PURPOSE: Magneto-endosymbionts (MEs) show promise as living magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast agents for in vivo cell tracking. Here we characterize the biomedical imaging properties of ME contrast agents, in vitro and in vivo. PROCEDURES: By adapting and engineering magnetotactic bacteria to the intracellular niche, we are creating magneto-endosymbionts (MEs) that offer advantages relative to passive iron-based contrast agents (superparamagnetic iron oxides, SPIOs) for cell tracking. This work presents a biomedical imaging characterization of MEs including: MRI transverse relaxivity (r 2) for MEs and ME-labeled cells (compared to a commercially available iron oxide nanoparticle); microscopic validation of labeling efficiency and subcellular locations; and in vivo imaging of a MDA-MB-231BR (231BR) human breast cancer cells in a mouse brain. RESULTS: At 7T, r 2 relaxivity of bare MEs was higher (250 s-1 mM-1) than that of conventional SPIO (178 s-1 mM-1). Optimized in vitro loading of MEs into 231BR cells yielded 1-4 pg iron/cell (compared to 5-10 pg iron/cell for conventional SPIO). r 2 relaxivity dropped by a factor of ~3 upon loading into cells, and was on the same order of magnitude for ME-loaded cells compared to SPIO-loaded cells. In vivo, ME-labeled cells exhibited strong MR contrast, allowing as few as 100 cells to be detected in mice using an optimized 3D SPGR gradient-echo sequence. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the potential of magneto-endosymbionts as living MR contrast agents. They have r 2 relaxivity values comparable to traditional iron oxide nanoparticle contrast agents, and provide strong MR contrast when loaded into cells and implanted in tissue.
PURPOSE: Magneto-endosymbionts (MEs) show promise as living magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast agents for in vivo cell tracking. Here we characterize the biomedical imaging properties of ME contrast agents, in vitro and in vivo. PROCEDURES: By adapting and engineering magnetotactic bacteria to the intracellular niche, we are creating magneto-endosymbionts (MEs) that offer advantages relative to passive iron-based contrast agents (superparamagnetic iron oxides, SPIOs) for cell tracking. This work presents a biomedical imaging characterization of MEs including: MRI transverse relaxivity (r 2) for MEs and ME-labeled cells (compared to a commercially available iron oxide nanoparticle); microscopic validation of labeling efficiency and subcellular locations; and in vivo imaging of a MDA-MB-231BR (231BR) humanbreast cancer cells in a mouse brain. RESULTS: At 7T, r 2 relaxivity of bare MEs was higher (250 s-1 mM-1) than that of conventional SPIO (178 s-1 mM-1). Optimized in vitro loading of MEs into 231BR cells yielded 1-4 pg iron/cell (compared to 5-10 pg iron/cell for conventional SPIO). r 2 relaxivity dropped by a factor of ~3 upon loading into cells, and was on the same order of magnitude for ME-loaded cells compared to SPIO-loaded cells. In vivo, ME-labeled cells exhibited strong MR contrast, allowing as few as 100 cells to be detected in mice using an optimized 3D SPGR gradient-echo sequence. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the potential of magneto-endosymbionts as living MR contrast agents. They have r 2 relaxivity values comparable to traditional iron oxide nanoparticle contrast agents, and provide strong MR contrast when loaded into cells and implanted in tissue.
Authors: Stacey Cromer Berman; Chulani Galpoththawela; Assaf A Gilad; Jeff W M Bulte; Piotr Walczak Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-10-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Kayla R Lee; Abdul Wakeel; Papia Chakraborty; Chandler S Foote; Lauren Kajiura; Joyce C Barrozo; Andrea C Chan; Alexey V Bazarov; Ryan Spitler; Peter M Kutny; Jim M Denegre; Rob A Taft; Joachim Seemann; Bradley W Rice; Christopher H Contag; Brian K Rutt; Caleb B Bell Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Sébastien Mériaux; Marianne Boucher; Benjamin Marty; Yoann Lalatonne; Sandra Prévéral; Laurence Motte; Christopher T Lefèvre; Françoise Geffroy; Franck Lethimonnier; Michel Péan; Daniel Garcia; Géraldine Adryanczyk-Perrier; David Pignol; Nicolas Ginet Journal: Adv Healthc Mater Date: 2015-02-13 Impact factor: 9.933
Authors: Anna V Naumova; Vasily L Yarnykh; Niranjan Balu; Hans Reinecke; Charles E Murry; Chun Yuan Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Sofia M Pereira; Anne Herrmann; Diana Moss; Harish Poptani; Steve R Williams; Patricia Murray; Arthur Taylor Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Kayla R Lee; Abdul Wakeel; Papia Chakraborty; Chandler S Foote; Lauren Kajiura; Joyce C Barrozo; Andrea C Chan; Alexey V Bazarov; Ryan Spitler; Peter M Kutny; Jim M Denegre; Rob A Taft; Joachim Seemann; Bradley W Rice; Christopher H Contag; Brian K Rutt; Caleb B Bell Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Lisa M McGinley; Matthew S Willsey; Osama N Kashlan; Kevin S Chen; John M Hayes; Ingrid L Bergin; Shayna N Mason; Aaron W Stebbins; Jacquelin F Kwentus; Crystal Pacut; Jennifer Kollmer; Stacey A Sakowski; Caleb B Bell; Cynthia A Chestek; Geoffrey G Murphy; Parag G Patil; Eva L Feldman Journal: Stem Cells Transl Med Date: 2020-08-25 Impact factor: 6.940