MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018732678 · doi:10.1016/j.ymthe.2006.08.1186

1085. In Vivo Imaging of Microencapsulated Gene Therapy

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

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Therapy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Interference and Gene Delivery
Canadian institutionsJuravinski Cancer CentreMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn vivoLuciferaseBiomedical engineeringPreclinical imagingGenetic enhancementIn vitroBioluminescence imagingChemistryCell biologyMaterials scienceBiophysicsBiologyTransfectionMedicineBiochemistryGeneBiotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular TherapySame topicRNA Interference and Gene DeliveryFrench-language works237,207