| Literature DB >> 23946824 |
Mark A Eckert1, Priscilla Q Vu, Kaixiang Zhang, Dongku Kang, M Monsur Ali, Chenjie Xu, Weian Zhao.
Abstract
In vivo sensors are an emerging field with the potential to revolutionize our understanding of basic biology and our treatment of disease. In this review, we highlight recent advances in the fields of in vivo electrochemical, optical, and magnetic resonance biosensors with a focus on recent developments that have been validated in rodent models or human subjects. In addition, we discuss major challenges in the development and translation of in vivo biosensors and present potential solutions to these problems. The field of nanotechnology, in particular, has recently been instrumental in driving the field of in vivo sensors forward. We conclude with a discussion of emerging paradigms and techniques for the development of future biosensors.Entities:
Keywords: biosensors; diagnostics; in vivo imaging; in vivo sensing; molecular probes; nanoparticles
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23946824 PMCID: PMC3741607 DOI: 10.7150/thno.6584
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Theranostics ISSN: 1838-7640 Impact factor: 11.556
Figure 1Examples of in vivo electrochemical sensors. (A) Schematic of a typical electrochemical glucose sensor implanted in a tissue. Glucose oxidase is embedded into a matrix surrounding an electrode. In the presence of glucose, the glucose oxidase catalyzes its oxidation to gluconic acid. The electrode senses the electron transfer reaction of the glucose oxidase. (B) A “smart” glucose sensor developed by Wang et al can be encapsulated in an anti-inflammatory (dexamethasone) drug-eluting hydrogel to minimize foreign body response. (C) The “smart” sensor in situ demonstrating small size amenable to implantation. (D) The “smart” sensor has similar response to glucose concentration as an unmodified sensor while minimizing inflammatory responses 25. (E) Implantable wireless electrochemical sensors of dopamine (DA) and serotonin (5-HT) may be embedded in the brain of rats to dynamically assay neurotransmitter activity in real time in freely-moving animals, as demonstrated by Crespi. An infrared transmitter (TX) transfers data to receiving station (RX) interfaced with a laptop for analysis. 29. Panels B-D adapted from Wang et al 2013 with permission; panel E adapted from Crespi 2010 with permission.
Figure 2Examples of in vivo optical sensors. (A) Sensing may be achieved by the separation of a fluorophore-quencher pair on a sensor by the proteolytic activity of a metalloproteinase or caspase. (B) Switch-based sensors change conformation upon binding to an analyte of interest, leading to fluorescence due to separation of the fluorophore and quencher. (B) Schematic of a peptide-based MMP sensor. Fluorescence is quenched until cleavage of the peptide linking the fluorophores to a lysine backbone (Lys) by MMPs. (C) Cleavage of the MMP reporter in vivo can be assessed with whole animal imaging, which demonstrates a dramatic increase in fluorescence associated with HT1080 xenotransplants which express MMP2 compared to BT20 xenografts, which do not 42. (D) A switch-based, aptamer biosensor for CCRF-CEM cancer cells undergoes a conformational change upon binding to its target cells which leads to a dramatic increase in fluorescence. (E) In vivo fluorescence is clearly observed in CCRF-CEM tumor-bearing mice, but not control mice 45. Panels C-D adapted from Bremer et al 2001 with permission; panels E-F adapted from Shi et al 2011 with permission.
Figure 3Examples of in vivo MR sensors. (A) Masking of magnetic nanoparticles by a protease-cleavable ligand prevents internalization until the mask is removed by tumor-associated MMP activity. The nanoparticles can then be efficiently internalized by the adjacent tumor cells. (B) Alternatively, dispersed, bifunctional nanoparticles have a high T2 MR signal; when bound to their target analyte, they aggregate, quantitatively lowering the T2 signal. (C) Tumor-specific magnetic contrast can easily be visualized in areas of MMP2 activity associated with tumors 47. (D) Implantable MR sensors of cancer biomarkers are incorporated into a polycarbonante membrane. In the presence of biomarkers, the MR signal is dynamically quenched 50. Panel C adapted from Harris et al 2008 with permission; panel D adapted from Daniel et al 2009 with permission.
Challenges in the Development of In Vivo Sensors
| Challenge | Example Solutions |
|---|---|
| Toxicity | Optimization of physical parameters of nanoparticles |
| Biocompatibility | Biomimetic and “smart” hydrogels to minimize foreign body response |
| Sensitivity | Enhanced binding properties via bio-inspired multivalency |
| Resolution | Improved intravital microscopy, including three-photon microscopy |
| Targeted Delivery of Sensors In Vivo | Targeted delivery of biosensors via cell-surface engineering |
| Invasive Implantation of Sensors | Development of wireless power supplies and signal transducers |
| Multiplexing | Use of multiple sensing modalities (optical + MR, electrochemical + optical, etc) |