| Literature DB >> 32225079 |
Fouzi Mouffouk1, Hacene Serrai2, Sourav Bhaduri2, Rik Achten2, Mozhdeh Seyyedhamzeh1, Ali A Husain1, Abdullah Alhendal1, Mohammed Zourob3,4.
Abstract
: Detecting tissue pH in vivo is extremely vital for medical diagnosis and formulation of treatment decisions. To this end, many investigations have been carried out to develop an accurate and efficient method of in vivo pH measurement. Most of the techniques developed so far suffer from inadequate accuracy, due to poor sensitivity at low concentration of the target or nonspecific interactions within the tissue matrix. To overcome these issues, we describe herein the development of a simple, yet reliable, way to estimate pH with high precision using a Gd(III)-DOTA-silyl-based acid-labile group as a pH-sensitive contrast agent with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). With this method, a change in T1 weighted image intensity of the newly developed pH-sensitive contrast is directly linked to the proton concentration in the media. As a result, we were able estimate the pH of the target with 95% reliability.Entities:
Keywords: MRI; cancer imaging; pH; sensors
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32225079 PMCID: PMC7180778 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25071513
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Scheme 1Synthesis of Gd(III)-DOTA-silyl complex (4).
Figure 1T weighted in vitro of Gd(III)-DOTA-silyl complex (A) at neutral condition (B) at acidic condition.
Figure 2In vitro T-weighted MR Images of Gd(III)-DOTA-silyl complex solutions at different pH, or lactic acid concentrations.
Calculated Gd concentration using weighted image intensity.
| Tube | N1 | N2 | N3 | N4 | N5 | N6 | N7 | N8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amp (a.u) | 0.85 | 0.83 | 0.79 | 0.76 | 0.68 | 0.67 | 0.55 | 0.50 |
| [Gd+3].10−8 M | 8.89 | 6.95 | 5.70 | 5.60 | 5.00 | 4.80 | 4.60 | 4.45 |
pH calculated based on the assumption of 1, 2, 3 and 4 protons required to lift the shielding on the Gd. The variable pH (actual pH) represents the values measured by the pH meter. The t-value was calculated using the experimental pH values compared to the actual pH values.
| Tubes | N1 | N2 | N3 | N4 | N5 | N6 | N7 | N8 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH (1 proton) | 7.05 | 7.16 | 7.24 | 7.25 | 7.30 | 7.32 | 7.33 | 7.35 | 45.72 |
| pH (2 protons) | 6.74 | 6.85 | 6.94 | 6.96 | 7.00 | 7.01 | 7.03 | 7.05 | 15.42 |
| pH (3 protons) | 6.57 | 6.60 | 6.76 | 6.80 | 6.82 | 6.85 | 6.86 | 6.95 | 1.54 |
| pH (actual pH) | 6.50 | 6.60 | 6.70 | 6.80 | 6.85 | 6.90 | 6.95 | 7.00 | NA |
Figure 3T weighted images of (1) Gd(III)-DOTA-silyl complex with one cleaved silyl group; (2) Gd(III)-DOTA-silyl complex with two cleaved silyl group; (3) Gd(III)-DOTA-silyl complex with three cleaved silyl groups.
Longitudinal relaxation time and relaxation rate of of 1) Gd(III)-DOTA-silyl complex with one cleaved silyl group; 2) Gd(III)-DOTA-silyl complex with two cleaved silyl groups; 3) Gd(III)-DOTA-silyl complex with three cleaved silyl groups.
| CA | T1(ms) | R1×10−3(ms−1) |
|---|---|---|
|
| 141.4 | 7.07 |
|
| 298.7 | 3.3 |
|
| 364.8 | 2.74 |
Figure 4Linear relationship line for the actual pH vs. the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measured pH.
Figure 5T1-weighted image acquired using scans of mice injected with Gd(III)-DOTA-Silyl contrast. L: left leg injected first with lactic acid buffer (pH 5.5) then with the pH sensitive contrast agent. R: right leg injected only with the pH sensitive contrast agent.
Figure 6Cytotoxicity comparison of Gd(III)-DOTA-silyl-based acid-labile group, Dotarem (commercial MRI contrast) and GdCl3 free from at different concentrations (0, 10 and 50 μM) using MTT assay on Jurkat human leukemia cell line.
Figure 7(A) Before contrast agent injection (B) T1-weighted image acquired using scans of mice injected with Gd(III)-DOTA-Silyl contrast after 90 min. (C) Diodistribution of Gd(III)-DOTA-Silyl contrast within the mouse model at various time laps.