Cargando…

Comparison of Folate Receptor Targeted Optical Contrast Agents for Intraoperative Molecular Imaging

Background. Intraoperative imaging can identify cancer cells in order to improve resection; thus fluorescent contrast agents have emerged. Our objective was to do a preclinical comparison of two fluorescent dyes, EC17 and OTL38, which both target folate receptor but have different fluorochromes. Mat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: De Jesus, Elizabeth, Keating, Jane J., Kularatne, Sumith A., Jiang, Jack, Judy, Ryan, Predina, Jarrod, Nie, Shuming, Low, Philip, Singhal, Sunil
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4600912/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26491562
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/469047
_version_ 1782394480222011392
author De Jesus, Elizabeth
Keating, Jane J.
Kularatne, Sumith A.
Jiang, Jack
Judy, Ryan
Predina, Jarrod
Nie, Shuming
Low, Philip
Singhal, Sunil
author_facet De Jesus, Elizabeth
Keating, Jane J.
Kularatne, Sumith A.
Jiang, Jack
Judy, Ryan
Predina, Jarrod
Nie, Shuming
Low, Philip
Singhal, Sunil
author_sort De Jesus, Elizabeth
collection PubMed
description Background. Intraoperative imaging can identify cancer cells in order to improve resection; thus fluorescent contrast agents have emerged. Our objective was to do a preclinical comparison of two fluorescent dyes, EC17 and OTL38, which both target folate receptor but have different fluorochromes. Materials. HeLa and KB cells lines were used for in vitro and in vivo comparisons of EC17 and OTL38 brightness, sensitivity, pharmacokinetics, and biodistribution. In vivo experiments were then performed in mice. Results. The peak excitation and emission wavelengths of EC17 and OTL38 were 470/520 nm and 774/794 nm, respectively. In vitro, OTL38 required increased incubation time compared to EC17 for maximum fluorescence; however, peak signal-to-background ratio (SBR) was 1.4-fold higher compared to EC17 within 60 minutes (p < 0.001). Additionally, the SBR for detecting smaller quantity of cells was improved with OTL38. In vivo, the mean improvement in SBR of tumors visualized using OTL38 compared to EC17 was 3.3 fold (range 1.48–5.43). Neither dye caused noticeable toxicity in animal studies. Conclusions. In preclinical testing, OTL38 appears to have superior sensitivity and brightness compared to EC17. This coincides with the accepted belief that near infrared (NIR) dyes tend to have less autofluorescence and scattering issues than visible wavelength fluorochromes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4600912
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46009122015-10-21 Comparison of Folate Receptor Targeted Optical Contrast Agents for Intraoperative Molecular Imaging De Jesus, Elizabeth Keating, Jane J. Kularatne, Sumith A. Jiang, Jack Judy, Ryan Predina, Jarrod Nie, Shuming Low, Philip Singhal, Sunil Int J Mol Imaging Research Article Background. Intraoperative imaging can identify cancer cells in order to improve resection; thus fluorescent contrast agents have emerged. Our objective was to do a preclinical comparison of two fluorescent dyes, EC17 and OTL38, which both target folate receptor but have different fluorochromes. Materials. HeLa and KB cells lines were used for in vitro and in vivo comparisons of EC17 and OTL38 brightness, sensitivity, pharmacokinetics, and biodistribution. In vivo experiments were then performed in mice. Results. The peak excitation and emission wavelengths of EC17 and OTL38 were 470/520 nm and 774/794 nm, respectively. In vitro, OTL38 required increased incubation time compared to EC17 for maximum fluorescence; however, peak signal-to-background ratio (SBR) was 1.4-fold higher compared to EC17 within 60 minutes (p < 0.001). Additionally, the SBR for detecting smaller quantity of cells was improved with OTL38. In vivo, the mean improvement in SBR of tumors visualized using OTL38 compared to EC17 was 3.3 fold (range 1.48–5.43). Neither dye caused noticeable toxicity in animal studies. Conclusions. In preclinical testing, OTL38 appears to have superior sensitivity and brightness compared to EC17. This coincides with the accepted belief that near infrared (NIR) dyes tend to have less autofluorescence and scattering issues than visible wavelength fluorochromes. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2015 2015-09-28 /pmc/articles/PMC4600912/ /pubmed/26491562 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/469047 Text en Copyright © 2015 Elizabeth De Jesus et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
De Jesus, Elizabeth
Keating, Jane J.
Kularatne, Sumith A.
Jiang, Jack
Judy, Ryan
Predina, Jarrod
Nie, Shuming
Low, Philip
Singhal, Sunil
Comparison of Folate Receptor Targeted Optical Contrast Agents for Intraoperative Molecular Imaging
title Comparison of Folate Receptor Targeted Optical Contrast Agents for Intraoperative Molecular Imaging
title_full Comparison of Folate Receptor Targeted Optical Contrast Agents for Intraoperative Molecular Imaging
title_fullStr Comparison of Folate Receptor Targeted Optical Contrast Agents for Intraoperative Molecular Imaging
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Folate Receptor Targeted Optical Contrast Agents for Intraoperative Molecular Imaging
title_short Comparison of Folate Receptor Targeted Optical Contrast Agents for Intraoperative Molecular Imaging
title_sort comparison of folate receptor targeted optical contrast agents for intraoperative molecular imaging
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4600912/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26491562
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/469047
work_keys_str_mv AT dejesuselizabeth comparisonoffolatereceptortargetedopticalcontrastagentsforintraoperativemolecularimaging
AT keatingjanej comparisonoffolatereceptortargetedopticalcontrastagentsforintraoperativemolecularimaging
AT kularatnesumitha comparisonoffolatereceptortargetedopticalcontrastagentsforintraoperativemolecularimaging
AT jiangjack comparisonoffolatereceptortargetedopticalcontrastagentsforintraoperativemolecularimaging
AT judyryan comparisonoffolatereceptortargetedopticalcontrastagentsforintraoperativemolecularimaging
AT predinajarrod comparisonoffolatereceptortargetedopticalcontrastagentsforintraoperativemolecularimaging
AT nieshuming comparisonoffolatereceptortargetedopticalcontrastagentsforintraoperativemolecularimaging
AT lowphilip comparisonoffolatereceptortargetedopticalcontrastagentsforintraoperativemolecularimaging
AT singhalsunil comparisonoffolatereceptortargetedopticalcontrastagentsforintraoperativemolecularimaging