Fig. 5
The in vivo distribution and treatment efficacy of different NPs. (a) In vivo imaging of SW620 tumor-bearing mice at the preset time points. (b) Representative pictures of mice after different treatments. (c) Changes in tumor volume during treatment. (d) Representative H&E images of intestinal and colorectal tissues and histology score after different treatments (Red arrow: focal lymphocytic infiltration; Yellow arrow: desquamation of epithelial cells, Green arrow: visible connective tissue hyperplasia in the lamina propria); Scale bar = 100 μm. (e) H&E staining of tumor tissues from different treatments (Scale bar = 500 μm). (f) TUNEL staining of tumor tissues at the end of each treatments (Scale bar = 100 μm). (g) Quantitative analysis of apoptosis and anti-apoptosis related proteins including cleaved caspase-3, caspase-9, bax, and bcl-2 in different treatments (mean ± SD, n = 6, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001). The different formulations were orally administered to rats at a dose equivalent to 30 mg kg− 1 of DOX and 5 mg kg− 1 of SOR, respectively. Significant differences were assessed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with multiple comparisons or using the t-test for comparison of two groups