In vitro distinction between proinflammatory and antiinflammatory macrophages with gadolinium‐liposomes and ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide particles at 3.0T. Issue 4 (3rd November 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Khaled, Wassef; Piraquive, Joao; Leporq, Benjamin; Wan, Jing Hong; Lambert, Simon A.; Mignet, Nathalie; Doan, Bich‐Thuy; Lotersztajn, Sophie; Garteiser, Philippe; Van Beers, Bernard E.
• Is Part Of: Journal of magnetic resonance imaging. Volume 49:Issue 4(2019)
• Page Start: 1166
• Page End: 1173
• Publication Date: 2018-11-03
• Subjects: macrophage imaging -- macrophage phagocytosis -- magnetic resonance imaging of inflammation -- gadolinium liposomes -- ultrasmall iron oxide particles -- quantitative susceptibility mapping; Magnetic resonance imaging -- Periodicals; 616
• DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26331
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1053-1807

Abstract

Abstract : 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.