Literature DB >> 19265438

Responsive MRI agents for sensing metabolism in vivo.

Luis M De Leon-Rodriguez1, Angelo Josue M Lubag, Craig R Malloy, Gary V Martinez, Robert J Gillies, A Dean Sherry.   

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has inherent advantages in safety, three-dimensional output, and clinical relevance when compared with optical and radiotracer imaging methods. However, MRI contrast agents are inherently less sensitive than agents used in other imaging modalities primarily because MRI agents are detected indirectly by changes in either the water proton relaxation rates (T(1), T(2), and T(*)(2)) or water proton intensities (chemical exchange saturation transfer and paramagnetic chemical exchange saturation transfer, CEST and PARACEST). Consequently, the detection limit of an MRI agent is determined by the characteristics of the background water signal; by contrast, optical and radiotracer-based methods permit direct detection of the agent itself. By virtue of responding to background water (which reflects bulk cell properties), however, MRI contrast agents have considerable advantages in "metabolic" imaging, that is, spatially resolving tissue variations in pH, redox state, oxygenation, or metabolite levels. In this Account, we begin by examining sensitivity limits in targeted contrast agents and then address contrast agents that respond to a physiological change; these responsive agents are effective metabolic imaging sensors. The sensitivity requirements for a metabolic imaging agent are quite different from those for a targeted Gd(3+)-based T(1) agent (for example, sensing cell receptors). Targeted Gd(3+) agents must have either an extraordinarily high water proton relaxivity (r(1)) or multiple Gd(3+) complexes clustered together at the target site on a polymer platform or nanoparticle assembly. Metabolic MRI agents differ in that the high relaxivity requirement, although helpful, is eased because these agents respond to bulk properties of tissues rather than low concentrations of a specific biological target. For optimal sensing, metabolic imaging agents should display a large change in relaxivity (deltar(1)) in response to the physiological or metabolic parameter of interest. Metabolic imaging agents have only recently begun to appear in the literature and only a few have been demonstrated in vivo. MRI maps of absolute tissue pH have been obtained with Gd(3+)-based T(1) sensors. The requirement of an independent measure of agent concentration in tissues complicates these experiments, but if qualitative changes in tissue pH are acceptable, then these agents can be quite useful. In this review, we describe examples of imaging extracellular pH in brain tumors, ischemic hearts, and pancreatic islets with Gd(3+)-based pH sensors and discuss the potential of CEST and PARACEST agents as metabolic imaging sensors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19265438      PMCID: PMC2713815          DOI: 10.1021/ar800237f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acc Chem Res        ISSN: 0001-4842            Impact factor:   22.384


  29 in total

1.  In vivo visualization of gene expression using magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  A Y Louie; M M Hüber; E T Ahrens; U Rothbächer; R Moats; R E Jacobs; S E Fraser; T J Meade
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 54.908

2.  A Novel pH-Sensitive MRI Contrast Agent.

Authors: 
Journal:  Angew Chem Int Ed Engl       Date:  1999-11-02       Impact factor: 15.336

3.  A R2/R1 ratiometric procedure for a concentration-independent, pH-responsive, Gd(III)-based MRI agent.

Authors:  Silvio Aime; Franco Fedeli; Alberto Sanino; Enzo Terreno
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2006-09-06       Impact factor: 15.419

4.  Multiparameter magnetic relaxation switch assays.

Authors:  Sonia Taktak; David Sosnovik; Michael J Cima; Ralph Weissleder; Lee Josephson
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2007-11-06       Impact factor: 6.986

Review 5.  Chemical exchange saturation transfer contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  A Dean Sherry; Mark Woods
Journal:  Annu Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 9.590

6.  Synthesis and relaxometric studies of a dendrimer-based pH-responsive MRI contrast agent.

Authors:  M Meser Ali; Mark Woods; Peter Caravan; Ana C L Opina; Marga Spiller; James C Fettinger; A Dean Sherry
Journal:  Chemistry       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 5.236

7.  pH-dependent modulation of relaxivity and luminescence in macrocyclic gadolinium and europium complexes based on reversible intramolecular sulfonamide ligation.

Authors:  M P Lowe; D Parker; O Reany; S Aime; M Botta; G Castellano; E Gianolio; R Pagliarin
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2001-08-08       Impact factor: 15.419

8.  High resolution pH(e) imaging of rat glioma using pH-dependent relaxivity.

Authors:  Maria L Garcia-Martin; Gary V Martinez; Natarajan Raghunand; A Dean Sherry; Shanrong Zhang; Robert J Gillies
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.668

9.  Optimized relaxivity and stability of [Gd(H(2,2)-1,2-HOPO)(H2O)]- for use as an MRI contrast agent.

Authors:  Christoph J Jocher; Mauro Botta; Stefano Avedano; Evan G Moore; Jide Xu; Silvio Aime; Kenneth N Raymond
Journal:  Inorg Chem       Date:  2007-05-11       Impact factor: 5.165

10.  Cyclen-based phenylboronate ligands and their Eu3+ complexes for sensing glucose by MRI.

Authors:  Robert Trokowski; Shanrong Zhang; A Dean Sherry
Journal:  Bioconjug Chem       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.774

View more
  59 in total

Review 1.  Alternatives to gadolinium-based metal chelates for magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Subha Viswanathan; Zoltan Kovacs; Kayla N Green; S James Ratnakar; A Dean Sherry
Journal:  Chem Rev       Date:  2010-05-12       Impact factor: 60.622

2.  Activation of a PARACEST agent for MRI through selective outersphere interactions with phosphate diesters.

Authors:  Ching-Hui Huang; Jacob Hammell; S James Ratnakar; A Dean Sherry; Janet R Morrow
Journal:  Inorg Chem       Date:  2010-07-05       Impact factor: 5.165

Review 3.  MRI biosensors: a short primer.

Authors:  Angelique Louie
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 4.813

4.  Targeted signal-amplifying enzymes enhance MRI of EGFR expression in an orthotopic model of human glioma.

Authors:  Mohammed S Shazeeb; Christopher H Sotak; Michael DeLeo; Alexei Bogdanov
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2011-01-18       Impact factor: 12.701

5.  A modular system for the synthesis of multiplexed magnetic resonance probes.

Authors:  Daniel J Mastarone; Victoria S R Harrison; Amanda L Eckermann; Giacomo Parigi; Claudio Luchinat; Thomas J Meade
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 15.419

Review 6.  Design and synthesis of magnetic nanoparticles for biomedical diagnostics.

Authors:  Yuan Chen; Xianguang Ding; Yan Zhang; Auginia Natalia; Xuecheng Sun; Zhigang Wang; Huilin Shao
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2018-10

7.  Distance-dependent magnetic resonance tuning as a versatile MRI sensing platform for biological targets.

Authors:  Jin-Sil Choi; Soojin Kim; Dongwon Yoo; Tae-Hyun Shin; Hoyoung Kim; Muller D Gomes; Sun Hee Kim; Alexander Pines; Jinwoo Cheon
Journal:  Nat Mater       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 43.841

8.  Anthranilic acid analogs as diamagnetic CEST MRI contrast agents that feature an intramolecular-bond shifted hydrogen.

Authors:  Xiaolei Song; Xing Yang; Sangeeta Ray Banerjee; Martin G Pomper; Michael T McMahon
Journal:  Contrast Media Mol Imaging       Date:  2014-04-28       Impact factor: 3.161

Review 9.  Environmentally responsive MRI contrast agents.

Authors:  Gemma-Louise Davies; Iris Kramberger; Jason J Davis
Journal:  Chem Commun (Camb)       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 6.222

10.  Mechanisms of Gadographene-Mediated Proton Spin Relaxation.

Authors:  Andy H Hung; Matthew C Duch; Giacomo Parigi; Matthew W Rotz; Lisa M Manus; Daniel J Mastarone; Kevin T Dam; Colton C Gits; Keith W Macrenaris; Claudio Luchinat; Mark C Hersam; Thomas J Meade
Journal:  J Phys Chem C Nanomater Interfaces       Date:  2013-08-08       Impact factor: 4.126

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.