$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Fluorescence tomography (FT) is a sensitive, ionizing radiation free molecular imaging modality based on visible and near-infrared light transport through biological tissue. Most of the interest in FT has been focused on its potential to expedite drug discovery and development in small animal experimental models1 and one key area of research has been the study of cancer biomarker expression and response to molecular therapies26. At present, there are two competing approaches to FT system design. The most common design is based on cooled charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras for fluorescence detection4-9. This design provides a high density of measurements, maximizing tissue sampling since each pixel in the CCD camera can detect light that has traveled a unique path through the tissue. However, CCD cameras have a limited dynamic range and read-out noise limits their ultimate sensitivity. The second design avoids the potential limitations of CCD camera detection by employing highly sensitive single-photon counting technology based on the use of such detectors as photomultiplier tubes or avalanche photodiodes10-13. The drawback of these more sensitive detection methods is that each detector can only collect light at a single point; therefore, to achieve dense tissue sampling, either many detectors have to be used (which is very expensive), or many projections have to be imaged with the same detector (which can be time consuming). While the optimal level of tissue sampling for small animal FT has not been agreed upon, and may vary on a case-by-case basis, it is agreed that single-photon counting instrumentation is better suited to explore the sensitivity limits of FT in terms of its ability to detect low concentrations of molecular markers. In this study, we provide a methodology for carrying out FT using single-photon counting detection instrumentation to localize tumors in mice.
There are four critical steps involved to produce robust datasets with time-correlated single-photon counting FT. The first is the application of a suitable and straightforward calibration procedure. In the presented methodology, the respective sensitivities of each detection channel are accounted for by collecting a baseline measurement of excitation light transmitted through a line-diffusor designed to direct equal fractions of light to each detector15. Furthermore, the detected light during an experiment is continuously calibrated to the laser reference, in terms of both intensity and mean-time, which could fluctuate over time, by the operation of a laser reference channel11,15. The second critical step is the accurate collection and co-registration of anatomical imaging for guided fluorescence reconstructions. The FT data alone offers no anatomical information; therefore, in order to create a model of light transport that can be used to reconstruct the location of fluorescent sources within a specimen from the detected fluorescence at the surface of the specimen, the anatomy of the specimen in relation to the FT system must be accurately known. In our system, the anatomical information is acquired by a micro-computed tomography system with spatial coordinates that have been spatially registered with those of the FT system15,20. The third critical step involves ensuring that an optimal exposure (i.e., total photon detection time for each laser projection) is employed at every source-detector position. This is important for two reasons: first, to ensure that there is adequate signal-to-noise at each detection position and second to avoid detector saturation, which could damage the detection units. In order to achieve optimal exposure at each detector position, an automatic exposure control is employed, which essentially triangulates the optimum exposure from two, low-signal exposures14. The fourth critical step of the methodology is referencing the collected fluorescence data to the amount of transmitted excitation light. This referencing is often called the Born ratio, and provides many benefits for FT, with the main one being a mitigation of model-data mismatch errors23,24. The presented system was designed to detect both fluorescence and transmitted excitation light simultaneously by channeling the light in each detection channel into 2 separate photomultiplier tubes. By doing this, we avoid any effects of motion on the accuracy of the Born ratio.
With a robust dataset it hand, image reconstruction of time-domain data involves solving the inverse problem of the finite element mesh having the expression:
d=Jx
where d is a vector with n x m elements for n source-detector projections and m TPSF time gates; J is an n x m-by-l sensitivity matrix (or Jacobian), for l nodes in the mesh; and x is the vector of fluorescence optical properties in each node, having size l. d is the calibrated data collected during the experiment and J is simulated using the finite element solution to the time domain diffusion approximation of fluorescence transport25. The time-dimension of J is also convolved with the detector specific instrument response functions. x is a representation of the fluorescence map of interest and is solved for using a Levenberg-Marqardt non-negative least squares approach with Tikhonov regularization15.
The methodology presented here, which describes a procedure capable of localizing fluorescently labeled tumors in mice using highly-sensitive photon counting fluorescence detection, has the potential to push the limits of FT. In a previous study, the potential of employing this approach in larger-than-mice animals models, such as rats, as well as improved sensitivity over existing system designs in mouse-sized specimens, was demonstrated17. The immediate application of this approach would be for the monitoring of biomarker expression in vivo in small animal tumor models to assess drug efficacy in a high-throughput means. The ability of the system to excite and detect fluorescence at multiple wavelengths allows the simultaneous detection of multiple fluorescent markers. Additional fluorescent markers provide a means of interrogating multiple aspects of a pathology, simultaneously, or could be used, as in this study, to employ more quantitative imaging approaches such as dual-reporter methods of measuring in vivo binding potential, a marker of receptor density26,27.