>>Imaging of luciferase and GFP-transfected human tumours in nude mice
Luminescence
Volume 18, Issue 4 , Pages 218 - 223
Published Online: 15 Aug 2003
Gisela Caceres 1, Xiao Yun Zhu 2, Jin-an Jiao 2, Ralitza Zankina 1, Alex Aller 1, Peter Andreotti 1 3 *
1Rumbaugh-Goodwin Institute for Cancer Research Inc., Plantation, FL 33313, USA
2Sunol Molecular Corporation, Miramar, FL 33025, USA
3Atlantic Scientific Development Inc., Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334, USA
email: Peter Andreotti (pandreotti@csi.com)
*Correspondence to Peter Andreotti, Rumbaugh-Goodwin Institute for Cancer Research Inc., 1850 NW 69th Avenue, Suite 5, Plantation, FL 33313, USA.
Studies were performed to compare green fluorescent protein (GFP)-transfected and firefly luciferase (Luc)-transfected MCF-7 human breast tumour cells both in vitro and in vivo. For in vitro studies, cells were serially diluted in 96-well microplates and analysed using a NightOwl LB 981 Molecular Light Imager and a Victor multilabel reader. For in vivo studies, nude mice were injected either intraperitoneally, intravenously or subcutaneously with transfected cells and then imaged using the NightOwl Imager after intraperitoneal injection of d-luciferin for Luc tumours, or excitation at 470 nm for GFP tumours. In vitro imaging studies revealed that both GFP and Luc transfectants were quantifiable. However, the Luc-transfected cells were detectable at a significantly lower concentration compared to GFP transfectants. In vivo studies demonstrated that GFP-transfected tumours were detectable as subcutaneous and intraperitoneal tumours but not as deep tissue lesions, whereas Luc-transfected tumours were detectable as subcutaneous and intraperitoneal tumours and as deep tissue lesions resulting from intraperitoneal or intravenous inoculation. These findings demonstrate that GFP-transfected cells may be useful for imaging studies of superficial tumours where both excitation and emission wavelengths are able to penetrate tissues, whereas luciferase-transfected cells appear superior for imaging studies of primary and metastatic tumours in distant sites and deep tissues.<<
This might be why AntiCancer is trying this path: their system is apparently inferior, so if they can win by legal recourse instead . . .
Having trouble with the prior art thing, but I note that an AntiCancer patent even cites a Contag patent (from days at Stanford, to which IP Xenogen has rights).
Earliest publication on this stuff by Contag is from 96.
Cheers, Tuck |
