Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jul 23.
Published in final edited form as: Chem Commun (Camb). 2019 Jul 23;55(60):8860–8863. doi: 10.1039/c9cc00375d

A Dual-Responsive Probe for Detecting Cellular Hypoxia using 19F Magnetic Resonance and Fluorescence

Rahul T Kadakia a, Da Xie a, Daniel Martinez Jr a, Meng Yu a, Emily L Que a
PMCID: PMC6650319  NIHMSID: NIHMS1037345  PMID: 31219109

Abstract

We report the first dual-responsive 19F MRI and fluorescence imaging probe for cellular hypoxia. The Cu2+-based probe exhibits no 19F MR signal and reduced fluorescence signal due to paramagnetic quenching; however, the probe turns-on in both modes following reduction to Cu+. This bimodal agent can differentiate hypoxic and normoxic cells in both modalities.


Cellular hypoxia, or oxygen deficiency, is a detrimental physiological condition that stems from inadequate vasculature preventing proper oxygen flow and nutrient delivery to cells. Hypoxic cells express increased levels of hypoxia inducible factor (HIF-1), which regulates a cell’s ability to either adapt to the hypoxic environment or die via apoptosis.1, 2 Hypoxia is associated with genetic instability, resistance to chemotherapy, and malignant proliferation of cells and thus is an important clinical target for imaging.36 To date, a number of agents have been developed to image hypoxia using a range of modalities.713 For example, 64CuATSM is used as an imaging agent for positron emission tomography (PET).14 This probe functions via selective intracellular accumulation in hypoxic cells following reduction of Cu2+ATSM to [Cu+ATSM] and subsequent ligand dissociation. In normoxic cells, the complex can be reduced to [Cu+ATSM], but is re-oxidized to Cu2+ATSM more efficiently than ligand dissociation.1518 However, radioactive probes such as this have associated safety concerns and PET imaging has limited spatial resolution.19

There has been growing interest in bimodal imaging agents as they can be used to provide complementary diagnostic information from multiple imaging modalities.2022 Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is an excellent in vivo imaging modality since the technique provides images with high contrast and spatial resolution without the use of ionizing radiation.23 While MRI typically is used to detect 1H signals in the body, 19F MRI is a promising alternative as 19F is biostable and has excellent receptivity (83% of 1H).2426 Further, there is no detectable fluorine in the body, resulting in zero biological background signal, thus enabling quantitative hotspot imaging. Although 19F MRI is effective for whole animal imaging with high contrast, it does not provide data at the cellular level.

Fluorescence, on the other hand, is excellent for cellular imaging as the technique provides high specificity, excellent contrast, and subcellular spatial resolution.23, 27 Fluorescence can be used to track intracellular probe localization within individual cells. Indeed, a number of fluorescent probes have been reported that detect hypoxic environments, with the best probes displaying greater than 600x fluorescence turn-on after reduction.28, 29 Since the penetration depth of fluorescence imaging is limited, probes with bimodal responsive functionality could provide diagnostic information that spans depth penetration and resolution scales. Specifically, MRI can identify hypoxic cancerous growth using whole body imaging and fluorescence can be used to confirm the presence of hypoxic cells during tumor excision and biopsy.

Paramagnetic metals can be used to modulate both 19F andfluorescence signal to make biosensors.3039 To develop bimodal hypoxia-responsive probes for 19F MRI and fluorescence, we chose the CuATSM scaffold as the paramagnetic Cu2+ center will quench both the 19F MR signal via paramagnetic relaxation enhancement (PRE)7, 8 and the fluorescence signal due to electron transfer from the excited fluorophore to the paramagnetic metal center (Scheme 1).36 Following reduction to Cu+ and ligand dissociation, both of these effects will be relieved, resulting in signal turn-on in both modalities. Herein, we describe CuATSMF3-Fl, the first dual-responsive 19F MRI fluorescence imaging probe that displays increases in 19F and fluorescence signals in hypoxic cells.

Scheme 1.

Scheme 1

Design strategy for hypoxia selective bimodal 19F MR and fluorescent probe. The initial modulated 19F signal and quenched fluorescence “turns-on” upon hypoxic reduction of Cu2+ to Cu+ and subsequent demetallation of the ligand scaffold.

Synthesis of CuATSMF3-Fl (Scheme S1) was carried out from previously reported 1 with 2,2,2-trifluoroethanamine hydrochloride via transamination to afford 2 (70%).7 This was subsequently reacted with tert-butyl(2-aminoethyl)carbamate to yield 3 (62%). Compound 3 was complexed with Cu(OAc)2 to obtain 4 (75%), which was then deprotected and reacted with the succinimidyl ester of 5-(and 6-) carboxyfluorescein to yield CuATSMF3-Fl (61%). Acetylated CuATSMF3-FlAc was achieved via Fischer esterification of CuATSMF3-Fl with acetic anhydride in pyridine to give a 98% yield. All intermediates were purified via C18 reverse-phase chromatography using acetonitrile and Milli-Q grade water as eluents. The purity of all compounds was validated using HRMS and NMR (See Supporting Information). CuATSMF3-Fl is stable in acidic environments as determined by LC/MS (Figure S1A and S23) and 19F NMR (Figure S1B).

We first investigated the redox characteristics of CuATSMF3-Fl. Recent work has shown that the introduction of a -CF3 group to CuATSM (E½ = −0.63 V vs. SCE) causes a cathodic shift in potential due to the electron-withdrawing effects of fluorine (CuATSMF3 E½ = −0.56 V).7 Indeed, cyclic voltammetry (CV) of CuATSMF3-Fl also shows a similar shift in potential, with a quasi-reversible Cu2+/Cu+ peak at E½ = −0.55 V in DMF (Figure S2). This indicates that the primary contributor of the redox shift is the fluorine moiety and the fluorescein does not significantly impact the E½ of the complex. Moreover, this suggests CuATSMF3-Fl should retain hypoxia selectivity as previous studies demonstrated that CuATSM scaffolds with E½ < −0.50 V will accumulate more in hypoxic cells compared to normoxic cells.17, 40

To characterize the complex and validate the probe’s functionality as a bimodal agent, we next investigated how the 19F NMR and fluorescence properties of CuATSMF3-Fl changed during reduction. 19F NMR spectra for CuATSMF3-Fl were obtained in the absence and presence of excess sodium dithionite (Na2S2O4). Complex CuATSMF3-Fl displayed no peaks in its 19F NMR spectrum (Figure 1A top); however, in the presence of reductant, a sharp triplet peak was observed at −70.2 ppm (Figure 1A bottom), corresponding to the free ligand, which forms due to the instability of the Cu(I) reduction product in aqueous solution.7, 8 Longitudinal (T1) and transverse (T2) relaxation times of reduced CuATSMF3-Fl were 730 ms and 150 ms, respectively (Table S1).7 In aqueous solution, CuATSMF3-Fl displays some baseline fluorescence (Φ = 0.196, Figure S3), which increases 3.5-fold following reduction with 2 mM dithiothreitol (DTT) or glutathione (GSH) (Figure 1B). 2 mM GSH does not change the fluorescence of 5(6)-carboxyfluorescein itself (Figure S6), indicating that the observed increase in fluorescence is due to reduction at the Cu center and ligand dissociation. Thus, our probe displays an increase in both 19F NMR and fluorescence signal intensities following reduction.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

(A) 19F NMR spectra of 5 mM CuATSMF3-Fl in the absence (top) and presence (bottom) of excess Na2S2O4 performed in 3:2 d6-DMSO:HEPES (pH 7.2, 25 mM). (B) Normalized fluorescence spectra of 2 mM DTT and 2 mM GSH reduction of 1.5 µM CuATSMF3-Fl in HEPES (pH 7.2, 50 mM). (C) Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) spectra of 1 mM CuATSMF3-Fl in 10% DMSO in HEPES (pH 7.2, 50 mM) with one equivalent Na2S2O4 (light green) and excess DTT (dark green) at 298 K.

CuATSMF3-Fl was subsequently examined by Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) spectroscopy to confirm that reduction occurs at the Cu2+ center. The room temperature EPR spectrum of CuATSMF3-Fl in DMF gave the four characteristic Cu2+ peaks including hyperfine splitting with a gav = 2.06 (Figure S4), consistent with previous reports for Cu2+ complexes with square planar geometry.68, 41, 42 A similar spectrum was observed in 10% DMSO in HEPES buffer at room temperature (Figure 1C). Upon addition of one equivalent of Na2S2O4 or excess DTT to CuATSMF3-Fl, the peaks corresponding to the Cu2+ species disappear, consistent with a one electron reduction of Cu2+.

To demonstrate the extent of turn-on in reductive environments, phantom 19F MR images of CuATSMF3-Fl in the absence and presence of sodium dithionite were acquired. Images were taken on a 7 T preclinical MRI using a rapid acquisition with relaxation enhancement (RARE) sequence. As shown in Figure 2A, a 4.5 mM solution of CuATSMF3-Fl displayed zero detectable fluorine signal (signal to noise ratio (SNR) of 1.8), whereas a 4.5 mM solution of CuATSMF3-Fl with excess Na2S2O4 displayed a SNR of 67.4. As expected, SNR increased linearly with increasing CuATSMF3-Fl concentration (Figure 2B). MR data collected demonstrates that a turn-on can be visualized in reductive environments.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

(A) Phantom 19F MR images of 4.5 mM CuATSMF3-Fl (7 T MRI RARE pulse sequence: 1500 ms repetition time (TR), 3.75 ms echo time (TE), RARE factor 32) performed in 3:2 DMSO:HEPES (pH 7.2, 50 mM) in the absence (left, circled) and presence (right) of excess Na2S2O4 as a reductant. (B) Phantom 19F MR images with increasing concentration (top to bottom: 3.6 mM, 2.7 mM, 1.8 mM, 0.9 mM) in 3:2 DMSO:HEPES (pH 7.2, 50 mM) with excess Na2S2O4.

To evaluate the bimodal functionality of CuATSMF3-Fl in cells, experiments were performed with HeLa cervical cancer cells to confirm a biological turn-on response in hypoxic environments. For cellular studies, we synthesized the acetyl ester CuATSMF3-FlAc, a derivative of CuATSMF3-Fl with greater cell permeability. HeLa cells were incubated with CuATSMF3-Fl and CuATSMF3-FlAc for 4 hours and their cytotoxicity was determined using an MTT assay (Figures S7 and S8). The complexes showed negligible cytotoxicity up to 200 µM. Cell uptake studies were performed with 30 µM CuATSMF3-FlAc for one hour in normoxia (20% O2) and hypoxia (0.1% O2, representative of severe tumor hypoxia).2 Intracellular copper concentration was measured using inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES). Normoxic cells with CuATSMF3-FlAc contained 0.13 ± 0.01 fmol Cu2+ per cell, while hypoxic cells contained 0.18 ± 0.02 fmol Cu2+ per cell, demonstrating a 40% increase in uptake (p < 0.05, t-test). The corresponding fluorescence signal for cells treated under the same conditions was monitored by flow cytometry and fluorescence microscopy (Figures 3A, 3B, S9, and S10). Flow cytometry revealed a 60% increase in fluorescence (p < 0.05, t-test) from our probe in hypoxic cells vs. normoxic cells (Figure 3A, Table S2). This result was further supported by fluorescence imaging where much brighter signal was observed in hypoxic cells (Figure 3B right) vs. normoxic cells (Figure 3B left). Interestingly, fluorescence was observed throughout the cells and was not specifically localized to one organelle or intracellular region. This is consistent with previous reports of localization of CuATSM labeled with a fluorescent pyrene moiety.43, 44 We note that the fluorescence of the CuATSMF3-Fl scaffold is pH dependent, with decreased fluorescence observed at acidic pH (Figure S1A). Previous studies have shown that hypoxic cells induce a slight acidic environment,45 which may dampen the overall hypoxia-induced fluorescence response of CuATSMF3-Fl. Future work will incorporate pH-insensitive fluorophores into this scaffold.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

(A) Flow cytometry single cell fluorescence distribution data from HeLa cells incubated for 1 hour with 30 µM CuATSMF3-FlAc in normoxic (20% O2, black) and hypoxic (0.1% O2, green) environments. (B) Fluorescence images of normoxic (left; brightfield top, fluorescence bottom) and hypoxic (right) HeLa cervical cancer cells after one hour 30 µM incubation of CuATSMF3-FlAc. Scale bar 200 µm. (C) 19F NMR spectrum of lysed HeLa cells in anhydrous d6-DMSO with no CuATSMF3-FlAc (bottom), one hour 60 µM CuATSMF3-FlAc in normoxia (middle), and one hour 60 µM CuATSMF3-FlAc in hypoxia (top).

To further demonstrate the complex’s selectivity for hypoxia, 60 µM of CuATSMF3-FlAc was incubated in HeLa cells for 19F NMR studies. Figure 3C shows three representative 19F NMR spectra from control DMSO-treated cells (bottom), normoxic cells treated with CuATSMF3-FlAc (middle), and hypoxic cells treated with CuATSMF3-FlAc (top). There are no visible peaks for the control sample and a small peak for the normoxic sample (SNR 5.4 ± 0.7). The hypoxic sample shows a sharp 19F peak (SNR 39.7 ± 2.5). This data indicates that there is minimal reduction of the Cu2+ complex in normoxic cells; however, there is a quantifiable peak in hypoxic cells (greater than seven-fold increase in SNR), demonstrating that the bimodal probe is reduced under severe hypoxic cellular conditions. We did not observe signal turn-on in HeLa cells under 2% oxygen, representative of more mild hypoxic conditions. Thus, we have demonstrated the ability to use CuATSMF3-Fl to provide enhanced signal in severe hypoxic cells using both magnetic resonance and fluorescence outputs.

In conclusion, we synthesized a fluorinated and fluorescent CuATSM derivative that provides bimodal imaging information for detection of hypoxic cell environments. Attaching a fluorophore to a fluorinated CuATSM did not perturb the coordination environment and CuATSMF3-Fl retained hypoxic cellular redox selectivity. The initial fluorescence increased following reduction of the Cu2+ and subsequent demetallation. In the presence of a chemical reductant, the quenched Cu2+ NMR and MRI signals are restored due to relief of the PRE effect. Live cell fluorescence analysis demonstrated that HeLa cells incubated with CuATSMF3-FlAc emitted quantifiable increase in fluorescence and no specific probe localization was observed. An increase in signal was also observed in the 19F MR modality as a robust 19F NMR signal was observed in hypoxic HeLa cells and not normoxic cells. Ongoing work with dual-responsive 19F MRI probes includes increasing fluorine density for improving MR sensitivity, enhancing fluorescence signal differentiation, and exploring other bimodal combinations for imaging and theranostic applications.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by start-up funds from UT-Austin (EQ) and a grant from the Welch Foundation (F-1883) (EQ). We acknowledge the Biomedical Imaging Center and the Microscopy and Imaging Facility of the Center for Biomedical Research Support at UT Austin for access to instruments. We thank Kanchan Aggarwal for guidance with flow cytometry and Prof. Jonathan Sessler for use of his plate reader. Some NMR spectra were acquired on a Bruker AVIII HD 500 instrument acquired through a National Institutes of Health equipment grant (J. Sessler, 1 S10 OD021508–01).

Footnotes

Electronic Supplementary Information (ESI) available: Experimental details, NMR, electrochemistry, cell culture studies, electronic spectra, and flow cytometry. See DOI: 10.1039/x0xx00000x

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  • 1.Greijer AE and van der Wall E, J. Clin. Pathol, 2004, 57, 1009–1014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hammond EM, Asselin MC, Forster D, O’Connor JP, Senra JM and Williams KJ, Clin. Oncol, 2014, 26, 277–288. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Vaupel P, Mayer A and Höckel M, Methods Enzymol, 2004, 381, 335–354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wilson WR and Hay MP, Nat. Rev. Cancer, 2011, 11, 393–410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Padhani AR, Krohn KA, Lewis JS and Alber M, Eur. Radiol, 2007, 17, 861–872. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gillies RJ and Gatenby RA, Cancer Metastasis Rev, 2007, 26, 311–317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Xie D, King TL, Banerjee A, Kohli V and Que EL, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2016, 138, 2937–2940. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Xie D, Kim S, Kohli V, Banerjee A, Yu M, Enriquez JS, Luci JJ and Que EL, Inorg. Chem, 2017, 56, 6429–6437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Pacheco-Torres J, López-Larrubia P, Ballesteros P and Cerdán S, NMR Biomed, 2011, 24, 1–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Do QN, Ratnakar JS, Kovács Z and Sherry AD, ChemMedChem, 2014, 9, 1116–1129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Takahashi S, Piao W, Matsumura Y, Komatsu T, Ueno T, Terai T, Kamachi T, Kohno M, Nagano T and Hanaoka K, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2012, 134, 19588–19591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Yang DJ, Wallace S, Cherif A, Li C, Gretzer MB, Kim EE and Podoloff DA, Radiology, 1995, 194, 795–800. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lopci E, Grassi I, Chiti A, Nanni C, Cicoria G, Toschi L, Fonti C, Lodi F, Mattioli S and Fanti S, Am. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging, 2014, 4, 365–384. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Vāvere AL and Lewis JS, Dalton Trans, 2007, DOI: 10.1039/b705989b, 4893–4902. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 15.Zeglis BM, Houghton JL, Evans MJ, Viola-Villegas N and Lewis JS, Inorg. Chem, 2014, 53, 1880–1899. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Price KA, Crouch PJ, Volitakis I, Paterson BM, Lim S, Donnelly PS and White AR, Inorg. Chem, 2011, 50, 9594–9605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Dearling JL, Lewis JS, Mullen GE, Welch MJ and Blower PJ, J. Biol. Inorg. Chem, 2002, 7, 249–259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Apte S, Chin FT and Graves EE, Curr. Org. Synth, 2011, 8, 593–603. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Vaquero JJ and Kinahan P, Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng, 2015, 17, 385–414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Walia S and Acharya A, Beilstein J. Nanotechnol, 2015, 6, 546–558. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Herzog H and Van Den Hoff J, Q. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging, 2012, 56, 247–267. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kiani A, Esquevin A, Lepareur N, Bourguet P, Le Jeune F and Gauvrit J, Contrast Media Mol. Imaging, 2016, 11, 92–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.James ML and Gambhir SS, Physiol. Rev, 2012, 92, 897–965. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ruiz-Cabello J, Barnett BP, Bottomley PA and Bulte JW, NMR Biomed, 2011, 24, 114–129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Tirotta I, Dichiarante V, Pigliacelli C, Cavallo G, Terraneo G, Bombelli FB, Metrangolo P and Resnati G, Chem. Rev, 2015, 115, 1106–1129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Terreno E, Castelli DD, Viale A and Aime S, Chem. Rev, 2010, 110, 3019–3042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Stephens DJ and Allan VJ, Science, 2003, 300, 82–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Liu JN, Bu W and Shi J, Chem. Rev, 2017, 117, 6160–6224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Piao W, Tsuda S, Tanaka Y, Maeda S, Liu F, Takahashi S, Kushida Y, Komatsu T, Ueno T, Terai T, Nakazawa T, Uchiyama M, Morokuma K, Nagano T and Hanaoka K, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl, 2013, 52, 13028–13032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Yu M, Xie D, Phan KP, Enriquez JS, Luci JJ and Que EL, Chem. Commun, 2016, 52, 13885–13888. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Yu M, Bouley BS, Xie D, Enriquez JS and Que EL, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2018, 140, 10546–10552. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Xie D, Ohman LE and Que EL, Magn. Reson. Mater. Phys., Biol. Med, 2018, DOI: 10.1007/s10334-018-0698-4. [DOI]
  • 33.Enriquez JS, Yu M, Bouley BS, Xie D and Que EL, Dalton Trans, 2018, 47, 15024–15030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Loving GS, Mukherjee S and Caravan P, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2013, 135, 4620–4623. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Tsitovich PB, Spernyak JA and Morrow JR, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl, 2013, 52, 13997–14000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Rivera-Fuentes P and Lippard SJ, Acc. Chem. Res, 2015, 48, 2927–2934. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Yang W, Chen X, Su H, Fang W and Zhang Y, Chem. Commun, 2015, 51, 9616–9619. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Zheng M, Wang Y, Shi H, Hu Y, Feng L, Luo Z, Zhou M, He J, Zhou Z, Zhang Y and Ye D, ACS Nano, 2016, 10, 10075–10085. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Mizukami S, Takikawa R, Sugihara F, Shirakawa M and Kikuchi K, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl, 2009, 48, 3641–3643. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Dearling JLJ and Blower PJ, Chem. Commun, 1998, 2531–2532.
  • 41.Holland JP, Barnard PJ, Collison D, Dilworth JR, Edge R, Green JC and McInnes EJ, Chemistry, 2008, 14, 5890–5907. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.West DX, Ives JS, Bain GA, Liberta AE, Valdés-Martínez J, Ebert KH, Hernández-Ortega S, Polyhedron, 1997, 16, 1895–1905. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Price KA, Crouch PJ, Lim S, Paterson BM, Liddell JR, Donnelly PS and White AR, Metallomics, 2011, 3, 1280–1290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Lim S, Price KA, Chong SF, Paterson BM, Caragounis A, Barnham KJ, Crouch PJ, Peach JM, Dilworth JR, White AR and Donnelly PS, J. Biol. Inorg. Chem, 2010, 15, 225–235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Shirmanova MV, Druzhkova IN, Lukina MM, Matlashov ME, Belousov VV, Snopova LB, Prodanetz NN, Dudenkova VV, Lukyanov SA and Zagaynova EV, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 2015, 1850, 1905–1911. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary

RESOURCES