Maria Elena Gallina1, Tae Jin Kim1, Mark Shelor2, Jaime Vasquez3, Amy Mongersun4, Minkyu Kim5, Sindy K Y Tang5, Paul Abbyad4, Guillem Pratx1. 1. Division of Medical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University , 300 Pasteur Drive, Palo Alto, California 94305, United States. 2. University of California-Merced , Department of Bioengineering, 5200 North Lake Road, Merced, California 95343, United States. 3. University of California-San Francisco , School of Pharmacy, 600 16th Street, San Francisco, California, 94158, United States. 4. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Santa Clara University , Daly Science 123500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California 95053, United States. 5. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University , 418 Panama Mall, Stanford, California 94305, United States.
Abstract
Radiotracers are widely used to track molecular processes, both in vitro and in vivo, with high sensitivity and specificity. However, most radionuclide detection methods have spatial resolution inadequate for single-cell analysis. A few existing methods can extract single-cell information from radioactive decays, but the stochastic nature of the process precludes high-throughput measurement (and sorting) of single cells. In this work, we introduce a new concept for translating radioactive decays occurring stochastically within radiolabeled single-cells into an integrated, long-lasting fluorescence signal. Single cells are encapsulated in radiofluorogenic droplets containing molecular probes sensitive to byproducts of ionizing radiation (primarily reactive oxygen species, or ROS). Different probes were examined in bulk solutions, and dihydrorhodamine 123 (DHRh 123) was selected as the lead candidate due to its sensitivity and reproducibility. Fluorescence intensity of DHRh 123 in bulk increased at a rate of 54% per Gy of X-ray radiation and 15% per MBq/ml of 2-deoxy-2-[18F]-fluoro-d-glucose ([18F]FDG). Fluorescence imaging of microfluidic droplets showed the same linear response, but droplets were less sensitive overall than the bulk ROS sensor (detection limit of 3 Gy per droplet). Finally, droplets encapsulating radiolabeled cancer cells allowed, for the first time, the detection of [18F]FDG radiotracer uptake in single cells through fluorescence activation. With further improvements, we expect this technology to enable quantitative measurement and selective sorting of single cells based on the uptake of radiolabeled small molecules.
Radiotracers are widely used to track molecular processes, both in vitro and in vivo, with high sensitivity and specificity. However, most radionuclide detection methods have spatial resolution inadequate for single-cell analysis. A few existing methods can extract single-cell information from radioactive decays, but the stochastic nature of the process precludes high-throughput measurement (and sorting) of single cells. In this work, we introduce a new concept for translating radioactive decays occurring stochastically within radiolabeled single-cells into an integrated, long-lasting fluorescence signal. Single cells are encapsulated in radiofluorogenic droplets containing molecular probes sensitive to byproducts of ionizing radiation (primarily reactive oxygen species, or ROS). Different probes were examined in bulk solutions, and dihydrorhodamine 123 (DHRh 123) was selected as the lead candidate due to its sensitivity and reproducibility. Fluorescence intensity of DHRh 123 in bulk increased at a rate of 54% per Gy of X-ray radiation and 15% per MBq/ml of 2-deoxy-2-[18F]-fluoro-d-glucose ([18F]FDG). Fluorescence imaging of microfluidic droplets showed the same linear response, but droplets were less sensitive overall than the bulk ROS sensor (detection limit of 3 Gy per droplet). Finally, droplets encapsulating radiolabeled cancer cells allowed, for the first time, the detection of [18F]FDG radiotracer uptake in single cells through fluorescence activation. With further improvements, we expect this technology to enable quantitative measurement and selective sorting of single cells based on the uptake of radiolabeled small molecules.
Radiotracers
are unique functional
probes of biochemical processes both in vivo and in vitro. In comparison to antibodies and oligonucleotides,
which target specific phenotypes through the selective recognition
of a specific biomarker, radioactive probes can measure the real-time
metabolic activity of transporters and downstream enzymes and, therefore,
probe the activity of well-defined cellular pathways. This functional
type of assay has the capability of revealing biological mechanisms
with molecular specificity, enabling a rich array of clinical and
preclinical applications.[1] Notably, radionuclide
imaging techniques such as positron emission tomography (PET)[2−5] play an important role in hospitals and in research laboratories,
where they are used to diagnose, stage, and monitor the treatment
of a variety of diseases. Conventional methods for radionuclide detection
also include liquid scintillation counting, gamma counting, and autoradiography.
Furthermore, radionuclide substitution is suitable to investigate
the biochemical activity of small molecules, because it requires minimal
modification of their chemical structure. As a consequence, radiotracers
are commonly used in the pharmaceutical industry to support the selection
of new drug candidates and for regulatory approval. With respect to
this, a novel microfluidic radioassay was recently proposed to acquire
detailed cellular pharmacokinetics using a positron camera.[6] Despite their utility and sensitivity, a general
downside of conventional radionuclide methods is their poor spatial
resolution, which prevents their use at the single-cell level. As
a matter of fact, most single-cell studies are currently based on
fluorescence methods, where the use of bulky, organic fluorophores
is prone to affect biochemical properties.Accomplishing single-cell
resolution has become a crucial goal
ever since cellular heterogeneity was acknowledged as one of the greatest
challenges of cancer therapeutics.[7−9] In this context, flow
cytometry, a fundamental tool in the diagnosis of cancers such as
leukemia and lymphoma, is used for determining cell differentiation
by genotypic and phenotypic analysis of cell suspensions extracted
from blood.[10] Despite the increased level
of attention devoted to this topic, systematic investigations of cellular
diversity using radiotracers are not available yet, prompting the
need for novel, high-throughput methodologies.[11,12] Performing radionuclide detection in single cells would have many
applications, ranging from basic research to drug development studies
and clinical diagnostics. For example, single-cell radionuclide detection
could complement flow cytometry by identification and sorting of cells
characterized by aberrant metabolism, a common property of cancer
cells. Our lab has recently developed a new technique known as radioluminescence
microscopy (RLM),[13,14] to measure the amount of radiotracers
in single cells. RLM detects beta particles emanating from individual
cells placed in direct contact with an inorganic scintillator substrate.[15] Scintillation events are detected, processed,
and numerically combined to yield an image of radionuclide distribution
in cells. Fluorescence and bioluminescence microscopy can also be
performed in conjunction to RLM for multimodal imaging.[16] Several studies were performed using RLM to
study heterogeneity at the single-cell level, revealing unexpected
patterns in the pharmacokinetics of commonly used radiotracers. 2-Deoxy-2-[18F]-fluoro-d-glucose ([18F]FDG), a glucose
analogue used as the principal clinical tool in cancer diagnostics
via PET imaging, was used as an ideal tool for proof-of-concept studies.
In RLM studies, the uptake of [18F]FDG exhibited considerable
heterogeneity even within the same cancer cell line.[13,15,17] This result is quite significant
if we consider that preferential uptake of [18F]FDG is
interpreted as a distinctive property of cancer tissues.[18,19] In another study, the analysis of 3′-deoxy-3′-[18F]fluorothymidine ([18F]FLT) uptake in single
cells revealed a bimodal distribution, indicative of the fraction
of actively dividing cells present in the total population.[20] In addition, the uptake of radiolabeled anticancer
drugs can be interrogated with single-cell resolution, and investigations
on rituximab pointed out extremely inhomogeneous levels of uptake
in tissues and single cells.[14]Although
RLM has high sensitivity and spatial resolution, its use
remains limited because it can analyze only a small number of cells
at a time and it cannot easily sort the measured cells. The reason
for the limited cell throughput is fundamentally linked to the physics
of radioactive decay. Radioactive decay is a stochastic process, meaning
that decay events are spontaneous rather than stimulated. Therefore,
any cell of interest must be imaged continuously over a period of
time long enough to detect a statistically robust number of radioactive
events. This contrasts with fluorescence methods, where the fluorescent
emission can be triggered on demand by illuminating the cell with
a suitable wavelength. These characteristics make radionuclide detection
at the microscopic level extremely difficult, and current methods
require long acquisitions in sensitive, low-light settings to address
this issue. As an example, RLM requires about 20 min to achieve a
satisfactory signal-to-noise ratio for measuring less than 50 cells.
These constrains result in low throughput and make it difficult to
implement this approach for cell sorting, precluding any large-scale
application.To enable radionuclide measurements in cells in
a high-throughput
manner, we propose the conversion of random radioactive decays emitted
from single cells into a permanent, integrated optical signal. In
our approach, this translation is realized through the use of radiofluorogenic
sensors,[21−23] i.e., molecular precursors which convert irreversibly
to fluorophores in response to ionizing radiation. The activation
mechanism of these probes is mediated by the presence of reactive
oxygen species (ROS), which are produced as a consequence of water
radiolysis by ionizing beta particles (electrons or positrons). ROS
can react instantaneously with radiofluorogenic probes, generating
a fluorescence signal proportional to the radioactivity level. This
approach is designed to detect the presence and the amount of radiotracers
by fluorescence measurements, which can be performed with high-throughput
techniques and could be the basis for cell-sorting applications. In
addition, in contrast to other types of optical sensors for ionizing
radiation,[24−26] ROS probes are commercially available, biocompatible,
and water-soluble.[9,27,28,40]Previously, a droplet-based scintillation
platform was demonstrated[29] to increase
cell throughput, but because its
readout was still based on detecting individual decay events, no more
than a few hundred cells could be measured in a single run. In the
present design, single cells are coencapsulated with a ROS sensor
into individual water-in-oil droplets (Figure a) using a microfluidic platform (Figure b). Here, fluorescence
activation is triggered independently in each droplet by the positrons
emitted from encapsulated single cells. This droplet compartmentalization
presents many advantages: first, the ROS sensor is dissolved in droplets
instead of being incorporated inside of the cell. In this configuration,
the amount of sensor per cell is not influenced by the variability
of its cellular uptake. Additionally, since most of these species
are short-lived (their lifetime is in the order of nanoseconds), they
remain confined inside the cells and cannot activate the sensor dissolved
in the droplets. Therefore, nonspecific activation of the sensor by
intracellular ROS generated by oxidative stress[30−32] can be neglected.
These properties make the present technique particularly suitable
to study heterogeneous pools of cells. Second, the influence of cell
efflux is removed, as any effluxed radiotracer remains trapped in
the droplet. Finally, microfluidic droplets are compatible with previously
developed fluorescence-based platforms for high-throughput reading
and sorting.[33,34]
Figure 1
Overview of the experimental approach.
(a) Workflow of the radiofluorogenic
droplet assay: radiolabeled single cells suspended in PBS are mixed
with radiofluorogenic sensors immediately before entering the flow
focusing channel. Once the aqueous mixture forms into droplets, they
are anchored to an array of microwells. Droplets that are not trapped
by the anchors exit from the chip through an outlet tube and are collected
in an Eppendorf tube for further testing. The actual chip is equipped
with two flow focusing nozzles but only a single one is shown in this
drawing. (b) Microfluidic channel design, showing the two parallel
flow focusing nozzles, for the optional generation of two populations
of droplets and the imaging chamber with its anchoring array. Each
of the two flow focusing nozzles has a dedicated oil inlet (indicated
as Oil 1 and Oil 2, respectively) and a dedicated inlet for the water
phase (indicated as Water 1 and Water 2). In addition, the radiofluorogenic
sensor can be mixed with the cell suspension directly at the water
inlet by punching two input holes through the PDMS (diameter = 1.0
mm) into one of the two water inlets. The microwells are 25 μm
deep. Inset: picture of device printed in PDMS. (c) Conversion of
DHRh 123 to rhodamine 123 followed by reaction with ROS.
Overview of the experimental approach.
(a) Workflow of the radiofluorogenic
droplet assay: radiolabeled single cells suspended in PBS are mixed
with radiofluorogenic sensors immediately before entering the flow
focusing channel. Once the aqueous mixture forms into droplets, they
are anchored to an array of microwells. Droplets that are not trapped
by the anchors exit from the chip through an outlet tube and are collected
in an Eppendorf tube for further testing. The actual chip is equipped
with two flow focusing nozzles but only a single one is shown in this
drawing. (b) Microfluidic channel design, showing the two parallel
flow focusing nozzles, for the optional generation of two populations
of droplets and the imaging chamber with its anchoring array. Each
of the two flow focusing nozzles has a dedicated oil inlet (indicated
as Oil 1 and Oil 2, respectively) and a dedicated inlet for the water
phase (indicated as Water 1 and Water 2). In addition, the radiofluorogenic
sensor can be mixed with the cell suspension directly at the water
inlet by punching two input holes through the PDMS (diameter = 1.0
mm) into one of the two water inlets. The microwells are 25 μm
deep. Inset: picture of device printed in PDMS. (c) Conversion of
DHRh 123 to rhodamine 123 followed by reaction with ROS.The proposed technique is designed for the purpose
of eventually
sorting live cells on the basis of their biochemical activity along
specific pathways. This method is conceptually similar to standard
fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS), but instead of detecting
specific cell-surface biomarkers, cells will be isolated on the basis
of a functional assay, which provides real-time information on the
activity of a given pathway (for instance, glycolysis or nucleotide
salvage) or on the binding affinity of a radiolabeled small molecule
to a cellular target. Since a given pathway may involve the cooperation
of multiple enzymes, the proposed method provides a different readout
than conventional flow cytometry. In this context, the isolation of
live cells with abnormal pathway activity or drug binding affinity
paves the way for improving the characterization of cancer subtypes
and for studying the pharmacokinetics of targeted therapeutics at
the single-cell level. This technique is also expected to find applications
in small-molecule studies for drug development and for the formulation
of new radiotracers.The aim of this work is to establish the
feasibility of the proposed
platform through numerical simulations and experiments. First, we
investigated the response of bulk solutions of different ROS sensors
to X-ray and [18F]FDG exposure. Dihydrorhodamine 123 (DHRh
123, Figure c) was
identified among several candidates as a suitable radiofluorogenic
probe for the detection of radiotracers and optimal working conditions
were established. Then, the radiation dose response of DHRh 123 was
tested in microfluidic droplets by fluorescence microscopy imaging.
Possible experimental limitations such as cross-talk events between
adjacent droplets were investigated and the feasibility of the proposed
assay was verified. Finally, a proof-of-concept experiment was performed
and we observed, for the first time, [18F]FDG uptake in
single cancer cells by fluorescence activation of microdroplets. These
promising results provide a useful framework for designing the next-generation
assay. We anticipate that, with further developments, this platform
will constitute a high-throughput method for studying the distribution
of a wide range of molecular imaging tracers in single cells using
fluorescence detection.
Materials and Methods
FDG Preparation
[18F]FDG was prepared through
nucleophilic 18F-fluorination and hydrolysis of mannose
triflate by the Stanford Cyclotron Radiochemistry Facility. 18F was made in a GE PETtrace cyclotron and the production was performed
via cassette-based automated synthetic module (FASTlab, GE Healthcare).
Quality control tests were performed according to USP823. The radiotracer
was used within 8 h after production due to its short halftime (τ1/2 = 1.8 h). Radioactivity was measured with a dose calibrator
(Atomlab 400, Biodex) prior to each experiment.
ROS Sensor
Selection
Various ROS sensors were evaluated
to identify the one most suitable for this radiofluorogenic assay.
DHRh 123 was purchased from Santa Cruz Biotechnologies. Singlet Oxygen
Sensor Green (SOSG), Amplex Red Hydrogen Peroxide/Peroxidase Assay
Kit, Aminophenyl Fluorescein, and Alexa 594 were purchased from Thermo
Fisher Scientific, Inc. Coumarin-3-carboxylic (C3C) acid and 2′,7′-dichlorofluorescin
diacetate (DCF-DA) were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich. ROS Star 550
was purchased from LI-COR Biosciences. PBS solutions of each sensor
were dispensed in 96-well plates in four aliquots, each with a volume
of 100 μL. Samples were irradiated with an X-RAD 320 X-ray irradiator
(Precision X-ray) with a source-surface distance of 45 cm and a dose
output set to 504.40 cGy/min (320 kVp, 12.5 mA and 2 mm thick aluminum
filter).
Droplet Generation and Trapping
A microfluidic chip
capable of generating and anchoring droplets for imaging was designed.
The first section of the chip consists of two parallel microfluidic
droplet generators (Figure b), used to produce two different groups of droplets simultaneously.
For instance, one group of droplets may contain a radiotracer and
the other group could serve as a control. As the droplets travel downstream,
they merge into the second section of the chip, which consists of
a single imaging chamber with an array of droplet anchors. The imaging
chamber is useful to hold a small number of droplets in place and
measure their fluorescence as it increases over time. Most droplets
are not trapped and are collected at the outlet of the chip.Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) microfluidic chips with channel depth
modulations were fabricated using dry-film photoresist soft lithography
technique described by Stephan et al.[35] Prior to bonding the PDMS microchannel to the glass substrate, inlet
and outlet holes were punctured using a 1 mm diameter disposable biopsy
punch (Claflin Medical Equipment Co.). The PDMS chips were then bonded
to a 25 mm × 75 mm × 1.0 mm precleaned glass microscope
slides (Fisherbrand) with a corona discharger (Electro-technic Products).
After 24 h of incubation in a vacuum chamber, the surface was made
hydrophobic by flowing in Novec 1720 Electronic grade Coating (3M)
through the microchannel and blow-drying with pressurized nitrogen
gas. To minimize droplet shrinkage from dehydration, the microfluidic
chip was saturated with water vapor prior to the experiment and sealed
in a plastic bag with moist towels during experiments.To generate
droplets, HFE 7500 perfluorinated oil (3M) containing
2% w/w of 008-fluorosurfactant (RAN Biotechnologies) was used as the
continuous phase, and DHRh 123 diluted in PBS was used as the dispersion
phase. This formulation was chosen to minimize partitioning of rhodamine
123 (and most likely of DHRh 123) to the oil phase and to prevent
droplets from coalescing. Syringe pumps (New Era Pump Systems, Inc.)
drove the fluids at flow rates of 4 μL/min and 1 μL/min
for the continuous phase and dispersion phase, respectively. The chip
was equipped with flow focusing nozzles[36] to produce droplets (Figure b). Two different flow-focusing nozzles were used to allow
the production of two distinct populations of droplets. These droplets
flowed into an imaging chamber containing an anchor array consisting
of microfabricated circular wells in the top of the channel.[37] Each anchor has a depth of 25 μm, a diameter
of either 100 or 150 μm, and a center-to-center spacing of 150
and 170 μm apart, respectively. In this configuration, droplets
were “pancake” shaped rather than spherical, squeezed
between the top and bottom surfaces of the channel. The reduction
in surface energy maintained the droplets in place despite the external
flow of oil, forming an array. Droplets remained anchored to the imaging
chamber for oil flow rates under 50 μL/min and they were removed
by increasing the flow rate above 90 μL/min, allowing a fresh
batch of droplets to be loaded into the anchors for subsequent imaging.
For single-cell experiments, imaging of a large number of droplets
was achieved by collecting the droplets in an Eppendorf tube located
downstream of the anchor array. Novec 1720 (3M) was flowed in the
plastic tubing prior to use as it helped prevent the droplets from
coalescing. Droplets were then gently pipetted between two coverslips
(Microscope Cover Glass, Fisher Scientific) for further imaging. This
procedure allowed us to generate more uniform droplets than those
anchored on the imaging chamber. This is because the anchor array
trapped the first droplets made by the generator, and due to transient
fluctuations in flow rate in the early time points, these droplets
were more heterogeneous. Droplets made at later time points were more
uniform and could be collected in larger quantities.
Cell Culture
and Radiolabeling
Humanbreast adenocarcinoma
cells (MDA-MB-231/Luc) cells were cultured at 37 °C and 5% CO2 in DMEM medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum and
1% penicillin-streptomycin (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.). For radiolabeling,
cells were incubated in [18F]FDG (37 MBq/mL) dissolved
in glucose-free DMEM for 60 min. After washing three times with PBS,
cells were incubated for 5 min in Trypsin-EDTA 0.05% (Gibco, Thermo
Fisher Scientific, Inc.), centrifuged, and resuspended in PBS with
16% OptiPrep density gradient medium (Sigma-Aldrich) at an approximate
concentration of 1 × 106 cells/mL.
Fluorescence
Detection and Image Analysis
Fluorescence
spectra of bulk solutions were recorded using a SpectraMax M2 plate
reader (Molecular Devices). Each data point is the average of at least
three measurements. Fluorescence microscopy images were captured using
two inverted fluorescence microscopes: an EVOS FL (Life Technologies)
was used for studying the response of radiofluorogenic droplet to
X-ray irradiation and [18F]FDG solution, and a Leica DMi8
(Leica Microsystems, Germany) was used for the single-cell experiments.
The EVOS FL was equipped with DAPI, GFP, and Texas Red dichroic filter
sets, a Plan Fluorite 4× objective lens (NA = 0.13), and a 16-bit
monochrome CCD camera (ICX445, Sony). The Leica DMi8 was equipped
with a FITC dichroic set, a HC PL Fluotar 10× objective lens
(NA = 0.32), and an 8-bit monochrome CCD camera (DFC3000 G, Leica).
Fluorescence images were analyzed using ImageJ and the difference
between the mean intensities of ROS sensor droplets and the image
background was computed. The region of interest was drawn around each
individual droplet manually, and the average fluorescence intensity
was calculated on the entire droplet, including any cell present inside.
Monte Carlo Simulation
GEANT4 Monte Carlo simulations
(GAMOS) were performed to estimate the cumulative ROS concentration
as a function of droplet size and the nonspecific activation of radiofluorogenic
droplets due to adjacent droplets containing radioactive cells. The
cumulative ROS concentration was defined as the ratio between the
total number of ROS generated in one droplet over time and the droplet
volume. While the lifetime of ROS is generally very short (typically
in the nanoseconds), the conversion of the sensor to a fluorescent
product is irreversible, therefore the concentration of activated
fluorophores is proportional to the cumulative ROS concentration.
In the simulation, a single cell was modeled as a water sphere (diameter,
10 μm) containing a uniform amount of 18F (10 Bq/cell),
and it was placed at the center of a larger water droplet (with diameter
ranging from 20 to 200 μm). The radioactive decay of 18F was simulated over a period of 4 h, which corresponds to approximately
twice its half-life; the energy deposited by ionizing particles in
the droplet was scored and converted to cumulative ROS concentration
on the basis of radiolytic yields.[38]To estimate cross-contamination, we simulated two adjacent droplets
with diameters of 85 μm, one empty and one containing a single
radioactive cell. The center-to-center distance between the droplets
was varied from 85 to 250 μm, and the amount of energy deposited
in the empty droplet after 4 h was measured.
Safety Considerations
Radioactive compounds, such as
[18F]FDG, pose significant health risks. Institutional
protocols should be followed for the handling and disposal of all
radioactive materials.
Results and Discussion
Experimental Concept and
Monte Carlo Simulation
In
this work, the uptake of [18F]FDG by single cells was analyzed
by imaging the fluorescence activation of droplets containing a known
number of cells. The typical experiment workflow is shown in Figure a: following incubation
with radiotracers, humanbreast cancer cells (MDA-MB-231) were suspended
in PBS and injected into a microfluidic chip. The cell suspension
was mixed with a solution of ROS sensors (DHRh123, 400 μM) traveling
at the same flow rate in the microfluidic channel immediately before
the formation of droplets. The schematic of the microfluidic chip
used in this study is shown in Figure b. The chip was equipped with two identical droplet
generators to produce two distinct droplet populations. We used this
feature of the chip to include a control group in some of the experiments.
In addition, each of the two droplet generators was designed to allow
two different solutions to be mixed right at the inlet, before the
formation of droplets. We used this feature to mix the suspension
of radioactive cells with the sensor solution, thus preventing the
sensor from being activated before the droplet is formed. Downstream,
droplets from both generators flowed directly into the imaging channel,
which consisted of an array of microfabricated round wells used to
anchors droplets for longitudinal imaging,[37] and then into a collection tube for further testing. Depending on
the specific requirement of the experiments, either droplets trapped
in the anchor array or those in the collection tube were imaged. Dosimetry
and cross-talk studies were performed on droplets anchored to the
imaging chip, since these droplets were kept in place by the anchors.
In contrast, studies involving cell encapsulation were performed by
injecting the droplets between two coverslips to obtain higher statistics.The design of the assay reported here was optimized by simulating
the physics of radiation transport inside a suspension of droplets
using the Monte Carlo method. The goal of these simulations was 2-fold.
First, we wanted to determine how the concentration of ROS in the
droplet and the resulting fluorescent signal would vary as a function
of droplet diameter. Second, we wanted to quantify to what extent
a given droplet may receive an unwanted radiation dose from adjacent
droplets.In the first simulation study, the total energy deposited
in the
droplet was estimated as a function of droplet size and was compared
to the radiolytic yields of two different ROS, hydroxyl radical (•OH; 2.75 molecule per 100 eV) and hydrogen peroxide
(H2O2; 0.7 molecules per 100 eV).[38] These simulations showed that the cumulative
concentration of these two ROS decreased as the droplet diameter increased
(Figure S1a). Since droplet diameters ranged
between 80 and 100 μm, the cumulative concentration of •OH radicals was expected to be between 100 and 200
nM.In the second study, the probability that a beta ray coming
from
one droplet deposits its energy into another (radiation contamination)
was investigated considering the case where the droplets are collected
and stored tightly packed in an Eppendorf tube. Simulation results
show that when two droplets touch each other, one may contaminate
the other by ∼11% of the total signal. Furthermore, considering
droplets tightly packed in 3D, a given droplet may be closely surrounded
by 12 others. Given the average occupancy of 0.32 cells per droplet
in our configuration (diameter ≈ 85 μm, cell concentration
≈ 1 × 106 cells/mL), the potential radiation
contamination was estimated to be at most ∼42%. Because of
the constant motion of droplets in solution, we expected the contamination
to result in a baseline signal increase rather than in a fixed pattern.
Bulk Characterization and Selection of Radiofluorogenic Probes
A highly efficient ROS sensor is required to achieve high sensitivity
with this assay; in this work, comparative tests were performed among
seven candidates that satisfied the following requirements: commercial
availability, water solubility and compatibility with cellular applications.[27,39] The sensors were dissolved in PBS, dispensed in a 96-well plate
array, and exposed to increasing X-ray doses. In all cases, the fluorescence
intensity increased linearly with increasing doses of X-ray radiation
(Figure a and Figure S2). For comparison purposes, a sensitive
sensor is defined as one that generates a large increase in fluorescence
intensity for a given dose of X-ray radiation. In this context, sensitivity
is mathematically represented by the slope Φ [units, Gy–1] of the relative fluorescence intensity as a function
of the radiation dose D:where I0 and I are the
fluorescence intensities of nonirradiated and
irradiated solutions, respectively. The sensitivity Φ was measured
for the various investigated sensors (Table ). Fluorescent intensity variations were
also monitored at different times after X-ray exposure to monitor
the occurrence of nonspecific fluorescence activation. The extent
of this undesired phenomenon was quantified by defining instability
as the relative change of sensitivity (ΔΦ%) within a defined
time frame τ, in the absence of ionizing radiation:
Figure 2
(a) Linear relationship
between relative fluorescence intensity
(525 nm) of DHRh 123 (50 μM in PBS) and X-ray radiation dose.
The blue dots represent experimental data, the red line shows the
linear regression curve (ΔI/I0 = ΦDose; Φ = 0.538 (±0.004) Gy1–, R2 = 0.9997), and the
green lines are the 95% confidence bands. Standard deviations are
reported (N = 3). (b) Graph of relative fluorescence
intensity (525 nm) in bulk DHRh 123 (200 uM) solutions as a function
of [18F]FDG concentration at different times after adding
the radiotracer with the sensor. The response at 3.4 h was analyzed
by linear regression (red dashed-dotted line; R2 > 0.998; Φmax′ = 1.5 (±0.1)
10–1 mL/Bq). Standard deviations at 3.4 h are reported
(N = 3).
Table 1
Physical and Chemical Properties of
Investigated ROS Sensorsa
sensor
λex [nm]
λem [nm]
concn [μM]
detected
ROS
Φ [Gy–1]
Φ 4h [Gy–1]
ΔΦ%4h
cell permeable
C3C
290
460
350
HO•
0.297
0.211
29
N
DHRh 123
500
530
200
H2O2, ONOO–, NO
0.538
0.307
43
Y
SOSG
500
525
10
1O2
0.314
0.300
4.4
N
AMPLEX REDb
570
585
100
H2O2b
1.55
0.697c
55c
N
DCFH-DA
495
525
100
H2O2, HO•, ROO•
0.12
0.03
74
Y
APF
485
515
10
HO•,ClO–, ONOO–
1.47
0.23
84
Y
ROS-Star 550
546
561
200
HO•, O2•–
0.12
Y
Φ, sensor sensitivity; Φ4, sensitivity after 4 h; ΔΦ%4, relative loss of sensitivity, i.e., instability.
Linear regressions used to compute these data are reported in Figure S3. C3C, coumarin-3-carboxylic acid; DHRh
123, dihydrorhodamine 123; SOSG, singlet oxygen sensor green; DCFH-DA,
2′,7′-dichlorofluorescin diacetate; APF, aminophenyl
fluorescein.
Interaction
mediated by horseradish
peroxidase (HRP).
Φ
variation after 2 h only.
(a) Linear relationship
between relative fluorescence intensity
(525 nm) of DHRh 123 (50 μM in PBS) and X-ray radiation dose.
The blue dots represent experimental data, the red line shows the
linear regression curve (ΔI/I0 = ΦDose; Φ = 0.538 (±0.004) Gy1–, R2 = 0.9997), and the
green lines are the 95% confidence bands. Standard deviations are
reported (N = 3). (b) Graph of relative fluorescence
intensity (525 nm) in bulk DHRh 123 (200 uM) solutions as a function
of [18F]FDG concentration at different times after adding
the radiotracer with the sensor. The response at 3.4 h was analyzed
by linear regression (red dashed-dotted line; R2 > 0.998; Φmax′ = 1.5 (±0.1)
10–1 mL/Bq). Standard deviations at 3.4 h are reported
(N = 3).Φ, sensor sensitivity; Φ4, sensitivity after 4 h; ΔΦ%4, relative loss of sensitivity, i.e., instability.
Linear regressions used to compute these data are reported in Figure S3. C3C, coumarin-3-carboxylic acid; DHRh
123, dihydrorhodamine 123; SOSG, singlet oxygen sensor green; DCFH-DA,
2′,7′-dichlorofluorescin diacetate; APF, aminophenyl
fluorescein.Interaction
mediated by horseradish
peroxidase (HRP).Φ
variation after 2 h only.Stability measurements indicate that more sensitive sensors generally
display higher levels of nonspecific fluorescence activation (Table ).Following
this comparative analysis, three sensors were identified
for their advantageous sensitivity and stability values: SOSG, C3C,
and DHRh 123 (Table ). However, SOSG was eliminated as a potential candidate because
its high sensitivity could not be reliably reproduced in later experiments,
likely due to the variability in the purity of commercial products.
The second candidate, C3C, a well-known compound used in liquid radiation
dosimetry,[40] was also rejected on account
of its suboptimal spectral properties (λmax.exc. =
290 nm/λmax.em. = 460 nm) for conventional fluorescence
microscopy. By elimination, DHRh 123 was chosen as the most promising
commercial sensor; henceforth, its dosimetry performance was investigated
in greater detail. By varying the concentration of the sensor, we
observed that higher sensitivity could be achieved, but unfortunately,
at these concentrations, the sensor also presented greater instability
(Figure S3a). Therefore, the working concentration
was set at an intermediate value, namely, 200 μM (Figure S3a).Once the response of DHRh
123 to X-ray exposure was fully characterized,
its response to beta-emitting radiotracers was investigated. Fluorescence
activation by radioactive decay of [18F]FDG was tested
in bulk solutions at different time points and radioactivity concentrations.
In the range of investigation (0–52 MBq/mL), the relative fluorescence
intensity increased linearly with the radioactivity concentration
(Figure b), and it
was modeled according towhere Φ′
is the sensitivity of
DHRh 123 to radioactive decays from [18F]FDG, and [A0] is the initial radioactivity concentration. The relative
fluorescence intensity reached its peak 3.4 h after mixing with [18F]FDG, which corresponds to nearly two half-lives of 18F. The maximum sensitivity was then quantified by linear
regression at t = 3.4 h and found to be Φmax′ = 0.15 (±0.01) mL/MBq. This value, instead
of reaching a plateau, decreased at later times. This phenomenon is
attributed to the cumulative production of rhodamine 123 by slow,
side reactions, which ultimately caused appreciable fluorescence activation
in nonradioactive, reference solutions. Interestingly, the absolute
intensity difference (I – I0) between positive (radioactive) and control samples
remained constant over time, indicating that side reactions occur
at the same rate.The experimental evaluation of the sensor
sensitivity was used
to estimate the relative signal obtainable in radiometric cellular
assays. In human cells, the average uptake of [18F]FDG
is about 5 Bq/cell;[41,42] therefore, a 170 pL droplet containing
a single cell has a radioactivity concentration of ∼29 MBq/mL.
Assuming that DHRh 123 is equally sensitive in bulk solutions and
in droplets and neglecting differences in the respective detection
methods (plate reader versus microscope camera), we calculated the
theoretical intensity ratio between empty droplets and those encapsulating
a radiolabeled single cell. Given these assumptions, we determined
that a droplet with a single cell emits a signal that is 4.2-fold
more intense than an empty droplet. This result points toward the
feasibility of the intended approach by DHRh 123 activation; however,
the influence of different detection platforms with dissimilar efficiencies
needs to be evaluated experimentally.
Fluorescence Activation
of Radiofluorogenic Droplets
The dosimetric response of DHRh
123 (200 μM) in microfluidic
droplets was measured by fluorescence microscopy. Empty droplets were
anchored to the imaging chamber (Figure a) and imaged multiple times after consecutive
X-ray exposures. Analogous to the bulk experiment, the background-corrected
mean fluorescence intensity of droplets increased linearly as a function
of X-ray dose (Figure b) (R2 > 0.97). To quantify the detection
limit of this new configuration, we took in consideration the ensemble
of droplets present in the overall field of view (N = 18) and described the smallest significant intensity difference
ΔIR aswhere σR and σ0 correspond to the standard deviations of
the intensity distributions
in droplets exposed to a prescribed dose and zero dose, respectively.
For a linear response (see Table S1 for
details), the microscopic detection limit was determined to be 3 Gy.
The worse dosimetric performance of microscopic droplet compared to
bulk solutions of DHRh 123 may be attributed to a number of factors,
including (1) inhomogeneous droplet size, (2) reduced accuracy and/or
sensitivity of the detection system (microscope camera vs photomultiplier),
(3) uneven illumination and detection efficiency within the field
of view, and (4) small size of the sampling volume. In addition, we
observed that rhodamine 123 (and most likely DHRh 123) can partition
to the oil phase and adsorb on the PDMS wall, affecting the concentration
within the droplet and the background levels. Given this issue, the
potential exchange of DHRh 123 molecules between neighboring droplets
through the oil phase must be investigated. For this purpose, we generated
two groups of droplets from separate samples containing equal concentration
of DHRh 123 (200 μM). Prior to droplet generation, one solution
was exposed to X-ray (12 Gy) and the other, used for a control, was
kept in the dark and mixed with a reference dye (Alexa 594). As shown
in Figure a,b, irradiated
droplets emitted a strong fluorescence signal, which was stable for
over 4 h (Figure S4). In contrast, fluorescence
activation remained minor in the control group during the entire time
of investigation, allowing us to neglect exchange phenomena between
droplets.
Figure 3
(a) Micrograph showing fluorescence increase of an anchored droplet
containing DHRh 123 (200 μM) as a function of X-ray dose; the
diameter of the anchor is 100 μm. All images were captured using
the same imaging parameters (70% illumination intensity, exposure
time = 500 ms). Note that the background brightness increases as a
function of the dose because of DHRh 123 fractional partitioning to
the oil phase. (b) Box plot of mean fluorescence intensity in anchored
droplets (N = 18) exposed to different X-ray doses.
Figure 4
(a, b) Fluorescence microscopy images representing
two PBS droplets
containing DHRh 123 (200 μM). Unirradiated droplets were labeled
with Alexa 594 (left droplet) whereas droplets irradiated with X-ray
(12 Gy) were not labeled (right droplet). (a) Superposition of Texas
Red (fluorescence emission from Alexa 594) and Green Fluorescence
Protein (fluorescence emission from activated DHRh 123) channels,
(b) Green Fluorescence Protein channel only. (c, d) Fluorescence microscopy
images of representative droplets containing either [18F]FDG (37 MBq/mL) or Alexa 594 (0 MBq/mL). (c) Superposition of Texas
Red and Green Fluorescence Protein channels and (d) Green Fluorescence
Protein channel only. All images were taken using the same images
parameters (Green Fluorescence Protein Channel: 40% illumination intensity,
exposure time = 500 ms. Texas Red Channel: 70% illumination intensity,
exposure time = 750 ms). (e) Difference in mean fluorescence intensity
distributions in droplets exposed to 0 MBq/mL (N =
50) and 37 MBq/mL (N = 33). Mean intensity distributions
were corrected for background intensity.
(a) Micrograph showing fluorescence increase of an anchored droplet
containing DHRh 123 (200 μM) as a function of X-ray dose; the
diameter of the anchor is 100 μm. All images were captured using
the same imaging parameters (70% illumination intensity, exposure
time = 500 ms). Note that the background brightness increases as a
function of the dose because of DHRh 123 fractional partitioning to
the oil phase. (b) Box plot of mean fluorescence intensity in anchored
droplets (N = 18) exposed to different X-ray doses.(a, b) Fluorescence microscopy images representing
two PBS droplets
containing DHRh 123 (200 μM). Unirradiated droplets were labeled
with Alexa 594 (left droplet) whereas droplets irradiated with X-ray
(12 Gy) were not labeled (right droplet). (a) Superposition of Texas
Red (fluorescence emission from Alexa 594) and Green Fluorescence
Protein (fluorescence emission from activated DHRh 123) channels,
(b) Green Fluorescence Protein channel only. (c, d) Fluorescence microscopy
images of representative droplets containing either [18F]FDG (37 MBq/mL) or Alexa 594 (0 MBq/mL). (c) Superposition of Texas
Red and Green Fluorescence Protein channels and (d) Green Fluorescence
Protein channel only. All images were taken using the same images
parameters (Green Fluorescence Protein Channel: 40% illumination intensity,
exposure time = 500 ms. Texas Red Channel: 70% illumination intensity,
exposure time = 750 ms). (e) Difference in mean fluorescence intensity
distributions in droplets exposed to 0 MBq/mL (N =
50) and 37 MBq/mL (N = 33). Mean intensity distributions
were corrected for background intensity.Given its optimal dosimetry response, this array of microdroplets
may be suitable for applications other than cell measurements. For
instance, several chemical dosimetry systems have been developed for
measuring the characteristics of radiotherapy treatment beams,[40,43,44] but these systems do not provide
spatial resolution. By encapsulating a chemical dosimeter such as
DHRh 123 in an array of droplets, it is possible to make spatial measurements
using a chemical dosimeter, which is not otherwise possible. The droplet
system presents potential advantages over dosimetric film: first,
fluorescence emission has an intrinsically lower background than optical
absorption and it can be read out directly (possibly in real-time),
with no need for a chemical developing procedure. Furthermore, the
radiofluorogenic droplets demonstrate a highly linear response to
ionizing radiation dose, and the arrayed droplets may deliver accurate
quantifications of the radiation dose with spatial resolution on the
order of 100 μm. Since spatial resolution is primarily determined
by the droplet size and the interdroplet distance, the platform can
be customized for a broad range of applications requiring different
resolution requirements.Fluorescence activation of radiofluorogenic
droplets by radiopharmaceuticals
was also evaluated by mixing DHRh 123 with either [18F]FDG
(37 MBq/mL) or with the reference dye Alexa 594, used as a control.
In these experiments, the mixing step was performed immediately before
generating the droplets to make sure that fluorescence activation
would occur exclusively within microdroplets. Figure c,d shows the strong fluorescence activation
of droplets containing [18F]FDG in comparison with the
control group. The difference in fluorescence intensity between radioactive
and nonradioactive (control) droplets persisted over 4 h. Furthermore,
cross-contamination between neighboring droplets was negligible, even
when radioactive and nonradioactive droplets were trapped in the same
anchor (Figure S5). Fluorescence activation
was quantified by measuring the distribution of fluorescence intensity
over control (N = 50) and radioactive (N = 33) droplets (Figure e). On average, radiolabeled droplets were about 2-fold brighter.
This difference can be enhanced further by optimizing the acquisition
parameters, such as the intensity of the light source and the exposure
time. In addition, intensity distributions can be significantly narrowed
by selecting a smaller region of interest in the field of view.
Radiofluorogenic Droplets As Cellular Assay
The fluorescence
activation of radiofluorogenic droplets containing radiolabeled humanMDA-MB-231breast cancer cells was investigated. Cells were labeled
with [18F]FDG (37 MBq/mL) and with a nuclear counterstain
to facilitate identification and counting. Although [18F]FDG radioactivity is known to damage DNA, this effect is reversible
and cell viability, transdifferentiation, and functions are not significantly
impacted.[41] Once suspended in PBS, cells
were flowed into the microfluidic channel and mixed with DHRh 123
(400 μM) at the inlet, immediately before droplet formation.
The resulting droplets were collected at the outlet of the chip in
a tube and, after waiting for a sufficient amount of time, they were
pipetted between two coverslips to increase the number of observable
droplets. Compared with imaging droplets trapped in the anchors, this
procedure increased the imaging throughput, making it possible to
observe tens of droplets with single-cell occupancy in a single experiment. Figure a,b shows two representative
fluorescence images of droplets containing one and three radiolabeled
cells. The presence of radiolabeled cells caused visible fluorescence
activation well above background levels. In addition, radiation contamination,
i.e., unwanted fluorescence activation due to adjacent radioactive
droplets, was not observed in this configuration. This may be because
droplets are not static during radioactive exposure, and therefore
they do not remain adjacent long enough for a pattern of contamination
to appear. Empty ROS sensor droplets were used as the reference signal
to normalize the fluorescence of activated droplets.
Figure 5
Fluorescence activation
by radionuclide uptake in single cells.
(a and b) Fluorescence microscopy images (FITC channel) of droplets
loaded with cells that had previously been incubated with [18F]FDG. (c) Same as previous, for cells not incubated with a radiotracer.
(d) Distribution of relative fluorescence intensity as a function
of cell number occupancy (n) in droplets containing
radiolabeled cells. The difference between empty (n = 0) and occupied (n = 1) droplets is statistically
significant (P < 10–4 for α
= 0.05). (e) Same as previous, for control cells. The difference between
empty and occupied droplets is not statistically significant (for n = 1, 2, 3; P = 0.807, 0.980, 0.222, respectively,
for α = 0.05). Images a and b were collected using 50% illumination
intensity, exposure time = 146 ms, and gain = 1.02, while image c
was collected using 90% illumination, exposure time 11 ms, and gain
= 3.11.
Fluorescence activation
by radionuclide uptake in single cells.
(a and b) Fluorescence microscopy images (FITC channel) of droplets
loaded with cells that had previously been incubated with [18F]FDG. (c) Same as previous, for cells not incubated with a radiotracer.
(d) Distribution of relative fluorescence intensity as a function
of cell number occupancy (n) in droplets containing
radiolabeled cells. The difference between empty (n = 0) and occupied (n = 1) droplets is statistically
significant (P < 10–4 for α
= 0.05). (e) Same as previous, for control cells. The difference between
empty and occupied droplets is not statistically significant (for n = 1, 2, 3; P = 0.807, 0.980, 0.222, respectively,
for α = 0.05). Images a and b were collected using 50% illumination
intensity, exposure time = 146 ms, and gain = 1.02, while image c
was collected using 90% illumination, exposure time 11 ms, and gain
= 3.11.In order to quantify the extent
of fluorescence activation, we
described cell occupancy (n) as the number of cells
present in a droplet, and we defined the relative difference in fluorescence
intensity between droplets loaded with a specific number of cells n and empty droplets (n = 0) aswhere ⟨I0⟩ represents the
average intensity of empty droplets. The
corresponding distributions are reported in Figure d. The relative difference ΔI was found statistically significant
for n = 1 (P < 10–4 at α = 0.05), while the broad distribution of the single-cell
population is consistent with the well-known heterogeneity of [18F]FDG uptake at the single-cell level.[15] Analogously, at higher cell occupancies, we did not find
a linear correlation between n and ΔI. While the number of droplets
containing multiple cells was too low for robust statistical analysis,
the general trend suggests that ΔI increases with n (Figure d).To rule out the possibility
that the fluorescence activation is
unrelated to the presence of the radiotracer, a control experiment
was performed under similar conditions with nonradioactive cells (Figure c). In this case,
all droplets presented similar fluorescence intensities, independently
of cell occupancy (Figure e). From a statistical point of view, the relative difference
between empty droplets and droplets containing one or more cells was
not significant (for n = 1,2,3, P = 0.807, 0.980, 0.222, respectively, for α = 0.05), indicating
that fluorescence activation is due to the radiotracer present in
the cells and not to long-lived cellular ROS. In addition, consistently
with the interpretation attributing the broad distribution in fluorescence
activation to the heterogeneity in the single-cell uptake of [18F]FDG, in the absence of the radiotracer, such distribution
was found to be considerably narrower (see Figure e).In summary, results from the control
experiment confirm that fluorescence
activation is due to radioactive decay of [18F]-FDG, proving
the potential of this novel approach. This is the first time, to our
knowledge, that the cellular uptake of radiolabeled molecules is revealed
through the activation of radiofluorogenic droplets. In future experiments,
the sensitivity of the detection method will be improved by the use
of more precise syringe pumps for generating droplets, and non-PDMS-based
microfluidic technology will be applied to avoid the adsorption of
the sensor into the walls of the microchannel. Current studies are
also focused on the development of nanoparticle-based ROS sensors[45] specifically designed for this application,
to use in place of commercial indicators. In the future, we will also
investigate the possibility of introducing free radical promoters
such as titanocene into the droplets[46] to
enhance the response of ROS sensors to ionizing radiation.
Conclusion
In this work, we presented a new method for the detection of radiolabeled
small molecules in single cells through the permanent activation of
radiofluorogenic droplets. By converting radioactive decays into a
permanent fluorescence signal, this approach avoids the need for long
acquisitions since, contrary to radioactivity, fluorescence can be
measured rapidly with high throughput. The principal component of
this assay is the ROS sensor, i.e., a molecular probe which produces
a fluorescence signal as an indirect response to ionizing radiation,
mediated by water radiolysis.To establish the optimal working
conditions, the radiation response
of seven commercial sensors was examined in bulk solutions. DHRh 123
was selected as the lead candidate given its favorable linearity,
sensitivity, brightness, and stability. Fluorescence intensity of
DHRh 123 in bulk increased 54% per Gy following X-ray irradiation,
and 15% per MBq/mL following incubation with [18F]FDG for
after 3.4 h. However, this investigation also highlighted the limitations
of available commercial probes, which were shown to spontaneously
activate over time, giving rise to fluorescence signals even in the
absence of ionizing radiation.These experiments were repeated
in droplets under similar conditions.
The fluorescence intensity of individual droplets was found to increase
linearly with X-ray dose and radiotracer concentration. Cross-contamination
between adjacent droplets was not observed in experiments and computer
simulations confirmed that any physical contamination would be well
under the experimental measurement error. Through these experiments,
the droplet sensor was found to be less sensitive than the bulk sensor,
with a physical detection limit of 3 Gy per droplet. This finding
is attributed primarily to droplet-to-droplet variability but also
to the lower sensitivity of the microscope (compared to the PMT-based
microplate reader) and to the instability of the sensor, which tends
to partition to the oil phase and adsorb into PDMS.Finally,
radiolabeled cells were encapsulated in DHRh 123 droplets
to validate the assay in living cells. Unambiguous activation was
visualized for droplets containing one or more radiolabeled cells,
while negligible activation was observed in droplets containing nonradiolabeled
cells. Our findings constitute the first demonstration that the uptake
of radiotracers in single cells can be detected by fluorescence activation
in microdroplets. This novel approach paves the way for the introduction
of fluorescence-based methods to quantify the uptake of radioactive
small molecules in single cells, with possible applications ranging
from analytical assays for cancer and other diseases to the development
of small-molecule drugs. In future studies, we aim to increase the
sensitivity of the assay by 1 order of magnitude to enable the quantification
of radioactivity in single cells. This could be achieved by improving
the formulation of the sensor, the uniformity and size of the droplets,
and the readout method. For instance, Monte Carlo simulations have
shown that higher ROS concentrations can be achieved with smaller
droplets. Nanoparticle-based ROS sensors could also be used for greater
sensitivity and stability.In conclusion, this droplet-based
radiometric assay is a promising
approach for studying the heterogeneous biophysical properties of
single cells using radionuclide probes. Small radiofluorogenic droplets
are ideally suited for measuring the radioactivity of single cells.
In addition, they could even be used for precise microdosimetry of
radiation therapy beams. In our vision, specific sorting of subpopulations
of cells could be performed downstream using microfluidic devices.
In this framework, the integration of optical methods with cellular
targeting by radioactive tracers opens the way for analyzing molecular
and metabolic processes with molecular specificity and high throughput.
In addition, radionuclide substitution will allow for more accurate
studies of the biochemical activity of specific small molecules, whereas
functionalization with organic fluorophores is likely to significantly
impact the chemical structure.
Authors: Silvan Türkcan; Julia Nguyen; Marta Vilalta; Bin Shen; Frederick T Chin; Guillem Pratx; Paul Abbyad Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Min Xue; Wei Wei; Yapeng Su; Jungwoo Kim; Young Shik Shin; Wilson X Mai; David A Nathanson; James R Heath Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: B Barlogie; M N Raber; J Schumann; T S Johnson; B Drewinko; D E Swartzendruber; W Göhde; M Andreeff; E J Freireich Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1983-09 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Linas Mazutis; John Gilbert; W Lloyd Ung; David A Weitz; Andrew D Griffiths; John A Heyman Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 13.491
Authors: Trifanny Yeo; Swee Jin Tan; Chew Leng Lim; Dawn Ping Xi Lau; Yong Wei Chua; Sai Sakktee Krisna; Gopal Iyer; Gek San Tan; Tony Kiat Hon Lim; Daniel S W Tan; Wan-Teck Lim; Chwee Teck Lim Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: A Isozaki; Y Nakagawa; M H Loo; Y Shibata; N Tanaka; D L Setyaningrum; J-W Park; Y Shirasaki; H Mikami; D Huang; H Tsoi; C T Riche; T Ota; H Miwa; Y Kanda; T Ito; K Yamada; O Iwata; K Suzuki; S Ohnuki; Y Ohya; Y Kato; T Hasunuma; S Matsusaka; M Yamagishi; M Yazawa; S Uemura; K Nagasawa; H Watarai; D Di Carlo; K Goda Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 14.136
Authors: Peter A Sandwall; Brandt P Bastow; Henry B Spitz; Howard R Elson; Michael Lamba; William B Connick; Henry Fenichel Journal: Bioengineering (Basel) Date: 2018-07-10