Research Article

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 ZerdaAffiliated withDepartment of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (MIPS), The Bio-X ProgramDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University
  • , Sunil BodapatiAffiliated withDepartment of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (MIPS), The Bio-X Program
  • , Robert TeedAffiliated withDepartment of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (MIPS), The Bio-X Program
  • , Meike L. SchipperAffiliated withDepartment of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (MIPS), The Bio-X Program
  • , Shay KerenAffiliated withDepartment of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (MIPS), The Bio-X Program
  • , Bryan R. SmithAffiliated withDepartment of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (MIPS), The Bio-X Program
  • , Johnny S. T. NgAffiliated withStanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University
  • , Sanjiv Sam GambhirAffiliated withDepartment of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (MIPS), The Bio-X ProgramDepartment of Bioengineering, Stanford University Email author 

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access

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 imaging Frequency-domain imaging Quantum dots imaging Optical tomography Small animal imaging Molecular imaging