4.7 Article

Sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging of dendritic cells for in vivo tracking of cellular cancer vaccines

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 120, 期 5, 页码 978-984

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.22385

关键词

magnetice resonance imaging; dendritic cell vaccine; superparamagnetic iron oxide; cellular therapy; cell tracking; sensitivity

类别

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R01NS045062] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS045062] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Success of immunotherapy with dendritic cells (DC) to treat cancer is highly dependent on their interaction with and activation of antigen specific T cells. To maximize DC-T cell contact accurate delivery of the therapeutic cells into the lymph node, or efficient trafficking of DC to the lymph nodes of the patient is essential. Since responses are seen in some patients but not in others, monitoring of the injected cells may be of major importance. Tracking of cells with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is a non-invasive method that provides detailed anatomical information and is therefore more informative for the evaluation of the localization of therapeutic cells after injection than e.g. scintigraphic imaging. To challenge the sensitivity of this novel technique, we investigated the minimum amount of label and the number of cells required for MR imaging and the effect of labeling on DC function. DC were labeled with different concentrations of a clinically approved MR contrast agent consisting of superparamagnetic iron oxide particles and were imaged at both 3 and 7 T. Our results demonstrate the following: (i) When loaded with 30 (+/- 4) pg Fe/cell, cell numbers as low as 1,000 cells/mm(3) at 3 T and 500 cells/mm(3) at 7 T could be readily imaged; (ii) Labeling does not affect cell viability (iii) Because of its high spatial resolution and sensitivity, MR1 is ideally suited to track therapeutic cells in vivo. C 2006 Wiley-Liss, 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

4.7
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