Limits...
Simultaneous MR imaging for tissue engineering in a rat model of stroke.

Nicholls FJ, Ling W, Ferrauto G, Aime S, Modo M - Sci Rep (2015)

Bottom Line: Considering the varied lesion topology within each subject, the placement and distribution of cells within the lesion cavity is challenging.The use of multiple cell types to reconstruct damaged tissue illustrates the complexity of the process, but also highlights the challenges to provide a non-invasive assessment.The distribution of implanted cells within the lesion cavity and crucially the contribution of neural stem cells and endothelial cells to morphogenesis could be visualized simultaneously using two paramagnetic chemical exchange saturation transfer (paraCEST) agents.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Radiology, Pittsburgh, PA.

ABSTRACT
In situ tissue engineering within a stroke cavity is gradually emerging as a novel therapeutic paradigm. Considering the varied lesion topology within each subject, the placement and distribution of cells within the lesion cavity is challenging. The use of multiple cell types to reconstruct damaged tissue illustrates the complexity of the process, but also highlights the challenges to provide a non-invasive assessment. The distribution of implanted cells within the lesion cavity and crucially the contribution of neural stem cells and endothelial cells to morphogenesis could be visualized simultaneously using two paramagnetic chemical exchange saturation transfer (paraCEST) agents. The development of sophisticated imaging methods is essential to guide delivery of the building blocks for in situ tissue engineering, but will also be essential to understand the dynamics of cellular interactions leading to the formation of de novo tissue.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

In vitro imaging of cell mixtures.(A) To determine if the required cell ratio will afford visualization, Eu-HPDO3A-labeled and unlabeled NSCs pellets were scanned in vitro to reveal a 1.1% difference in signal. (B) A 12% signal difference was evident between Yb-HPDO3A-labeled and unlabeled ECs. (C) At a cell mixture of 1 EC for every 4 NSCs, a signal asymmetry of 1.1% was maintained for Eu-labeled NSCs, but due to the lower abundance of Yb-HPDO3A-labelled ECs only a 2.3% effect was detected. (D) A 1.1% signal for Eu-HPDO3A-labelled cells was consistent, but a reliable distinction from noise required >5 signal averages.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4588587&req=5

f5: In vitro imaging of cell mixtures.(A) To determine if the required cell ratio will afford visualization, Eu-HPDO3A-labeled and unlabeled NSCs pellets were scanned in vitro to reveal a 1.1% difference in signal. (B) A 12% signal difference was evident between Yb-HPDO3A-labeled and unlabeled ECs. (C) At a cell mixture of 1 EC for every 4 NSCs, a signal asymmetry of 1.1% was maintained for Eu-labeled NSCs, but due to the lower abundance of Yb-HPDO3A-labelled ECs only a 2.3% effect was detected. (D) A 1.1% signal for Eu-HPDO3A-labelled cells was consistent, but a reliable distinction from noise required >5 signal averages.

Mentions: In cell pellets of a single cell type, NSCs labeled with Eu-HPDO3A produce a signal differential of 1.1% compared to unlabeled NSCs (Fig. 5A). In contrast, the differential between Yb-HPDO3A and unlabeled ECs was 12% (Fig. 5B). A homogenous 4:1 NSC mixture resulted in contrast of 1.1% for Eu-HPDO3A and 2.4% for Yb-HPDO3A labeled cells compared to an unlabeled control cell mixture (Fig. 5C). As the effect size of the asymmetry is low, a key aspect is the variability of the signal to afford a reliable distinction between labeled and unlabeled cells. Increasing the number of acquisition averages to 10, reduced variability while maintaining the same effect size (Fig. 5D). Nevertheless, a significant difference between paraCEST labeled and unlabeled cells can be achieved within the same voxel.


Simultaneous MR imaging for tissue engineering in a rat model of stroke.

Nicholls FJ, Ling W, Ferrauto G, Aime S, Modo M - Sci Rep (2015)

In vitro imaging of cell mixtures.(A) To determine if the required cell ratio will afford visualization, Eu-HPDO3A-labeled and unlabeled NSCs pellets were scanned in vitro to reveal a 1.1% difference in signal. (B) A 12% signal difference was evident between Yb-HPDO3A-labeled and unlabeled ECs. (C) At a cell mixture of 1 EC for every 4 NSCs, a signal asymmetry of 1.1% was maintained for Eu-labeled NSCs, but due to the lower abundance of Yb-HPDO3A-labelled ECs only a 2.3% effect was detected. (D) A 1.1% signal for Eu-HPDO3A-labelled cells was consistent, but a reliable distinction from noise required >5 signal averages.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4588587&req=5

f5: In vitro imaging of cell mixtures.(A) To determine if the required cell ratio will afford visualization, Eu-HPDO3A-labeled and unlabeled NSCs pellets were scanned in vitro to reveal a 1.1% difference in signal. (B) A 12% signal difference was evident between Yb-HPDO3A-labeled and unlabeled ECs. (C) At a cell mixture of 1 EC for every 4 NSCs, a signal asymmetry of 1.1% was maintained for Eu-labeled NSCs, but due to the lower abundance of Yb-HPDO3A-labelled ECs only a 2.3% effect was detected. (D) A 1.1% signal for Eu-HPDO3A-labelled cells was consistent, but a reliable distinction from noise required >5 signal averages.
Mentions: In cell pellets of a single cell type, NSCs labeled with Eu-HPDO3A produce a signal differential of 1.1% compared to unlabeled NSCs (Fig. 5A). In contrast, the differential between Yb-HPDO3A and unlabeled ECs was 12% (Fig. 5B). A homogenous 4:1 NSC mixture resulted in contrast of 1.1% for Eu-HPDO3A and 2.4% for Yb-HPDO3A labeled cells compared to an unlabeled control cell mixture (Fig. 5C). As the effect size of the asymmetry is low, a key aspect is the variability of the signal to afford a reliable distinction between labeled and unlabeled cells. Increasing the number of acquisition averages to 10, reduced variability while maintaining the same effect size (Fig. 5D). Nevertheless, a significant difference between paraCEST labeled and unlabeled cells can be achieved within the same voxel.

Bottom Line: Considering the varied lesion topology within each subject, the placement and distribution of cells within the lesion cavity is challenging.The use of multiple cell types to reconstruct damaged tissue illustrates the complexity of the process, but also highlights the challenges to provide a non-invasive assessment.The distribution of implanted cells within the lesion cavity and crucially the contribution of neural stem cells and endothelial cells to morphogenesis could be visualized simultaneously using two paramagnetic chemical exchange saturation transfer (paraCEST) agents.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Radiology, Pittsburgh, PA.

ABSTRACT
In situ tissue engineering within a stroke cavity is gradually emerging as a novel therapeutic paradigm. Considering the varied lesion topology within each subject, the placement and distribution of cells within the lesion cavity is challenging. The use of multiple cell types to reconstruct damaged tissue illustrates the complexity of the process, but also highlights the challenges to provide a non-invasive assessment. The distribution of implanted cells within the lesion cavity and crucially the contribution of neural stem cells and endothelial cells to morphogenesis could be visualized simultaneously using two paramagnetic chemical exchange saturation transfer (paraCEST) agents. The development of sophisticated imaging methods is essential to guide delivery of the building blocks for in situ tissue engineering, but will also be essential to understand the dynamics of cellular interactions leading to the formation of de novo tissue.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus