Comparison of subcutaneous and intraperitoneal injection of d-luciferin for in vivo bioluminescence imaging

Abstract

In addition to rare injection failure, the IP injection of D: -luciferin led to the overestimation of signals from IP tissues. For BLI, SC injection was shown to be a convenient alternative to IP injection.

Comparison of human optimized bacterial luciferase, firefly luciferase, and green fluorescent protein for continuous imaging of cell culture and animal models

“…In addition, the act of administering luciferin encompasses its own set of concerns. It has been well documented that the bioluminescent profile can be altered depending on the route of substrate administration for Luc-based systems, 15 with each route having different uptake rates throughout the body. 16 Also of concern, the process of substrate injection allows for the introduction of error due to differences in the efficiency of each injection and/or the possibility of potential injection failure (i.e., injection into the bowel during intraperitoneal administration).…”

Mammalian-Based Bioreporter Targets: Protein Expression for Bioluminescent and Fluorescent Detection in the Mammalian Cellular Background

“…However, the chosen route of substrate injection can have influential effects on the emission of a luminescent signal. As a result, although logistical concerns may be most pertinent to consideration for investigators, the method of injection should be considered in light of the proposed objectives of any study (Inoue et al, 2009). The three most common substrate injection routes are intraperitoneal, intravenous, and subcutaneous.…”

“…In addition, investigator error can lead to injection into the bowel, causing a weak or non-existent luminescent signal that can be confused with a negative result (Baba et al, 2007). Because of the associated diffusion, intraperitoneal injection produces lower peak luminescence levels than alternate injection techniques when inducing light production in subcutaneous tumor models, however, it has been found that it can also overestimate tumor size when used to induce luminescence from intraperitoneal or spleen-localized tumors, due to direct contact between the luciferin and the luciferase expressing cells (Inoue et al, 2009). The greater availability of the luciferin to the luciferase containing cells increases the amount of bioluminescent output by allowing them greater access to their luciferin without being limited by diffusion through non-luciferase containing tissue.…”

“…Because the administration of the luciferin is systemic, it allows for lower doses to be administered to achieve similar luminescence intensities as would be seen using alternate injection routes (Keyaerts et al, 2008), however, studies using radio-labeled D-luciferin have indicated that the uptake rate of intravenously injected substrate is slower in the gastrointestinal organs, pancreas, and spleen than would be achieved using intraperitoneal injection (Lee et al, 2003). It is also important to note that when intravenous injection is used, the resulting luminescent signal is often of a much shorter duration than would be observed using alternate injection routes (Inoue et al, 2009). …”

“…Bryant et al (Bryant et al, 2008) have demonstrated that repeated subcutaneous injection of luciferin can provide a simple and accurate model for monitoring brain tumor growth in rats, and though there is concern that repeated injection could cause excessive tissue damage, it has been demonstrated that the repeated subcutaneous injection of D-luciferin or coelenterazine into an animal model results in minimal injection site damage while providing researchers with bioluminescent signals that correlate well with intraperitoneal substrate injection luminescent profiles, albeit with a longer lag time prior to reaching tumor models in the intraperitoneal space (Inoue et al, 2009). …”