Comparison of noninvasive fluorescent and bioluminescent small animal optical imaging

Optical imaging is a modality that is cost-effective, rapid, easy to use, and can be readily applied to studying disease processes and biology in vivo. For this study, we used a green fluorescent protein (GFP)- and luciferase-expressing mouse tumor model to compare and contrast the quantitative and...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Garry Choy, Sarah O’Connor, Felix E. Diehn, Nick Costouros, H. Richard Alexander, Peter Choyke, Steven K. Libutti
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Taylor & Francis Group 2003-11-01
Series:BioTechniques
Online Access:https://www.future-science.com/doi/10.2144/03355rr02
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850153021321773056
author Garry Choy
Sarah O’Connor
Felix E. Diehn
Nick Costouros
H. Richard Alexander
Peter Choyke
Steven K. Libutti
author_facet Garry Choy
Sarah O’Connor
Felix E. Diehn
Nick Costouros
H. Richard Alexander
Peter Choyke
Steven K. Libutti
author_sort Garry Choy
collection DOAJ
description Optical imaging is a modality that is cost-effective, rapid, easy to use, and can be readily applied to studying disease processes and biology in vivo. For this study, we used a green fluorescent protein (GFP)- and luciferase-expressing mouse tumor model to compare and contrast the quantitative and qualitative capabilities of a fluorescent reporter gene (GFP) and a bioluminescent reporter gene (luciferase). We describe the relationship between tumor volume, tumor mass, and bioluminescent/fluorescent intensity for both GFP and luciferase. Bioluminescent luciferase imaging was shown to be more sensitive than fluorescent GFP imaging. Luciferase-expressing tumors were detected as early as 1 day after tumor cell inoculation, whereas GFP-expressing tumors were not detected until 7 days later. Both bioluminescent and fluorescent intensity correlated significantly and linearly with tumor volume and tumor weight, as measured by caliper. Compared to bioluminescent imaging, fluorescent imaging does not require the injection of a substrate and may be appropriate for applications where sensitivity is not as critical. Knowing the relative strengths of each imaging modality will be important in guiding the decision to use fluorescence or bioluminescence.
format Article
id doaj-art-fb376fbbb9664cc38f13988fc2c6d7c2
institution OA Journals
issn 0736-6205
1940-9818
language English
publishDate 2003-11-01
publisher Taylor & Francis Group
record_format Article
series BioTechniques
spelling doaj-art-fb376fbbb9664cc38f13988fc2c6d7c22025-08-20T02:25:50ZengTaylor & Francis GroupBioTechniques0736-62051940-98182003-11-013551022103010.2144/03355rr02Comparison of noninvasive fluorescent and bioluminescent small animal optical imagingGarry Choy0Sarah O’Connor1Felix E. Diehn2Nick Costouros3H. Richard Alexander4Peter Choyke5Steven K. Libutti61National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda1National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda2Warren G. Magnuson Clinical Center, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA1National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda1National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda2Warren G. Magnuson Clinical Center, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA1National Cancer Institute, NIH, BethesdaOptical imaging is a modality that is cost-effective, rapid, easy to use, and can be readily applied to studying disease processes and biology in vivo. For this study, we used a green fluorescent protein (GFP)- and luciferase-expressing mouse tumor model to compare and contrast the quantitative and qualitative capabilities of a fluorescent reporter gene (GFP) and a bioluminescent reporter gene (luciferase). We describe the relationship between tumor volume, tumor mass, and bioluminescent/fluorescent intensity for both GFP and luciferase. Bioluminescent luciferase imaging was shown to be more sensitive than fluorescent GFP imaging. Luciferase-expressing tumors were detected as early as 1 day after tumor cell inoculation, whereas GFP-expressing tumors were not detected until 7 days later. Both bioluminescent and fluorescent intensity correlated significantly and linearly with tumor volume and tumor weight, as measured by caliper. Compared to bioluminescent imaging, fluorescent imaging does not require the injection of a substrate and may be appropriate for applications where sensitivity is not as critical. Knowing the relative strengths of each imaging modality will be important in guiding the decision to use fluorescence or bioluminescence.https://www.future-science.com/doi/10.2144/03355rr02
spellingShingle Garry Choy
Sarah O’Connor
Felix E. Diehn
Nick Costouros
H. Richard Alexander
Peter Choyke
Steven K. Libutti
Comparison of noninvasive fluorescent and bioluminescent small animal optical imaging
BioTechniques
title Comparison of noninvasive fluorescent and bioluminescent small animal optical imaging
title_full Comparison of noninvasive fluorescent and bioluminescent small animal optical imaging
title_fullStr Comparison of noninvasive fluorescent and bioluminescent small animal optical imaging
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of noninvasive fluorescent and bioluminescent small animal optical imaging
title_short Comparison of noninvasive fluorescent and bioluminescent small animal optical imaging
title_sort comparison of noninvasive fluorescent and bioluminescent small animal optical imaging
url https://www.future-science.com/doi/10.2144/03355rr02
work_keys_str_mv AT garrychoy comparisonofnoninvasivefluorescentandbioluminescentsmallanimalopticalimaging
AT sarahoconnor comparisonofnoninvasivefluorescentandbioluminescentsmallanimalopticalimaging
AT felixediehn comparisonofnoninvasivefluorescentandbioluminescentsmallanimalopticalimaging
AT nickcostouros comparisonofnoninvasivefluorescentandbioluminescentsmallanimalopticalimaging
AT hrichardalexander comparisonofnoninvasivefluorescentandbioluminescentsmallanimalopticalimaging
AT peterchoyke comparisonofnoninvasivefluorescentandbioluminescentsmallanimalopticalimaging
AT stevenklibutti comparisonofnoninvasivefluorescentandbioluminescentsmallanimalopticalimaging