4.5 Article

Detection of macrophage activity in atherosclerosis in vivo using multichannel, high-resolution laser scanning fluorescence microscopy

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL OPTICS
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

SPIE-SOC PHOTO-OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1117/1.2186337

关键词

atherosclerosis; near-infrared fluorescence; imaging; laser scanning microscopy; macrophage; nanoparticle

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P50-CA86355, R24-CA92782] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Molecular and cellular mechanisms of atherogenesis and its treatment are largely being unraveled by in vitro techniques. We describe methodology to directly image macrophage cell activity in vivo in a murine model of atherosclerosis using laser scanning fluorescence microscopy (LSFM) and a macrophage-targeted, near-infrared fluorescent (NIRF) magnetofluorescent nanoparticle (MFNP). Atherosclerotic apolipoprotein E deficient (apoE(-/-)) mice (n = 10) are injected with MFNP or 0.9% saline, and wild-type mice (n = 4) are injected with MFNP as additional controls. After 24 h, common carotid arteries are surgically exposed and prepared for LSFM. Multichannel LSFM of MFNP-enhanced carotid atheroma (5 X 5-mu m inplane resolution) shows a strong focal NIRF signal, with a plaque target-to-background ratio of 3.9 +/- 1.8. Minimal NIRF signal is observed in control mice. Spectrally resolved indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence angiograms confirm the intravascular location of atheroma. On ex vivo fluorescence reflectance imaging, greater NIRF plaque signal is seen in apoE(-/-) MFNP mice compared to controls (p < 0.01). The NIRF signal correlates well with immunostained macrophages, both by stained surface area (r = 0.77) and macrophage number (r = 0.86). The validated experimental methodology thus establishes a platform for investigating macrophage activity in atherosclerosis in vivo, and has implications for the detection of clinical vulnerable plaques. (c) 2006 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers.

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