4.6 Article

Flow cytometry with gold nanoparticles and their clusters as scattering contrast agents: FDTD simulation of light-cell interaction

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOPHOTONICS
卷 2, 期 8-9, 页码 505-520

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jbio.200910039

关键词

finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) method; light scattering; cytometry; gold nanoparticle; optical phase contrast microscopy; refractive index matching; image contrast enhancement; nanoscale cell imaging

资金

  1. RF President's Supporting of Leading Scientific Schools [NSHA-208.2008.2 (2008-2009)]
  2. PF Program on the Development of High School Potential [2.1.1/4989, 2.2.1.1/2950]
  3. National Institute of Health [EB000873, EB009239, CA131164, CA139373]
  4. National Science Foundation [IDBR 0852737]
  5. [22401.4 PHOTONICS4LIFE-FP7-ICT-2007-2]
  6. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R21CA139373, R01CA131164] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  7. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BIOMEDICAL IMAGING AND BIOENGINEERING [R21EB005123, R01EB000873] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The formulation of the finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) approach is presented in the framework of its potential applications to in-vivo flow cytometry based on light scattering. The consideration is focused on comparison of light scattering by a single biological cell alone in controlled refractive-index matching conditions and by cells labeled by gold-nanoparticles. The optical schematics including phase contrast (OPCM) microscopy as a prospective modality for in-vivo flow cytometry is also analyzed. The validation of the FDTD approach for the simulation of flow cytometry may open up a new avenue in the development of advanced. cytometric techniques based on scattering effects from nanoscale targets. [GRAPHICS] A group of 42-gold NPs randomly distributed on the surface of the cell nucleus: (a) cell model; (h) nucleus and cluster model, The NP size on the right-hand graph is slightly exaggerated. (C) 2009 by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据