Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16524461›Full record

ArticleBMC biotechnology2006

Optical imaging of luminescence for in vivo quantification of gene electrotransfer in mouse muscle and knee.

C Bloquel, C Trollet, E Pradines, J Seguin, D Scherman, M F Bureau

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC biotechnology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

C BloquelInserm, U640, Paris, F-75006 France. carole.bloquel@idf.inserm.fr
C Trollet
E Pradines
J Seguin
D Scherman
M F Bureau
Chimie ParisTech · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRDélégation Paris 5 · FRInserm · FRUniversité Paris Cité · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOptical imaging is an attractive non-invasive way to evaluate the expression of a transferred DNA, mainly thanks to its lower cost and ease of realization. In this study optical imaging was evaluated for monitoring and quantification of the mouse knee joint and tibial cranial muscle electrotransfer of a luciferase encoding plasmid. Optical imaging was applied to study the kinetics of luciferase expression in both tissues.

resultsThe substrate of luciferase (luciferin) was injected either intraperitonealy (i.p.) or in situ into the muscle or the knee joint. Luminescence resulting from the luciferase-luciferin reaction was measured in vivo with a cooled CCD camera and/or in vitro on tissue lysate. Maximal luminescence of the knee joint and muscle after i.p. (2.5 mg) or local injection of luciferin (50 microg in the knee joint, 100 microg in the muscle) were highly correlated. With the local injection procedure adopted, in vivo and in vitro luminescences measured on the same muscles significantly correlated. Luminescence measurements were reproducible and the signal level was proportional to the amount of plasmid injected. In vivo luciferase activity in the electrotransfered knee joint was detected for two weeks. Intramuscular electrotransfer of 0.3 or 3 microg of plasmid led to stable luciferase expression for 62 days, whereas injecting 30 microg of plasmid resulted in a drop of luminescence three weeks after electrotransfer. These decreases were partially associated with the development of an immune response.

conclusionA particular advantage of the i.p. injection of substrate is a widespread distribution at luciferase production sites. We have also highlighted advantages of local injection as a more sensitive detection method with reduced substrate consumption. Besides, this route of injection is relatively free of uncontrolled parameters, such as diffusion to the target organ, crossing of biological barriers and evidencing variations in local enzymatic kinetics, probably related to the reaction medium in the targeted organ. Optical imaging was shown to be a sensitive and relevant technique to quantify variations of luciferase activity in vivo. Further evaluation of the effective amount of luciferase in a given tissue by in vivo optical imaging relies on conditions of the enzymatic reaction and light absorption and presently requires in vitro calibration for each targeted organ.

Indexed as

ElectroporationLuminescent MeasurementsAnimalsFemaleFirefly LuciferinGene ExpressionGenes, ReporterImage Processing, Computer-AssistedInjectionsInjections, IntraperitonealKineticsKnee JointLuciferases, FireflyLuminescent AgentsMiceMice, Inbred C57BLFirefly LuciferinLuciferases, FireflyLuminescent Agents

Identifiers

PMID16524461
PMCPMC1431530
OpenAlexW2099304387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.