4.5 Article

Hexafluorobenzene in comparison with perfluoro-15-crown-5-ether for repeated monitoring of oxygenation using 19F MRI in a mouse model

期刊

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
卷 69, 期 1, 页码 248-254

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.24245

关键词

19F-MRI; oxygenation; HFB; 15C5

资金

  1. Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research (FNRS)
  2. Fonds Joseph Maisin
  3. Saint-Luc Foundation
  4. Actions de Recherche Concertees de la Communaute Francaise de Belgique-ARC [09/14-020]
  5. Pole d'Attraction Interuniversitaire PAI VI [P6/38]
  6. Walloon Region's Marshall Programme of Excellence (DIANE convention)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hexafluorobenzene (HFB) and perfluoro-15-crown-5-ether (15C5) were compared as fluorine reporter probes of tissue oxygenation using 19F MRI for dynamic assessment of muscle oxygenation, with special focus on muscle tissue toxicity of the probes, and consecutive alteration of animal behavior. The latter were also compared in terms of sensitivity to changes in oxygenation as well as of signal-to-noise ratio for accurate pO2 measurements. For that purpose, mouse muscles were imaged at 11.7 T, at 2- and 36-h after intramuscular injection of HFB or 15C5. Histological analysis of the muscle tissue revealed a lack of toxicity for 15C5 from 2 up to 36-h postinjection, whereas HFB induced tissue necrosis, blood clots and thrombosis as soon as 24-h postinjection. This muscle toxicity led to a limitation in mice mobility 24-h after injection of HFB as evidenced by behavioral testing (open-field, grip strength, and catwalk tests), which was not the case after 15C5 intramuscular injection. Finally, pO2 measurements assessed 2-h postinjection showed consistent values with both probes, evidencing cross-validation of the 19F MRI oximetry technique for acute measurements. However, the measurement at 36-h was hampered for HFB, which showed significant lower values of muscle pO2, whereas 15C5 was able to reliably assess muscle pO2 at 36-h postinjection. Magn Reson Med, 2013. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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