Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jul 25.
Published in final edited form as: Mol Imaging Biol. 2017 Jun;19(3):373–378. doi: 10.1007/s11307-017-1062-1

Molecular Imaging in Synthetic Biology, and Synthetic Biology in Molecular Imaging

Assaf A Gilad 1,2,3,*, Mikhail G Shapiro 4,5,*
PMCID: PMC6058969  NIHMSID: NIHMS978816  PMID: 28213833

Abstract

Biomedical synthetic biology is an emerging field in which cells are engineered at the genetic level to carry out novel functions with relevance to biomedical and industrial applications. This approach promises new treatments, imaging tools and diagnostics for diseases ranging from gastrointestinal inflammatory syndromes to cancer, diabetes and neurodegeneration. As these cellular technologies undergo pre-clinical and clinical development, it is becoming essential to monitor their location and function in vivo, necessitating appropriate molecular imaging strategies, and therefore we have created an Interest Group within the World Molecular Imaging Society focusing on synthetic biology and reporter gene technologies. Here, we highlight recent advances in biomedical synthetic biology, including bacterial therapy, immunotherapy and regenerative medicine. We then discuss emerging molecular imaging approaches to facilitate in vivo applications, focusing on reporter genes for noninvasive modalities such as magnetic resonance, ultrasound, photoacoustic imaging, bioluminescence and radionuclear imaging. Because reporter genes can be incorporated directly into engineered genetic circuits, they are particularly well suited to imaging synthetic biological constructs, and developing them provides opportunities for creative molecular and genetic engineering.

MAIN TEXT

Role of imaging in biomedical synthetic biology

Synthetic biology is defined by the development of modified genetic elements, circuits and cells to perform new functions that are not part of their normal functional repertoire. Since its initial development starting around 2000, this discipline has impacted diverse fields ranging from industrial chemical synthesis to human health1. Advances in synthetic biology are accelerating in part due to the exponentially decreasing costs of DNA sequencing, synthesis and assembly2, providing a rich catalog of natural genetic elements to use in engineered constructs and enabling rapid and inexpensive assembly and testing of genetic circuits. The potential of synthetic biology to make an impact in biomedicine3, 4 is exemplified by recent developments in cellular diagnostics, therapeutics and genome editing, and imaging has been critical in the development and use of these now tools. In principle, cells are capable of more sophisticated functionality than molecular or nanoparticle-based therapeutic platforms. Cells can migrate, proliferate, detect signals in their environment, perform logic operations and produce outputs such as the secretion or display of biomolecules, targeted cell killing and suicide5. Similarly, they can carry indicator lights, molecular tags or molecular antennae for sensing and imaging. These capabilities have led, for example, to the development of genetically programmed microbial cells for gastrointestinal and tumor-targeted therapies and diagnostics, engineered immune cells for cancer immunotherapy, and other modified cell types for regenerative medicine. In addition to cellular therapeutics, gene therapy and genome editing – designed to modify the DNA of endogenous cells – are also rapidly emerging as a viable approach to treating a wide range of diseases. As discussed below, each of these synthetic biological systems is designed to operate at specific anatomical locations in vivo, making it important to monitor its distribution and function with molecular imaging technology (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Emerging approached in biomedical synthetic biology and molecular imaging.

Figure 1

(a) Illustration of genetically reprogrammed stem cell differentiating into a neuron following implantation into the brain. (b) Illustration of microbial cell in the gastrointestinal tract engineered to release cytokines after a logical AND computation established the presence of hypoxic and inflammatory inputs. (c) T-cell engineered with a chimeric antigen receptor to recognize a specific tumor antigen. (d) MRI image of cells implanted into a mouse brain using CEST imaging of a lysine-rich protein (used with permission from Ref X). (e) Cross-sectional ultrasound image of a mouse torso showing bladder and colon. (f) PET image of T-cells heterologously expressing a T-cell receptor and a reporter gene causing accumulation of a PET tracer, following in vivo activation of the cells.

Synthetic biology was first developed in prokaryotes, which provided a convenient platform for genetic engineering and industrial applications. In parallel, studies of the mammalian microbiome uncovered important roles for bacteria in health and disease, including infection, immunity, nervous system function and metabolic homeostasis610. The convergence of these research areas in now enabling the development of engineered microbial therapeutics and diagnostics. These approaches take advantage of bacterial species’ natural abilities to occupy certain biological niches, such as stretches of the GI tract or hypoxic regions of tumors, sense their environment and release therapies such as cytolysins and cytokines, or diagnostic indicators such as β-galactosidase1116. Logic gates, genetic memory devices and kill switches further broaden the capabilities of these bacteria17.

In eukaryotic synthetic biology18, immunotherapy has recently emerged as a new class of cancer therapy with promising results in hematological malignancies and some solid tumors19, 20. This approach takes advantage of immune cells’ ability to eliminate tumors based on the recognition of tumor-specific antigens. Cellular immunotherapy works by genetically modifying patient T-cells to express novel, engineered receptors for tumor antigen recognition and re-introducing them into the body19. In addition to engineered receptors, these cells can be designed with cellular logic (e.g., AND gates requiring two tumor-specific signals for activation)21 and self-inactivating safety mechanisms22.

Another area of cellular therapy benefiting from synthetic biology is regenerative medicine, which offers hope for patients by introducing progenitor cells in situ to induce tissue repair and reverse deficits in conditions including diabetes, heart failure and neurodegeneration. Treatment with stem cells is a powerful approach on three levels: (i) stem cells secrete cytokines and protective factors that provide trophic support, prevent cell death, and help in recovery of the tissue; (ii) stem cells can be used as a vehicle for continuous delivery of therapeutic agents locally; (iii) stem cells can differentiate and integrate into a tissue, replacing the function of diseased cells. Synthetic biology circuits can be used as switches for reprograming of cells, either to push the cells in the direction of pluripotency or in the reverse direction toward differentiation into a specific type of cells. For example, by synthetically activating the Yamanaka factors23, generation of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) can be achieved3. This fit the model described in figure 2b of an “off”/”on” function by activating specific transcription factor under very specific conditions. Additionally, communities of cells that associate with each other to form tissues can be generated using engineered receptors and ligands24, and indicator switches can be built into cells that reveal their proximity to one another through imaging25. Another direction is the construction of cellular feedback circuits or oscillators that can allow cyclic production of cytokines, metabolites, neurotropic factors or drugs that is built into the stem cells and use the stem cells as a delivery vehicle. Examples of this approach include rewiring of optogenetics controlled blood glucose levels26 and control of blood levels of uric acid associated with gout27.

Figure 2. the importance of reporter genes for in vivo imaging of synthetic biology.

Figure 2

(a) There are several “bioparts” and biological circuits that can be used for activation of reporter genes. For example, light activated channels (optogenetics) or other membrane channels and receptors can that activate the transcription factors (Tf) that binds to specific gene promoters and consequently will transcribe reporter genes. This is useful for imaging of “toggle switches” that will result in “on/off” pattern (b) and are important for example to report on (stem) cell differentiation or cell fate. Co-expression of the reporter with repressors (Rep) can results in creating “oscillators” that are important for controlled release of metabolites, cytokines, drugs and neurotropic factors (c).

A major challenge in applying engineered microbial, immune and regenerative cell therapies is that the fate of the injected or transplanted cells is largely unknown. After introduction into the body, the cells may or may not survive, reach their anatomical target, proliferate, differentiate or otherwise carry out their intended function. These factors will profoundly influence long-term patient outcomes. While the molecular imaging field has devoted considerable attention to in vivo imaging and tracking of cells, it has mostly done so with synthetic labels, which are difficult to connect to long-term viability and function, and become diluted through proliferation. However, the integration of molecular imaging in to the field of synthetic biology is increasing for the purpose of assessing locales and functions of cells in vivo; similarly the use of synthetic biology to create novel imaging tools is also advancing at a dramatic rate. Therefore, we have created an interest group within the World Molecular Imaging Society (WMIS) called Synthetic Biology and Reporter Gene (SyBRG) to address this rapidly advancing intersection of technologies. Here we review this technological interface and point to future directions where the combination of tools addresses critical unmet needs in biomedicine.

In addition to enabling new cellular therapies, synthetic biology provides new methods to alter the genetic contents of existing cells. Breakthroughs in genome editing such as zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) and clustered regulatory interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/Cas systems28, have reinvigorated the field of gene therapy by making it possible to fix errant genes and precisely introduce synthetic circuits into mammalian cells. Using a single vector, a specific gene can be targeted and suppressed with an efficiency and accuracy that were not possible previously29. Like cell therapy, in vivo gene therapy and genome editing are usually targeted to specific cell types and anatomical locations, making it critical to image their fate in the body. By designing appropriate molecular imaging tools it may be possible to fine tune and help translate many of these technologies to the clinic.

Development of reporter genes for noninvasive imaging of engineered cells and genetic vectors

A natural imaging approach for synthetic biology makes use of reporter genes, whose products are proteins that produce signals detectable with imaging modalities, wherein the gene is either fused to the gene of interest or, most commonly, cloned under its cognate promoter (Figure 2). The main applications for these reporters include: (i) monitoring gene expression levels; (ii) investigating dynamic molecular signaling; (iii) studying cellular interactions and (iv) tracking cells in normal and abnormal development or cellular therapy. The first reporter genes (Figure 3) were designed to catalyze chemical reactions that produce a light-absorbing pigment, and later to generate photons following fluorescent30, 31 or chemiluminescent excitation3235. This pioneering work created for the first time a connection between molecular biology and imaging. In the early nineties, this field was expended to nuclear imaging36, 37 and MRI38.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Reporter genes, Illustration of the operating principles of (a) reporter genes for (b) optical imaging, (c) radionuclear imaging, (d) MRI and (e) ultrasound. Optical reporter genes convert optical excitation or chemiluminescent substrate bond energy into photons. Radionuclear reporter genes concentrate radioactive substrates in cells, e.g. by phosphorylating them. MRI reporters are detected via a variety of interactions with aqueous protons or other nuclei such as hyperpolarized xenon. Ultrasound reporters could be based on proteins capable of scattering sound waves.

MRI reporters have been developed to use a variety of mechanisms afforded by spin physics. Pioneering examples include enzymes that alter the relaxivity of gadolinium chelates39, human iron storage and transport genes such as ferritin40, 41 and transferrin42, and natural and engineered proteins with large numbers of chemically labile protons for chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) imaging4348. Recent developments have also included reporter genes causing accumulation of MRI-detectable compounds49, proteins interacting with hyperpolarized molecules50, 51, channels that alter the diffusion of water across cell membranes52, 53 and vasodilators altering hemodynamic signals54. Several of these reporter genes are covered in detail in previous review articles5557. Nuclear imaging reporter genes, some of which have already been tested in the clinic58, typically lead to cellular accumulation of radiolabeled nucleotides for imaging with positron emission tomography or single photon emission computed tomography59.

As a complement to existing reporter gene modalities, ultrasound is inexpensive, non-ionizing, portable, and capable of imaging deep tissues60 with sub-millisecond temporal resolution and a spatial resolution scalable with penetration depth—see review in this issue on Ultrasound Molecular Imaging and Drug Delivery. For example, in small animal imaging, the spatial resolution of high-frequency ultrasound (> 15 MHz) is routinely below 100 μm61, 62 and can approach the single-micron level with recently developed super-resolution techniques63. Although no ultrasound reporter genes current exist, a unique class of biomolecules called gas vesicles – gas-filled protein nanostructures from buoyant photosynthetic microbes – was recently found to produce ultrasound contrast64. Efforts are now underway to engineer these molecules at the genetic level65 and express them heterologously as reporter genes. In addition, photoacoustic imaging, which combines diffuse optical excitation with acoustic readout for in vivo imaging applications66, 67, has engendered the development of optically absorbing molecules as reporter genes6870.

Challenges and opportunities

With the emergence of the synthetic biology as a field, it is possible to engineer microorganisms and mammalian cells and use them as diagnostic tools. Harnessing the power of molecular imaging can be a game changer for synthetic biology by improving the ability to look closely into processes in live organisms. On the other hand, we can use synthetic biology to manufacture more robust imaging probes. For example, one of the challenges of the traditional molecular imaging reporter genes is that the reporters are not switchable i.e., the reporters are constantly activated. Using synthetic biology tools this hurdle can be overcome. Building a switch can ensure that the reporter can provide a signal only at the right place and the right time. Circuit designs such as oscillators can provide a unique temporal aspect to reporter gene signals, helping distinguish them from background. Another emerging frontier of reporter gene engineering relates to genetically encoded sensors of dynamic cellular signals such as calcium, phosphorylation and neurotransmission. Such sensors based on fluorescent proteins are already widely used in optically accessible preparations71, and recent efforts have focused on developing such sensors for MRI72 and photoacoustic imaging.

Another potential direction is to augment the visualization capabilities of molecular imaging with the ability to intervene non-invasively in the function of cells in the target tissue. For example if we are already delivering into the tissue energy in the form of, light, ultrasound or electromagnetic fields, we could also use it, either directly or via conversion to heat7375, to activate intracellular molecules, proteins or cells.

In summary, as synthetic biology moves toward in vivo biomedical applications, it is becoming critical to monitor the functionality of genetically engineered devices in intact model organisms and patients. Molecular imaging technologies such as reporter genes are primed to address this challenge, and we feature these advances at the annual meeting of the WMIS and endeavor to advance this field though fostering interaction and collaborations between scientists using imaging to reveal spatiotemporal functions of engineered cells, and those using synthetic biology to advance imaging tools for biomedical applications.

Acknowledgments

We thank members of the Shapiro and Gilad labs and the founding members of the Synthetic Biology and Reporter Genes (SyBRG) interest group of the World Molecular Imaging Society for their contributions to this field and the ideas presented in this article. In addition to the authors, founding members of SyBRG include Christopher Contag, Michal Neeman, Roger Tsien, David Piwnica-Worms, Michael Lin, Daniel Turnbull, Stuart Foster, Michael McMahon, Jeff Bulte, Brian Rutt, Vladimir Ponomarev, Erik Shapiro, Alan Jasanoff, Jeffrey Cirillo, Vasilis Ntziachristos, Jianghong Rao, Moriel Vandsburger, Gil Westmeyer, Brian Chow and Il Minn. We also note with regret that, due to space limitations, we were not able to cite all the relevant work in this field and instead reference a smaller number of examples.

References

  • 1.Cameron DE, Bashor CJ, Collins JJ. A brief history of synthetic biology. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2014 doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Petrone J. DNA writers attract investors. Nat Biotech. 2016;34:363–364. doi: 10.1038/nbt0416-363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ruder WC, Lu T, Collins JJ. Synthetic biology moving into the clinic. Science. 2011;333:1248–1252. doi: 10.1126/science.1206843. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Slomovic S, Pardee K, Collins JJ. Synthetic biology devices for in vitro and in vivo diagnostics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015;112:14429–14435. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1508521112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Fischbach MA, Bluestone JA, Lim WA. Cell-based therapeutics: the next pillar of medicine. Science translational medicine. 2013;5:179ps177–179ps177. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3005568. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Round JL, Mazmanian SK. The gut microbiota shapes intestinal immune responses during health and disease. Nature Reviews Immunology. 2009;9:313–323. doi: 10.1038/nri2515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Yurist-Doutsch S, Arrieta MC, Vogt SL, Finlay BB. Gastrointestinal microbiota-mediated control of enteric pathogens. Annual review of genetics. 2014;48:361–382. doi: 10.1146/annurev-genet-120213-092421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Belkaid Y, Hand TW. Role of the microbiota in immunity and inflammation. Cell. 2014;157:121–141. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.03.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wang Y, Kasper LH. The role of microbiome in central nervous system disorders. Brain, behavior, and immunity. 2014;38:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2013.12.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sampson TR, et al. Gut Microbiota Regulate Motor Deficits and Neuroinflammation in a Model of Parkinson’s Disease. Cell. 2016;167:1469–1480. e1412. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.11.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Danino T, et al. Programmable probiotics for detection of cancer in urine. Science translational medicine. 2015;7:289ra284–289ra284. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaa3519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kotula JW, et al. Programmable bacteria detect and record an environmental signal in the mammalian gut. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014;111:4838–4843. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1321321111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Archer EJ, Robinson AB, Süel GrM. Engineered E. coli that detect and respond to gut inflammation through nitric oxide sensing. ACS synthetic biology. 2012;1:451–457. doi: 10.1021/sb3000595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Claesen J, Fischbach MA. Synthetic microbes as drug delivery systems. ACS synthetic biology. 2014;4:358–364. doi: 10.1021/sb500258b. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wells JM, Mercenier A. Mucosal delivery of therapeutic and prophylactic molecules using lactic acid bacteria. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2008;6:349–362. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro1840. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Din MO, et al. Synchronized cycles of bacterial lysis for in vivo delivery. Nature. 2016;536:81–85. doi: 10.1038/nature18930. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Siuti P, Yazbek J, Lu TK. Synthetic circuits integrating logic and memory in living cells. Nat Biotech. 2013;31:448–452. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lienert F, Lohmueller JJ, Garg A, Silver PA. Synthetic biology in mammalian cells: next generation research tools and therapeutics. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2014;15:95–107. doi: 10.1038/nrm3738. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rosenberg SA, Restifo NP. Adoptive cell transfer as personalized immunotherapy for human cancer. Science. 2015;348:62–68. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa4967. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Klebanoff CA, Rosenberg SA, Restifo NP. Prospects for gene-engineered T cell immunotherapy for solid cancers. Nature medicine. 2016;22:26–36. doi: 10.1038/nm.4015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Roybal KT, et al. Precision Tumor Recognition by T Cells With Combinatorial Antigen-Sensing Circuits. Cell. 2016;164:770–779. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.01.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Fedorov VD, Themeli M, Sadelain M. PD-1–and CTLA-4–based inhibitory chimeric antigen receptors (iCARs) divert off-target immunotherapy responses. Science translational medicine. 2013;5:215ra172–215ra172. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3006597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Takahashi K, Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell. 2006;126:663–676. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.07.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Todhunter ME, et al. Programmed synthesis of three-dimensional tissues. Nat Meth. 2015;12:975–981. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3553. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sellmyer MA, et al. Visualizing cellular interactions with a generalized proximity reporter. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013;110:8567–8572. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1218336110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ye H, Baba MDE, Peng RW, Fussenegger M. A Synthetic Optogenetic Transcription Device Enhances Blood-Glucose Homeostasis in Mice. Science. 2011;332:1565–1568. doi: 10.1126/science.1203535. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kemmer C, et al. Self-sufficient control of urate homeostasis in mice by a synthetic circuit. Nat Biotech. 2010;28:355–360. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Gaj T, Gersbach CA, Barbas CF., 3rd ZFN, TALEN, and CRISPR/Cas-based methods for genome engineering. Trends Biotechnol. 2013;31:397–405. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.04.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sander JD, Joung JK. CRISPR-Cas systems for editing, regulating and targeting genomes. Nat Biotech. 2014;32:347–355. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2842. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Chalfie M, Tu Y, Euskirchen G, Ward WW, Prasher DC. Green fluorescent protein as a marker for gene expression. Science. 1994;263:802–805. doi: 10.1126/science.8303295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Shaner NC, et al. Improved monomeric red, orange and yellow fluorescent proteins derived from Discosoma sp. red fluorescent protein. Nat Biotechnol. 2004;22:1567–1572. doi: 10.1038/nbt1037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gross S, Piwnica-Worms D. Spying on cancer: molecular imaging in vivo with genetically encoded reporters. Cancer Cell. 2005;7:5–15. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2004.12.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Zhao H, et al. Characterization of coelenterazine analogs for measurements of Renilla luciferase activity in live cells and living animals. Mol Imaging. 2004;3:43–54. doi: 10.1162/15353500200403181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Contag CH, Bachmann MH. Advances in in vivo bioluminescence imaging of gene expression. Annual review of biomedical engineering. 2002;4:235–260. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bioeng.4.111901.093336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Prescher JA, Contag CH. Guided by the light: visualizing biomolecular processes in living animals with bioluminescence. Current opinion in chemical biology. 2010;14:80–89. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2009.11.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Tjuvajev JG, et al. Imaging the expression of transfected genes in vivo. Cancer Res. 1995;55:6126–6132. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Gambhir SS, et al. Imaging adenoviral-directed reporter gene expression in living animals with positron emission tomography. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96:2333–2338. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.5.2333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Koretsky AP, Brosnan MJ, Chen LH, Chen JD, Van Dyke T. NMR detection of creatine kinase expressed in liver of transgenic mice: determination of free ADP levels. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990;87:3112–3116. doi: 10.1073/pnas.87.8.3112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Louie AY, et al. In vivo visualization of gene expression using magnetic resonance imaging. Nat Biotech. 2000;18:321–325. doi: 10.1038/73780. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Cohen B, Dafni H, Meir G, Harmelin A, Neeman M. Ferritin as an endogenous MRI reporter for noninvasive imaging of gene expression in C6 glioma tumors. Neoplasia. 2005;7:109–117. doi: 10.1593/neo.04436. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Genove G, DeMarco U, Xu H, Goins WF, Ahrens ET. A new transgene reporter for in vivo magnetic resonance imaging. Nature medicine. 2005;11:450–454. doi: 10.1038/nm1208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Deans AE, et al. Cellular MRI contrast via coexpression of transferrin receptor and ferritin. Magn Reson Med. 2006;56:51–59. doi: 10.1002/mrm.20914. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Airan RD, et al. MRI biosensor for protein kinase A encoded by a single synthetic gene. Magn Reson Med. 2012;68:1919–1923. doi: 10.1002/mrm.24483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Bar-Shir A, et al. Transforming thymidine into a magnetic resonance imaging probe for monitoring gene expression. J Am Chem Soc. 2013;135:1617–1624. doi: 10.1021/ja312353e. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Gilad AA, et al. Artificial reporter gene providing MRI contrast based on proton exchange. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25:217–219. doi: 10.1038/nbt1277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Bar-Shir A, et al. Human protamine-1 as an MRI reporter gene based on chemical exchange. ACS Chem Biol. 2014;9:134–138. doi: 10.1021/cb400617q. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Liu G, et al. Monitoring enzyme activity using a diamagnetic chemical exchange saturation transfer magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent. J Am Chem Soc. 2011;133:16326–16329. doi: 10.1021/ja204701x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Bar-Shir A, Liu G, Greenberg MM, Bulte JWM, Gilad AA. Synthesis of a probe for monitoring HSV1-tk reporter gene expression using chemical exchange saturation transfer MRI. Nat Protocols. 2013;8:2380–2391. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2013.140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Patrick PS, et al. Development of Timd2 as a reporter gene for MRI. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 2015 doi: 10.1002/mrm.25750. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Shapiro MG, et al. Genetically encoded reporters for hyperpolarized xenon magnetic resonance imaging. Nature chemistry. 2014;6:629–634. doi: 10.1038/nchem.1934. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Wang Y, Roose BW, Palovcak EJ, Carnevale V, Dmochowski IJ. A Genetically Encoded β-Lactamase Reporter for Ultrasensitive 129Xe NMR in Mammalian Cells. Angewandte Chemie International Edition. 2016;55:8984–8987. doi: 10.1002/anie.201604055. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Mukherjee A, Wu D, Davis HC, Shapiro MG. Non-invasive imaging using reporter genes altering cellular water permeability. Nature Communications. 2016;7:13891. doi: 10.1038/ncomms13891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Schilling F, et al. MRI measurements of reporter-mediated increases in transmembrane water exchange enable detection of a gene reporter. Nat Biotech. 2016 doi: 10.1038/nbt.3714. advance online publication. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Desai M, Slusarczyk AL, Chapin A, Barch M, Jasanoff A. Molecular imaging with engineered physiology. Nature Communications. 2016;7:13607. doi: 10.1038/ncomms13607. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Kircher MF, Gambhir SS, Grimm J. Noninvasive cell-tracking methods. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011;8:677–688. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Bar-Shir A, Bulte JW, Gilad AA. ACS Chem Biol. 2015. Molecular Engineering of Nonmetallic Biosensors for CEST MRI. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Srivastava AK, et al. Advances in using MRI probes and sensors for in vivo cell tracking as applied to regenerative medicine. Dis Model Mech. 2015;8:323–336. doi: 10.1242/dmm.018499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Yaghoubi SS, et al. Noninvasive detection of therapeutic cytolytic T cells with 18F–FHBG PET in a patient with glioma. Nature clinical practice Oncology. 2009;6:53–58. doi: 10.1038/ncponc1278. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Gambhir S, et al. Imaging transgene expression with radionuclide imaging technologies. Neoplasia. 2000;2:118–138. doi: 10.1038/sj.neo.7900083. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Smith-Bindman R, et al. Use of diagnostic imaging studies and associated radiation exposure for patients enrolled in large integrated health care systems, 1996–2010. JAMA. 2012;307:2400–2409. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.5960. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Foster FS, Pavlin CJ, Harasiewicz KA, Christopher DA, Turnbull DH. Advances in ultrasound biomicroscopy. Ultrasound in medicine & biology. 2000;26:1–27. doi: 10.1016/s0301-5629(99)00096-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Foster FS, et al. Principles and applications of ultrasound backscatter microscopy. Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control, IEEE Transactions on. 1993;40:608–617. doi: 10.1109/58.238115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Errico C, et al. Ultrafast ultrasound localization microscopy for deep super-resolution vascular imaging. Nature. 2015;527:499–502. doi: 10.1038/nature16066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Shapiro MG, et al. Biogenic gas nanostructures as ultrasonic molecular reporters. Nature nanotechnology. 2014;9:311–316. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2014.32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Lakshmanan A, et al. Molecular Engineering of Acoustic Protein Nanostructures. ACS Nano. 2016;10:7314–7322. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.6b03364. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Wang LV, Hu S. Photoacoustic tomography: in vivo imaging from organelles to organs. Science. 2012;335:1458–1462. doi: 10.1126/science.1216210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Taruttis A, Ntziachristos V. Advances in real-time multispectral optoacoustic imaging and its applications. Nature Photonics. 2015;9:219–227. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Yao J, et al. Multiscale photoacoustic tomography using reversibly switchable bacterial phytochrome as a near-infrared photochromic probe. Nature methods. 2016;13:67–73. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3656. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Jiang Y, et al. Violacein as a genetically-controlled, enzymatically amplified and photobleaching-resistant chromophore for optoacoustic bacterial imaging. Scientific reports. 2015;5 doi: 10.1038/srep11048. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Deán-Ben XL, et al. Functional optoacoustic neuro-tomography for scalable whole-brain monitoring of calcium indicators. Light: Science & Applications. 2016;5:e16201. doi: 10.1038/lsa.2016.201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Lin MZ, Schnitzer MJ. Genetically encoded indicators of neuronal activity. Nature Neuroscience. 2016;19:1142–1153. doi: 10.1038/nn.4359. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Shapiro MG, et al. Directed evolution of a magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent for noninvasive imaging of dopamine. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28:264–270. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Deckers R, et al. Image-guided, noninvasive, spatiotemporal control of gene expression. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009;106:1175–1180. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0806936106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Piraner DI, Abedi MH, Moser BA, Lee-Gosselin A, Shapiro MG. Tunable thermal bioswitches for in vivo control of microbial therapeutics. Nat Chem Biol. 2017;13:75–80. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.2233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Huang H, Delikanli S, Zeng H, Ferkey DM, Pralle A. Remote control of ion channels and neurons through magnetic-field heating of nanoparticles. Nature nanotechnology. 2010;5:602–606. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2010.125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES