| Literature DB >> 29138636 |
Yongtao Zheng1, Jiongwei Huang2, Tongming Zhu1, Ronggang Li1, Zhifu Wang1, Fukai Ma1, Jianhong Zhu1.
Abstract
The growing field of stem cell therapy is moving toward clinical trials in a variety of applications, particularly for neurological diseases. However, this translation of cell therapies into humans has prompted a need to create innovative and breakthrough methods for stem cell tracing, to explore the migration routes and its reciprocity with microenvironment targets in the body, to monitor and track the outcome after stem cell transplantation therapy, and to track the distribution and cell viability of transplanted cells noninvasively and longitudinally. Recently, a larger number of cell tracking methods in vivo were developed and applied in animals and humans, including magnetic resonance imaging, nuclear medicine imaging, and optical imaging. This review has been intended to summarize the current use of those imaging tools in tracking stem cells, detailing their main features and drawbacks, including image resolution, tissue penetrating depth, and biosafety aspects. Finally, we address that multimodality imaging method will be a more potential tracking tool in the future clinical application.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29138636 PMCID: PMC5613625 DOI: 10.1155/2017/2934149
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stem Cells Int Impact factor: 5.443
Imaging modalities currently available for tracking neural stem cells.
| Modality | Source of imaging | Type of probe | Spatial resolution | Temporal resolution | Tissue penetrating depth | Sensitivity | Clinical use | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||
| In vivo labeling | Radiowave | Para- (Gd3+/Mn2+), SPIO or 19F | >25 | Min–hrs | No limit | mM– | Yes | No radiation, very good tissue contrast, high resolution | Low sensitivity, agent dilution |
| Ex vivo labeling | Radiowave | MR reporter genes | Long-term imaging, long-term imaging | Exogenous gene risk | |||||
|
| |||||||||
| Direct labeling | High-energy | Radionuclides (e.g., 18F, 11C) | >1 mm | Sec–min | No limit | pM | Yes | High sensitivity, high sensitivity, deep tissues | Radiation, radiotracer dilution |
| Indirect labeling | High-energy | Reporter genes (e.g., HSV1-tk) | Long-term imaging, avoid false signal, nontoxicity | Exogenous gene risk | |||||
|
| |||||||||
| Direct labeling | Low-energy | Radionuclides (e.g., 111In, 99mTc) | >1 mm | Min | No limit | pM | Yes | High sensitivity, able to image deep tissues | Radiation, low resolution, radiotracer dilution |
| Indirect labeling | Low-energy | Reporter genes | Long-term imaging, nontoxicity | Exogenous gene risk | |||||
|
| |||||||||
| Fluorescence imaging | Visible light | Fluorescence near-infrared dye, QD light | >2 mm | Sec–min | <1 cm | nM-pM | No | Cheap, simple, high sensitivity, activatable | Deep tissue limited, low resolution, tissue damaging |
| BIL | Visible light | Reporter genes | >2 mm | Sec–min | <1 cm | nM | No | Simple, high sensitivity | Deep tissue limited, low resolution |
Figure 1Principles of stem cell labelling for different imaging modalities.
Figure 2Comparison of imaging techniques for transplanted therapeutic neural stem cells (NSCs). (a) Monitoring of magnetic nanoparticle-labelled NSCs in rat brain using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MRI was performed 2 days, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks after cell transplantation [7]. (b) Single photo emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging of mouse brain after intracerebral delivery of NSCs loaded with 111In. SPECT was performed immediately, 1 day and 2 days after cell transplantation [28]. (c) 9-(4-[18F]fluoro-3hydroxymethylbutyl) guanine ([18F]FHBG)-labeled embryonic stem cell-derived neural stem cells (NSCs) viewed through positron emission tomography (PET) can be seen localizing in the striatal region of the forebrain [6]. (d) Luciferase photon emission detected through bioluminescence imaging (BLI) 1 week to 8 weeks after transplanting of neural progenitor cells (NPCs) [41].