MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2018732678 · doi:10.1016/j.ymthe.2006.08.1186

1085. In Vivo Imaging of Microencapsulated Gene Therapy

2006· article· en· W2018732678 sur OpenAlexaff
Anna Li, Donna Y. Hou, Feng Shen, Eric Seidlitz, Patricia L. Chang, Murray Potter

Notice bibliographique

RevueMolecular Therapy · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueRNA Interference and Gene Delivery
Établissements canadiensJuravinski Cancer CentreMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIn vivoLuciferaseBiomedical engineeringPreclinical imagingGenetic enhancementIn vitroBioluminescence imagingChemistryCell biologyMaterials scienceBiophysicsBiologyTransfectionMedicineBiochemistryGeneBiotechnology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Microencapsulated cells engineered to secrete therapeutic proteins have been effectively applied in treating several genetic disorders such as dwarfism, lysosomal storage diseases, hemophilia, and cancer in mouse models. While various classes of microcapsules have been developed for use in this type of gene therapy, the most commonly used and studied have been the alginate-poly-L-lysine-alginate (APA) microcapsules. Once these microcapsules are administered to an animal, however, the fate of the implanted microcapsules and their engineered-cell payload can only be directly ascertained by surgical retrieval. Our group has previously established a novel method to quantitatively monitor the microcapsules in vivo with MRI by incorporating ferrofluid into the microcapsule. However there is limited availability of MRI for small animal studies and this technique does not provide information about the cells contained in the microcapsule. To overcome these limitations, we have developed a system to track the implanted microcapsules and their cells with in vivo bioluminescent imaging (BLI).We have developed a cell line expressing luciferase (pMONO- Luci & pC3B.sp.Luci with signal peptide) that allows us to monitor microcapsule integrity and encapsulated cell viability in vivo. BLI has become widely available as a research tool, making this technique more accessible than other imaging modalities. In our experiment, luciferase-expressing microencapsulated cells were imaged with a cooled charge-coupled device (CCCD) camera in vitro after exposure to luciferin substrate for 30 seconds, and in vivo after implantation into the peritoneal cavity of BalB/C mice aged 6–8 weeks (3 ml capsules per mouse in 2 ml saline). In vitro experiments showed that capsules loaded in 96-well-plate can be monitored individually and quantitatively, both for single or multi-layered loading. In vivo experiments confirmed that at various time points (4, 24, 48, 72, 96 hrs), with the injection of the substrate luciferin (injected i.p. at 150 mg/kg), the luciferase signal could be detected for the duration of the study (5 days). The strongest signal was seen at 4 hours post- implantation, with a subsequent fivefold decrease by 24 hours. The luciferase signal then increased consistently till the last time point of our study (96 hours) when the signal was 73% of the maximum. We postulate that the decrease of the luciferase signal from 4 hours to 24 hours post-implantation might be due to the initial diffusion of the expressed protein from the transfected cells into the peritoneal fluid and the blood. There was no indication of distribution of luciferase into the organs (liver, spleen, kidney, lung, heart, muscle and brain). The consistent increase of the signal from 24 hours to 96 hours likely reflects the proliferation of the encapsulated cells and increased expressed luciferase.Our data indicates that luciferase could be developed as a marker for microencapsulated cells to monitor the status of microcapsules and encapsulated cells after 24 hours post-implantation. Microencapsulated cells engineered to secrete therapeutic proteins have been effectively applied in treating several genetic disorders such as dwarfism, lysosomal storage diseases, hemophilia, and cancer in mouse models. While various classes of microcapsules have been developed for use in this type of gene therapy, the most commonly used and studied have been the alginate-poly-L-lysine-alginate (APA) microcapsules. Once these microcapsules are administered to an animal, however, the fate of the implanted microcapsules and their engineered-cell payload can only be directly ascertained by surgical retrieval. Our group has previously established a novel method to quantitatively monitor the microcapsules in vivo with MRI by incorporating ferrofluid into the microcapsule. However there is limited availability of MRI for small animal studies and this technique does not provide information about the cells contained in the microcapsule. To overcome these limitations, we have developed a system to track the implanted microcapsules and their cells with in vivo bioluminescent imaging (BLI). We have developed a cell line expressing luciferase (pMONO- Luci & pC3B.sp.Luci with signal peptide) that allows us to monitor microcapsule integrity and encapsulated cell viability in vivo. BLI has become widely available as a research tool, making this technique more accessible than other imaging modalities. In our experiment, luciferase-expressing microencapsulated cells were imaged with a cooled charge-coupled device (CCCD) camera in vitro after exposure to luciferin substrate for 30 seconds, and in vivo after implantation into the peritoneal cavity of BalB/C mice aged 6–8 weeks (3 ml capsules per mouse in 2 ml saline). In vitro experiments showed that capsules loaded in 96-well-plate can be monitored individually and quantitatively, both for single or multi-layered loading. In vivo experiments confirmed that at various time points (4, 24, 48, 72, 96 hrs), with the injection of the substrate luciferin (injected i.p. at 150 mg/kg), the luciferase signal could be detected for the duration of the study (5 days). The strongest signal was seen at 4 hours post- implantation, with a subsequent fivefold decrease by 24 hours. The luciferase signal then increased consistently till the last time point of our study (96 hours) when the signal was 73% of the maximum. We postulate that the decrease of the luciferase signal from 4 hours to 24 hours post-implantation might be due to the initial diffusion of the expressed protein from the transfected cells into the peritoneal fluid and the blood. There was no indication of distribution of luciferase into the organs (liver, spleen, kidney, lung, heart, muscle and brain). The consistent increase of the signal from 24 hours to 96 hours likely reflects the proliferation of the encapsulated cells and increased expressed luciferase. Our data indicates that luciferase could be developed as a marker for microencapsulated cells to monitor the status of microcapsules and encapsulated cells after 24 hours post-implantation.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,009
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,682

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,006
Tête enseignante GPT0,223
Écart entre enseignants0,218 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMolecular TherapyMême sujetRNA Interference and Gene DeliveryTravaux en français237 207