Dokyoon Kim1, Jonghoon Kim1,2, Yong Il Park3, Nohyun Lee4, Taeghwan Hyeon1,2. 1. Center for Nanoparticle Research, Institute for Basic Science (IBS), Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea. 2. School of Chemical and Biological Engineering, and Institute of Chemical Processes, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea. 3. School of Chemical Engineering, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Republic of Korea. 4. School of Advanced Materials Engineering, Kookmin University, Seoul 02707, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
Inorganic nanoparticle-based biomedical imaging probes have been studied extensively as a potential alternative to conventional molecular imaging probes. Not only can they provide better imaging performance but they can also offer greater versatility of multimodal, stimuli-responsive, and targeted imaging. However, inorganic nanoparticle-based probes are still far from practical use in clinics due to safety concerns and less-optimized efficiency. In this context, it would be valuable to look over the underlying issues. This outlook highlights the recent advances in the development of inorganic nanoparticle-based probes for MRI, CT, and anti-Stokes shift-based optical imaging. Various issues and possibilities regarding the construction of imaging probes are discussed, and future research directions are suggested.
Inorganic nanoparticle-based biomedical imaging probes have been studied extensively as a potential alternative to conventional molecular imaging probes. Not only can they provide better imaging performance but they can also offer greater versatility of multimodal, stimuli-responsive, and targeted imaging. However, inorganic nanoparticle-based probes are still far from practical use in clinics due to safety concerns and less-optimized efficiency. In this context, it would be valuable to look over the underlying issues. This outlook highlights the recent advances in the development of inorganic nanoparticle-based probes for MRI, CT, and anti-Stokes shift-based optical imaging. Various issues and possibilities regarding the construction of imaging probes are discussed, and future research directions are suggested.
Bioimaging refers to the visualization
of biological structures
and processes. A variety of techniques with their own advantages have
been developed for that purpose to meet the needs in various clinical
and laboratory settings.[1−4] In many cases, imaging probes that can label target
molecules or organs are used to provide enhanced visibility and to
enable the acquisition of more detailed structural and functional
information.[5−7] Consequently, the use of imaging probes is becoming
indispensable for biological research and disease diagnosis.Recent advances in the development of imaging probes have led to
the bioimaging at subcellular or molecular level.[8−10] That said,
the majority of the imaging probes currently used in clinics are organic
molecules or metal–organic compounds,[11−13] whose utility
is limited because of their intrinsic physical and physiological properties.
To list a few examples, fluorescent dyes used for optical imaging
suffer from photobleaching,[14] and magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) contrast agents made of Gd3+-chelates
exhibit weak contrast effect due to their low magnetic moment.[15] These small molecule-based probes also have
a short circulation time in vivo, resulting in poor
targeting efficiency and insufficient imaging enhancement.[16]Nanotechnology has facilitated the development
of unprecedented
imaging probes with outstanding performance.[17−19] Inorganic nanoparticles
are one of the most widely studied materials in this regard due to
their unique physical and chemical properties that originate from
their nanoscale dimensions.[20] Various nanoparticle
probes for bioimaging were developed using their magnetic, X-ray attenuation,
and optical properties (Figure ). For example, magnetic nanoparticles (e.g., superparamagnetic
iron oxide nanoparticles) have been applied as strong T2 MRI contrast agents, showing much improved detection
sensitivity over conventional Gd3+-based MRI contrast agents.[21−23] Nanoparticles of high-Z elements (e.g., gold,[24,25] bismuth,[26−28] and tantalum[29,30]) have been studied
for enhanced computed tomography (CT) contrast agents owing to their
high X-ray attenuation. The better optical and chemical stability
of quantum dots (QDs) and their relatively easily tunable emission
wavelength compared with those of fluorescent dyes enable the use
of QDs as robust fluorescent tags in optical imaging.[31−33] Despite these advantages, inorganic nanoparticle-based imaging probes
still have many drawbacks that prevent their extensive use in clinical
settings, which include magnetic susceptibility artifacts of T2 MRI contrast agents,[34] photoinduced tissue damage from ultraviolet (UV) excitation source
for QDs,[35] and potential toxicity of heavy
metal-containing nanoparticles.[36,37] As a result, very few
nanoparticle probes are approved for clinical use.
Figure 1
Current status of inorganic
nanoparticle-based bioimaging and future
direction.
Current status of inorganic
nanoparticle-based bioimaging and future
direction.Many efforts have been made
in recent years to address the limitations
of typical inorganic nanoparticle imaging probes. To overcome the
intrinsic limitations of T2 MRI, extremely
small iron oxide nanoparticles were utilized as T1 MRI contrast agents.[38,39] Shallow tissue
penetration depth of UV excitation could be circumvented by using
near-infrared (NIR) light for the excitation of nanoparticle probes.[40−43] Moreover, several nanoparticle surface modification methods have
been developed to provide enhanced biocompatibility and functionalities
such as stimuli-responsiveness, targeted imaging, and therapy.[44]Here, we focus on the recent progress
in inorganic nanoparticle
probes for MRI, CT, and anti-Stokes shift-based optical imaging, of
which the characteristics are summarized in Table . We discuss various issues that need to
be considered when developing nanoparticle probes. Finally, we propose
future research directions for the next generation imaging probes.
Table 1
Characteristics of Various Nanoparticle-Based
Imaging Modalities
nanoparticles of high-Z elements (Ba, I, Au,
Ta, etc.)
∼100 μm
∼1 mM
no limit
anti-Stokes shift-based optical imaging
doped
quantum dots, upconverting nanoparticles
<1 μm
<1 μM
<1 mm
MRI Contrast
Agents
MRI is a noninvasive medical imaging technique based
on the principle
of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR).[45] In
a strong magnetic field, hydrogen nuclei absorb resonant radiofrequency
pulses, and subsequently the excited nuclei return to the initial
state by emitting the absorbed radio frequency energy. MRI contrast
is generated by the different relaxation characteristics of the hydrogen
atoms in tissues that are affected by the presence of nearby magnetic
materials. For example, paramagnetic materials enhance the longitudinal
relaxation processes (also called T1 relaxation
processes), producing brighter MR signal, while superparamagnetic
and ferromagnetic materials accelerate the transverse relaxation processes
(also called T2 relaxation processes),
resulting in hypointense MR signal. Using these properties, complexes
of paramagnetic gadolinium ions (Gd3+) and superparamagnetic
iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) have been used as T1 and T2 contrast agents,
respectively.[46] Recently, though, most
nanoparticle-based MRI contrast agents have been withdrawn from the
market, leaving Gd(III) complexes to dominate the current market for
the MRI contrast agents.[47]This situation
brings up a question: is it still worth pursuing
nanoparticle-based MRI contrast agents? To deal with this question,
it is necessary to consider various factors including safety, efficacy,
and market shares. First-generation magnetic nanoparticle-based T2 MRI contrast agents such as Feridex and Resovist
were used to detect liver lesions, and second-generation agents such
as Combidex were developed for the diagnosis of lymph metastases.[34] They were withdrawn from the market not for
safety concerns, but rather due to their small market shares: T1 contrast agents are preferred in clinics due
to bright MR images, and more importantly, Gd(III)-based T1 contrast agents are able to cover most organs including
the liver.[48] Furthermore, the contrast
effects of the early generation magnetic nanoparticle-based contrast
agents were not sufficiently strong owing to their small core size
and low crystallinity.[49]Newly developed
magnetic nanoparticles have a strong chance to
compete with the Gd(III)-based contrast agents.[17] First, while a serious side effect of Gd(III) complexes,
such as nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, is an issue of major concern,[50] iron oxides are generally regarded as benign
and biologically tolerable.[51] When intravenously
injected, the iron oxide nanoparticles are typically degraded in liver
and spleen, and subsequently incorporated into iron metabolic pathways.[52] Indeed, although the early generation SPION-based
contrast agents for intravenous injection are no longer available
in clinics, iron oxide nanoparticles are still used for the treatment
of iron deficiency anemia[53] and for MRI
of gastrointestinal tract via oral administration.[54]Second, nanoparticle syntheses based on the thermal
decomposition
of metal complexes yield high-quality nanoparticles with tunable size
and superior crystallinity.[23,55] As a result, the magnetic
property of the nanoparticles can be controlled from nearly paramagnetic
to ferromagnetic by tuning their size from a few to ∼100 nm
(Figure a,b). Such
modulation of nanoparticle size allows the magnetic nanoparticles
to be used either as a nontoxic alternative to Gd(III)-based T1 contrast agents or as a highly sensitive T2 contrast agent. For example, extremely small-sized
iron oxide nanoparticles (ESIONs) less than 3 nm in core size exhibit
a large T1 contrast effect in high-resolution
MR angiography.[38] On the other hand, ferrimagnetic
iron oxide nanoparticles (FIONs) with a diameter larger than 30 nm
enable highly sensitive T2-weighted MRI
of individual cells due to their strong magnetic property and facile
cellular uptake.[56] In addition, FIONs with
an average core size of 22 nm exhibit ∼7 times stronger T2 contrast effects than those of the first generation
SPION-based agents predicted by outer-sphere relaxation theory.[21] Such a strong contrast effect can be attributed
to the balance between the magnetization and the diffusion rate of
the 22 nm-sized FIONs, which respectively are directly and inversely
proportional to the nanoparticle size.[57] Moreover, it is also possible to control the MR contrast effect
by changing the magnetic composition of nanoparticles. For instance,
the addition of paramagnetic Gd3+ ions into iron oxide
nanoparticles improves T1 contrast effect
due to the increased interactions between the Gd3+ ions
and water molecules.[58] Likewise, manganeseferrite and zinc-doped ferrite nanoparticles show increased net magnetization,
resulting in much stronger T2 contrast
effect.[22,59]
Figure 2
(a) Field-dependent magnetization (M–H) curves at 300 K for iron oxide nanoparticles
of various
sizes (left). Description of the spin canting effect in the iron oxide
nanoparticles of various sizes (right). (b) In vivo MR images of the xenografted tumor before (left) and after (right)
intravenous administration of FIONs. (c) Artifact filtering imaging
agent (mAFIA) that comprises a combination of paramagnetic Gd-MOF
and superparamagnetic nanoparticles for T1–T2 dual-mode MRI. (d) Tumor pH-responsive
magnetic nanogrenades composed of self-assembled extremely small-sized
iron oxide nanoparticles and pH-sensitive ligands. Reprinted with
permission from refs (21, 38, 67), and (74). Copyright 2011, 2012, and 2014 American Chemical
Society.
(a) Field-dependent magnetization (M–H) curves at 300 K for iron oxide nanoparticles
of various
sizes (left). Description of the spin canting effect in the iron oxide
nanoparticles of various sizes (right). (b) In vivo MR images of the xenografted tumor before (left) and after (right)
intravenous administration of FIONs. (c) Artifact filtering imaging
agent (mAFIA) that comprises a combination of paramagnetic Gd-MOF
and superparamagnetic nanoparticles for T1–T2 dual-mode MRI. (d) Tumor pH-responsive
magnetic nanogrenades composed of self-assembled extremely small-sized
iron oxide nanoparticles and pH-sensitive ligands. Reprinted with
permission from refs (21, 38, 67), and (74). Copyright 2011, 2012, and 2014 American Chemical
Society.Third, while modification of Gd(III) complexes usually requires
complicated multistep organic reactions, the surface of nanoparticles
can be modified relatively easily using conventional bioconjugate
chemistry with various functional molecules.[60] Since the interactions between biological tissues and nanoparticles
are mainly determined by the surface characteristics of the nanoparticles,
biodistribution and cellular uptake of the nanoparticles can be readily
controlled by the surface modification.[44] Furthermore, conjugation of targeting ligands allows more accurate
diagnosis by providing information on the biological processes of
interest.[61] To date, various targeting
ligands including antibodies,[62] aptamers,[63] folic acid,[64] and
Arg-Gly-Asp (RGD) peptide[65] have been studied
for tumor diagnosis, leading to more enhanced binding affinity and
specificity. In addition to the targeting ligands, various functional
molecules such as fluorescence dyes, radioisotopes, and drugs can
also be attached to the nanoparticles, which allows multimodal imaging
or simultaneous imaging and therapy (referred to as theragnosis).[66]As described above, there is still enormous
potential in the nanoparticle-based
MRI contrast agents, and new trials for more sensitive MR imaging
are in progress. One of the challenging issues in the development
of MR contrast agents lies in overcoming the intrinsic limitations
of MRI such as low sensitivity and artifact signals. For example,
either hyperintense or hypointense signal can be generated from endogenous
factors such as fat, air, bleeding, calcification, or metal deposition,
and they are sometimes confused with MR signals generated by contrast
agents.[34] To address this issue, T1–T2 dual-mode
MRI contrast agents have been introduced by combining superparamagnetic
nanoparticles with paramagnetic metal ions (Figure c).[67] The dual-mode
contrast agents generate bright and dark signals in T1- and T2-weighted MRI, respectively,
enabling the intrinsic ambiguities to be overcome. In addition, sensitivity
and accuracy of MRI can be improved by obtaining complementary information
using multimodal imaging.[68] Therefore,
various methods of preparing multimodal imaging probes have been proposed,
including the direct conjugation of fluorescent molecules or radioisotopes,[69] the assembly of magnetic nanoparticles with
quantum dots (QDs) or upconversion nanoparticles (UCNPs),[70] and the doping of radioisotopes into magnetic
nanoparticles.[71]Another challenging
issue is designing the way that MR contrast
agents respond to the stimuli of surrounding environments such as
pH, temperature, and specific enzymes. For the case of Gd(III)-complex
MR contrast agents, conformational changes of their chelate structures
in response to various stimuli have been proposed.[72] In contrast, there have been scarce reports on the stimuli-responsive
nanoparticle-based MR contrast agents because a magnetic field generated
by superparamagnetic nanoparticles is not affected by conformational
change of ligands, making the contrast effect “always on”.
On the other hand, clustering of the magnetic nanoparticles can change
the T2 relaxation rate, which is referred
to as magnetic relaxation switch (MRS).[73] Because the aggregation of nanoparticles can be induced by specific
interactions with specific target molecules, various small molecules
including oligonucleotides, enzymes, and drugs are detected by MRS
using MRI scanners and NMR spectrometers.[61] However, in vivo MRS remains very challenging as
signal attenuation depends on the nanoparticle concentration as well
as the degree of clustering. Recently, it is shown that extremely
small iron oxide nanoparticles assembled within pH-responsive polymers
can activate the MR signals in acidic conditions (Figure d).[74] When the nanoparticles are aggregated, strong T2 contrast effect prevents T1 contrast effect. However, the disassembly of the nanoparticles in
acidic condition leads to increase in r1 and decrease in r2, which results in
signal enhancement in T1-weighted MRI.Although magnetic nanoparticles are not currently available as
MR contrast agents for systemic delivery, much attention and effort
has been made to develop superior nanoparticle-based contrast agents
that hold great promise to provide enhanced sensitivity and more accurate
diagnosis. Besides MR contrast agents based on iron oxide nanoparticles,
lanthanide ion-doped nanoparticles are also strong candidates for
novel MRI contrast agents. For example, NaGdF4 nanoparticles
have been developed as multimodal imaging agents for T1-weighted MRI, CT, and upconversion imaging.[75] In addition, Dy3+ and Ho3+ ions exhibit unique magnetic characteristics such as short electronic
relaxation time and large magnetic moment, which are suitable for
high-field MRI.[76] Although high-field MRI
improves the resolution and sensitivity, the contrast effect of iron
oxide nanoparticles is marginally increased because their magnetization
is already saturated. On the other hand, the magnetization of Dy3+ and Ho3+ is not saturated at the high magnetic
field, making NaHoF4 and NaDyF4 good candidates
for a T2 contrast agent for high-field
MRI. Furthermore, it is expected that optimized contrast effect can
be obtained by modulating particle size, surface coating, and magnetic
field.
CT Contrast Agents
Computed tomography (CT) is a medical
imaging procedure based on
the interaction of X-ray with a body or a contrast agent.[18] While rotating an X-ray tube and a detector,
the intensity of X-ray is measured from different angles, and cross-sectional
(tomographic) images are generated with the aid of a computer using
the X-ray intensity profiles. CT is one of the most widely used whole
body imaging techniques owing to its high spatial resolution and rapid
image acquisition. As such, it is frequently employed to visualize
various anatomical structures, including brain, lung, cardiovascular
system, and abdominal diseases. The innate sensitivity of CT is not
sufficiently high for most applications, and thus contrast agents
are often required to detect a subtle change of soft tissues. Approximately
half of the CT scans in clinics are aided by contrast agents.[77]Since the X-ray attenuation effect of
a material generally increases
with its atomic number, high-Z elements are preferred
as CT contrast agents.[78] To date, barium-
and iodine-based contrast agents have been used in clinical situations.
Because CT can detect approximately 10–2 M concentration
of a contrast agent,[79] a high dose should
be administered, which raises a concern about the toxicity of the
contrast agents. For example, although barium sulfate suspension has
been administered via oral route for gastrointestinal imaging for
decades, it cannot be used as an intravascular contrast agent due
to its renal and cardiovascular toxicity.[80] Iodine-based small molecules such as iopamidol and iodixanol were
approved as intravenous CT contrast agents by the Food and Drug Administration
of the United States. There are still several concerns regarding the
safety of the iodinated contrast agents such as allergic reaction
and renal toxicity.[81] In addition, the
blood circulation time of the iodinated contrast agents is very short,
preventing their preferential accumulation in a lesion.Besides
toxicity and pharmacokinetics, barium- and iodine-based
CT contrast agents do not exhibit sufficient CT contrast effect at
higher X-ray tube voltages.[82] This is because
the X-ray attenuation effect of an element sharply increases at its
K-edge energy level, and subsequently decreases at higher energy levels
(Figure a).[83] Many of the current CT scanners are operated
at tube voltages ranging from 80 to 140 kV, and high voltages are
usually used for large or obesepatients. Given that the K-edge energy
levels of iodine and barium are 33.2 and 37.4 keV,[83] respectively, there is a large mismatch between the energy
required for the peak attenuation and the average energy of X-ray
photons emitted from the high voltage tubes. For elements that have
too high K-edge energy levels such as gold (80.7 keV) or bismuth (90.5
keV), their contrast effects are not very strong either, because the
majority of the emitted X-ray photons generated by current tubes have
lower energy than the K-edge levels of those elements.[82] It is noteworthy that polychromatic X-ray is
generated in an X-ray tube, and the tube voltage represents the maximum
energy of the generated X-ray photons. Therefore, the contrast effect
of an element should be evaluated in a wide range of X-ray energies
rather than by an attenuation coefficient at a single energy level
(Figure b). Recent
reports show that materials with intermediate K-edge levels such as
ytterbium (K-edge at 61.3 keV) and tantalum (K-edge at 67.4 keV) exhibit
higher CT contrast effect compared with iodine.[82]
Figure 3
(a) X-ray attenuation factors of various elements. (b) Simulated
attenuations of I, Yb, Ta, and Au against X-ray produced at 80 kVp
(A), 100 kVp (B), 120 kVp (C), and 140 kVp (D). (c) Schematic illustration
of RITC-doped tantalum oxide nanoparticles for multimodal imaging.
(d) In vivo CT images (left) and optical images (right)
of the sentinel lymph node of the rat 2 h after intradermal injection
of RITC-doped tantalum oxide nanoparticles in both paws. Reprinted
with permission from refs (29) and (82). Copyright 2011 American Chemical Society and 2015 RSNA.
(a) X-ray attenuation factors of various elements. (b) Simulated
attenuations of I, Yb, Ta, and Au against X-ray produced at 80 kVp
(A), 100 kVp (B), 120 kVp (C), and 140 kVp (D). (c) Schematic illustration
of RITC-dopedtantalum oxide nanoparticles for multimodal imaging.
(d) In vivo CT images (left) and optical images (right)
of the sentinel lymph node of the rat 2 h after intradermal injection
of RITC-dopedtantalum oxide nanoparticles in both paws. Reprinted
with permission from refs (29) and (82). Copyright 2011 American Chemical Society and 2015 RSNA.Last but not least, the market price of the CT contrast agents
is also a critical factor for the regular use of CT in clinics because
a large amount of dose is typically required for each scanning session.
For example, although the gold-based CT contrast agents are attractive
as an alternative to iodinated contrast agents owing to their good
biocompatibility and facile synthesis,[24,25] roughly 50
g of gold is consumed for each whole body scanning session, which
makes the clinical use of gold-based CT contrast agents almost unrealistic
in terms of cost. Lanthanides such as ytterbium can be cheaper alternatives,
but the industrial production scale of lanthanides is not large enough
to provide a sufficient amount of CT contrast agents.[84]Although the radiation dose of CT is a great concern,[85] this does not lower the importance of the contrast
agents. By virtue of its fast scan speed, wide availability, and low
cost, CT is still the most popular imaging tool. Various CT scanning
methods and image reconstruction techniques have been actively developed
to overcome current limitations.[86−88] Since contrast agents
allow higher conspicuity of images, it is anticipated that optimized
contrast agents will reduce both the radiation exposure and the administered
dose, leading to safer imaging. In conjunction with novel imaging
techniques, the optimized contrast agents also would enable new diagnostic
capabilities of CT by providing molecular and cellular information
in addition to simple anatomical details.[9] For example, nanoparticles of high-Z elements have
been used for imaging of blood vessels,[25] tumors,[27] transplanted cells,[89] and atherosclerosis.[88] Furthermore, development of lanthanide-based imaging[75] (e.g., upconversion optical imaging and T1-weighted MRI) and conjugation of fluorescence
dyes allow multimodal imaging (Figure c).[29] These multifunctional
nanoparticles are expected to lead to more accurate diagnosis and
facile treatment by combination image-guided procedures (Figure d). Unlike other
imaging modalities, CT imaging typically requires a large amount of
contrast agents owing to its low sensitivity, which may cause serious
side effects. Although most reports on CT contrast agent based on
high-Z elements have stated that the nanoparticles
are safe, their long-term toxicity has yet to be elucidated. For successful
translation into clinical use, it is desirable to develop the optimized
nanoparticles with favorable biodistribution profile, while maintaining
rapid excretion.
Multiphoton Fluorescence Imaging Probes
While whole-body imaging techniques such as MRI and CT play an
important role in medical imaging owing to their high resolution and
superior penetration depth, their long acquisition time prevents their
practical use in real-time monitoring. Fluorescence imaging can be
used to overcome such limitations. In general, fluorescence imaging
is capable of obtaining high temporal and spatial resolution with
good sensitivity.[90,91] The utility of in vivo fluorescence imaging for live animals, however, has been hampered
by the shallow penetration depth of light in tissues and decreased
spatial resolution that comes from light scattering. For this reason,
there have been demands for the development of innovative fluorescence
imaging probes and techniques. One of the recent examples of progress
in this field is utilizing the anti-Stokes emission process that generates
emission light with a shorter wavelength than that of the excitation
light.[92,93] If combined with near-infrared (NIR) excitation
sources, increased tissue penetration depth, as well as reduced background
autofluorescence or light scattering, can be achieved.[94]Multiphoton absorption is a well-known
anti-Stokes emission process
that has a potential to reduce both the photoinduced damage of samples
and photobleaching of fluorophores.[92] Unfortunately,
most small molecule-based multiphoton fluorescent dyes still suffer
from their low photostability that prevents repeated excitation and
prolonged imaging. Therefore, inorganic nanoparticle-based multiphoton
fluorescence probes are studied as an alternative due to their improved
resistance to photobleaching and relatively facile surface modification
with functional molecules. Especially, semiconducting QDs are very
attractive in that their emission spectra are tunable and their multiphoton
absorption cross sections are much larger than those of traditional
fluorescent dyes.[95] There are several other
issues that need to be considered to fully make use of the potential
of the QD-based multiphoton fluorescence probes in bioimaging, most
notably safety and imaging efficiency.While cadmium-containing
QDs such as CdSe/CdS/ZnS core–shell
nanoparticles have been demonstrated as a two-photon imaging probe,
potential toxicity from cadmium is a major concern. To address this
issue, cadmium-free QDs have been studied.[96−98] For example,
manganese-doped ZnS (ZnS:Mn) nanoparticles have been used in multiphoton
imaging.[97] Besides their low toxicity,
the manganese dopants change the emission wavelength from ∼430
nm to ∼580 nm, allowing more light to escape from the tissues.
The large three-photon absorption cross section of ZnS:Mn nanoparticles,
which is 4 orders of magnitude larger than those of ultraviolet (UV)
fluorescent dyes, enables the three-photon excitation by 920 nm NIR
laser, allowing deeper tissue penetration compared with two-photon
imaging (Figure a).
Spatial resolution is also much improved due to the reduced out-of-focus
excitation and diminished background fluorescence (Figure b). Other than the ZnS:Mn nanoparticles,
InP/ZnS[99] or CuInS2/ZnS QDs[100] are also promising candidates for less-toxic
probes.
Figure 4
(a) Energy diagram of ZnS:Mn nanoparticles excited by multiphoton
absorption. Two-photon absorption of ZnS (600 nm) or Mn2+ (NIR-II region) induces orange emission. Three-photon absorption
of ZnS also induces orange emission. (b) Two-photon image of FITC
and three-photon image of ZnS:Mn nanoparticles. Three-photon imaging
showed better spatial resolution. (c) Transmission spectra of tumor
tissue and blood. The NIR-II region exhibits improved transmission.
(d) PL intensity of ZnS:Mn nanoparticles at different excitation wavelengths.
For comparison, Rhodamine 6G is measured at 900 nm. S is the slope of the linear fitting. Between 900 and 1000 nm, the
excitation mechanism is a three-photon absorption, and between 1100
and 1180 nm, the excitation mechanism is switched to two-photon absorption.
The efficiency of PL is highest when excited at 1180 nm. Reprinted
with permission from refs (42), (97), and (101). Copyright 2013 Macmillan
Publishers Limited and 2013 American Chemical Society.
(a) Energy diagram of ZnS:Mn nanoparticles excited by multiphoton
absorption. Two-photon absorption of ZnS (600 nm) or Mn2+ (NIR-II region) induces orange emission. Three-photon absorption
of ZnS also induces orange emission. (b) Two-photon image of FITC
and three-photon image of ZnS:Mn nanoparticles. Three-photon imaging
showed better spatial resolution. (c) Transmission spectra of tumor
tissue and blood. The NIR-II region exhibits improved transmission.
(d) PL intensity of ZnS:Mn nanoparticles at different excitation wavelengths.
For comparison, Rhodamine 6G is measured at 900 nm. S is the slope of the linear fitting. Between 900 and 1000 nm, the
excitation mechanism is a three-photon absorption, and between 1100
and 1180 nm, the excitation mechanism is switched to two-photon absorption.
The efficiency of PL is highest when excited at 1180 nm. Reprinted
with permission from refs (42), (97), and (101). Copyright 2013 Macmillan
Publishers Limited and 2013 American Chemical Society.As described earlier, the multiphoton excitation
of QDs using NIR
laser presents a number of advantages over UV excitation of fluorescent
dye, although light scattering from biological tissues remains a problem
that limits the fluorescence imaging of deep tissues. To further minimize
the light scattering, the second near-infrared (NIR-II) range (1000
to 1700 nm) has been suggested as a better optical window (Figure c).[41,42] For instance, ZnS:Mn QDs, which were previously described as a three-photon
imaging probe, were shown to have a superior two-photon imaging characteristic
under NIR-II excitation (Figure d).[101] Compared with the
two-photon excitation of ZnS host using a 600 nm laser, direct two-photon
excitation of the manganese dopants by a 1050–1310 nm light
source can benefit from the large two-photon absorption cross section
of the manganese ions and deeper light penetration depth of the NIR-II
window. However, the quantum efficiencies of QDs by NIR or NIR-II
multiphoton excitation are still very low. The emission light from
the QDs is also subjected to the absorption and scattering by the
tissues, which further reduces the imaging quality. Finally, multiphoton
imaging requires a microscope equipped with an expensive high-power
femtosecond pulsed laser as an excitation source, and the laser beam
should be focused for scanning, which delays the data acquisition.
Therefore, the development of QDs with high multiphoton quantum efficiency
as well as the development of imaging techniques for rapid acquisition
of high-resolution images is urgent for the wide application of multiphoton
imaging.
Luminescence Upconversion Imaging Probes
Upconversion
is another mechanism of the anti-Stokes emission processes,
and it has received much attention in recent years to develop novel
luminescent probes.[93] Similar to the multiphoton
absorption, a NIR excitation source can be used for deeper light penetration
and minimal background autofluorescence. Compared with the multiphoton
absorption, however, the upconversion mechanism involves the photon
absorption through real electronic intermediate states, resulting
in a much higher emission efficiency and a longer luminescence lifetime
up to several hundred microseconds.[102,103] Therefore,
UCNPs can be excited at a low-power density using a continuous-wave
laser diode. As such, image scanning by the focused pulsed laser is
not necessary, and data acquisition can be performed much faster using
wide-field microscopy.[104−107]Unlike the QDs, the emission wavelength of lanthanide-doped inorganic
UCNPs is not related to the quantum confinement effect but dependent
on the energy levels of individual lanthanide elements.[108,109] Therefore, emission color tuning is achieved by controlling the
elemental composition of the UCNPs.[110,111] Luminescence
lifetime is also tunable from several to thousands of microseconds
by changing the type or the percentage of dopants,[103] which allows multiplex imaging not only by different emission
colors but also by different lifetimes. The long luminescence lifetime
of the UCNPs is also beneficial to the time-gated fluorescence imaging,
where increased image contrast is obtained by separating the UCNP
emission from light scattering.[112]Although the upconversion efficiency of the lanthanide-doped inorganic
UCNPs is exceeded by those of the organic dye-based UCNPs that use
triplet–triplet annihilation upconversion,[113,114] it has been shown that the photon collection efficiency can be enhanced
by functionalizing the lanthanide-doped inorganic UCNPs with antenna
materials such as NIR dyes (Figure a),[115−118] gold nanoshells,[70] or QDs.[119] These antennas can also expand the range of
absorption wavelength, allowing the flexible choice of excitation
sources. In addition, more robust chemical stability and photostability
of the inorganic UCNPs than those of the upconverting organic dyes
in aqueous or air condition render them better suited for bioimaging
applications. Further efforts to enhance the emission efficiency of
the lanthanide-doped inorganic UCNPs include the controlled doping
of core–shell structured UCNPs with different lanthanide dopants
to facilitate the energy transfer,[102] and
the high-irradiance excitation of UCNPs, where the luminescence quenching
of the dopant ions is alleviated by the strong excitation power.[120]
Figure 5
(a) Left: The schematic of multi-dye-sensitized UCNPs
for a broad
range of light absorption. Three dye sensitizers (e.g., BODIPY-FL
for blue absorption, Cy 3.5 for green absorption, and IR 806 for red
absorption) are immobilized on the nanoparticles. Right: The energy
diagram of the three sensitizers and the UCNPs. (b) Left: The schematic
of Nd3+-doped core/shell UCNPs excited under 800 nm irradiation.
Right: The energy diagram of the core/shell UCNPs. (c) NaLuF4:Yb,Tm@NaGdF4 (153Sm) nanoparticles work as
a multimodal imaging agent for upconversion luminescence imaging (Yb3+,Tm3+), CT (Lu3+,Yb3+), T1 MRI (Gd3+), and SPECT (153Sm3+). Reprinted with permission from refs (117, 125), and (139). Copyright 2017 Wiley and 2013 American Chemical
Society.
(a) Left: The schematic of multi-dye-sensitized UCNPs
for a broad
range of light absorption. Three dye sensitizers (e.g., BODIPY-FL
for blue absorption, Cy 3.5 for green absorption, and IR 806 for red
absorption) are immobilized on the nanoparticles. Right: The energy
diagram of the three sensitizers and the UCNPs. (b) Left: The schematic
of Nd3+-doped core/shell UCNPs excited under 800 nm irradiation.
Right: The energy diagram of the core/shell UCNPs. (c) NaLuF4:Yb,Tm@NaGdF4 (153Sm) nanoparticles work as
a multimodal imaging agent for upconversion luminescence imaging (Yb3+,Tm3+), CT (Lu3+,Yb3+), T1 MRI (Gd3+), and SPECT (153Sm3+). Reprinted with permission from refs (117, 125), and (139). Copyright 2017 Wiley and 2013 American Chemical
Society.While UCNPs are promising as a
new luminescence imaging probe,
it is important to point out the current limitations of the UCNPs.
First of all, limited tunability of the emission wavelength can restrict
the multiplex imaging. Because of the ladder-like energy levels of
the lanthanide emitters, there are always multiple emission peaks.
For example, erbium ions generate green and red emission, and thulium
ions are known to exhibit UV, blue, and NIR emission.[121] Although there have been several reports on
obtaining pure emission colors from UCNPs, especially for red, emission
wavelength tuning is still a challenging issue that requires further
exploration.[122,123]Another issue is the heating
effect by 980 nm NIR laser, which
is usually used for the excitation of many types of UCNPs. Since water
molecules can absorb the photons of the incident 980 nm laser, their
temperature may increase. This heating effect may not be noticeable
in most cellular imaging situations.[104] However, the high-power laser used for in vivo imaging
may induce a thermal change large enough to affect the upconversion
luminescence properties of the UCNPs and possibly cause damage to
tissues. To minimize the heating effect, alternative excitation wavelengths
whose energies are less absorbed by water molecules have been sought.[124] In a recent study, Nd3+ ions were
introduced to UCNPs as a new sensitizer dopant that can be excited
at 800 nm with marginal heating effect (Figure b).[125−127] Further research on various
combinations of sensitizer and host materials is clearly needed to
develop an optimized system for clinical use.UCNPs are not
free from the biosafety issues. Since an increasing
number of UCNPs are now studied for in vivo applications,
careful evaluation of their potential toxic effects is of great importance.
To date, several systematic studies have been made to investigate
the in vivo toxicity of UCNPs in mice,[128−132] zebrafish embryos,[133,134] and Caenorhabditis elegans worms,[135−137] and many results suggest little to no toxicity
with small doses (e.g., <1 mg/kg). UCNPs indeed can be regarded
as safer than the cadmium-containing QDs, but they are not completely
safe as an overdose of UCNPs still can induce a severe toxicity. Consequently,
the administration of UCNPs for bioimaging should be kept as minimal
as possible, which again emphasizes the significance of developing
efficient probes.
Conclusion
Various inorganic nanoparticles
have been developed and used as
probes for in vivo biomedical imaging. For MRI and
CT, several nanoparticle-based contrast agents have been shown to
outperform conventional small molecule-based contrast agents in terms
of imaging quality. Moreover, they are less toxic and easier to functionalize
with targeting or stimuli-responsive ligands for effective treatment.
The use of QDs or UCNPs for optical imaging also works as a good alternative
to the optical imaging by organic dyes. The higher photostability
and the larger absorption cross section of the QDs and UCNPs endow in vivo imaging with high-resolution and good signal-to-noise
ratio. Especially, imaging techniques based on the multiphoton or
upconversion process can make use of NIR light to obtain the images
of deeper tissues. Recently, photoacoustic imaging has also emerged
as a promising imaging technique to provide centimeter penetration
depth with micrometer resolution.[138] Even
though photoacoustic imaging exhibits better tissue penetration capability
than anti-Stokes shift-based luminescence imaging, simultaneous imaging
of multiple targets is only allowed by luminescence multicolor imaging,
which is an advantage of luminescence-based imaging.[111] Despite all these benefits, nanoparticle imaging probes
are not yet ready to completely replace the conventional contrast
agents or fluorescence/luminescence dyes. Future research should be
aimed at improving the efficiencies of the imaging modalities as well
as the nanoparticle probes.It is also worth mentioning the possibilities of the nanoparticle
probes for multifunctional capabilities. Since the nanoparticle probes
are usually composed of various inorganic elements and organic molecules
for core material and surface coating, respectively, individual components
can be tailored for specific applications (Figure c).[139] For example,
Gd3+ ions which exhibit T1 MRI
contrast effects can be doped into UCNPs to produce a luminescence/MRI
dual-modal imaging probe. And, Lu3+ (or Yb3+) ions of UCNPs which have high atomic numbers can show a higher
CT contrast enhancement than iodinated ones. This kind of multimodal
imaging strategy is quite useful because the advantages of each imaging
modality, such as high sensitivity or high penetration depth, can
be combined altogether. Moreover, multimodal imaging probes not only
provide the means for complementary imaging of the same region of
interest but also can enable the imaging of different regions by individual
imaging techniques. As a result, more comprehensive and reliable diagnosis
is possible with smaller quantities of nanoparticle probes than those
for separate imaging. Judicious design is necessary, though, as simple
integration without any specific purpose may not bring any synergistic
effect. In addition to the combination of different imaging modalities,
drug molecules can be incorporated onto the surface of the nanoparticle
probes using bioconjugation chemistry, producing theranostic agents.
There are still plenty of untapped possibilities for such combinations
that remain to be realized.As always, biosafety of inorganic
nanoparticle probes is critical,
and it should be assessed carefully to fully draw out the potentials
of the nanoparticle probes in bioimaging. While several issues regarding
the toxicity, biodistribution, and clearance of nanoparticles in living
animals have been investigated for the past decade, our current understanding
is still far from complete. A bottom line would be synthesizing nanoparticle
probes using less toxic elements and green chemistry if possible.
Surface functionality and the overall size of the nanoparticle probes,
which are closely related to the physical properties of the nanoparticle
probes, are also known to affect the circulation, uptake, distribution,
and clearance properties in vivo. Therefore, it would
be required to optimize various factors for the best in vivo results, since the nanoparticle probes with the highest physical
performance do not always necessarily exhibit the greatest biological
efficacy.
Authors: Shuang Fang Lim; Robert Riehn; William S Ryu; Nora Khanarian; Chih-Kuan Tung; David Tank; Robert H Austin Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: Sang Hwan Nam; Yun Mi Bae; Yong Il Park; Jeong Hyun Kim; Hyung Min Kim; Joon Sig Choi; Kang Taek Lee; Taeghwan Hyeon; Yung Doug Suh Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2011-05-13 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: David P Cormode; Ewald Roessl; Axel Thran; Torjus Skajaa; Ronald E Gordon; Jens-Peter Schlomka; Valentin Fuster; Edward A Fisher; Willem J M Mulder; Roland Proksa; Zahi A Fayad Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-07-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Pei Li; Xuewen He; Yang Li; Jacky Wing Yip Lam; Ryan Tsz Kin Kwok; Cun Chuan Wang; Li Gang Xia; Ben Zhong Tang Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-03-12 Impact factor: 10.057