In vivo biodistribution of stem cells using molecular nuclear medicine imaging

Welling, Mick M.; Duijvestein, Marjolijn; Signore, Alberto; Weerd, Louise van der

doi:10.1002/jcp.22539

Cited by 42 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This technique can be combined with both direct (fluorophore labeling, intrinsic disadvantages of direct labeling) or indirect (reporter gene expression, e.g., EGFP) labeling techniques. In contrary to direct labeling, indirect labeling enables long-term monitoring (Frangioni and Hajjar 2004;Welling et al 2011). Fluorescent polymer nanoparticles and QDs can also be used for stem cell monitoring (Jaiswal et al 2004;Shah et al 2007;Wang et al 2013).…”

Section: Flimentioning

confidence: 97%

Lost signature: progress and failures in in vivo tracking of implanted stem cells

Haar

Lavrentieva

Stahl

et al. 2015

Appl Microbiol Biotechnol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stem cell therapy as a part of regenerative medicine provides promising approaches for the treatment of injuries and diseases. The increasing use of mesenchymal stem cells in various medical treatments created the demand for long-term in vivo cell tracking methods. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze post-transplantational survival, biodistribution, and engraftment of cells. Furthermore, stem cell treatment has been discussed controversially due to possible association with tumor formation in the recipient. For therapeutic purpose, stem cells must undergo substantial manipulation such as differentiation and in vitro expansion, and this can lead to the occurrence of genetic aberrations and altered expression of both tumor suppression and carcinogenic factors. To control therapy, it is necessary to find a reliable and general method to track and identify implanted cells in the recipient. This is especially challenging for autologous transplantations, as standard fingerprinting methods cannot be applied. An optimal technique for in vivo cell monitoring does not yet exist, and its development holds several challenges: small numbers of transplanted cells, possibility of cell number quantification, minimal transfer of the contrast agent to non-transplanted cells, and no genetic modification. This review discusses most of the proposed solutions, including magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic particle imaging, positron emission tomography, single-photon emission computed tomography, and optical imaging methods. Additionally, the recent research on cell labeling for stem cell monitoring after transplantation including in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo imaging studies is described. Promising future imaging modalities for stem cell monitoring after transplantation are shown.

show abstract

Section: Flimentioning

confidence: 97%

Lost signature: progress and failures in in vivo tracking of implanted stem cells

Haar

Lavrentieva

Stahl

et al. 2015

Appl Microbiol Biotechnol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…61,62 PET is an imaging method that uses shortlived radioactive isotopes to qualitatively and quantitatively assess the biodistributions of targeting molecules in vivo. PET has a high spatial resolution, enhanced sensitivity, and dynamic imaging capabilities, but is very expensive because cyclotrons are needed to produce short-lived radionuclides for PET imaging.…”

Section: Current Stem Cell Imaging Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular imaging for In vivo tracking of stem cell fate

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stem cells have a potential to dramatically change the common modalities of treatment for many diseases. Despite their rapid transition from animal studies to clinical applications, a number of unanswered questions remain regarding in vivo behaviors of stem cells transplanted into target tissues, including questions about their survival, distribution, migration, differentiation, and tumorigenicity. Recent advances in noninvasive molecular imaging technologies, including optical imaging, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), radionuclide imaging, and reporter genebased imaging, have gradually elucidated the fundamental behaviors of stem cells via in vivo real time qualitative and quantitative monitoring. Here, we briefly review current imaging techniques for tracking stem cells, with an emphasis on the advantages and drawbacks of each imaging approach, and discuss future prospects for in vivo tracking of stem cells in regenerative medicine.

show abstract

“…Therefore, it can provide dynamic tracking imaging and the tissue distribution of transplanted stem cells injected as a therapeutic agent. Direct labeling agents for cell tracking have been developed for in vivo imaging [38,39], such as 18 F-FDG, N-succymidyl-4-18 F-fluorobenzoate ( 18 F-FSB), hexadecyl-4-18 F-fluorobenzoate ( 18 F-HFB), 99m Tc-HMPAO, and 111 Inoxine [40][41][42]. Most radionuclides used for direct labeling have a limitation for long-term monitoring due to their short halflives ( 18 F, t 1/2 =110 min; 99m Tc, t 1/2 =6 h; 111 In, t 1/2 =2.8 d).…”

Section: Direct Labelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stem Cell Monitoring with a Direct or Indirect Labeling Method

Kim

Lee

Kang

2015

Nucl Med Mol Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The molecular imaging techniques allow monitoring of the transplanted cells in the same individuals over time, from early localization to the survival, migration, and differentiation. Generally, there are two methods of stem cell labeling: direct and indirect labeling methods. The direct labeling method introduces a labeling agent into the cell, which is stably incorporated or attached to the cells prior to transplantation. Direct labeling of cells with radionuclides is a simple method with relatively fewer adverse events related to genetic responses. However, it can only allow short-term distribution of transplanted cells because of the decreasing imaging signal with radiodecay, according to the physical half-lives, or the signal becomes more diffuse with cell division and dispersion. The indirect labeling method is based on the expression of a reporter gene transduced into the cell before transplantation, which is then visualized upon the injection of an appropriate probe or substrate. In this review, various imaging strategies to monitor the survival and behavior change of transplanted stem cells are covered. Taking these new approaches together, the direct and indirect labeling methods may provide new insights on the roles of in vivo stem cell monitoring, from bench to bedside.

show abstract

In vivo biodistribution of stem cells using molecular nuclear medicine imaging

Cited by 42 publications

References 61 publications

Lost signature: progress and failures in in vivo tracking of implanted stem cells

Lost signature: progress and failures in in vivo tracking of implanted stem cells

Molecular imaging for In vivo tracking of stem cell fate

Stem Cell Monitoring with a Direct or Indirect Labeling Method

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About