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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |