ArticlePharmaceutical research2014
Opening up the optical imaging window using nano-luciferin.
Article in Pharmaceutical research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular Imaging of Pancreatic Cancer with Antibodies.Molecular pharmaceutics · 2016Review
- Extracellular vesicle in vivo biodistribution is determined by cell source, route of administration and targeting.Journal of extracellular vesicles · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe objective of this study was to formulate nanoparticles of D-luciferin (Nano-Luc), DiR (Nano-DiR) and dual functional nanoparticles with DiR and luciferin (Nano-LucDiR) for in-vivo imaging as well as tracking of the nanoparticles in tumors.
methodsNano-Luc and Nano-LucDiR were prepared using different lipids, and subsequently characterized for loading and entrapment efficiency, physical properties, release profile, toxicity and stability. We utilized Response Surface Methodology (RSM) to optimize the nanoparticles using design of experiment (DOE Vr.8.0). Nano-Luc was evaluated against free luciferin to establish its pharmacokinetic parameters in mice. In-vivo imaging of tumors and tracking of nanoparticles was carried out with an IVIS® Spectrum-CT (Caliper) using xenograft, orthotopic and metastatic tumor models in BALB/c nude mice with different cell lines and different routes of nanoparticle administration (subcutaneous, intraperitoneal and intravenous).
resultsParticle size of both Nano-Luc and Nano-LucDiR were found to be <200 nm. Nano-Luc formulation showed a slow and controlled release upto 72 h (90%) in vitro. The optimized Nano-Luc had loading efficiency of 5.0 mg/ml with 99% encapsulation efficiency. Nano-Luc and Nano-LucDiR formulations had good shelf stability. Nano-Luc and Nano-LucDiR enhanced plasma half-life of luciferin compared to free luciferin thus providing longer circulation of luciferin in plasma enabling imaging of tumors for more than 24 h. Nano-LucDiR allowed simultaneous bioluminescent and fluorescent imaging to be conducted, with three-dimensional reconstruct of tumors without losing either signal during the acquisition time.
conclusionNano-Luc and Nano-LucDiR allowed prolonged reproducible in-vivo imaging of tumors, especially during multimodality 3D imaging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.