4.8 Review

Dendritic Phosphorescent Probes for Oxygen Imaging in Biological Systems

期刊

ACS APPLIED MATERIALS & INTERFACES
卷 1, 期 6, 页码 1292-1304

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/am9001698

关键词

phosphorescence; oxygen; porphyrins; dendrimers; quenching; imaging

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL081273, R01 HL081273-04, HL081273] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIBIB NIH HHS [R01 EB007279, R01 EB007279-03, EB007279] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS031465, NS031465, R01 NS031465-16] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxygen levels in biological systems can be measured by the phosphorescence quenching method using probes with controllable quenching parameters and defined biodistributions. We describe a general approach to the construction of phosphorescent nanosensors with tunable spectral characteristics, variable degrees of quenching, and a high selectivity for oxygen. The probes are based on bright phosphorescent Pt and Pd complexes of porphyrins and symmetrically pi-extended porphyrins (tetrabenzoporphyrins and tetranaphthoporphyrins). pi-Extension of the core macrocycle allows tuning of the spectral parameters of the probes in order to meet the requirements of a particular imaging application (e.g., oxygen tomography versus planar microscopic imaging). Metalloprophyrins are encapsulated into poly(arylglycine) dendrimers, which fold in aqueous environments and create diffusion barriers for oxygen, making it possible to regulate the sensitivity and the dynamic range of the method. The periphery of the dendrimers is modified with poly(ethylene glycol) residues, which enhance the probe's solubility, diminish toxicity, and help prevent interactions of the probes with the biological environment. The probe's parameters were measured under physiological conditions and shown to be unaffected by the presence of biomacromolecules. The performance of the probes was demonstrated in applications, including in vivo microscopy of vascular pO(2) in the rat brain.

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

4.8
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