Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 219

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Positron Emission Tomography Imaging Using Radiolabeled Inorganic Nanomaterials

Open access
Sun, Xiaolian, Cai, Weibo, Chen, Xiaoyuan·2015·Accounts of Chemical Research

Abstract

CONSPECTUS: Positron emission tomography (PET) is a radionuclide imaging technology that plays an important role in preclinical and clinical research. With administration of a small amount of radiotracer, PET imaging can provide a noninvasive, highly sensitive, and quantitative readout of its organ/tissue targeting efficiency and pharmacokinetics. Various radiotracers have been designed to target specific molecular events. Compared with antibodies, proteins, peptides, and other biologically relevant molecules, nanoparticles represent a new frontier in molecular imaging probe design, enabling the attachment of different imaging modalities, targeting ligands, and therapeutic payloads in a single vector. We introduce the radiolabeled nanoparticle platforms that we and others have developed. Due to the fundamental differences in the various nanoparticles and radioisotopes, most radiolabeling methods are designed case-by-case. We focus on some general rules about selecting appropriate isotopes for given types of nanoparticles, as well as adjusting the labeling strategies according to specific applications. We classified these radiolabeling methods into four categories: (1) complexation reaction of radiometal ions with chelators via coordination chemistry; (2) direct bombardment of nanoparticles via hadronic projectiles; (3) synthesis of nanoparticles using a mixture of radioactive and nonradioactive precursors; (4) chelator-free postsynthetic radiolabeling. Method 1 is generally applicable to different nanomaterials as long as the surface chemistry is well-designed. However, the addition of chelators brings concerns of possible changes to the physicochemical properties of nanomaterials and detachment of the radiometal. Methods 2 and 3 have improved radiochemical stability. The applications are, however, limited by the possible damage to the nanocomponent caused by the proton beams (method 2) and harsh synthetic conditions (method 3). Method 4 is still in its infancy. Although being fast and specific, only a few combinations of isotopes and nanoparticles have been explored. Since the applications of radiolabeled nanoparticles are based on the premise that the radioisotopes are stably attached to the nanomaterials, stability (colloidal and radiochemical) assessment of radiolabeled nanoparticles is also highlighted. Despite the fact that thousands of nanomaterials have been developed for clinical research, only very few have moved to humans. One major reason is the lack of understanding of the biological behavior of nanomaterials. We discuss specific examples of using PET imaging to monitor the in vivo fate of radiolabeled nanoparticles, emphasizing the importance of labeling strategies and caution in interpreting PET data. Design considerations for radiolabeled nanoplatforms for multimodal molecular imaging are also illustrated, with a focus on strategies to combine the strengths of different imaging modalities and to prolong the circulation time.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/ar500362y

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 219

Metadata

Authors
Sun, X., Cai, W., & Chen, X.
Venue
Accounts of Chemical Research
Published
2015-01-30
Volume
48
Issue
2
Pages
286-294
ISSN
  • 0001-4842 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-4898
OpenAlex
W2328417245
Cited by
219
References
1
FWCI
24.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.