4.4 Article

In Vivo Flow Cytometry of Circulating Tumor-Associated Exosomes

Journal

ANALYTICAL CELLULAR PATHOLOGY
Volume 2016, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2016/1628057

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute of Health (NIH) [R01CA131164, R01EB017217]
  2. National Science Foundation (NSF) [OIA 1457888, DBI 1556068]
  3. Translational Research Institute from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
  4. Div Of Biological Infrastructure
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [1556068] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Circulating tumor cells ( CTCs) demonstrated the potential as prognostic markers of metastatic development. However, the incurable metastasis can already be developed at the time of initial diagnosis with the existing CTC assays. Alternatively, tumor-associated particles ( CTPs) including exosomes can be a more valuable prognostic marker because they can be released from the primary tumor long before CTCs and in larger amount. However, little progress has been made in high sensitivity detection of CTPs, especially in vivo. We show here that in vivo integrated photoacoustic ( PA) and fluorescence flow cytometry ( PAFFC) platform can provide the detection of melanoma and breast-cancer-associated single CTPs with endogenously expressed melanin and genetically engineered proteins or exogenous dyes as PA and fluorescent contrast agents. The two-beam, time-of-light PAFFC can measure the sizes of CTCs and CTPs and identify bulk and rolling CTCs and CTC clusters, with no influence on blood flow instability. This technique revealed a higher concentration of CTPs than CTCs at an early cancer stage. Because a single tumor cell can release many CTPs and in vivo PAFFC can examine the whole blood volume, PAFFC diagnostic platform has the potential to dramatically improve ( up to 10(5)-fold) the sensitivity of cancer diagnosis.

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