MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072680918 · doi:10.3727/096368911x637416

<sup>18</sup> F-FDG Cell Labeling May Underestimate Transplanted Cell Homing: More Accurate, Efficient, and Stable Cell Labeling with Hexadecyl-4-[ <sup>18</sup> F]Fluorobenzoate for in Vivo Tracking of Transplanted Human Progenitor Cells by Positron Emission Tomography

2012· article· en· W2072680918 on OpenAlex
Yan Zhang, Jean N. DaSilva, Tayebeh Hadizad, Stephanie Thorn, Drew Kuraitis, Jennifer M. Renaud, Ali Ahmadi, Myra Kordos, Robert A. deKemp, Rob Beanlands, Erik J. Suuronen, Marc Ruel

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Transplantation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMesenchymal stem cell research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn vivoEx vivoChemistryCellPerfusionPositron emission tomographyProgenitor cellNuclear medicineViability assayMedicineIn vitroStem cellBiologyCardiologyBiochemistryCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cell therapy is expected to restore perfusion and improve function in the ischemic/infarcted myocardium; however, the biological mechanisms and local effects of transplanted cells remain unclear. To assess cell fate in vivo, hexadecyl-4-[(18)F]fluorobenzoate ((18)F-HFB) cell labeling was evaluated for tracking human circulating progenitor cells (CPCs) with positron emission tomography (PET) and was compared to the commonly used 2-[(18)F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose ((18)F-FDG) labeling method in a rat myocardial infarction model. CPCs were labeled with 18F-HFB or (18)F-FDG ex vivo under the same conditions. (18)F-HFB cell-labeling efficiency (23.4 ± 7.5%) and stability (4 h, 88.4 ± 6.0%) were superior to (18)F-FDG (7.6 ± 4.1% and 26.6 ± 6.1%, respectively; p < 0.05). Neither labeling approach significantly altered cell viability, phenotype or migration potential up to 24 h postlabeling. Two weeks after left anterior descending coronary artery ligation, rats received echo-guided intramyocardial injection in the infarct border zone with (18)F-HFB-CPCs, (18)F-FDG-CPCs, (18)F-HFB, or (18)F-FDG. Dynamic PET imaging of both (18)F-HFB-CPCs and(18)F-FDG-CPCs demonstrated that only 16-37% of the initial injection dose (ID) was retained in the injection site at 10 min postdelivery, and remaining activity fell significantly over the first 4 h posttransplantation. The (18)F-HFB-CPC signal in the target area at 2 h (23.7 ± 14.7% ID/g) and 4 h (17.6 ± 13.3% ID/g) postinjection was greater than that of (18)F-FDG-CPCs (5.4 ± 2.3% ID/g and 2.6 ± 0.7% ID/g, respectively;p < 0.05). Tissue biodistribution confirmed the higher radioactivity in the border zone of (18)F-HFB-CPC rats. Immunostaining of heart tissue sections revealed no significant difference in cell retention between two labeled cell transplantation groups. Good correlation with biodistribution results was observed in the (18)F-HFB-CPC rats (r = 0.81, p < 0.05). Compared to (18)F-FDG, labeling human CPCs with(18)F-HFB provides a more efficient, stable, and accurate way to quantify the distribution of transplanted cells. (18)F-HFB cell labeling with PET imaging offers a better modality to enhance our understanding of early retention, homing, and engraftment with cardiac cell therapy.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.269 · 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