| Literature DB >> 28879947 |
Yi-Xiang J Wang1, Thibault Quercy-Jouvet2,3, Hao-Hao Wang4, Ak-Wai Li5, Chun-Pong Chak6, Shouhu Xuan7, Lin Shi8, De-Feng Wang9, Siu-Fung Lee10, Ping-Chung Leung11, Clara B S Lau12, Kwok-Pui Fung13, Ken Cham-Fai Leung14.
Abstract
We herein report a comparative study of mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) labeling using spherical superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) nanoparticles containing different coatings, namely, organosilica, dextran, and poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG). These nanomaterials possess a similar SPIO core size of 6-7 nm. Together with their coatings, the overall sizes are 10-15 nm for all SPIO@SiO₂, SPIO@dextran, and SPIO@PEG nanoparticles. These nanoparticles were investigated for their efficacies to be uptaken by rabbit bone marrow-derived MSCs without any transfecting agent. Experimentally, both SPIO@SiO₂ and SPIO@PEG nanoparticles could be successfully uptaken by MSCs while the SPIO@dextran nanoparticles demonstrated limited labeling efficiency. The labeling durability of SPIO@SiO₂ and SPIO@PEG nanoparticles in MSCs after three weeks of culture were compared by Prussian blue staining tests. SPIO@SiO₂ nanoparticles demonstrated more blue staining than SPIO@PEG nanoparticles, rendering them better materials for MSCs labeling by direct uptake when durable intracellullar retention of SPIO is desired.Entities:
Keywords: cell labeling; magnetic nanoparticle; surface modification
Year: 2011 PMID: 28879947 PMCID: PMC5448517 DOI: 10.3390/ma4040703
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Transmission election microscopic (TEM) images of SPIO@SiO2 (Left), SPIO@dextran (Middle), and SPIO@PEG (Right) nanoparticles.
Inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) and energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) results.
| ICP-OES | EDX | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fe% | Fe% | O% | Si% | C% | |
| 63.9 ± 0.1 | 64.8 ± 0.2 | 35.2 ± 0.2 | - | - | |
| 59.6 ± 0.1 | 57.1 ± 0.3 | 32.3 ± 0.3 | 3.5 ± 0.3 | 1.7 ± 0.3 | |
| 50.4 ± 0.1 | 48.8 ± 0.4 | 38.2 ± 0.3 | - | 3.1 ± 0.4 | |
| 53.0 ± 0.1 | 51.6 ± 0.3 | 37.4 ± 0.3 | - | 2.0 ± 0.4 | |
Figure 2Spin echo MR image of the superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) nanomaterials suspensions. (A) Diagram for iron concentration series; (B) SPIO@SiO2 (C) SPIO@dextran; (D) SPIO@PEG. The concentrations are (0): Deionised water, (1) 0.1 µgFe/mL; (2) 0.3 µgFe/mL; (3) 0.6 µgFe/mL; (4) 1 µgFe/mL, (5) 2 µgFe/mL; (6) 3 µgFe/mL; (7) 5 µgFe/mL; (8) 10 µgFe/mL. Note that the SPIO@SiO2 concentration of 1 µgFe/mL was not measured by MRI.
Figure 3Optical microscopic images of (A) SPIO@SiO2-labeled and (B) SPIO@PEG-labeled mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) post Prussian blue staining at day 0 (original magnification: ×20). The MSCs in (A) and (B) were extensively labeled with SPIO. The blueness values are ca. 14 for both figures. (C) SPIO@SiO2-labeled MSCs after three weeks (original magnification: ×40); there are multiple blue stained dots (arrows). (D) SPIO@PEG-labeled MSCs after three weeks (original magnification: ×40); it shows only trace amount of blue stained dots (arrows). The intensity of blueness for MSCs labeled with SPIO@SiO2 nanoparticles was 2.4 while that of MSCs labeled with SPIO@PEG nanoparticles was 0.0037.