| Literature DB >> 27095443 |
Martin Leahy1,2, Kerry Thompson3, Haroon Zafar4, Sergey Alexandrov4, Mark Foley5, Cathal O'Flatharta6, Peter Dockery3.
Abstract
In vivo imaging is a platform technology with the power to put function in its natural structural context. With the drive to translate stem cell therapies into pre-clinical and clinical trials, early selection of the right imaging techniques is paramount to success. There are many instances in regenerative medicine where the biological, biochemical, and biomechanical mechanisms behind the proposed function of stem cell therapies can be elucidated by appropriate imaging. Imaging techniques can be divided according to whether labels are used and as to whether the imaging can be done in vivo. In vivo human imaging places additional restrictions on the imaging tools that can be used. Microscopies and nanoscopies, especially those requiring fluorescent markers, have made an extraordinary impact on discovery at the molecular and cellular level, but due to their very limited ability to focus in the scattering tissues encountered for in vivo applications they are largely confined to superficial imaging applications in research laboratories. Nanoscopy, which has tremendous benefits in resolution, is limited to the near-field (e.g. near-field scanning optical microscope (NSNOM)) or to very high light intensity (e.g. stimulated emission depletion (STED)) or to slow stochastic events (photo-activated localization microscopy (PALM) and stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (STORM)). In all cases, nanoscopy is limited to very superficial applications. Imaging depth may be increased using multiphoton or coherence gating tricks. Scattering dominates the limitation on imaging depth in most tissues and this can be mitigated by the application of optical clearing techniques that can impose mild (e.g. topical application of glycerol) or severe (e.g. CLARITY) changes to the tissue to be imaged. Progression of therapies through to clinical trials requires some thought as to the imaging and sensing modalities that should be used. Smoother progression is facilitated by the use of comparable imaging modalities throughout the discovery and trial phases, giving label-free techniques an advantage wherever they can be used, although this is seldom considered in the early stages. In this paper, we will explore the techniques that have found success in aiding discovery in stem cell therapies and try to predict the likely technologies best suited to translation and future directions.Entities:
Keywords: Functional; Imaging; Label-free; Microscopy; Optical coherence tomography; Photoacoustic imaging; Stem cells
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27095443 PMCID: PMC4837501 DOI: 10.1186/s13287-016-0315-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther ISSN: 1757-6512 Impact factor: 6.832
An overview of the optimal stem cell tracking characteristics, the probes used to achieve this, and the appropriate imaging modalities with their advantages and disadvantages
| Optimal stem cell tracking probe characteristic | Optimal cellular probe | Examples | Probe disadvantages | Imaging modality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Absorbance/emission spectra within “optical window” | Fluorescence | Reporter genes (e.g. iRFP), quantum dots, exogenous probes (e.g. PKH26) | Requires genetic modification and excitation light, high background due to autofluorescence, signal loss with cell division, low depth of imaging, limited spatial resolution | FLI |
| Bioluminescence | Reporter genes (e.g. fLuc) | Requires genetic modification and exogenous substrate administration | BLI | |
| Photoacoustic | Reporter genes (e.g. LacZ, iRFP), endogenous labels (e.g. Hb, melanin) | Requires excitation light and may require genetic modification, expensive equipment | PAI | |
| High signal sensitivity/intensity | Radionuclide | Reporter genes (e.g. hNIS), 99mTc, 111In, 18F FDG | Ionizing radiation, poor anatomical detail (but can be combined with magnetic resonance or x-ray), radioactive decay limits imaging time, cellular toxicity, may require genetic modification, expensive | SPECT, PET |
| Electron density | Gold nanoparticles | Limited spatial/soft tissue resolution, ionizing, not indicative of cell viability, expensive | x-ray, CT | |
| Fluorescence | As described above | As described above | FLI | |
| Bioluminescence | As described above | As described above | BLI | |
| Photoacoustic | As described above | As described above | PAI | |
| High spatial resolution | Magnetic resonance | Iron oxides, microcapsules | Low signal intensity, not indicative of cell viability, expensive | MRI |
| High temporal resolution/real time tracking | Echography | Microbubbles, perfluorocarbons | Low resolution, acoustic artefacts, subject to user bias | US |
| Fluorescence | As described above | As described above | FLI | |
| Bioluminescence | As described above | As described above | BLI | |
| Photoacoustic | As described above | As described above | PAI | |
| Radionuclide | As described above | As described above | SPECT, PET | |
| High imaging depth | Photoacoustic | As described above | As described above | PAI |
| Echography | As described above | As described above | US | |
| Radionuclide | As described above | As described above | SPECT, PET | |
| High cellular retention/signal retention upon cell division | Fluorescence | Reporter genes (e.g. iRFP) | As described above | FLI |
| Bioluminescence | As described above | As described above | BLI | |
| Photoacoustic | As described above | As described above | PAI | |
| High anatomical detail | Magnetic resonance | As described above | As described above | MRI |
| Electron density | As described above | As described above | x-ray, CT | |
| Multimodal systems which include MRI or x-ray | ||||
| Low cellular toxicity/non-ionizing | Echography | As described above | As described above | US |
| Magnetic resonance | As described above | As described above | MRI | |
| Fluorescence | As described above | As described above | FLI | |
| Bioluminescence | As described above | As described above | BLI | |
| Quantifiable signal | Fluorescence | As described above | As described above | FLI |
| Bioluminescence | As described above | As described above | BLI | |
| No cellular genetic modification | Echography | As described above | As described above | US |
| Radionuclide | 99mTc, 111In, 18F FDG | As described above | SPECT, PET |
BLI bioluminescence imaging, CT computed tomography, FLI fluorescence imaging, F FDG fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose, Hb haemoglobin, In indium, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, PAI photoacoustic imaging, PET positron emission tomography, SPECT single photon emission computed tomography, Tc technetium, US ultrasound
Fig. 1a Combined structural and photothermal image of the scaffold seeded with SWNT-loaded MSCs with the laser turned on. b Combined structural and photothermal image of the scaffold seeded with SWNT-loaded MSCs with the laser turned off
Fig. 2An overview of potential clinical applications of PAI
Advantages and disadvantages of techniques listed in the manuscript
| Technique | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| In vivo fluorescence imaging | • Simple, cheap, user friendly techniques • High spatial resolution (~200 nm in x,y,) with high sensitivity cameras • Development of FarRed and NIR probes allow greater tissue visualization with much less damage whilst imaging • High sensitivity (10–12 to 10–15μm/L) | • Use of a probe generally required which may have repercussions on stem cell physiology • Photo-toxicity to tissue and depth resolved imaging still an issue • Vectors employed to introduce reporter genes are still under scrutiny for safety and efficacy of use in clinical trials |
| QPM | • Accurate quantitative visualisation of phase changes within cells | • No depth-resolving capabilities |
| ODT | • Depth-resolving capabilities, resolution of up to 1 μm | • Low penetration depth (a few hundred microns), not suitable for real-time imaging (slow techniques) |
| DHM | • Imaging of a 3D volume with a single exposure, structural and phase imaging, and also flexibility for image processing. Resolution almost as in conventional microscopy | • Relative complexity (more complicated optical set up), limitation on coherent properties of the light source, on environmental conditions (vibrations, etc.) |
| SESF and srSESF | • High (nano-scale, ~10 nm demonstrated) sensitivity to structural alterations within object and super- resolution imaging | • More complicated optical set up, for example for detailed quantitative analysis of the structure an imaging spectrometer or swept light source is needed |
| OCT | • Improved image resolution (morphological and functional information) of depth-resolved images • Can be combined with other imaging techniques for multimodal imaging • Suitable for clinical translation | • Penetration depth is limited ~2 mm into tissue • Spatial resolution is typically limited to ~10 μm, making this technique unsuitable for cell imaging • Limited molecular sensitivity of tissue |
| OCM | • Enhanced penetration depth compared to standard confocal microscopy; dramatically improved resolution over OCT imaging (up to 1 micron) | • Small penetration depth (compared with OCT) |
| nsOCT | • Depth-resolved images with high sensitivity (~30 nm demonstrated experimentally) | • Resolution and penetration depth are approximately the same as conventional OCT |
| OCPM | • Quantitative phase information with high sensitivity, useful for 3D intracellular imaging | • Small depth of field |
| PAI | • Capable of collecting molecular and spatial information from the tissue using endogenous contrast alone • Greater sensitivity than OCT and confocal imaging • Suitable for clinical translation • The ratio of the imaging depth to the best spatial resolution is roughly a constant of 200 | • Sometimes requires the use of biocompatible labelling materials such as gold or silver nanoparticles |
| Confocal reflectance microscopy | • High spatial resolution images achievable (diffraction limited ~200 nm) • Can work in combination with other modes of microscopy including fluorescence and OCT | • Lack of specific light reflecting probes for confocal microscopy when used in reflectance mode |
| Super-resolution microscopy (nanoscopy) | • Images created have a higher spatial resolution that normal diffraction limited techniques. (STED x.y resolution ~20–100 nm, PALM and STORM x.y ~20–50 nm) • Increased localization and clarity of intracellular structures due to increased resolution | • Fluorophores or fluorescent markers must be used. Potential for photo bleaching of the sample under study • Expensive equipment • Currently most super resolution techniques are not suitable for live cell imaging • Refractive index variations in the substrate can cause distortions which when translated to the nanoscale can be significant |
| Microcomputed tomography | • Can generate defined structural images with increased all round resolution (100 μm in x,y and z dimensions) • Suitable for clinical translation | • Exposure to ionizing radiation which can cause DNA damage • Not suitable for soft tissues |
| Radionuclide imaging | • Only low doses of labels need to be employed due to the high sensitivity of the probes • Good tissue penetration of the probe • Suitable for clinical translation • Fair sensitivity (10–8 to 10–9μm/L) | • Exposure to ionizing radiation which can cause DNA damage • Half-life of the probe must be considered |
3D three-dimensional, DHM digital holographic microscopy, NIR near infrared, nsOCT, OCPM, OCT optical coherence tomography, OCM optical coherence microscope, ODT, PAI photoacoustic imaging, PALM photo-activated localization microscopy, QPM quantitative phase microscopy, SESF spectral encoding of the spatial frequency, srSESF, STED stimulated emission depletion, STORM stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy, nsOCT nano-sensitive optical coherence tomography, OCPM optical coherence phase microscopy, ODT optical doppler tomography, srSESF super-resolution spectral encoding of spatial frequency