Premium
In vitro distinction between proinflammatory and antiinflammatory macrophages with gadolinium‐liposomes and ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide particles at 3.0T
Author(s) -
Khaled Wassef,
Piraquive Joao,
Leporq Benjamin,
Wan Jing Hong,
Lambert Simon A.,
Mignet Nathalie,
Doan BichThuy,
Lotersztajn Sophie,
Garteiser Philippe,
Van Beers Bernard E.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of magnetic resonance imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1522-2586
pISSN - 1053-1807
DOI - 10.1002/jmri.26331
Subject(s) - proinflammatory cytokine , flow cytometry , liposome , in vitro , macrophage , gadolinium , endocytosis , chemistry , population , cationic liposome , microbiology and biotechnology , biophysics , materials science , inflammation , biology , medicine , cell , immunology , biochemistry , transfection , environmental health , organic chemistry , gene
Background Inflammation involves a heterogeneous macrophage population, for which there is no readily available MR assessment method. Purpose To assess the feasibility of distinguishing proinflammatory M1 and antiinflammatory M2 macrophages at MRI enhanced with gadolinium liposomes or ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide particles. Study Type In vitro. Specimen We employed cultured RAW macrophages. M0 macrophages were polarized with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) or interleukin‐4 (IL‐4), resulting in M1 or M2 macrophages. The macrophages were incubated with gadolinium (±rhodamine) liposomes or iron oxide particles and cell pellets were prepared for MRI. Field Strength/Sequence Transverse relaxation rates and quantitative susceptibility were obtained at 3.0T with multiecho turbo spin echo and spoiled gradient echo sequences. Assessment MRI results were compared with confocal microscopy, flow cytometry, and expression of endocytosis, M1 and M2 genes. Statistical Tests Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests were performed. Results Higher transverse relaxation rates and susceptibility were observed in M1 than in M2 and M0 macrophages ( P < 0.01 both with liposomes and USPIO) and significantly different susceptibility in M2 and M0 macrophages ( P < 0.01 both with liposomes and USPIO). These MRI results were confirmed at confocal microscopy and flow cytometry. LPS macrophages displayed M1 gene expression, whereas IL‐4 macrophages showed M2 polarization and lower endocytosis gene expression rates. Data Conclusion These in vitro results show that it is feasible to distinguish between proinflammatory M1 and antiinflammatory M2 macrophages according to their level of contrast agent uptake at MRI. Level of Evidence: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:1166–1173.