4.5 Article

IV and IP Administration of Rhodamine in Visualization of WBC-BBB Interactions in Cerebral Vessels

Journal

MICROSCOPY RESEARCH AND TECHNIQUE
Volume 78, Issue 10, Pages 894-899

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jemt.22552

Keywords

rhodamine 6G; epi-illuminescence intravital fluorescence microscopy; intraperitoneal injection; cranial window; leukocyte rolling; leukocyte adhesion

Funding

  1. National Institute of Drugs of Abuse [T32 DA007237]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Epi-illuminescence intravital fluorescence microscopy has been employed to study leukocyte-endothelial interactions in a number of brain pathologies. Historically, dyes such as Rhodamine 6G have been injected intravenously. However, intravenous injections can predispose experimental animals to a multitude of complications and requires a high degree of technical skill. Here, we study the efficacy of injecting Rhodamine 6G into the peritoneum (IP) for the purpose of analyzing leukocyte-endothelial interactions through a cranial window during real time intravital microscopy. After examining the number of rolling and adherent leukocytes through a cranial window, we found no advantage to the intravenous injection (IV). Additionally, we tested blood from both routes of injection by flow cytometry to gain a very precise picture of the two methods. The two routes of administration failed to show any difference in the ability to detect cells. The study supports the notion that IP Rhodamine 6G works as efficaciously as IV and should be considered a viable alternative in experimental design for investigations employing intravital microscopy. Facilitated intravital studies will allow for more exploration into cerebral pathologies and allow for more rapid translation from the laboratory to the patient with less chance of experimental error from failed IV access. Microsc. Res. Tech. 78: 894-899, 2015. (C) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available