4.6 Article

Magnetoelectroporation: improved labeling of neural stem cells and leukocytes for cellular magnetic resonance imaging using a single FDA-approved agent

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.nano.2006.01.003

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

Cellular magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) relies on the use of intracellular contrast agents, primarily iron oxide compounds. Several techniques have been used to efficiently shuttle iron oxides into nonphagocytic cells, but all methods used until now require a prolonged incubation of cells. We hypothesized that instant magnetic labeling of cells could be achieved using electroporation. Neural stem cells (NSCs) and leukocytes from spleen and lymph nodes were suspended in a ferumoxide labeling solution, loaded into cuvettes, and subjected to electromechanical permeabilization using electroporation. Magnetically labeled cells were assayed for labeling efficiency, as well as for potential toxicity or altered function. To confirm the method's applicability to detect cells, MRI experiments were performed at 11.7 T. Magnetoelectroporation of NSCs, as demonstrated by Prussian blue staining, anti-dextran immunostaining, and a quantitative iron uptake assay, proved to be an efficient intracellular magnetic labeling method. Leukocytes including lymphocytes, which are notoriously difficult to label because of their membrane properties and small cytoplasmic volume, also demonstrated a pronounced uptake of ferumoxide. MRI experiments showed that labeled NSCs could be visualized as single cells and cell clusters in gelatin phantoms, and as proliferating cell masses in mouse brain. We have developed a convenient technique for instant magnetic labeling of cells. Because magnetoelectroporation allows the use of ferumoxides approved by the US Food and Drug Administration without additional agents, it has excellent potential for clinical translation. (c) 2006 Published by Elsevier 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

4.6
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