4.4 Article

Comparison of Optical Bioluminescence Reporter Gene and Superparamagnetic Iron Oxide MR Contrast Agent as Cell Markers for Noninvasive Imaging of Cardiac Cell Transplantation

Journal

MOLECULAR IMAGING AND BIOLOGY
Volume 11, Issue 3, Pages 178-187

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11307-008-0182-z

Keywords

Optical bioluminescence imaging; Magnetic resonance imaging; Reporter gene; Contrast agent; Cell marker; Cell transplantation

Funding

  1. NHLBI [5R01HL078632]
  2. NCI ICMIC [P50 CA114747]
  3. NCI SAIRP
  4. American Heart Association Pre-doctoral Fellowship
  5. Stanford Bio-X Graduate Student Fellowship
  6. Swiss Foundation of Medical-Biological
  7. Novartis Research Foundation (JKW)
  8. Swiss Society of Radiology (JKW)
  9. AHA Beginning
  10. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P50CA114747] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  11. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL078632] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, we compared firefly luciferase (Fluc) reporter gene and superparamagnetic iron oxide (Feridex) as cell markers for longitudinal monitoring of cardiomyoblast graft survival using optical bioluminescence imaging (BLI) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), respectively. Rats (n = 31) underwent an intramyocardial injection of cardiomyoblasts (2 x 10(6)) labeled with Fluc, Feridex, or no marker (control) or an injection of Feridex alone (75 mu g). Afterward, rats were serially imaged with BLI or MRI and killed at different time points for histological analysis. BLI revealed a drastically different cell survival kinetics (half-life = 2.65 days over 6 days) than that revealed by MRI (half-life = 16.8 days over 80 days). Injection of Feridex alone led to prolonged tissue retention of Feridex (a parts per thousand yen16 days) and persistent MR signal (a parts per thousand yen42 days). Fluc BLI reporter gene imaging is a more accurate gauge of transplanted cell survival as compared to MRI of Feridex-labeled cells.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available