Mixing Matrix-corrected Whole-body Pharmacokinetic Modeling Using Longitudinal Micro-computed Tomography and Fluorescence-mediated Tomography.
Computed tomography
Elimination routes
Fluorescence-mediated tomography
Intensity diffusion
Mixing matrix
Pharmacokinetic modeling
Relative blood volume
Retention sites
Journal
Molecular imaging and biology
ISSN: 1860-2002
Titre abrégé: Mol Imaging Biol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101125610
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2021
12 2021
Historique:
received:
23
02
2021
accepted:
06
06
2021
revised:
30
04
2021
pubmed:
8
7
2021
medline:
5
4
2022
entrez:
7
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Pharmacokinetic modeling can be applied to quantify the kinetics of fluorescently labeled compounds using longitudinal micro-computed tomography and fluorescence-mediated tomography (μCT-FMT). However, fluorescence blurring from neighboring organs or tissues and the vasculature within tissues impede the accuracy in the estimation of kinetic parameters. Contributions of elimination and retention activities of fluorescent probes inside the kidneys and liver can be hard to distinguish by a kinetic model. This study proposes a deconvolution approach using a mixing matrix to model fluorescence contributions to improve whole-body pharmacokinetic modeling. In the kinetic model, a mixing matrix was applied to unmix the fluorescence blurring from neighboring tissues and blood vessels and unmix the fluorescence contributions of elimination and retention in the kidney and liver compartments. Accordingly, the kinetic parameters of the hepatobiliary and renal elimination routes and five major retention sites (the kidneys, liver, bone, spleen, and lung) were investigated in simulations and in an in vivo study. In the latter, the pharmacokinetics of four fluorescently labeled compounds (indocyanine green (ICG), HITC-iodide-microbubbles (MB), Cy7-nanogels (NG), and OsteoSense 750 EX (OS)) were evaluated in BALB/c nude mice. In the simulations, the corrected modeling resulted in lower relative errors and stronger linear relationships (slopes close to 1) between the estimated and simulated parameters, compared to the uncorrected modeling. For the in vivo study, MB and NG showed significantly higher hepatic retention rates (P<0.05 and P<0.05, respectively), while OS had smaller renal and hepatic retention rates (P<0.01 and P<0.01, respectively). Additionally, the bone retention rate of OS was significantly higher (P<0.01). The mixing matrix correction improves pharmacokinetic modeling and thus enables a more accurate assessment of the biodistribution of fluorescently labeled pharmaceuticals by μCT-FMT.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34231106
doi: 10.1007/s11307-021-01623-y
pii: 10.1007/s11307-021-01623-y
pmc: PMC8578052
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
963-974Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2007 Oct;34(5):687-709
pubmed: 17636457
J Biophotonics. 2017 Mar;10(3):456-464
pubmed: 27135903
Nat Med. 2002 Jul;8(7):757-60
pubmed: 12091907
Opt Lett. 2007 Feb 15;32(4):382-4
pubmed: 17356660
Nat Biotechnol. 2005 Mar;23(3):313-20
pubmed: 15765087
Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2018 Jun 3;2018:5849047
pubmed: 29967572
J Vis Exp. 2015 Jun 04;(100):e52770
pubmed: 26066033
J Biophotonics. 2016 Mar;9(3):282-95
pubmed: 26349671
Nat Methods. 2012 Jun;9(6):615-20
pubmed: 22561987
Nanomedicine (Lond). 2008 Oct;3(5):703-17
pubmed: 18817471
Mol Pharm. 2014 May 5;11(5):1591-8
pubmed: 24702191
Opt Express. 2005 Apr 4;13(7):2564-77
pubmed: 19495147
Biomed Opt Express. 2016 Mar 04;7(4):1149-59
pubmed: 27446643
Theranostics. 2016 Jan 01;6(3):328-41
pubmed: 26909109
Nat Biomed Eng. 2017;1:
pubmed: 28649464
Nat Biotechnol. 2001 Dec;19(12):1148-54
pubmed: 11731784
PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20594
pubmed: 21731618
Mol Imaging Biol. 2014 Oct;16(5):652-60
pubmed: 24609633
Theranostics. 2014 Jul 26;4(10):960-71
pubmed: 25157277
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2005 May;24(5):636-50
pubmed: 15889551
Adv Mater. 2013 Mar 13;25(10):1449-54
pubmed: 23280931
Mol Imaging Biol. 2012 Jun;14(3):301-14
pubmed: 21688052
J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2018 Apr;45(2):235-257
pubmed: 29234936
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009 Mar;36(3):536-7
pubmed: 19156412
Theranostics. 2017 Apr 5;7(6):1499-1510
pubmed: 28529633
ACS Nano. 2013 Jan 22;7(1):252-62
pubmed: 23067565
Comput Phys Commun. 2016 Mar 1;200:300-311
pubmed: 26941443
Comp Med. 2016 Apr;66(2):90-9
pubmed: 27053562
J Biophotonics. 2017 Sep;10(9):1208-1216
pubmed: 27868394
Invest Radiol. 2008 Mar;43(3):162-9
pubmed: 18301312
Nat Methods. 2010 Aug;7(8):603-14
pubmed: 20676081
Biomaterials. 2017 Jan;114:106-120
pubmed: 27855336
Sci Transl Med. 2011 May 25;3(84):84ra45
pubmed: 21613624
J Pharm Sci. 2019 Jan;108(1):58-72
pubmed: 30385282
Phys Med Biol. 2012 Mar 21;57(6):1641-57
pubmed: 22398155
Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:2010512
pubmed: 29279843
Neuroimage. 2009 Feb 15;44(4):1304-11
pubmed: 19041402
Nano Res. 2019 Mar;12(3):637-642
pubmed: 32055285
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2014 May;33(5):1093-108
pubmed: 24770914
Med Phys. 2007 Jun;34(6):2085-98
pubmed: 17654912
Circulation. 2007 Dec 11;116(24):2841-50
pubmed: 18040026
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010 Aug;37 Suppl 1:S30-51
pubmed: 20503049