4.8 Review

Surface impact on nanoparticle-based magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents

Journal

THERANOSTICS
Volume 8, Issue 9, Pages 2521-2548

Publisher

IVYSPRING INT PUBL
DOI: 10.7150/thno.23789

Keywords

nanoparticle; magnetic resonance imaging; relaxivity; contrast agents; surface modification

Funding

  1. Department of Defense (CDMRP grant) [CA140666]
  2. National Science Foundation (CAREER grant) [NSF1552617]
  3. National Institutes of Health [R01EB022596, R01NS093314]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) projects [81271606, 81571708, 81501506]
  5. Norman Bethune Program of Jilin University [2015219]
  6. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BIOMEDICAL IMAGING AND BIOENGINEERING [R01EB022596] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  7. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R01NS093314] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is one of the most widely used diagnostic tools in the clinic. To improve imaging quality, MRI contrast agents, which can modulate local T-1 and T-2 relaxation times, are often injected prior to or during MRI scans. However, clinically used contrast agents, including Gd3+-based chelates and iron oxide nanoparticles (IONPs), afford mediocre contrast abilities. To address this issue, there has been extensive research on developing alternative MRI contrast agents with superior r(1) and r(2) relaxivities. These efforts are facilitated by the fast progress in nanotechnology, which allows for preparation of magnetic nanoparticles (NPs) with varied size, shape, crystallinity, and composition. Studies suggest that surface coatings can also largely affect T-1 and T-2 relaxations and can be tailored in favor of a high r(1) or r(2). However, the surface impact of NPs has been less emphasized. Herein, we review recent progress on developing NP-based T-1 and T-2 contrast agents, with a focus on the surface impact.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available