4.8 Review

Small molecular gadolinium(III) complexes as MRI contrast agents for diagnostic imaging

期刊

COORDINATION CHEMISTRY REVIEWS
卷 251, 期 17-20, 页码 2428-2451

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2007.04.018

关键词

MRI contrast agents; gadolinium(III) complexes; molecular imaging; protein probes; polyaminocarboxylates

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast agents that contain the gadolinium ion are widely used in biomedical research and diagnosis. The relaxation mechanism of these T-1-agents highlights their sensitivity towards the proximal environment. Greater knowledge of the structurally related relaxation mechanism, particularly factors that govern relaxivity, leads to scrutinized chelate designs that improve contrast enhancement. Cyclic and acyclic polyaminocarboxylate gadolinium complexes, especially those have favourable water exchange and tumbling rate for relaxation, have been reported to improve relaxivity and specificity. The criteria for a large relaxivity gain upon protein binding, such as the human serum albumin (HSA), are elucidated through the relaxometric study of the protein-chelate adduct. This adduct is an important model for the development of contrast agents, which may allow the in vivo visualization of proteins. The strength of HSA binding and the observed relaxivity are related to the pharmacokinetic profile of the contrast agents and give insight in the sensitivity of the agents after intravenous administration. By using animal models, an understanding of the physiology of contrast agents, including their biodistribution, excretion, and possible site of interaction, is acquired. The in vitro studies of contrast agents have demonstrated the feasibility of imaging various disease-related proteins, cell types, and gene delivery and expression. Imaging at the molecular level can be achieved through this integrative approach and the incorporation of nanotechnology in drug delivery. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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