Molecular Imaging and Biology

, Volume 12, Issue 5, pp 500–508

A Comparison Between Time Domain and Spectral Imaging Systems for Imaging Quantum Dots in Small Living Animals

  • Adam de la Zerda
  • Sunil Bodapati
  • Robert Teed
  • Meike L. Schipper
  • Shay Keren
  • Bryan R. Smith
  • Johnny S. T. Ng
  • Sanjiv Sam Gambhir
Research Article

DOI: 10.1007/s11307-009-0290-4

Cite this article as:
de la Zerda, A., Bodapati, S., Teed, R. et al. Mol Imaging Biol (2010) 12: 500. doi:10.1007/s11307-009-0290-4

Abstract

Purpose

We quantified the performance of time-domain imaging (TDI) and spectral imaging (SI) for fluorescence imaging of quantum dots (QDs) in three distinct imaging instruments: eXplore Optix (TDI, Advanced Research Technologies Inc.), Maestro (SI, CRi Inc.), and IVIS-Spectrum (SI, Caliper Life Sciences Inc.).

Procedure

The instruments were compared for their sensitivity in phantoms and living mice, multiplexing capabilities (ability to resolve the signal of one QD type in the presence of another), and the dependence of contrast and spatial resolution as a function of depth.

Results

In phantoms, eXplore Optix had an order of magnitude better sensitivity compared to the SI systems, detecting QD concentrations of ~40 pM in vitro. Maestro was the best instrument for multiplexing QDs. Reduction of contrast and resolution as a function of depth was smallest with eXplore Optix for depth of 2–6 mm, while other depths gave comparable results in all systems. Sensitivity experiments in living mice showed that the eXplore Optix and Maestro systems outperformed the IVIS-Spectrum.

Conclusion

TDI was found to be an order of magnitude more sensitive than SI at the expense of speed and very limited multiplexing capabilities. For deep tissue QD imaging, TDI is most applicable for depths between 2 and 6 mm, as its contrast and resolution degrade the least at these depths.

Key words

Time-domain imagingFrequency-domain imagingQuantum dots imagingOptical tomographySmall animal imagingMolecular imaging

Copyright information

© Academy of Molecular Imaging 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam de la Zerda
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sunil Bodapati
    • 1
  • Robert Teed
    • 1
  • Meike L. Schipper
    • 1
  • Shay Keren
    • 1
  • Bryan R. Smith
    • 1
  • Johnny S. T. Ng
    • 4
  • Sanjiv Sam Gambhir
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMolecular Imaging Program at Stanford (MIPS), The Bio-X ProgramStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of Electrical EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Department of BioengineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  4. 4.Stanford Linear Accelerator CenterStanford UniversityStanfordUSA