INTRODUCTION: The cellular binding and processing of an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) targeting affibody molecule, (Z(EGFR:955))(2), was studied. This new and small molecule is aimed for applications in nuclear medicine. The natural ligand epidermal growth factor (EGF) and the antibody cetuximab were studied for comparison. METHODS: All experiments were made with cultured A431 squamous carcinoma cells. Receptor specificity, binding time patterns, retention and preliminary receptor binding site localization studies were all made after (125)I labeling. Internalization was studied using Oregon Green 488, Alexa Fluor 488 and CypHer5E markers. RESULTS: [(125)I](Z(EGFR:955))(2) and [(125)I]cetuximab gave a maximum cellular uptake of (125)I within 4 to 8 h of incubation, while [(125)I]EGF gave a maximum uptake already after 2 h. The retention studies showed that the cell-associated fraction of (125)I after 48 h of incubation was approximately 20% when delivered as [(125)I](Z(EGFR:955))(2) and approximately 25% when delivered as [(125)I]cetuximab. [(125)I]EGF-mediated delivery gave a faster (125)I release, where almost all cell-associated radioactivity had disappeared within 24 h. All three substances were internalized as demonstrated with confocal microscopy. Competitive binding studies showed that both EGF and cetuximab inhibited binding of (Z(EGFR:955))(2) and indicated that the three substances competed for an overlapping binding site. CONCLUSION: The results gave information on cellular processing of radionuclides when delivered with (Z(EGFR:955))(2) in comparison to delivery with EGF and cetuximab. Competition assays suggested that [(125)I](Z(EGFR:955))(2) bind to Domain III of EGFR. The affibody molecule (Z(EGFR:955))(2) can be a candidate for EGFR imaging applications in nuclear medicine.
INTRODUCTION: The cellular binding and processing of an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) targeting affibody molecule, (Z(EGFR:955))(2), was studied. This new and small molecule is aimed for applications in nuclear medicine. The natural ligand epidermal growth factor (EGF) and the antibody cetuximab were studied for comparison. METHODS: All experiments were made with cultured A431 squamous carcinoma cells. Receptor specificity, binding time patterns, retention and preliminary receptor binding site localization studies were all made after (125)I labeling. Internalization was studied using Oregon Green 488, Alexa Fluor 488 and CypHer5E markers. RESULTS: [(125)I](Z(EGFR:955))(2) and [(125)I]cetuximab gave a maximum cellular uptake of (125)I within 4 to 8 h of incubation, while [(125)I]EGF gave a maximum uptake already after 2 h. The retention studies showed that the cell-associated fraction of (125)I after 48 h of incubation was approximately 20% when delivered as [(125)I](Z(EGFR:955))(2) and approximately 25% when delivered as [(125)I]cetuximab. [(125)I]EGF-mediated delivery gave a faster (125)I release, where almost all cell-associated radioactivity had disappeared within 24 h. All three substances were internalized as demonstrated with confocal microscopy. Competitive binding studies showed that both EGF and cetuximab inhibited binding of (Z(EGFR:955))(2) and indicated that the three substances competed for an overlapping binding site. CONCLUSION: The results gave information on cellular processing of radionuclides when delivered with (Z(EGFR:955))(2) in comparison to delivery with EGF and cetuximab. Competition assays suggested that [(125)I](Z(EGFR:955))(2) bind to Domain III of EGFR. The affibody molecule (Z(EGFR:955))(2) can be a candidate for EGFR imaging applications in nuclear medicine.
Authors: Vladimir Tolmachev; Heng Xu; Helena Wållberg; Sara Ahlgren; Magnus Hjertman; Anna Sjöberg; Mattias Sandström; Lars Abrahmsén; Martin W Brechbiel; Anna Orlova Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2008-07-12 Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: Torun Ekblad; Thuy Tran; Anna Orlova; Charles Widström; Joachim Feldwisch; Lars Abrahmsén; Anders Wennborg; Amelie Eriksson Karlström; Vladimir Tolmachev Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-07-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: M Saki; M Toulany; W Sihver; M Zenker; J-M Heldt; B Mosch; H-J Pietzsch; M Baumann; J Steinbach; H P Rodemann Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-08-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Ning Zhao; Tyrslai M Williams; Zehua Zhou; Frank R Fronczek; Martha Sibrian-Vazquez; Seetharama D Jois; M Graça H Vicente Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2017-04-28 Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: Wei Li; Zhongyun Liu; Chengxia Li; Ning Li; Lei Fang; Jin Chang; Jian Tan Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 4.553