Skip to content


  • Nano Review
  • Open Access

Quantum dots: synthesis, bioapplications, and toxicity

  • 1,
  • 4,
  • 3,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 1Email author and
  • 1Email author
Nanoscale Research Letters20127:480

  • Received: 16 May 2012
  • Accepted: 26 July 2012
  • Published:


This review introduces quantum dots (QDs) and explores their properties, synthesis, applications, delivery systems in biology, and their toxicity. QDs are one of the first nanotechnologies to be integrated with the biological sciences and are widely anticipated to eventually find application in a number of commercial consumer and clinical products. They exhibit unique luminescence characteristics and electronic properties such as wide and continuous absorption spectra, narrow emission spectra, and high light stability. The application of QDs, as a new technology for biosystems, has been typically studied on mammalian cells. Due to the small structures of QDs, some physical properties such as optical and electron transport characteristics are quite different from those of the bulk materials.


  • QD delivery systems
  • Toxicity
  • Emission spectra
  • Luminescence characteristics



In the past years, a new class of fluorescent particles emerged as a good candidate for single molecule and single particle tracking (SPT) in living cells and organisms, the semiconductor quantum dots [1]. Quantum dots (QDs), often described as ‘artificial atoms,’ exhibit discrete energy levels, and their bandgap can be precisely modulated by varying the size [2]. QDs are nanometer-scale semiconductor crystals composed of groups II to VI or III to V elements and are defined as particles with physical dimensions smaller than the exciton Bohr radius [3]. QDs exhibit unique luminescence characteristics and electronic properties such as wide and continuous absorption spectra, narrow emission spectra, and high light stability [4]. They absorb white light and then re-emit a specific color a few nanoseconds later depending on the bandgap of the material [57]. QDs are one of the first nanotechnologies to be integrated with the biological sciences [4, 8] and are widely anticipated to eventually find application in a number of commercial consumer and clinical products [9]. For example, CdSe/ZnS quantum dots are presently the most common commercially available product as secondary antibody conjugates that are composed of a core of cadmium selenide ranging from about 10 to 50 atoms in diameter and about 100 to 100,000 atoms in total [10]. QD range is typically between 2 and 10 nm in diameter. QDs consist of a semiconductor core, overcoated by a shell (e.g., ZnS) to improve optical properties, and a cap enabling improved solubility in aqueous buffers [11]. The application of QDs, as a new technology for biosystems, has been mostly studied on mammalian cells. There is an increasing tendency to apply QDs as markers in plant science [1216]. The application of QDs as markers of the cells or their cell walls for plant bioimaging would be advantageous because of their small size, brightness, independence of emission on the excitation wavelength, and stability under relatively harsh environments. They also have excellent photostability [17] and overcome the limitations associated with photobleaching. Due to the small structures of QDs, some physical properties such as optical and electron transport characteristics are quite different from those of the bulk materials [18]. The study of the impurity states in these low dimensional structures is an important aspect to which many theoretical and experimental works based [16, 1921]. This review introduces QDs and explores their properties, synthesis, applications, delivery systems in biology, and their toxicity.


Several routes have been used to synthesize QDs [22] but, generally, techniques for QD synthesis used top-down processing methods and bottom-up approach. Top-down processing methods include molecular beam epitaxy (MBE), ion implantation, e-beam lithography, and X-ray lithography. Using the alternative bottom-up approach, colloidal QDs are prepared by self-assemblyin the solution following a chemical reduction [2326].

In the approaches of top-down, for making the QDs, a bulk semiconductor is thinned. For the achieve QDs of diameter approximately 30 nm, electron beam lithography, reactive-ion etching, and/or wet chemical etching are commonly used. For systematic experiments on quantum confinement effect, controlled shapes and sizes are achievable with the desired packing geometries. Alternatively, focused ion or laser beams have also been used to fabricate arrays of zero-dimension dots. Incorporation of impurities into the QDs and structural imperfections by patterning are major disadvantages with these processes [22].

A number of different self-assembly techniques (bottom-up) have been used to synthesize the QDs, and they may be broadly subdivided into wet-chemical and vapor-phase methods [22]: (a) wet-chemical methods mainly follow the conventional precipitation methods with careful control of parameters for a single solution or mixture of solutions. The precipitation process invariably involves both nucleation and limited growth of nanoparticles. Nucleation may be categorized as homogeneous, heterogeneous, or secondary nucleation [27]. Homogeneous nucleation occurs when solute atoms or molecules combine and reach a critical size without the assistance of a pre-existing solid interface. Wet-chemical methods are generally microemulsion, sol–gel [2830], competitive reaction chemistry, hot-solution decomposition [3133], sonic waves or microwaves [34], and electrochemistry. (b) Vapor-phase methods for producing QDs begin with processes in which layers are grown in an atom-by-atom process. Consequently, self-assembly of QDs occurs on a substrate without any patterning [3538]. Self-assembly of nanostructures in material grown by MBE, sputtering, liquid metal ion sources, or aggregation of gaseous monomers are generally categorized under vapor-phase methods [22]. MBE has been mainly used to self-assemble QDs from III-V semiconductors and II-VI semiconductors using the large lattice mismatch, e.g., InAs on GaAs has a 7% mismatch and leads to SK growth [35].


In this review, we evaluate few experiments that show the high potential of QDs in biological application, including tracking different macromolecules in the cell, tracking various cells in the tissue, labeling organelles and cells, clinical applications, and other applications [3943].

QDs for labeling cells

Because QDs have constant and unique optical properties, they are the best candidate for cell labeling, as compared with organic dyes.

Use in plant bioimaging There is an increasing application of QD as markers for the cells or cell walls (CWs) in plant science. A first target location for external agents in a plant cell is the CW [44]. Djikanović et al. demonstrated that CdSe QDs bind typically to cellulose and lignin in the cell wall of Picea omorika branch. Respectively, binding to lignin and cellulose are achieved by interaction with the chains of C = C and C-C alternating bonds and interaction with the OH groups [44]. Data showed that QDs are suitable for homogenous marking of the whole cell wall. This is a consequence of the structural arrangement of the cell wall polymers in the whole cell wall network as well as the extremely small size of the QDs. These characteristics enable a feasible penetration of the nanoparticles inside the polymer structures in the CW composite [44].

Use in animal bioimaging Goldman et al. used biotinylated CTxB in conjunction with QD-avidin conjugates [45] for labeling of the live HeLa cells which Figure 1 shows an image of the lateral membrane staining for GM1 ganglioside using QDs (in red) and nuclear staining using Hoechst (in blue). Punctuate labeling of the cell surface by QD bioconjugate is typical for molecules such as GM1 that is present in membrane rafts [46].
Figure 1
Figure 1

Live HeLa cells growing on a glass coverslip. Labeled with QD-avidin for GM1 (in red) and Hoechst 3342 for nuclear staining (in blue) [46].

In another study, they labeled live HeLa cells which were biotinylated using sulfo-NHS-SS biotinylating reagent and then incubated with the avidin-conjugated yellow-emitting QDs. It is shown in Figure 2[47].
Figure 2
Figure 2

HeLa cells labeled with the avidin-conjugated yellow-emitting QDs.[47]. (A) Image of cells immediately after the unbound QDs were removed in which labeling is restricted to the cell surface. (B) Image of a cell that was allowed to grow for 2 h after washing out of unbound QDs.

For long-term live cell imaging, Hasegawa et al. used the CHPNH2-QD complexes which were uniformly internalized into the cells without being aggregated. Therefore, CHPNH2 nanogel has high potential for use in long-term live cell imaging. The interaction of QDs with cells was successfully controlled by the amino group content of the CHPNH2 nanogel [48].

Use in prokaryote bioimaging Sensitive and selective staining of bacterial mutants using QD labels was demonstrated by Smith's group. This principle of detection is based on selective targeting affinity of Zn(II)-dipicolylamine coordination complex to phospholipids on the bacterial cell surface of specific strain as shown in Figure 3[49, 50].
Figure 3
Figure 3

Imaging of rough  Escherichia coli  JM83 cells. Left imaging is red QD, and right imaging is green QD. Scale bar is 2 μM [49].

In another study, authors demonstrated the use of magnetic beads coated with anti-E.coli O157 antibodies and streptavidin-coated QDs for measuring the bacterial cell concentration [51]. Yang and Li, using QDs with different emission wavelengths (525 nm and 705 nm), reported the simultaneous detection of E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella typhimurium[52].

Tracking different particles

With the application of new imaging methods and the use of brighter and more stable probes, such as QDs, single particle tracking has the potential to enter into a new era of high resolution and long timescale imaging [5355]. SPT techniques allow scientists to follow single molecules in real time and visualize the actual molecular dynamics in their habitant environment.

For extracellular study Because QDs do not require intracellular delivery through the impermeable plasma membrane, membrane receptors or membrane-associated proteins are intuitive targets for QD imaging [53]. Howarth et al. demonstrated a method to track endogenous cell-surface proteins without cross-linking by purifying monovalent antibody-QD conjugates. They approach to make monovalent tight-binding QDs, using mSA, which could be applied to other nanoparticles that show sufficient electrophoretic mobility. They applied sQD-mSA1 to study the mobility of a mutant of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor with a truncated cytosolic tail, originally found from an individual with familial hypercholesterolemia. This mutant phenotype has been extensively investigated by following LDL, but Howarth and co-workers analyzed the behavior of the receptor itself (supplementary methods). They imaged single monovalent sQDs bound to the biotinylated AP-LDL receptor, as indicated by QD fluorescence intensity and blinking. The mobility of mutant receptors labeled with sQD-mSA1 was significantly greater than that of labeled wild-type LDL receptor (P = 1.6 × 10−14) [56].

In similar studies, recently, QDs used to target membrane proteins and investigate the mobility and entry-exit kinetics in several systems: (1) various transmembrane proteins, for example, integrins [57], channels [58], and aquaporines [59]; (2) receptors GABA [60], glycine [61], interferon [62], and HER [63, 64]; and (3) neurological synapse [65, 66].

For intracellular study In one of the study, the advantages of the broad, continuous excitation spectrum were demonstrated in a dual-emission, single-excitation labeling experiment on mouse fibroblasts. These nanocrystal probes are, thus, complementary and, in some cases, may be superior to existing fluorophores [4]. Nonspecific labeling of the nucleus by both the red and the green probes resulted in a yellow color. The red actin filaments were specifically stained. Also, the green probes penetrate into the nucleus. Both are shown in Figure 4[4].
Figure 4
Figure 4

Image was obtained with 363-nm excitation and × 40 oil 1.3 numerical aperture objective.

This is shown as green color for nucleus and red color for actin filaments. Nonspecific labeling of the nucleus by both the red and the green probes resulted in a yellow color [4].

Superior stability of QD fluorophores gives the possibility to improve quantitation of FISH analysis of human chromosomal changes. Xiao and Barker have investigated coated (CdSe)ZnS QDs as fluorescence labels for FISH of biotinylated DNA to human lymphocyte metaphase chromosomes under conditions that approximate those commonly found in clinical cytogenetics laboratories [67]. They have also demonstrated the application of QDs to FISH detection of the clinically relevant HER2 locus in breast cancer cells (Figure 5).
Figure 5
Figure 5

Qualitative FISH detection of HER2 gene-amplified SK-BR-3 breast cancer cells. With (A) streptavidin-conjugated Qdot605 and (B) FITC, respectively [67].

Pierobon et al. [68] and Nelson et al. [69] tagged myosin V molecules with QDS toestablish a link between in vitro and in-cell measurements of myosin V motors. Then, the complex myosin V/QD (MyoV::QD), using the pinocytic influx, was introduced into the cells.

Yoo et al. [70] and Courty et al. [71] characterized the dynamics of other major actors of intracellular transport: the kinesin-1, the actin filaments, and the microtubules [65].

Imaging in situ

Imaging of the satellite cells in rat intact and injured soleus muscles using quantum dots The employment of satellite cells, which are located between the basement membrane and the plasma membrane in myofibers, is required for myofiber repair after muscle injury or disease. Using QDs conjugated to anti-M-cadherin antibody, Ishido and Kasuga attempted the visualization of satellite cells in both intact and injured skeletal muscle of rat in situ. They demonstrated in situ real-time imaging of satellite cells localized within the skeletal muscle (Figure 6) [72].
Figure 6
Figure 6

Double fluorescence staining to visualize the localization of M-cadherin (in red) and nuclei (in blue). Arrows indicate that M-cadherin-positive satellite cells were located within the intact soleus muscle in situ[72].

Imaging morphogenesis in Xenopus with quantum dot nanocrystals Stylianou and Skourides are the first to report the use of near-infrared QDs to image mesoderm migration in vivo with single cell resolution and provide quantitative in vivo data regarding migration rates [73].

Navarro et al. experiments revealed that Arabidopsis exposed to QDs that are dispersed in Hoagland's solution for 1 to 7 days did not internalize intact QDs. Fluorescence microscopy showed strong evidence that the QDs were generally on the outside surfaces of the roots (Figure 7). The amount of QDs adsorbed is dependent on the stability of the QDs in suspension [74].
Figure 7
Figure 7

Imaging of roots from plants exposed to QD suspension in HS + HA. For (A) 1 and (B) 7 days [74].HS, Hoagland's solution; HA, one of the important groups of organic acids.

Using QDs in clinical applications

The development of multifunctional nanomaterials combining diagnostic and therapeutic purpose has recently attracted intensive interests [7581]. In this paper, we have reviewed the clinical applications of QDs in the three categories that include: (1) biomarker detection in various cancers, (2) imaging and sensing of infectious diseases, and (3) other clinical therapeutic applications.

Biomarker detection in various cancers using QDs The detection of cancer biomarkers is important for diagnosis, disease stage forecasting, and clinical management [82]. QDs with intense and stable fluorescent properties could enable the detection of tens to hundreds of cancer biomarkers in blood assays, on cancer tissue biopsies, or as contrast agents for medical imaging. Clinical outcome of cancer diagnosis is highly dependent on the stage at which the malignancy is detected, and therefore, early screening has become extremely important in any type of cancer [83].
  1. 1.

    Multicolor and multiplexing potentialities of QDs are used for the detection of four protein biomarkers CD15, CD30, CD45, and Pax5 of Hodgkin's lymphoma from lymphoma tissues. Simultaneous visualization using multiplexed QD staining was advantageous for the selective identification of rare Hodgkin (Reed-Sternberg) cells, a primary diagnostic target for Hodgkin's disease, which was not achievable using traditional immunohistochemistry assays [84, 85].

  2. 2.

    Yu et al. reported the use of GSH-TGA-QDs-ND-1 probes to label colorectal cancer cells CCL187. They prepared QDs, which were conjugated with monoclonal antibody ND-1 for specific reaction with antigen LEA [86].

  3. 3.

    In the United States, pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death (about 18,770 men and 18,030 women (36,800 people) in 2010) [87]. Using semiconductor QD-antibody conjugates, Lee et al. demonstrated quantitative profiling of biomarkers for pancreatic cancer at the single-cell level. Their results show the possibility of this method for staging and forecasting, such as prostate stem cell antigen claudin-4, and mesothelin, which are expressed in different stages of progression of pancreatic cancer [82]. Anyway, realizing quantitative profiling requires stable quantum yield, monodisperse QD-Ab conjugates, and well-defined surface chemistry [88].


There are evidences showing the application of QDs in micro- and nanoarrays for the detection of cancer biomarkers [83].

Imaging and sensing of infectious diseases by QDs QDs have become one of the most hopeful and interesting materials for diagnostic applications of bioimaging, labeling, and sensing for infectious diseases such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)that isone of the families of Paramyxoviridae [50]. In Table 1, some of the infectious diseases and QDs used to distinguish them are shown.
Table 1

Some of the infectious diseases and QDs used to distinguish them


Type of infectious diseases

 In vitro / in vivo 

Type of modified QDs

Tripp et al. [89]


In vitro/in vivo

Antibody anti-F protein conjugated to QDs(CdTe)

Agrawal et al. [90]

Individual molecules of genes, proteins, and virus particles

In vivo

QD-antibody color-coded NP probes and two-color co-localization imaging

Bentzen et al. [91]


In vivo

Streptavidin-coated QDs conjugated to antibody anti-F and antibody anti-G

Dwarakanath et al. [92]

S. typhimurium

In vivo

Antibody-QD and DNA aptamer-QD


E. coli


B. subtilis spores


Goldman et al. [93]

Choleratoxin, ricin, shinga-like toxin1 and staphylococcal enterotoxin B

In vitro

Antibody-QD (CdSe/Zns)

Zhao et al. [94]

Food-borne pathogenic E. coli O157:H7, S. typhimurium and S. flexneri


QDanti-S. flexneri antibody,anti-E. coli antibody, anti-S. typhimurium antibody

Hahn et al. [95]

Single cells of E.coli O157:H7


Streptavidin-coated QDs conjugated to antibody

Mukhopadhyay et al. [96]

Detect E. coli at levels as low as 104 bacteria/ml of sample


Mannose-conjugated QDs

Edgar et al. [97]


In vivo

Streptavidin-coated QDs conjugated to phage


B. anthracis


Zhu et al. [98]

C. parvum


QD-conjugated antibodies


G. lamblia


Klostranec et al. [99]

Biomarkers of the most globally prevalent blood-borne infectious diseases (i.e., hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and HIV) with low sample volume



Gazouli et al. [100]

Mycobacterium genus

In vivo

Specific DNA sequences combining QDs with magnetic beads [101, 102]

Hahn et al. [95]

Individual pathogenic E. coli O157:H7 in phosphate buffer saline solution


Streptavidin-coated Qdots labeled by antibody selectively targeted pathogenic E. coli O157:H7

Su and Li [51]

E. coli O157

In vivo

Streptavidin-coated QDs conjugated to anti-E. coli O157 antibody

Yang and Li [52]

E. coli O157H7

In vivo

QDs with different sizes conjugated to anti-E. coli O157 and anti-Salmonella antibodies


S. typhimurium


The bead-cell complexes reacted with QD-antibody conjugates to form bead-cell-QD complexes

Other clinical therapeutic applications.

  1. 1.

    QDs for assessing axon growth

    A major health problem with injuries to the spinal cord and brain is traumatic central nervous system injury reporting of approximately 265,000 and 1.5 million new injuries each year [103105]. QDs represent a new device of significant potential in neuroscience research, and they are useful for experiments that are limited by the restricted anatomy of neuronal and glial interactions [106]. One of the problems in treatment is estimating its effectiveness. They allow the ability to visualize and track dynamic molecular processes over long times (Figure 8) [106]. Application of surface-engineered QDs is an area of nanotechnology probing the details of cellular and molecular processes in neuronal cells [4, 107109]. QD bioconjugates based on surface chemistry can be broadly classified as follows: (1) QDs' surface modified by bioactive molecules and (2) QD-polymer nanocomposites [103]. This advance might be significantly important to assess axon growth pending the regeneration process [103]. Previous investigations were demonstrated in Table 2.

  2. 2.

    QD used as a probe in an anti-malarial drug-screening assay

    Malaria is a major global health problem, threatening over 300 million people and causing nearly one million deaths annually [114, 115]. Tokumasu et al. used QD-Ab to demonstrate the distinct pattern of distribution of protein and to observe erythrocyte membrane deformation occurring duringthe invasion of erythrocytes by Plasmodium falciparum[116]. Ku et al. showed a simple and efficient method to label P. falciparum-infected RBC using a QD-based probe and its applicability as an efficient probe for anti-malarial drug screening [115].

Figure 8
Figure 8

Using QD conjugated with antibody for labeling of neurons and glia. (A) Labeled β-tubulin in primary cortical neurons. (B) Labeled glial fibrillary acidic protein in primary cortical astrocytes. (C) Labeled for β-tubulin in PC12 cells [106].

Table 2

Applications of QDs in labeling neurons and glia cells


Type of QD used

Application of QD

Dahan et al. [61]


Target neurons to investigate a specific neurophysiological process(QDs to track individual glycine receptors and analyze their lateral dynamics in the neuronal membrane)

Pathak et al. [106]

Antibody-conjugated quantum dots

Performed the specific labeling of neurons and glia cells

Vu et al. [110]

Tagged nerve growth factor (βNGF) to QDs

Investigate the QD nanostructure's potential to assess the neurite outgrowth

Sundara Rajan et al. [111]

QD-anti-TrkA-TrkA receptor with transport by GFP

Immobilized QDs were conjugated with NGF, activate Trk receptors, and initiate neuronal differentiation in PC12 cells.

Howarth et al. [112]

Tagged cell surface proteins with a specific peptide (acceptor protein) that can be directly biotinylated as a target for streptavidin-conjugated quantum dots

Specifically label and track AMPA receptors on cultured hippocampal neurons

Prasad et al. [113]

Thioglycolic acid (TGA)-stabilized CdTe QDs

Performed imaging of PC12 cells

Other applications

QDs as pH probes for the study of enzyme reaction kinetics[117] Lately, worth advancement has been achieved in water-soluble QDs as ionic probe. Jin et al. reported the use of modified CdSe QDs for the sensitive determination of cyanide ions [C ≡ N][117, 118]. Xie et al. reported the determination of Cu2+ by using CdSe/ZnS QDs modified with bovine serum albumin [119]. QDs also have been reported to be sensitive to pH [120125]. The sensitivity of QDs' photoluminescence to pH, improve stability, and a monitoring range for the determination of proton concentration, which is maybe due to a function of surface modifications and effects on exciton trap sites, leads to applications utilizing QDs as pH probes [126]. Water-soluble QDs, ZnS, modified with mercaptoacetic acid (MAA) were sensitive to environmental factors and found to be a satisfactory pH probes that could have potential applications in chemical and biochemical sensing. Using the modified QD surface, they were applied as pH probes in monitoring the hydrolysis of glycidyl butyrate which is catalyzed by porcine pancreatic lipase (PPL) [117].

QDs use for protein micro- and nanoarrays to the detection of cancer biomarkers Protein microarrays are useful device as highthroughput screening tools in proteomics [127129], for biosensing purpose [130], new drug discovery [131], and enabling a quick parallel screening method for the detection of protein-protein interactions in case of large protein populations. There are various reports in which QDs have been used in microarray fabrication such as sandwich-based immunoassay type, RP protein microarray type, etc. [132135]. Here, IgG detection was done on a glass chip using a QD-labeled secondary Abs as sandwich assay approach. In RP protein microarrays, Geho et al. used pegylated QDs conjugated with streptavidin as detection elements. In another study, Zajac et al. investigated the ability of the platform to detect different cytokines TNF-α, IL-8, IL-6, MIP-1β, IL-13, and IL-1β using two different models of quantum dot probes. Their results demonstrated high sensitivity of the investigated detection system with less than picomolar concentration [136]. Kerman et al. reported the use of QDs for detection cell lysates spiked with DNA-PK proteins with the help of mAb, in an RP protein microarray format. Kerman et al. make immunosensor based on QD for the detection of prostate specific antigen (PSA) in a sandwich assay approach for chip fabrication [134]. Gokarna et al. used pegylated QD-conjugated PSA Abs to demonstrate the fabrication of a cancer protein biochip for the detection of PSA, which is a biomarker for prostate cancer. The QD nonspecificity can show to be quite detrimental to some extent in case of multiplexed assay systems where multiple proteins are to be detected simultaneously [83].

QD delivery Due to the unique properties of QDs, they are best tools for intracellular studies such as visualizing the cellular structure, studying the dynamic cellular processes, and tracking single molecules in the cell [137, 138]. To achieve this goal, translocation of functionalized QDs into the cell for labeling organelles and tracking single molecules is important. QDs have hydrophobic surface and have a little toxicity, therefore cannot be applied in vivo unless their surface is modified. Thus, by surface modification, their hydrophilicity will increase but their toxicity will decrease.

Hasegawa et al. used nanogel-QD hybrid nanoparticles for live cell imaging [48]. They also confirmed the cellular uptake of CHPNH2(15)-QD nanoparticles using other normal cells (TIG-3 and MRC-5) and cancer cells (T24, Saos-2, T98G, A549, MCF-7, and YKG-1) (Figure 9) [48].
Figure 9
Figure 9

Confocal laser scanning fluorescence microscopyimages of cells labeled with CHPNH 2 (15)-QD nanoparticle. (A) TIG-3 cells, (B) MRC-5 cells, (C) MCF-7 cells, and (D) YKG-1 cells [48].

In recent years, functional peptides that transmit biomaterials into cells have been developed in biomaterial research. Because of lysosomal trapping, QD delivery into cells with conjugated cell-penetrating peptides by the endocytic pathway was challenging in biomedical applications [139]. In another study, engineered peptides for producing QDs tagging protein ligands and biosensors to their surfaces, by appropriate cysteines or histidines, have served as ligands [140]. Encapsulation of QDs in viral capsids provides a new tool which allows the design of intracellular microscopic probes and vectors [141]. More samples of QD delivery systems are shown in Table 3.
Table 3

QD delivery systems


Delivery system of QD


Jia et al. [142]

Multiwalled carbon nanotube (MWNT) delivery system

MWNTs are containing antisense oligodeoxynucleotides and CdTe QDs via electrostatically layer-by-layer assembling.

Chen et al. [143], Xue et al. [144], Delehanty et al. [145], Ruan et al. [146], Wei et al.[147]

Tat peptide-mediated delivery system

QDs conjugated to the cell-penetrating peptide derived from the human immunodeficiency virus-1 transactivator protein

Lagerholm et al. [148]

Peptide delivery system

Nine residue biotinylated l-arginine peptide is used to enhance delivery of streptavidin-conjugated QDs into mammalian cells.

Bagalkot et al. [149]

A10 RNA aptamer

Functionalizes the surface of QD with the A10 RNA aptamer, which recognizes the extracellular domain of the prostate specific membrane antigen

Bakalova et al. [150]

Silica-shelled quantum dots

Based on silica-shelled single QD micelles with incorporated paramagnetic substances [tris(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-3,5-heptanedionate)/gadolinium] into the micelle and/or silica coat

Yum et al. [151]

Nanoscale mechanochemical method

Using a membrane-penetrating nanoneedle

Yuan et al. [152]

Chitosan (N-acetylglucosamine) tumor-targeted drug delivery

QDs encapsulated with chitosan

Hasegawa et al. [48]

Nanogel-QD hybrid

Nanogels of CHPNH 2 with 15 amino groups per 100 glucose units and QDs that were conjugated with protein A molecules were mixed.

Dixit et al. [141]

Viral vectors

QDs encapsulation in viral capsids

Zhang and Liu [153]

Nonviral vectors

Cappingthe surface of ZnO QD with poly(2-(dimethylamino) ethyl methacrylate)

Jablonski et al. [154]

Cationic peptide and a hydrophobic counterion

Quantum dots have been delivered to the cytosol of living cells using a combination of a cationic peptide, polyarginine, and a hydrophobic counterion, pyrenebutyrate.

Qi and Gau [155]

QD-amphipol nanocomplex

Advantages include cytoplasm delivery and endosome escape.

Gao et al. [109]

Polymeric delivery system

The structural design involves encapsulating QDs with an ABC triblock copolymer and linking this amphiphilic polymer.

Duan and Nie [77]

Polymeric delivery system

QDs were encapsulated by PEI-g-PEG.

Toxicity of QDs

There are different opinions about the toxicity of QDs; therefore, we investigated their toxicity in amoeba as primary eukaryotes, in plant, and in animal.

In amoeba

It has been determined that QD labeling had no detectable effect on cell growth and had no deleterious effects on cellular signaling and motility during development of the Dictyostelium discoideum cells [47].

In plant

The ratio of reduced glutathione levels (GSH) relative to the oxidized glutathione (GSSG) in plants suggests that QDs caused oxidative stress on the plant at this condition [74].

In animal

Yan et al. investigated the potential vascular endothelial toxicity of mercaptosuccinic acid (2-sulfanylbutanedioic acid)-capped QDs in vitro. Their results suggested that QDs could not only impair mitochondria but also exert endothelial toxicity through activation of mitochondrial death pathway and induction of endothelial apoptosis [156].

More recently, Chen et al. have studied the cytotoxicity of CdTe/CdS (core-shell) structured and also CdTe/CdS/ZnS (core-shell-shell) structured aqueous synthesized QDs, and their results suggest that the cytotoxicity of CdTe QDs not only comes from the release of Cd2+ ions but also intracellular distribution of QDs in cells and the associated nanoscale effects [157]. Table 4 demonstrated more results for toxicity of QDs [158162].
Table 4

More details for toxicity of QDs (modified from[163])




QD concentration

Exposure duration




EL-4 cells

1 × 106 cells/well

0.1 to 0.4 mg/mL

0 to 24 h

Cytotoxic: 0.1 mg/mL altered cell growth; most cells nonviable at 0.4 mg/mL

Hoshino et al. 2004a


EL-4 cells

200-μL cell suspension injected (iv) into the mice

0.1 mg/mL QDs per 5 × 107 cells

2 h to 7 days

No toxicity in mice in vivo

Hoshino et al. 2004a (in vivo)

CdSe/ZnS conjugates: NH2, OH, OH/COOH, H2/OH, MUA, COOH

WTK1 cells

5 × 104 cells/mL

1 to 2 μM

12 h

2-μM QD-COOH-induced DNA damage at 2 h

Hoshino et al. 2004b


Vero, HeLa, and primary human hepatocytes

100-μL QDs/3 × 104 cells

0 to 0.4 mg/mL

24 h

Cytotoxic: 0.2 mg/mL, Vero; 0.1 mg/mL, HeLa; 0.1 mg/mL, hepatocytes

Shiohara et al. 2004


Rat pheochromocytoma cells, murine, microglial cells

1 × 105 cells/cm2

0.01 to 100 μg/mL

2 to 24 h

10 μg/mL cytotoxic

Lovric et al. 2005


Primary rat hepatocytes


62.5-1,000 μg/mL

1 to 8 h

Cytotoxic: 62.5 μg/mL cytotoxic under oxidative/photolytic conditions

Derfus 2004

No toxicity on addition of ZnS cap

QD micelles: CdSe/ZnS QDs in (PEG-PE) and phosphatydilcholine

Xenopus blastomeres

5 × 109 QDs/cell(approximately 0.23 pmol/cell)

1.5 to 3 nL of 2.3-μM QDs injected, approximately 2.1 × 109 to 4.2 × 109 injected QDs/cell


5 × 109 QDs/cell: cell abnormalities, altered viability and motility

Dubertret et al. 2002

No toxicity at 2 × 109 QDs/cell

CdSe/ZnS amp-QDs and mPEG QDs [158]


200-μL tail vein injection

Injections, approximately 180-nM QD, approximately20-pmol QD/g animal weight

15-min cell incubations, 1 to 133 days in vivo

No signs of localized necrosis at the sites of deposition

Ballou et al. 2004


Dictyostelium discoideum and HeLa cells


400 to 600 nM

45 to 60 min

No effects on cell growth

Jaiswal et al. 2003

Avidin-conjugated CdSe/ZnS QDs

HeLa cells


0.5 to 1.0 μM

15 min

No effect on cell growth and development

Jaiswal et al. 2003

CdSe/ZnS-amphiphilic micelle


Tail vein injection

60-μM QD/g animal weight, 1-μM and 20-nM final QD concentration

Not given

Mice showed no noticeable ill effects after imaging

Larson et al. 2003


Mice, B16F10 cells

5 × 104 B16F10 cells with 10-μL QDs (approximately 10 pmol), tail vein (iv) injection

100 μL of B16F10 cells used for tail vein injection, approximately 2 × 105 to 4 × 105 cells injected

4- to 6-h cell incubation, mice sacrificed at 1 to 6 h

No toxicity observed in cells or mice

Voura et al. 2004

CdSe/ZnS-MUA QDs; QD-SSA complexes [162]

Vero cells

0.4 mg/mL

0.24 mg/mL

2 h

0.4-mg/mL MUA/SSA-QD complexes did not affect viability of Vero cells

Hanaki et al. 2003


HeLa cells

1 × 106 cells

10-pmol QDs/1 × 105 cells (approximately 10 nM)

10 days (cell culture)

10-nM QD had minimal impact on cell survival

Chen and Gerion 2004

CdTe aqQDs

HEK293 cells

1 × 105 cells

300 or 600 nM

3 days

Nearly completely inhibited cell growth even from the very beginning

Nan Chen et al. 2012


PC12 cells

1 × 105 cells/cm2

1 to 100 nM

72 h

At 1 nM,did not initiate any detrimental effects; at 100 nM, resulted in the death of all cells

Babu R Prasad et al. 2010

CdTe, CdTe/CdS, CdTe/CdS/ZnS

K562 and HEK293T human cell lines

1 × 105 cells

0.2 to 3.0 μM

0 to 48 h

Cells treated with CdTe and CdTe/CdS QDs were mostly nonviable by 48 h (for all concentrations tested).

Su et al. 2009

CdSe/ZnS-PEG (EviTag T1 490 QD)

Caco-2 (human colon carcinoma) cell line

106 cells/ml, 0.2 ml/well

0.84 to 105 μM

0 to 24 h

Commercially available QD demonstrated low cytotoxicity but induced cell detachment.

Wang et al. 2008


Primary rat hippocampal neuron cells in culture

104to 105 cells/ml

1, 10, and 20nM

24 h

1-nM QD for 24 h showed no decrease in cell viability; in contrast, cells treated with 10- and 20-nM QD for 24 h showed decreases in cell viability on the order of 20 and 30%.

Tang et al., 2008


In this review, we summarize few experiments that illustrate the high potential of QDs used for/as:
  1. 1.

    labeling biomolecules and cells;

  2. 2.

    tracer to follow the intracellular/extracellular dynamic of a single biomolecule/cell;

  3. 3.

    localization of biomolecules in vitro/in vivo;

  4. 4.

    imaging of biomolecules or cells in vitro/in vivo;

  5. 5.

    assessing cell growth in damaged tissue;

  6. 6.

    pH probes for the study of enzyme reaction kinetics;

  7. 7.

    biomarker detection in various cancers;

  8. 8.

    imaging and sensing of infectious diseases; and

  9. 9.

    protein micro- and nanoarrays to the detection of cancer biomarkers.


These studies have been generated using QDs because of their small size, brightness, independence of emission on the excitation wavelength, and stability under relatively harsh environments which would be advantageous. In contrast, there are different opinions about the toxicity and fate of QDs in vivo. Therefore, more experiments should be done, and much more data should be available, to be sure to do clinical trials on humans.

Future prospects

In the future, QDs will be used for identifying various categories of cancer cells, the molecular mechanisms of disease, and new drug action mechanisms, applying them in the intracellular/extracellular studies, and making new methods for biochemical assaying.



The authors are grateful to the financial support from the Department of Medical Nanotechnology, Faculty of Advanced Medical Science, Iran, National Science Foundation Tabriz, Iran, and the Drug Applied Research Center Tabriz University of Medical Sciences.

Authors’ Affiliations

Department of Medical Nanotechnology, Faculty of Advanced Medical Science, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, 51664, Iran
Department of Physics, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, 51664, Iran
Tuberculosis and Lung Disease Research Center of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, 51656-65811, Iran


  1. Pierobon P, Cappello G: Quantum dots to tail single bio-molecules inside living cells. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2012, 64(2):167–178. 10.1016/j.addr.2011.06.004Google Scholar
  2. Klimov VI: Spectral and dynamical properties of multiexcitons in semiconductor nanocrystals. Annu Rev Phys Chem 2007, 58: 635–673. 10.1146/annurev.physchem.58.032806.104537Google Scholar
  3. Chan WC, Maxwell DJ, Gao X, Bailey RE, Han M: Luminescent quantum dots for multiplexed biological detection and imaging. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2002, 13(1):40–46. 10.1016/S0958-1669(02)00282-3Google Scholar
  4. Bruchez M, Moronne M, Gin P, Weiss S, Alivisatos AP: Semiconductor nanocrystals as fluorescent biological labels. Science 1998, 281(5385):2013–2016.Google Scholar
  5. Deb P, Bhattacharyya A, Ghosh SK, Ray R, Lahiri A: Excellent biocompatibility of semiconductor quantum dots encased in multifunctional poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) nanoreservoirs and nuclear specific labeling of growing neurons. Appl Phys Lett 2011, 98(10):103702–103703. 10.1063/1.3562036Google Scholar
  6. Dabbousi BO, Rodriguez-Viejo J, Mikulec FV, Heine JR, Mattoussi H, Ober R: (CdSe)ZnScore − shell quantum dots: synthesis and characterization of a size series of highly luminescent nanocrystallites. J Phys Chem B 1997, 101(46):9463–9475. 10.1021/jp971091yGoogle Scholar
  7. Bakalova R, Ohba H, Zhelev Z: Quantum dots as photosensitizers? Nat Biotechnol 2004, 22(11):1360–1361. 10.1038/nbt1104-1360Google Scholar
  8. Chan WC, Nie S: Quantum dot bioconjugates for ultrasensitive nonisotopic detection. Science 1998, 281(5385):2016–2018.Google Scholar
  9. Azzazy HM, Mansour MM, Kazmierczak SC: From diagnostics to therapy: prospects of quantum dots. Clin Biochem 2007, 40(13–14):917–927.Google Scholar
  10. Deerinck TJ: The application of fluorescent quantum dots to confocal, multiphoton, and electron microscopic imaging. Toxicol Pathol 2008, 36(1):112–116. 10.1177/0192623307310950Google Scholar
  11. Ghasemi Y, Peymani P, Afifi S: Quantum dot: magic nanoparticle for imaging, detection and targeting. Acta Biomed 2009, 80(2):156–165.Google Scholar
  12. Corredor E, Testillano PS, Coronado MJ, González-Melendi P, Fernández-Pacheco R, Marquina C: Nanoparticle penetration and transport in living pumpkin plants: in situ subcellular identification. BMC Plant Biol 2009, 9: 45. 10.1186/1471-2229-9-45Google Scholar
  13. Lin S, Meyer DE, Curran MA: Uptake, translocation, and transmission of carbon nanomaterials in rice plants. Small 2009, 5(10):1128–1132.Google Scholar
  14. Muller F, Houben A, Barker PE, Xiao Y, Käs JA, Melzer M: Quantum dots – a versatile tool in plant science? J Nanobiotechnology 2006, 4: 5. 10.1186/1477-3155-4-5Google Scholar
  15. Santos AR, Miguel AS, Tomaz L, Rui Malhó , Christopher : The impact of CdSe/ZnS quantum dots in cells of Medicago sativa in suspension culture. J Nanobiotechnology 2010, 8: 24. 10.1186/1477-3155-8-24Google Scholar
  16. Wu YL, Lim CS, Fu S, Tok AIY, Lau HM, Boey FYC: Surface modifications of ZnO quantum dots for bio-imaging. Nanotechnology 2007, 18(21):215604. 10.1088/0957-4484/18/21/215604Google Scholar
  17. Wu YL, Lim CS, Fu S, Tok AIY, Lau HM, Boey FYC: Water-soluble quantum dots for biomedical applications. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2006, 348(3):781–786. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2006.07.160Google Scholar
  18. Arnot HEG, Watt M, Sotomayor-Torres CM, Glew R, Cusco R, Bates J, Beaumont SP: Photoluminescence of overgrown GaAs-GaAlAs quantum dots. Superlattices and Microstructures 1989, 5(3):459–463. 10.1016/0749-6036(89)90333-9Google Scholar
  19. Li SS, Xia JB: Electronic structure and binding energy of a hydrogenic impurity in a hierarchically self-assembled GaAs/AlxGa1 - xAs quantum dot. J Appl Phys 2006, 100(8):083714. 10.1063/1.2358406Google Scholar
  20. Li S-S, Xia J-B: Electronic states of a hydrogenic donor impurity in semiconductor nano-structures. Physics Letters A 2007, 366(1–2):120–123.Google Scholar
  21. Li SS, Kong XJ: Hydrogenic impurities in GaAs-Ga1-xAlxAs superlattices in an axial magnetic field. J Phys Condens Matter 1992, 4(20):4815. 10.1088/0953-8984/4/20/008Google Scholar
  22. Bera D, Qian L, Tseng T-K, Holloway PH: Quantum dots and their multimodal applications: a review. Materials 2010, 3(4):2260–2345. 10.3390/ma3042260Google Scholar
  23. Mattoussi H, Palui G, Na HB: Luminescent quantum dots as platforms for probing in vitro and in vivo biological processes. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2012, 64(2):138–166. 10.1016/j.addr.2011.09.011Google Scholar
  24. Birudavolu S, Nuntawong N, Balakrishnan G, Xin YC, Huang S, Lee SC, Brueck SRJ, CP : Selective area growth of InAs quantum dots formed on a patterned GaAs substrate. Appl Phys Lett 2004, 85(12):2337–2339. 10.1063/1.1792792Google Scholar
  25. Nakata Y, Mori T, Seki H: Molecular beam epitaxial growth of InAs self-assembled quantum dots with light-emission at 1.3 μm. Journal of Crystal Growth 2000, 208(1–4):93–99.Google Scholar
  26. Yamilov A, Herrera MR, Bertino MF: Quantum dots by ultraviolet and x-ray lithography. Nanotechnology 2007, 18(31):315603. 10.1088/0957-4484/18/31/315603Google Scholar
  27. Burda C, Chen X, Narayanan R, El-Sayed MA: Chemistry and properties of nanocrystals of different shapes. Chem Rev 2005, 105(4):1025–1102. 10.1021/cr030063aGoogle Scholar
  28. Bang J, Fau Yang H, Holloway PH: Enhanced and stable green emission of ZnO nanoparticles by surface segregation of Mg. Nanotechnology 2006, 17(14):973.Google Scholar
  29. Spanhel L, Anderson MA: Semiconductor clusters in the sol–gel process: quantized aggregation, gelation, and crystal growth in concentrated zinc oxide colloids. J Am Chem Soc 1991, 113(8):2826–2833. 10.1021/ja00008a004Google Scholar
  30. Bera D, Qian L, Sabui S, Santra S: Photoluminescence of ZnO quantum dots produced by a sol–gel process. Opt Mater 2008, 30(8):1233–1239. 10.1016/j.optmat.2007.06.001Google Scholar
  31. Qu L, Peng X: Control of photoluminescence properties of CdSe nanocrystals in growth. J Am Chem Soc 2002, 124(9):2049–2055. 10.1021/ja017002jGoogle Scholar
  32. Murray CB, Norris DJ, Bawendi MG: Synthesis and characterization of nearly monodisperse CdE (E = sulfur, selenium, tellurium) semiconductor nanocrystallites. J Am Chem Soc 1993, 115(19):8706–8715. 10.1021/ja00072a025Google Scholar
  33. Qu L, Peng ZA, Peng X: Alternative routes toward high quality CdSe nanocrystals. Nano Lett 2001, 1(6):333–337. 10.1021/nl0155532Google Scholar
  34. Li L, Qian H, Ren J: Rapid synthesis of highly luminescent CdTe nanocrystals in the aqueous phase by microwave irradiation with controllable temperature. Chem Commun (Camb) 2005. 10.1039/B412686FGoogle Scholar
  35. Xin SH, Yin A, Kim C, Dobrowolska M, Merz JL: Formation of self-assembling CdSe quantum dots on ZnSe by molecular beam epitaxy. Appl Phys Lett 1996, 69(25):3884–3886. 10.1063/1.117558Google Scholar
  36. Leonardi K, Selke H, Heinke H, Ohkawa K, Hommel D, Gindele F, Woggon U: Formation of self-assembling II–VI semiconductor nanostructures during migration enhanced epitaxy. J Crystal Growth 1998, 184–85: 259–263.Google Scholar
  37. Kurtz E, Shen J, Schmidt M, Grun M, Hong SK, Litvinov D: Formation and properties of self-organized II–VI quantum islands. Thin Solid Films 2000, 367(1–2):68–74.Google Scholar
  38. Swihart MT: Vapor-phase synthesis of nanoparticles. Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci 2003, 8(1):127–133. 10.1016/S1359-0294(03)00007-4Google Scholar
  39. Zhang ZY, Oehler AEH, Resan B, Kurmulis S, Zhou KJ, Wang Q, Mangold M, Süedmeyer T, Keller U, Weingarten KJ, Hogg RA: 1.55 μm InAs/GaAs quantum dots and high repetition rate quantum dot SESAM mode-locked laser. Nano Lett 2010, 10: 1512–1516. 10.1021/nl100217kGoogle Scholar
  40. Yang H, Luan W, Shan-tung T, Wang ZM: Synthesis of nanocrystals via microreaction with temperature gradient: towards separation of nucleation and growth. Lab Chip 2008, 8: 451–455. 10.1039/b715540aGoogle Scholar
  41. Jiang W, Wang ZM, Dorogan VG, Mazur YI, Shibin L: Gregory, Insight into optical properties of strain-free quantum dot pairs. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2011, 13: 947–952. 10.1007/s11051-010-0219-5Google Scholar
  42. Yuechao J, Xiaoyong G, Jingxiao L, Yongsheng C, Jianpeng Z, Xinli L: A novel method for PbS quantum dot synthesis. Mater Lett 2012, 72: 116–118.Google Scholar
  43. Zhiming M, Wang D, Liang B, Sablon KA, Jihoon L, Yuriy I, Mazur D, Strom NW, Gregory J, Salamo D: Self-organization of InAs quantum-dot clusters directed by droplet homoepitaxy. Small 2007, 3: 235–238. 10.1002/smll.200600330Google Scholar
  44. Kalauzi A, Mutavdžić D, Djikanović D, Radotić K, Jeremić M: Interaction of the CdSe quantum dots with plant cell walls. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 2012, 91: 41–47.Google Scholar
  45. Goldman ER, Balighian ED, Mattoussi H, Kuno MK, Mauro JM, Tran PT, Anderson GP: Avidin: a natural bridge for quantum dot-antibody conjugates. J Am Chem Soc 2002, 124(22):6378–6382. 10.1021/ja0125570Google Scholar
  46. Jaiswal JK, Mattoussi H, Mauro JM, Simon SM: Use of quantum dots for live cell imaging. Nat Meth 2004, 1(1):6. 10.1038/nmeth1004-6Google Scholar
  47. Jaiswal JK, Goldman ER, Mattoussi H, Simon SM: Long-term multiple color imaging of live cells using quantum dot bioconjugates. Nat Biotech 2003, 21(1):47–51. 10.1038/nbt767Google Scholar
  48. Hasegawa U, Nomura SM, Kaul SC: Nanogel-quantum dot hybrid nanoparticles for live cell imaging. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2005, 331(4):917–921. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2005.03.228Google Scholar
  49. Leevy WM, Lambert TN, Johnson JR, Morris J, Smith BD: Quantum dot probes for bacteria distinguish Escherichia coli mutants and permit in vivo imaging. Chem Commun 2008, 20: 2331–2333.Google Scholar
  50. Tallury P, Malhotra A, Byrne LM, Santra S: Nanobioimaging and sensing of infectious diseases. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2010, 62(4–5):424–437.Google Scholar
  51. Su X-L, Li Y: Quantum dot biolabeling coupled with immunomagnetic separation for detection of Escherichia coli O157:H7. Anal Chem 2004, 76(16):4806–4810. 10.1021/ac049442+Google Scholar
  52. Yang L, Li Y: Simultaneous detection of Escherichia coli O157[ratio]H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium using quantum dots as fluorescence labels. Analyst 2006, 131(3):394–401. 10.1039/b510888hGoogle Scholar
  53. Chang Y-P, Pinaud F, Antelman J, Weiss S: Tracking bio-molecules in live cells using quantum dots. J Biophotonics 2008, 1(4):287–298. 10.1002/jbio.200810029Google Scholar
  54. Cherry RJ: Keeping track of cell surface receptor. Trends Cell Biol 1992, 2(8):242–244. 10.1016/0962-8924(92)90312-BGoogle Scholar
  55. Saxton MJ, Jacobson K: Single-particle tracking: applications to membrane dynamics. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 1997, 26: 373–399. 10.1146/annurev.biophys.26.1.373Google Scholar
  56. Howarth M: Monovalent, reduced-size quantum dots for imaging receptors on living cells. Nat Methods 2008, 5(5):397–399. 10.1038/nmeth.1206Google Scholar
  57. Chen H: Altered membrane dynamics of quantum dot-conjugated integrins during osteogenic differentiation of human bone marrow derived progenitor cells. Biophys J 2007, 92(4):1399–1408. 10.1529/biophysj.106.094896Google Scholar
  58. Haggie PM: Tracking of quantum dot-labeled CFTR shows near immobilization by C-terminal PDZ interactions. Mol Biol Cell 2006, 17(12):4937–4945. 10.1091/mbc.E06-08-0670Google Scholar
  59. Crane JM, Verkman AS: Long-range nonanomalous diffusion of quantum dot-labeled aquaporin-1 water channels in the cell plasma membrane. Biophys J 2008, 94(2):702–713. 10.1529/biophysj.107.115121Google Scholar
  60. Bouzigues C: Asymmetric redistribution of GABA receptors during GABA gradient sensing by nerve growth cones analyzed by single quantum dot imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2007, 104(27):11251–11256. 10.1073/pnas.0702536104Google Scholar
  61. Dahan M: Diffusion dynamics of glycine receptors revealed by single-quantum dot tracking. Science 2003, 302(5644):442–445. 10.1126/science.1088525Google Scholar
  62. Roullier V: High-affinity labeling and tracking of individual histidine-tagged proteins in live cells using Ni2+ tris-nitrilotriacetic acid quantum dot conjugates. Nano Lett 2009, 9(3):1228–1234. 10.1021/nl9001298Google Scholar
  63. Lidke DS: Quantum dot ligands provide new insights into erbB/HER receptor-mediated signal transduction. Nat Biotechnol 2004, 22(2):198–203. 10.1038/nbt929Google Scholar
  64. Watanabe TM, Higuchi H: Stepwise movements in vesicle transport of HER2 by motor proteins in living cells. Biophys J 2007, 92(11):4109–4120. 10.1529/biophysj.106.094649Google Scholar
  65. Groc L: Differential activity-dependent regulation of the lateral mobilities of AMPA and NMDA receptors. Nat Neurosci 2004, 7(7):695–696. 10.1038/nn1270Google Scholar
  66. Choquet D, Triller A: The role of receptor diffusion in the organization of the postsynaptic membrane. Nat Rev Neurosci 2003, 4(4):251–265.Google Scholar
  67. Xiao Y, Barker PE: Semiconductor nanocrystal probes for human metaphase chromosomes. Nucleic Acids Res 2004, 32(3):e28-e28. 10.1093/nar/gnh024Google Scholar
  68. Pierobon P: Velocity, processivity, and individual steps of single myosin V molecules in live cells. Biophys J 2009, 96(10):4268–4275. 10.1016/j.bpj.2009.02.045Google Scholar
  69. Nelson SR: Random walk of processive, quantum dot-labeled myosin Va molecules within the actin cortex of COS-7 cells. Biophys J 2009, 97(2):509–518. 10.1016/j.bpj.2009.04.052Google Scholar
  70. Yoo J: Intracellular imaging of targeted proteins labeled with quantum dots. Exp Cell Res 2008, 314(19):3563–3569. 10.1016/j.yexcr.2008.09.014Google Scholar
  71. Courty S: Tracking individual kinesin motors in living cells using single quantum-dot imaging. Nano Lett 2006, 6(7):1491–1495. 10.1021/nl060921tGoogle Scholar
  72. Ishido M, Kasuga N: In situ real-time imaging of the satellite cells in rat intact and injured soleus muscles using quantum dots. Histochem Cell Biol 2011, 135(1):21–26. 10.1007/s00418-010-0767-xGoogle Scholar
  73. Stylianou P, Skourides PA: Imaging morphogenesis, in Xenopus with quantum dot nanocrystals. Mech Dev 2009, 126(10):828–841. 10.1016/j.mod.2009.07.008Google Scholar
  74. Navarro DA, Bisson MA, Aga DS: Investigating uptake of water-dispersible CdSe/ZnS quantum dot nanoparticles by Arabidopsis thaliana plants. J Hazard Mater 2012, 211–212: 427–435.Google Scholar
  75. Gautrot JE, Zhu XX: Macrocyclic bile acids: from molecular recognition to degradable biomaterial building blocks. J Mater Chem 2009, 19(32):5705–5716. 10.1039/b821340bGoogle Scholar
  76. Lim IIS: Gold and magnetic oxide/gold core/shell nanoparticles as bio-functional nanoprobes. Nanotechnology 2008, 19(30):305102. 10.1088/0957-4484/19/30/305102Google Scholar
  77. Duan H, Nie S: Cell-penetrating quantum dots based on multivalent and endosome-disrupting surface coatings. J Am Chem Soc 2007, 129(11):3333–3338. 10.1021/ja068158sGoogle Scholar
  78. Smith AM: Bioconjugated quantum dots for in vivo molecular and cellular imaging. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2008, 60(11):1226–1240. 10.1016/j.addr.2008.03.015Google Scholar
  79. Wang L: Core@shell nanomaterials: gold-coated magnetic oxide nanoparticles. J Mater Chem 2008, 18(23):2629–2635. 10.1039/b719096dGoogle Scholar
  80. Park K: New generation of multifunctional nanoparticles for cancer imaging and therapy. Adv Funct Mater 2009, 19(10):1553–1566. 10.1002/adfm.200801655Google Scholar
  81. Wu W: In-situ immobilization of quantum dots in polysaccharide-based nanogels for integration of optical pH-sensing, tumor cell imaging, and drug delivery. Biomaterials 2010, 31(11):3023–3031. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.01.011Google Scholar
  82. Lee KH: Quantitative molecular profiling of biomarkers for pancreatic cancer with functionalized quantum dots. Nanomedicine in press in pressGoogle Scholar
  83. Gokarna A: Quantum dot-based protein micro- and nanoarrays for detection of prostate cancer biomarkers. Proteomics 2008, 8(9):1809–1818. 10.1002/pmic.200701072Google Scholar
  84. Liu J: Multiplexed detection and characterization of rare tumor cells in Hodgkin's lymphoma with multicolor quantum dots. Anal Chem 2010, 82(14):6237–6243. 10.1021/ac101065bGoogle Scholar
  85. Ray S: Emerging nanoproteomics approaches for disease biomarker detection: A current perspective. J Proteomics 2011, 74(12):2660–2681. 10.1016/j.jprot.2011.04.027Google Scholar
  86. Yu Y: Hydrothermal synthesis of GSH–TGA co-capped CdTe quantum dots and their application in labeling colorectal cancer cells. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 2012, 95: 247–253.Google Scholar
  87. American Cancer Society: Pancreatic cancer. Scholar
  88. Resch-Genger U: Quantum dots versus organic dyes as fluorescent labels. Nat Meth 2008, 5(9):763–775. 10.1038/nmeth.1248Google Scholar
  89. Tripp RA: Bioconjugated nanoparticle detection of respiratory syncytial virus infection. Int J Nanomedicine 2007, 2(1):117–124. 10.2147/nano.2007.2.1.117Google Scholar
  90. Agrawal A: Counting single native biomolecules and intact viruses with color-coded nanoparticles. Anal Chem 2006, 78(4):1061–1070. 10.1021/ac051801tGoogle Scholar
  91. Bentzen EL: Progression of respiratory syncytial virus infection monitored by fluorescent quantum dot probes. Nano Lett 2005, 5(4):591–595. 10.1021/nl048073uGoogle Scholar
  92. Dwarakanath S: Quantum dot-antibody and aptamer conjugates shift fluorescence upon binding bacteria. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2004, 325(3):739–743. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2004.10.099Google Scholar
  93. Goldman ER: Multiplexed toxin analysis using four colors of quantum dot fluororeagents. Anal Chem 2003, 76(3):684–688.Google Scholar
  94. Zhao Y: Simultaneous detection of multifood-borne pathogenic bacteria based on functionalized quantum dots coupled with immunomagnetic separation in food samples. J Agric Food Chem 2008, 57(2):517–524.Google Scholar
  95. Hahn MA, Tabb JS, Krauss TD: Detection of single bacterial pathogens with semiconductor quantum dots. Anal Chem 2005, 77(15):4861–4869. 10.1021/ac050641iGoogle Scholar
  96. Mukhopadhyay B: Bacterial detection using carbohydrate-functionalised CdS quantum dots: a model study exploiting E. coli recognition of mannosides. Tetrahedron Lett 2009, 50(8):886–889. 10.1016/j.tetlet.2008.12.029Google Scholar
  97. Edgar R: High-sensitivity bacterial detection using biotin-tagged phage and quantum-dot nanocomplexes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006, 103(13):4841–4845. 10.1073/pnas.0601211103Google Scholar
  98. Zhu L, Ang S, Liu W-T: Quantum dots as a novel immunofluorescent detection system for Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia lamblia. Appl Environ Microbiol 2004, 70(1):597–598. 10.1128/AEM.70.1.597-598.2004Google Scholar
  99. Klostranec JM, Xiang Q, Farcas GA: Convergence of quantum dot barcodes with microfluidics and signal processing for multiplexed high-throughput infectious disease diagnostics. Nano Lett 2007, 7(9):2812–2818. 10.1021/nl071415mGoogle Scholar
  100. Gazouli M, Liandris E, Andreadou M, Sechi LA, Masala S, Paccagnini D, Ikonomopoulos J: Specific detection of unamplified mycobacterial DNA by use of fluorescent semiconductor quantum dots and magnetic beads. J Clin Microbiol 2010, 48(8):2830–2835. 10.1128/JCM.00185-10Google Scholar
  101. Griffith DE: An official ATS/IDSA statement: diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of nontuberculous mycobacterial diseases. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2007, 175(4):367–416. 10.1164/rccm.200604-571STGoogle Scholar
  102. Veigas B, Doria G, Baptista PV: Nanodiagnostics for tuberculosis. In Understanding Tuberculosis - Global Experiences and Innovative Approaches to the Diagnosis. Edited by: Cardona PJ. Rijeka: InTech; 2012:20.Google Scholar
  103. GhoshMitra S: Role of engineered nanocarriers for axon regeneration and guidance: current status and future trends. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2012, 64(1):110–125. 10.1016/j.addr.2011.12.013Google Scholar
  104. Langlois JA, Rurland-Brown W, Thomas KE: Traumatic brain injury in the United States: emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths. Atlanta, GA: Dept. of Health and Human Services (US), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; 2004.Google Scholar
  105. National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center: Facts and figures at a glance. 2011 2011Google Scholar
  106. Pathak S: Quantum dot applications to neuroscience: new tools for probing neurons and glia. J Neurosci 2006, 26(7):1893–1895. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3847-05.2006Google Scholar
  107. Alivisatos P: The use of nanocrystals in biological detection. Nat Biotech 2004, 22(1):47–52. 10.1038/nbt927Google Scholar
  108. Smith A: Engineering luminescent quantum dots for in vivo molecular and cellular imaging. Ann Biomed Eng 2006, 34(1):3–14. 10.1007/s10439-005-9000-9Google Scholar
  109. Gao X: In vivo cancer targeting and imaging with semiconductor quantum dots. Nat Biotech 2004, 22(8):969–976. 10.1038/nbt994Google Scholar
  110. Vu TQ: Peptide-conjugated quantum dots activate neuronal receptors and initiate downstream signaling of neurite growth. Nano Lett 2005, 5(4):603–607. 10.1021/nl047977cGoogle Scholar
  111. Sundara Rajan S, Vu TQ: Quantum dots monitor TrkA receptor dynamics in the interior of neural PC12 cells. Nano Lett 2006, 6(9):2049–2059. 10.1021/nl0612650Google Scholar
  112. Howarth M: Targeting quantum dots to surface proteins in living cells with biotin ligase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005, 102(21):7583–7588. 10.1073/pnas.0503125102Google Scholar
  113. Prasad B: Long-term exposure of CdTe quantum dots on PC12 cellular activity and the determination of optimum non-toxic concentrations for biological use. J Nanobiotechnology 2010, 8(1):7. 10.1186/1477-3155-8-7Google Scholar
  114. WHO: World Malaria Report 2010. Geneva: WHO; 2010.Google Scholar
  115. Ku MJ: Quantum dots: a new tool for anti-malarial drug assays. Malar J 2011, 10: 118. 10.1186/1475-2875-10-118Google Scholar
  116. Tokumasu F: Band 3 modifications in Plasmodium falciparum-infected AA and CC erythrocytes assayed by autocorrelation analysis using quantum dots. J Cell Sci 2005, 118(Pt 5):1091–1098.Google Scholar
  117. Wu D, Chen Z: ZnS quantum dots as pH probes for study of enzyme reaction kinetics. Enzyme Microb Technol 2012, 51(1):47–52. 10.1016/j.enzmictec.2012.03.012Google Scholar
  118. Jin WJ: Photoactivated luminescent CdSe quantum dots as sensitive cyanide probes in aqueous solutions. Chem Commun (Camb) 2005. 10.1039/B414858DGoogle Scholar
  119. Xie H-Y: Luminescent CdSe-ZnS quantum dots as selective Cu2+ probe. Spectrochim Acta A Mol Biomol Spectrosc 2004, 60(11):2527–2530. 10.1016/j.saa.2003.12.039Google Scholar
  120. Tomasulo M, Yildiz I, Raymo FM: pH-sensitive quantum dots. J Phys Chem B 2006, 110(9):3853–3855. 10.1021/jp060185hGoogle Scholar
  121. Sun YH: Photostability and pH sensitivity of CdSe/ZnSe/ZnS quantum dots in living cells. Nanotechnology 2006, 17(17):4469. 10.1088/0957-4484/17/17/031Google Scholar
  122. Wang Y-Q: Cadmium telluride quantum dots as pH-sensitive probes for tiopronin determination. Anal Chim Acta 2008, 610(1):50–56. 10.1016/j.aca.2008.01.015Google Scholar
  123. Liu Y-S: pH-Sensitive photoluminescence of CdSe/ZnSe/ZnS quantum dots in human ovarian cancer cells. J Phys Chem C 2007, 111(7):2872–2878. 10.1021/jp0654718Google Scholar
  124. Yun Z: Using cadmium telluride quantum dots as a proton flux sensor and applying to detect H9 avian influenza virus. Anal Biochem 2007, 364(2):122–127. 10.1016/j.ab.2007.02.031Google Scholar
  125. Deng Z: Green and orange CdTe quantum dots as effective ph-sensitive fluorescent probes for dual simultaneous and independent detection of viruses. J Phys Chem B 2007, 111(41):12024–12031. 10.1021/jp074609zGoogle Scholar
  126. Gao M, Kirstein S: Mo1hwald H: Strongly photoluminescent CdTe nanocrystals by proper surface modification. J Phys Chem B 1998, 102(43):8360–8363. 10.1021/jp9823603Google Scholar
  127. Lueking A: Protein microarrays for gene expression and antibody screening. Anal Biochem 1999, 270(1):103–111. 10.1006/abio.1999.4063Google Scholar
  128. MacBeath G, Schreiber SL: Printing proteins as microarrays for high-throughput function determination. Science 2000, 289(5485):1760–1763.Google Scholar
  129. Hergenrother PJ, Depew KM, Schreiber SL: Small-molecule microarrays: covalent attachment and screening of alcohol-containing small molecules on glass slides. J Am Chem Soc 2000, 122(32):7849–7850. 10.1021/ja0014032Google Scholar
  130. Nelson RW, Nedelkov D, Tubbs KA: Biosensor chip mass spectrometry: a chip-based proteomics approach. Electrophoresis 2000, 21(6):1155–1163. 10.1002/(SICI)1522-2683(20000401)21:6<1155::AID-ELPS1155>3.0.CO;2-XGoogle Scholar
  131. Schweitzer B, Kingsmore SF: Measuring proteins on microarrays. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2002, 13(1):14–19. 10.1016/S0958-1669(02)00278-1Google Scholar
  132. Sun B: Microminiaturized immunoassays using quantum dots as fluorescent label by laser confocal scanning fluorescence detection. J Immunol Methods 2001, 249(1–2):85–89.Google Scholar
  133. Shingyoji M: Quantum dots-based reverse phase protein microarray. Talanta 2005, 67(3):472–478. 10.1016/j.talanta.2005.06.064Google Scholar
  134. Kerman K: Quantum dot-based immunosensor for the detection of prostate-specific antigen using fluorescence microscopy. Talanta 2007, 71(4):1494–1499. 10.1016/j.talanta.2006.07.027Google Scholar
  135. Geho D: Pegylated, steptavidin-conjugated quantum dots are effective detection elements for reverse-phase protein microarrays. Bioconjug Chem 2005, 16(3):559–566. 10.1021/bc0497113Google Scholar
  136. Zajac A: Protein microarrays and quantum dot probes for early cancer detection. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 2007, 58(2):309–314. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2007.02.019Google Scholar
  137. Stephens DJ, Allan VJ: Light microscopy techniques for live cell imaging. Science 2003, 300(5616):82–86. 10.1126/science.1082160Google Scholar
  138. Weijer CJ: Visualizing signals moving in cells. Science 2003, 300(5616):96–100. 10.1126/science.1082830Google Scholar
  139. Liu BR: Intracellular delivery of quantum dots mediated by a histidine- and arginine-rich HR9 cell-penetrating peptide through the direct membrane translocation mechanism. Biomaterials 2011, 32(13):3520–3537. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.01.041Google Scholar
  140. Zhou M, Ghosh I: Quantum dots and peptides: a bright future together. Pept Sci 2007, 88(3):325–339. 10.1002/bip.20655Google Scholar
  141. Dixit SK: Quantum dot encapsulation in viral capsids. Nano Lett 2006, 6(9):1993–1999. 10.1021/nl061165uGoogle Scholar
  142. Jia N: Intracellular delivery of quantum dots tagged antisense oligodeoxynucleotides by functionalized multiwalled carbon nanotubes. Nano Lett 2007, 7(10):2976–2980. 10.1021/nl071114cGoogle Scholar
  143. Chen B: Transmembrane delivery of the cell-penetrating peptide conjugated semiconductor quantum dots. Langmuir 2008, 24(20):11866–11871. 10.1021/la802048sGoogle Scholar
  144. Xue F: Enhancement of intracellular delivery of cdte quantum dots (qds) to living cells by tat conjugation. J Fluoresc 2007, 17(2):149–154. 10.1007/s10895-006-0152-2Google Scholar
  145. Delehanty JB: Self-assembled quantum dot−peptide bioconjugates for selective intracellular delivery. Bioconjug Chem 2006, 17(4):920–927. 10.1021/bc060044iGoogle Scholar
  146. Ruan G: Imaging and tracking of Tat peptide-conjugated quantum dots in living cells: new insights into nanoparticle uptake, intracellular transport, and vesicle shedding. J Am Chem Soc 2007, 129(47):14759–14766. 10.1021/ja074936kGoogle Scholar
  147. Wei Y: Surface coating directed cellular delivery of TAT-functionalized quantum dots. Bioconjug Chem 2009, 20(9):1752–1758. 10.1021/bc8003777Google Scholar
  148. Lagerholm BC: Multicolor coding of cells with cationic peptide coated quantum dots. Nano Lett 2004, 4(10):2019–2022. 10.1021/nl049295vGoogle Scholar
  149. Bagalkot V: Quantum dot−aptamer conjugates for synchronous cancer imaging, therapy, and sensing of drug delivery based on bi-fluorescence resonance energy transfer. Nano Lett 2007, 7(10):3065–3070. 10.1021/nl071546nGoogle Scholar
  150. Bakalova R: Multimodal silica-shelled quantum dots: direct intracellular delivery, photosensitization, toxic, and microcirculation effects. Bioconjug Chem 2008, 19(6):1135–1142. 10.1021/bc700431cGoogle Scholar
  151. Yum K: Mechanochemical delivery and dynamic tracking of fluorescent quantum dots in the cytoplasm and nucleus of living cells. Nano Lett 2009, 9(5):2193–2198. 10.1021/nl901047uGoogle Scholar
  152. Yuan Q, Hein S, Misra RDK: New generation of chitosan-encapsulated ZnO quantum dots loaded with drug: synthesis, characterization and in vitro drug delivery response. Acta Biomater 2010, 6(7):2732–2739. 10.1016/j.actbio.2010.01.025Google Scholar
  153. Zhang P, Liu W: ZnO QD@PMAA-co-PDMAEMA nonviral vector for plasmid DNA delivery and bioimaging. Biomaterials 2010, 31(11):3087–3094. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.01.007Google Scholar
  154. Jablonski AE, Humphries WH, Payne CK: Pyrenebutyrate-mediated delivery of quantum dots across the plasma membrane of living cells. J Phys Chem B 2008, 113(2):405–408.Google Scholar
  155. Qi L, Gao X: Quantum dot−amphipol nanocomplex for intracellular delivery and real-time imaging of siRNA. ACS Nano 2008, 2(7):1403–1410. 10.1021/nn800280rGoogle Scholar
  156. Yan M: An in vitro study of vascular endothelial toxicity of CdTe quantum dots. Toxicology 2011, 282(3):94–103. 10.1016/j.tox.2011.01.015Google Scholar
  157. Chen N: The cytotoxicity of cadmium-based quantum dots. Biomaterials 2012, 33(5):1238–1244. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.10.070Google Scholar
  158. Akbarzadeh A, Asgari D, Zarghami N, Mohammad R, Davaran S: Preparation and in vitro evaluation of doxorubicin-loaded Fe3O4magnetic nanoparticles modified with biocompatible co-polymers. Int J Nanomedicine 2012, 7: 511–526.Google Scholar
  159. Akbarzadeh A, Zarghami N, Mikaeili H, Asgari D, Goganian AM, Khiabani HK, Samiei M, Davaran S: Synthesis, characterization, and in vitro evaluation of novel polymer-coated magnetic nanoparticles for controlled delivery of doxorubicin. Nanotechnol Sci Appl 2012, 5: 13–25.Google Scholar
  160. Akbarzadeh A, Samiei M, Davaran S: Magnetic nanoparticles: preparation, physical properties, and applications in biomedicine. Nanoscale Res Lett 2012, 7: 144. 10.1186/1556-276X-7-144Google Scholar
  161. Wang ZM, Kunets VP, Xie YZ, Schmidbauer M, Dorogan VG, Mazur YI, Salamo GJ: Multilayer self-organization of InGaAs quantum wires on GaAs surfaces. Phys. Lett. A 2010, 375: 170–173. 10.1016/j.physleta.2010.10.051Google Scholar
  162. Passmore BS, Wu J, Manasreh MO, Kunets VP, Lytvyn PM, Salamo GJ: Room temperature near-infrared photoresponse based on interband transition in In 0.35 Ga 0.35 As multiple quantum dot photodetector. IEE Electron Device Letters 2008, 29: 224–227.Google Scholar
  163. Hardman R: A toxicologic review of quantum dots: toxicity depends on physicochemical and environmental factors. Environ Health Perspect 2006, 114(2):165–172. 10.1289/ehp.8284Google Scholar


© Valizadeh et al.; licensee Springer. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.