Open Access

Vasilisa Zhukova, Nadezhda Osipova, Aleksey Semyonkin, Julia Malinovskaya, Pavel Melnikov, Marat Valikhov, Yuri Porozov, Yaroslav Solovev, Pavel Kuliaev, En-chin Chang, Bernhard A. Sabel, Vladimir Chekhonin, Maxim Abakumov, Alexander Majouga, Jörg Kreuter, Petra Henrich-Noack, Svetlana Gelperina, Olga Maksimenko

• Fluorescently labeled nanoparticles are widely used for evaluating their distribution in the biological environment. However, dye leakage can lead to misinterpretations of the nanoparticles’ biodistribution. To better understand the interactions of dyes and nanoparticles and their biological environment, we explored PLGA nanoparticles labeled with four widely used dyes encapsulated (coumarin 6, rhodamine 123, DiI) or bound covalently to the polymer (Cy5.5.). The DiI label was stable in both aqueous and lipophilic environments, whereas the quick release of coumarin 6 was observed in model media containing albumin (42%) or liposomes (62%), which could be explained by the different affinity of these dyes to the polymer and lipophilic structures and which we also confirmed by computational modeling (log PDPPC/PLGA: DiI—2.3, Cou6—0.7). The importance of these factors was demonstrated by in vivo neuroimaging (ICON) of the rat retina using double-labeled Cy5.5/Cou6-nanoparticles: encapsulated Cou6 quickly leaked into the tissue, whereas the stably bound Cy.5.5 label remained associated with the vessels. This observation is a good example of the possible misinterpretation of imaging results because the coumarin 6 distribution creates the impression that nanoparticles effectively crossed the blood–retina barrier, whereas in fact no signal from the core material was found beyond the blood vessels.