Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Nat Med. 2010 Jul 18;16(8):921–926. doi: 10.1038/nm.2185

Figure 5.

Figure 5

The relative advantage of PET over optical imaging in imaging sources of signal at depths below 1 cm from the exterior is exemplified in this separate experiment. Five mice were imaged 6 days post implantation with 5 × 106 293T cells stably expressing TK or Firefly luciferase (FLUC). The microPET signal return (FHBG accumulation in %ID g−1) from shoulder tumors (circled) expressing TK did not differ in significance whether the animals were imaged in the supine or prone positions (probe %ID g−1 of 0.89 and 1.02 respectively), as demonstrated in the transaxial and coronal tomographic images of a representative animal (intense accumulation in centre and lower aspect of coronal images is due to non-specific probe excretion in the gut). When imaged in the supine position, the light emanating from subcutaneous xenografts on the shoulder or back showed no penetration through the full thickness of the mouse.