| Literature DB >> 25406986 |
Liming Nie1, Peng Huang, Weitao Li, Xuefeng Yan, Albert Jin, Zhe Wang, Yuxia Tang, Shouju Wang, Xiaofen Zhang, Gang Niu, Xiaoyuan Chen.
Abstract
Conventional evaluation methods of chemotherapeutic efficacy such as tissue biopsy and anatomical measurement are either invasive with potential complications or dilatory to capture the rapid pathological changes. Here, a sensitive and resolution-scalable photoacoustic microscopy (PAM) with theranostic nanoformulation was developed to noninvasively monitor the therapy response in a timely manner. UltrasmallEntities:
Keywords: chemotherapy response; early prediction; graphene oxide; nanocarrier; photoacoustic microscopy; scalable imaging; signal amplification
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25406986 PMCID: PMC4278693 DOI: 10.1021/nn505989e
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ACS Nano ISSN: 1936-0851 Impact factor: 15.881
Figure 1(a) Scheme of the PAM system used for in vivo animal imaging. (b) MIP image of three pieces of horse hair obtained by the PAM system. Scale bar = 1 mm. (c) Image profile along the red dashed line from part b.
Figure 2(a) UV–vis–NIR of GO, GO-Cy5.5, Dox, and GO-Cy5.5-Dox, respectively. (b) Fluorescence spectra of GO-Cy5.5-Dox excited at 480 nm (black) and 680 nm (red), respectively. (c) MIP image of tumor supply vessels before injection of GO-Cy5.5-Dox. (d) MIP image of tumor supply vessels 6 h after injection of GO-Cy5.5-Dox. (e) MIP image of tumor supply vessels before injection of PBS. (f) MIP image of tumor supply vessels 6 h after injection of PBS. Scale bar = 1 mm.
Figure 3(a) Blood circulation of GO-Cy5.5-Dox in mice by tail vein injection. Blood samples of 5 μL were collected at indicated time points into Eppendorf tubes for fluorescence imaging. (b) Fluorescence signal curve quantified from part a (n = 4/group). (c) In vitro drug release measurement of GO-Cy5.5-Dox in various pH conditions.
Figure 4(a) Fluorescence imaging of GO-Cy5.5-DOX distribution in vivo in H1975-tumor-bearing mice. (b) Fluorescence imaging of major organs and tumor collected 48 h after drug injection. (c) Fluorescence signal of liver and tumor in mice at different time points by measuring the Cy5.5 fluorescence signal (n = 5/group).
Figure 5(a) Representative MIP images of a region-of-interest in tumor receiving GO treatment, Dox treatment, and GO-Dox treatment, respectively, at different time points. Scale bar = 1 mm. (b) Quantitative PA signals of blood vessels inhibited by the treatments (n = 6/group). *p < 0.01. (c) CD31 immunohistochemical histology of the tumor section 6 days after treatment with Dox and GO-Dox chemotherapy. Scale bar = 20 μm.
Figure 6(a) Photoacoustic imaging of the tumor receiving chemotherapy by the conventional PA tomography system (VisualSonics). Scale bar = 1 mm. (b) Photoacoustic imaging of the tumor receiving chemotherapy by the PAM system. Scale bar = 1 mm. (c) PA signal change on the tumor measured by the conventional PA system and home-built PAM system (n = 6/group). *p < 0.01. (d) PA signal, total length, and junction number of the vasculature from PAM images (n = 6/group).
Figure 7(a) Relative tumor volume of untreated and Dox- and GO-Dox-treated mice. (b) Body weight curves of the mice in the untreated and Dox- and GO-Dox-treated groups. (c) HE staining (10-fold magnification) of the major organs 1 week after PBS or GO-Dox (Dox concentration at 8 mg/kg) injection.