nanoparticles (Fig. 5.B).3.4. Effect of TF-siRNA-loaded ENPs on TF ExpressionThe real-time PCR results showed that the TF mRNA level of the injured BMECs exhibited an approximately 4.1-fold decrease following transfection with TF-siRNA-loaded ENPs compared with the control (Fig. 6.A). The downregulation efficiency is higher than the NP-based transfection rate. The TF protein levels were determined by western blot (Fig. 6.B) and flow cytometry (Fig. 6.C). The western blot results showed that the TF protein expression was only 58.5 in the injured BMECs and that the downregulation efficiency exhibited a 1.41fold increase compared with that f.O visualize the nanoparticles they were labeled with 6-coumarin. The cellular uptake assay shows that the normal primary BMECs could take up ENPs and NPs (Fig. 3.C and D), which are internalized in the cells through fluid-phase pinocytosis and endocytosis. However, the fluorescence intensity of the TNF-ainduced BMECs is higher for the ENPs than for the NPs (Fig. 3.A and B) which accounts for the TNF-a-induced BMECs could take up the ENPs better than the NPs. And the injured BMECs could take up the ENPs better than the normal cells (Fig. 3.A and C). The results show that EGFP-EGF1 could enhance the location concentration of PLGA nanoparticles in the injured BMECs because of its ability to target these TFexpressing cells [19]. As the in vitro release experiments show, siRNAs can be released from the nanoparticles (Fig. 2). Moreover, the Cy3-labeled-siRNAs (Red) and the 6-coumarin labeled ENPs (Green) can be determined in the injured BMECs at the same time after transfection (Fig. 4.D). It illustrates the released siRNAs can enter the injured primary BMECs by the ENPs. All of these results show that the ENPs have the capacity for targeted delivery to specific cells. Second, when the TFsiRNA was transfected into the injured BMECs by the ENPs or NPs, it guided sequence-specific gene silencing of the target mRNAs that they were perfectly complemented by directing the RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC) to mediate site-specific cleavage and to destroy the mRNA [33]. The results were shown in the mRNA and protein levels we can see an efficient downregulation of TF in the injured BMECs. However, the gene knockdown efficiency is apparently different for the treatments using the siRNA/ENPs and the siRNA/NPs. It’s possible that more of the TF-siRNA carried by the ENPs could enter the injured BMECs than that carried by the NPs because the new carrier has the targeted delivery. The efficient gene silencing shows that the new carrier has the capacity for persistently activate RNAi with a high efficiency. The use of traditional carriers, such as liposomes and viral vectors, is limited by safety issues, such acute toxicity, cellular immune response, and quality control. However, PLGA is approved byFigure 7. The TF activity was determined using the TF activity assay kit. The relative fold of TF activity was normalized using the normal BMECs. **P,0.01, 11P,0.01, ##P,0.05. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060860.ga higher cytotoxicity over a 24 h time period than the cells transfected with ENPs or NPs which exhibited almost no cytotoxicity. In the primary BMECs transfected, the cell viability was 96.5162.95 with ENP transfection and 96.2862.02 with NP transfection as compared with only 74.8262.57 with Lipofectamine 2000 transfection (Fig. 5.A). Moreover, there was no significant dose-dependent cytotoxicity for the different nanoparticles (Fig. 5.B).3.4. Effect of TF-siRNA-loaded ENPs on TF ExpressionThe real-time PCR results showed that the TF mRNA level of the injured BMECs exhibited an approximately 4.1-fold decrease following transfection with TF-siRNA-loaded ENPs compared with the control (Fig. 6.A). The downregulation efficiency is higher than the NP-based transfection rate. The TF protein levels were determined by western blot (Fig. 6.B) and flow cytometry (Fig. 6.C). The western blot results showed that the TF protein expression was only 58.5 in the injured BMECs and that the downregulation efficiency exhibited a 1.41fold increase compared with that f.