4.7 Article

Towards An Advanced Graphene-Based Magnetic Resonance Imaging Contrast Agent: Sub-acute Toxicity and Efficacy Studies in Small Animals

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep17182

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Health grants [1R41DK100205-01A1]
  2. NYU Applied Research Support Fund
  3. NIH/NCI [5P30CA016087-32]
  4. NIH [P41 EB017183]
  5. Wallace H Coulter Foundation Translational Research Award
  6. Fusion Award from the Stony Brook School of Medicine and the Office of the Vice President for Research
  7. Technology Accelerator Fund from the Research Foundation for SUNY

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current clinical Gd3+-based T-1 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast agents (CAs) are suboptimal or unsuitable, especially at higher magnetic fields (>1.5 Tesla) for advanced MRI applications such as blood pool, cellular and molecular imaging. Herein, towards the goal of developing a safe and more efficacious high field T1 MRI CA for these applications, we report the sub-acute toxicity and contrast enhancing capabilities of a novel nanoparticle MRI CA comprising of manganese (Mn2+) intercalated graphene nanoparticles functionalized with dextran (hereafter, Mangradex) in rodents. Sub-acute toxicology performed on rats intravenously injected with Mangradex at 1, 50 or 100 mg/kg dosages 3 times per week for three weeks indicated that dosages <= 50 mg/kg could serve as potential diagnostic doses. Whole body 7 Tesla MRI performed on mice injected with Mangradex at a potential diagnostic dose (25 mg/kg or 455 nanomoles Mn2+/kg; similar to 2 orders of magnitude lower than the paramagnetic ion concentration in a typical clinical dose) showed persistent (up to at least 2 hours) contrast enhancement in the vascular branches (Mn2+ concentration in blood at steady state = 300 ppb, per voxel = 45 femtomoles). The results lay the foundations for further development of Mangradex as a vascular and cellular/molecular MRI probe.

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

4.7
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