4.5 Article

Magnetic relaxometry with an atomic magnetometer and SQUID sensors on targeted cancer cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETISM AND MAGNETIC MATERIALS
卷 324, 期 17, 页码 2613-2619

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmmm.2012.03.015

关键词

Magnetic relaxometry; SQUID; Atomic magnetometer; Magnetic nanoparticle; Cancer

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [RAI066765B, RCA096154B, RCA105742B, RCA123785B]
  2. Tobacco Settlement Fund [C-2334-TSF]
  3. Sandia National Laboratories
  4. United States Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration [DE-AC04-94AL85000]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Magnetic relaxometry methods have been shown to be very sensitive in detecting cancer cells and other targeted diseases. Superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) sensors are one of the primary sensor systems used in this methodology because of their high sensitivity with demonstrated capabilities of detecting fewer than 100,000 magnetically-labeled cancer cells. The emerging technology of atomic magnetometers (AMs) represents a new detection method for magnetic relaxometry with high sensitivity and without the requirement for cryogens. We report here on a study of magnetic relaxometry using both AM and SQUID sensors to detect cancer cells that are coated with superparamagnetic nanoparticles through antibody targeting. The AM studies conform closely to SQUID sensor results in the measurement of the magnetic decay characteristics following a magnetization pulse. The AM and SQUID sensor data are well described theoretically for superparamagnetic particles bound to cells and the results can be used to determine the number of cells in a cell culture or tumor. The observed fields and magnetic moments of cancer cells are linear with the number of cells over a very large range. The AM sensor demonstrates very high sensitivity for detecting magnetically labeled cells, does not require cryogenic cooling and is relatively inexpensive. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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