| Literature DB >> 19602037 |
Chao Zhang1, Guihua Hou, Ting Liang, Jing Song, Lili Qu, Fuqiang Chen, Jia Xu, Dan Wang, Jiankui Han.
Abstract
This study was to evaluate whether macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) can be used as a better marker of inflammatory detection through the biodistribution and inflammatory imaging study with (131)I-labelled anti-MIF McAb and control antibody in inflammatory model mice. The mRNA and protein expression of MIF in inflammatory lesions were proved by RT-PCR and immunohistochemistry. The model mice were injected with 3.7 MBq of each agent and killed at 24, 48 and 72 hrs after injection. Whole-body images were obtained with storage phosphor screen. The organs, blood, abscesses muscles were removed, weighed and counted with a gamma counter. The percentage of uptake by organs and per gram tissues and abscess/normal tissue (%ID/g) concentration ratios were calculated. The abscesses in mice were well visualized from 24 hrs. The target-to-non-target (T/NT) ratios were 6.71 +/- 1.09 (24 hrs), 8.57 +/- 0.81 (48 hrs) and 11.41 +/- 0.37 (72 hrs) for (131)I-labelled anti-MIF McAb group; while in control group of (131)I-IgG, T/NT ratios were 4.65 +/- 0.63 (24 hrs), 6.44 +/- 0.60 (48 hrs) and 8.23 +/- 0.35 (72 hrs) (P < 0.05). MIF mRNA expression was threefold increased in inflammatory tissues at 24 hrs compared with normal tissues, and twofold increased at 48 hrs. MIF protein expression was stronger in the inflammatory tissues at 48 hrs after focal inflammation occurred. Our findings suggest that the (131)I-labelled anti-MIF McAb appears to be more specific and suitable than (131)I-labelled IgG for targeting focal inflammation, which means MIF can be used as a better marker of inflammatory detection.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2008 PMID: 19602037 PMCID: PMC4516554 DOI: 10.1111/j.1582-4934.2008.00537.x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cell Mol Med ISSN: 1582-1838 Impact factor: 5.310
Figure 1(A) Accumulation of 131I-anti-MIF McAb and 131I-IgG in the inflammatory tissue (% ID/g) Values are means ± S.D., n= 8 in all groups; *P < 0.05 versus131I-IgG (B) Change of T/NT in the inflammatory tissue of 131I-anti-MIF and 131I-IgG McAb groups Values are means ± S.D., n= 8 in all groups; *P < 0.05 versus131I-IgG (C) Change of T/B of 131I-anti-MIF McAb and 131I-IgG in inflammatory tissue Values are means ± S.D., n= 8 in all groups; *P < 0.05 versus131I-IgG.
Figure 2Images of the inflammatory mouse.
Figure 3The expression of MIF mRNA in inflammatory and normal tissues. There were little changes in MIF gene expression in normal tissues at three time-points. There was a threefold increase in MIF mRNA expression in inflammatory tissues at 24 hrs compared with normal tissues (P < 0.05). There was a twofold increase in MIF mRNA levels in inflammatory tissues at 48 hrs compared with normal tissues (P < 0.05). Semi-quantitative RT-PCR was performed in duplicate to minimize experimental error on the value calculated. All columnar values were expressed as means and standard deviations. A pattern of results were analysed by repeating at least three times. P < 0.05 compared with the normal group.
Figure 4Expression of MIF in vivo. (A) Negative expression in the normal tissues. (B) Weak expression in the inflammatory tissues 24 hrs after focal inflammation occurred. (C) Strong expression in the inflammatory tissues 48 hrs after focal inflammation occurred, there is infiltration of inflammatory cells. (D) Moderate expression in the inflammatory tissues 72 hrs after focal inflammation occurred.