A Comparison of the Sensitivity and Cellular Detection Capabilities of Magnetic Particle Imaging and Bioluminescence Imaging

Background: Preclinical cell tracking is enhanced with a multimodal imaging approach. Bioluminescence imaging (BLI) is a highly sensitive optical modality that relies on engineering cells to constitutively express a luciferase gene. Magnetic particle imaging (MPI) is a newer imaging modality that di...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Sophia Trozzo, Bijita Neupane, Paula J. Foster
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2024-11-01
Series:Tomography
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2379-139X/10/11/135
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1846152336749101056
author Sophia Trozzo
Bijita Neupane
Paula J. Foster
author_facet Sophia Trozzo
Bijita Neupane
Paula J. Foster
author_sort Sophia Trozzo
collection DOAJ
description Background: Preclinical cell tracking is enhanced with a multimodal imaging approach. Bioluminescence imaging (BLI) is a highly sensitive optical modality that relies on engineering cells to constitutively express a luciferase gene. Magnetic particle imaging (MPI) is a newer imaging modality that directly detects superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) particles used to label cells. Here, we compare BLI and MPI for imaging cells in vitro and in vivo. Methods: Mouse 4T1 breast carcinoma cells were transduced to express firefly luciferase, labeled with SPIO (ProMag), and imaged as cell samples after subcutaneous injection into mice. Results: For cell samples, the BLI and MPI signals were strongly correlated with cell number. Both modalities presented limitations for imaging cells in vivo. For BLI, weak signal penetration, signal attenuation, and scattering prevented the detection of cells for mice with hair and for cells far from the tissue surface. For MPI, background signals obscured the detection of low cell numbers due to the limited dynamic range, and cell numbers could not be accurately quantified from in vivo images. Conclusions: It is important to understand the shortcomings of these imaging modalities to develop strategies to improve cellular detection sensitivity.
format Article
id doaj-art-46d6bbcbde3f458c8b1de7db5b2bc6be
institution Kabale University
issn 2379-1381
2379-139X
language English
publishDate 2024-11-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
series Tomography
spelling doaj-art-46d6bbcbde3f458c8b1de7db5b2bc6be2024-11-26T18:23:39ZengMDPI AGTomography2379-13812379-139X2024-11-0110111846186610.3390/tomography10110135A Comparison of the Sensitivity and Cellular Detection Capabilities of Magnetic Particle Imaging and Bioluminescence ImagingSophia Trozzo0Bijita Neupane1Paula J. Foster2Department of Medical Biophysics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON N6A 3K7, CanadaDepartment of Medical Biophysics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON N6A 3K7, CanadaDepartment of Medical Biophysics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON N6A 3K7, CanadaBackground: Preclinical cell tracking is enhanced with a multimodal imaging approach. Bioluminescence imaging (BLI) is a highly sensitive optical modality that relies on engineering cells to constitutively express a luciferase gene. Magnetic particle imaging (MPI) is a newer imaging modality that directly detects superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) particles used to label cells. Here, we compare BLI and MPI for imaging cells in vitro and in vivo. Methods: Mouse 4T1 breast carcinoma cells were transduced to express firefly luciferase, labeled with SPIO (ProMag), and imaged as cell samples after subcutaneous injection into mice. Results: For cell samples, the BLI and MPI signals were strongly correlated with cell number. Both modalities presented limitations for imaging cells in vivo. For BLI, weak signal penetration, signal attenuation, and scattering prevented the detection of cells for mice with hair and for cells far from the tissue surface. For MPI, background signals obscured the detection of low cell numbers due to the limited dynamic range, and cell numbers could not be accurately quantified from in vivo images. Conclusions: It is important to understand the shortcomings of these imaging modalities to develop strategies to improve cellular detection sensitivity.https://www.mdpi.com/2379-139X/10/11/135cell trackingmagnetic particle imagingbioluminescence imagingmultimodal imagingsensitivitycell detection
spellingShingle Sophia Trozzo
Bijita Neupane
Paula J. Foster
A Comparison of the Sensitivity and Cellular Detection Capabilities of Magnetic Particle Imaging and Bioluminescence Imaging
Tomography
cell tracking
magnetic particle imaging
bioluminescence imaging
multimodal imaging
sensitivity
cell detection
title A Comparison of the Sensitivity and Cellular Detection Capabilities of Magnetic Particle Imaging and Bioluminescence Imaging
title_full A Comparison of the Sensitivity and Cellular Detection Capabilities of Magnetic Particle Imaging and Bioluminescence Imaging
title_fullStr A Comparison of the Sensitivity and Cellular Detection Capabilities of Magnetic Particle Imaging and Bioluminescence Imaging
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of the Sensitivity and Cellular Detection Capabilities of Magnetic Particle Imaging and Bioluminescence Imaging
title_short A Comparison of the Sensitivity and Cellular Detection Capabilities of Magnetic Particle Imaging and Bioluminescence Imaging
title_sort comparison of the sensitivity and cellular detection capabilities of magnetic particle imaging and bioluminescence imaging
topic cell tracking
magnetic particle imaging
bioluminescence imaging
multimodal imaging
sensitivity
cell detection
url https://www.mdpi.com/2379-139X/10/11/135
work_keys_str_mv AT sophiatrozzo acomparisonofthesensitivityandcellulardetectioncapabilitiesofmagneticparticleimagingandbioluminescenceimaging
AT bijitaneupane acomparisonofthesensitivityandcellulardetectioncapabilitiesofmagneticparticleimagingandbioluminescenceimaging
AT paulajfoster acomparisonofthesensitivityandcellulardetectioncapabilitiesofmagneticparticleimagingandbioluminescenceimaging
AT sophiatrozzo comparisonofthesensitivityandcellulardetectioncapabilitiesofmagneticparticleimagingandbioluminescenceimaging
AT bijitaneupane comparisonofthesensitivityandcellulardetectioncapabilitiesofmagneticparticleimagingandbioluminescenceimaging
AT paulajfoster comparisonofthesensitivityandcellulardetectioncapabilitiesofmagneticparticleimagingandbioluminescenceimaging