| Literature DB >> 31624285 |
Yuxi C Dong1,2, Maryam Hajfathalian1, Portia S N Maidment1, Jessica C Hsu1,2, Pratap C Naha1, Salim Si-Mohamed3,4, Marine Breuilly4, Johoon Kim1,2, Peter Chhour1, Philippe Douek3,4, Harold I Litt1,5, David P Cormode6,7,8.
Abstract
Computed tomography (CT) is one of the most commonly used clinical imaging modalities. There have recently been many reports of novel contrast agents for CT imaging. In particular, the development of gold nanoparticles (AuNP) as CT contrast agents is a topic of intense interest. AuNP have favorable characteristics for this application such as high payloads of contrast generating material, strong X-ray attenuation, excellent biocompatibility, tailorable surface chemistry, and tunable sizes and shapes. However, there have been conflicting reports on the role of AuNP size on their contrast generation for CT. We therefore sought to extensively investigate the AuNP size-CT contrast relationship. In order to do this, we synthesized AuNP with sizes ranging from 4 to 152 nm and capped them with 5 kDa m-PEG. The contrast generation of AuNP of different sizes was investigated with three clinical CT, a spectral photon counting CT (SPCCT) and two micro CT systems. X-ray attenuation was quantified as attenuation rate in Hounsfield units per unit concentration (HU/mM). No statistically significant difference in CT contrast generation was found among different AuNP sizes via phantom imaging with any of the systems tested. Furthermore, in vivo imaging was performed in mice to provide insight into the effect of AuNP size on animal biodistribution at CT dose levels, which has not previously been explored. Both in vivo imaging and ex vivo analysis with inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) indicated that AuNP that are 15 nm or smaller have long blood circulation times, while larger AuNP accumulated in the liver and spleen more rapidly. Therefore, while we observed no AuNP size effect on CT contrast generation, there is a significant effect of size on AuNP diagnostic utility.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31624285 PMCID: PMC6797746 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-50332-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
The 15 nm AuNP seeds volume needed for syntheses of AuNP with a range of sizes, the amount of ligand needed to stabilize AuNP, and centrifugation parameters for particle washing.
| AuNP size (nm) | Seed volume (μL) | Mass m-PEG (mg) | Centrifugation speed (rcf) | Centrifuge tube |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | N/A | 12.61 | 2500 | 10 kDa molecular weight cut off (MWCO) tubes |
| 15 | N/A | 4.20 | 2500 | 10 kDa molecular weight cut off (MWCO) tubes |
| 50 | 3000 | 2.18 | 3200 | 50 mL falcon tubes |
| 79 | 750 | 1.41 | 1450 | 50 mL falcon tubes |
| 100 | 300 | 1.05 | 750 | 50 mL falcon tubes |
| 152 | 100 | 0.70 | 350 | 50 mL falcon tubes |
Summary of AuNP characterization.
| Size (nm) | Core diameter (nm) | Hydrodynamic diameter (nm) | Polydispersity index | Zeta-potential (mV) | Absorbance peak (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 3.9 ± 1.2 | 24.1 ± 1.2 | 0.22 ± 0.03 | −6.0 ± 0.3 | 512 |
| 15 | 14.8 ± 3.9 | 40.7 ± 0.6 | 0.26 ± 0.06 | −20.3 ± 5.5 | 521 |
| 50 | 50.6 ± 4.9 | 69.9 ± 0.1 | 0.08 ± 0.02 | −24.2 ± 0.7 | 532 |
| 79 | 78.9 ± 10.5 | 96.9 ± 0.2 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | −32.7 ± 0.3 | 551 |
| 100 | 99.2 ± 11.3 | 104.8 ± 0.4 | 0.17 ± 0.02 | −35.5 ± 0.7 | 575 |
| 152 | 152.3 ± 16.4 | 140.6 ± 0.6 | 0.17 ± 0.01 | −32.1 ± 1.1 | 627 |
The core sizes of the AuNP were calculated from TEM. The hydrodynamic diameters were measured with dynamic light scattering (DLS). The polydispersity indexes were derived from DLS measurements. The plus-minus symbol represents the standard deviation of the measurements in each case.
Figure 1TEM of (A) 4 nm, (B) 15 nm, (C) 50 nm, (D) 79 nm, (E) 100 nm, (F) 152 nm AuNP. The scale bars represent 100 nm in all panels.
Figure 2(A) Representative sample phantom images from Siemens SOMATOM Force CT scanner. (B) X-ray attenuation changes versus concentration for 50 nm AuNP scanned by a Siemens SOMATOM Definition AS CT at 80 kV. (C) Attenuation rate values for the AuNP formulation for the scanners noted at 80, 100, 120 and 140 kV.
Figure 3(A) Images generated from an SPCCT phantom scan of AuNP of 4 nm ranging from 0 to 10 mg Au/mL in concentration. Conventional CT equivalent image, water image and gold image (left to right). (B) Attenuation rate values for the AuNP formulation for the SPCCT scanner at 120 kV. No significant difference of attenuation rate was found between any AuNP formulation. (C) Ratios of measured gold concentrations from gold specific images and actual gold concentrations. No significant difference in ratio was found between any AuNP formulation. (D) Measured gold concentrations from gold specific images are in agreement with the actual gold concentrations.
Figure 4Representative 3D volume rendered CT images at 2 hours post-injection of the AuNP indicated. Images are displayed at a window level of 1090 HU and window width of 930 HU. With this color look up table, the bones of the animal are shown in a bone-like color and contrast arising from the injected AuNP is shown in red to orange-yellow. Images are displayed with a voxel size of 100 μm.
Figure 5Attenuation changes in different organs over time. A Tukey’s multiple comparisons test was used to compare the changes in attenuation between AuNP sizes. The statistical analysis results are provided in Supporting Table 2.
Figure 6(A) Biodistribution of AuNP in different organs at 2 hours post-injection. A Tukey’s multiple comparisons test was done to compare the interactions between each AuNP size. (B) Comparison between the attenuation change in different organs derived from CT scans performed at 2 hours post-injection and biodistribution of AuNP in different organs at 2 hours post-injection determined with ICP-OES.
Comparisons of AuNP tissue distribution by mouse gender at 2 hours post-injection.
| 4 nm | 15 nm | 50 nm | 79 nm | 100 nm | 152 nm | P-Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Heart | Female | 1.43 | 4.46 | 5.92 | 7.93 | 1.17 | 0.62 | 0.208 |
| Male | 0.92 | 3.81 | 4.95 | 2.14 | 3.02 | 1.50 | ||
| Liver | Female | 5.03 | 8.29 | 27.94 | 83.77 | 41.8 | 30.79 | 0.062 |
| Male | 9.67 | 5.69 | 37.20 | 41.35 | 60.93 | 19.68 | ||
| Lung | Female | 1.54 | 6.30 | 4.18 | 40.12 | 50.16 | 45.82 | 0.169 |
| Male | 8.38 | 6.58 | 15.78 | 24.17 | 71.01 | 52.12 | ||
| Kidney | Female | 4.31 | 9.46 | 4.10 | 2.37 | 0.70 | 1.30 | 0.217 |
| Male | 4.38 | 6.39 | 1.67 | 0.95 | 3.02 | 0.57 | ||
| Spleen | Female | 4.13 | 7.87 | 51.02 | 61.06 | 85.74 | 34.69 | 0.093 |
| Male | 3.35 | 5.03 | 46.14 | 41.89 | 49.5 | 24.04 | ||
| Blood | Female | 32.30 | 35.84 | 12.00 | 4.45 | 2.77 | 1.61 | 0.180 |
| Male | 8.50 | 33.61 | 5.06 | 3.47 | 3.63 | 1.44 | ||
No significant differences were found between gender in each organ.
Significant difference by two-way ANOVA between male and female.