4.0 Article Proceedings Paper

Magnetic resonance imaging of ferumoxide-labeled mesenchymal stem cells seeded on collagen scaffolds - Relevance to tissue engineering

期刊

TISSUE ENGINEERING
卷 12, 期 10, 页码 2765-2775

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/ten.2006.12.2765

关键词

-

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS045062] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are a promising candidate cell for tissue engineering. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been proven effective in visualizing iron-labeled stem cells; however, the efficiency of this approach for visualization of cells seeded on scaffolds intended for use as tissue-engineered heart valves has not been assessed. MSCs were labeled by incubating for 48 h with ferumoxide and poly-L-lysine as transfecting agent. Any detrimental effect of iron labeling on cell viability, proliferation, and differentiation was examined using appropriate functional assays. Change in the nuclear magnetic relaxation properties of labeled cells was determined using in vitro relaxometry of cells seeded in 3-dimensional collagen gels. Images of labeled and non-labeled cells seeded onto 1% type I bovine collagen scaffolds were obtained using MRI. The presence of intracellular iron in labeled cells was demonstrated using Prussian blue staining, confocal microscopy, and electron microscopy. Cell viability, proliferation, and differentiation were comparable in labeled and non-labeled cells. The T2 relaxation time was 40% to 50% shorter in ferumoxide-labeled cells. Labeled cells seeded on scaffolds appeared as areas of reduced signal intensity in T2 weighted images. Ferumoxide labeling persisted and remained effective even on scans performed 4 weeks after the labeling procedure. Ferumoxide labeling of human MSCs seeded on collagen scaffolds is an effective, non-toxic technique for visualization of these cells using MRI. This technique appears promising for cell tracking in future tissue-engineering applications.

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

4.0
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