OBJECTIVES: The alpha(v)beta(3) integrin is a cell adhesion molecule known to be involved in stages of angiogenesis and metastasis. In this study, the chelators CB-TE2A and diamsar were conjugated to cyclic RGDyK and RGDfD and the biological properties of (64)Cu-labeled peptides were compared. METHODS: CB-TE2A-c(RGDyK) and diamsar-c(RGDfD) were labeled with (64)Cu in 0.1 M NH(4)OAc (pH=8) at 95 degrees C and 25 degrees C, respectively. PET and biodistribution studies were carried out on M21 (alpha(v)beta(3)-positive) and M21L (alpha(v)-negative) melanoma-bearing mice. Binding affinity of the Cu-chelator-RGD peptides to alpha(v)beta(3) integrins was determined by a competitive binding affinity assay. RESULTS: Biological studies showed higher concentration of (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-c(RGDyK) in M21 tumor compared to M21L tumor at 1 and 4 h pi. Tumor concentration of (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-c(RGDyK) was higher than that of (64)Cu-diamsar-c(RGDfD). The difference is not due to differing binding affinities, since similar values were obtained for the agents. Compared to (64)Cu-diamsar-c(RGDfD), there is more rapid liver and blood clearance of (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-c(RGDyK), resulting in a lower liver and blood concentration at 24 h pi. Both (64)Cu-labeled RGD peptides show similar binding affinities to alpha(v)beta(3). The differences in their biodistribution properties are likely related to different linkers, charges and lipophilicities. The M21 tumor is clearly visualized with (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-c(RGDyK) by microPET imaging. Administration of c(RGDyK) as a block significantly reduced the tumor concentration; however, the radioactivity background was also decreased by the blocking dose. CONCLUSIONS: Both (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-c(RGDyK) and (64)Cu-diamsar-c(RGDfD) are potential candidates for imaging tumor angiogenesis. For diamsar-c(RGDfD), a linker may be needed between the Cu-chelator moiety and the RGD peptide to achieve optimal in vivo tumor concentration and clearance from nontarget organs.
OBJECTIVES: The alpha(v)beta(3) integrin is a cell adhesion molecule known to be involved in stages of angiogenesis and metastasis. In this study, the chelators CB-TE2A and diamsar were conjugated to cyclic RGDyK and RGDfD and the biological properties of (64)Cu-labeled peptides were compared. METHODS:CB-TE2A-c(RGDyK) and diamsar-c(RGDfD) were labeled with (64)Cu in 0.1 M NH(4)OAc (pH=8) at 95 degrees C and 25 degrees C, respectively. PET and biodistribution studies were carried out on M21 (alpha(v)beta(3)-positive) and M21L (alpha(v)-negative) melanoma-bearing mice. Binding affinity of the Cu-chelator-RGD peptides to alpha(v)beta(3) integrins was determined by a competitive binding affinity assay. RESULTS: Biological studies showed higher concentration of (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-c(RGDyK) in M21 tumor compared to M21Ltumor at 1 and 4 h pi. Tumor concentration of (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-c(RGDyK) was higher than that of (64)Cu-diamsar-c(RGDfD). The difference is not due to differing binding affinities, since similar values were obtained for the agents. Compared to (64)Cu-diamsar-c(RGDfD), there is more rapid liver and blood clearance of (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-c(RGDyK), resulting in a lower liver and blood concentration at 24 h pi. Both (64)Cu-labeled RGD peptides show similar binding affinities to alpha(v)beta(3). The differences in their biodistribution properties are likely related to different linkers, charges and lipophilicities. The M21 tumor is clearly visualized with (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-c(RGDyK) by microPET imaging. Administration of c(RGDyK) as a block significantly reduced the tumor concentration; however, the radioactivity background was also decreased by the blocking dose. CONCLUSIONS: Both (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-c(RGDyK) and (64)Cu-diamsar-c(RGDfD) are potential candidates for imaging tumor angiogenesis. For diamsar-c(RGDfD), a linker may be needed between the Cu-chelator moiety and the RGD peptide to achieve optimal in vivo tumor concentration and clearance from nontarget organs.
Authors: Xiankai Sun; Melinda Wuest; Gary R Weisman; Edward H Wong; David P Reed; C Andrew Boswell; Ramunas Motekaitis; Arthur E Martell; Michael J Welch; Carolyn J Anderson Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2002-01-17 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: R Haubner; H J Wester; F Burkhart; R Senekowitsch-Schmidtke; W Weber; S L Goodman; H Kessler; M Schwaiger Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Wen Ping Li; Laura A Meyer; David A Capretto; Christopher D Sherman; Carolyn J Anderson Journal: Cancer Biother Radiopharm Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 3.099
Authors: Yongjian Liu; Eric D Pressly; Dana R Abendschein; Craig J Hawker; Geoffrey E Woodard; Pamela K Woodard; Michael J Welch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Eszter Boros; Elena Rybak-Akimova; Jason P Holland; Tyson Rietz; Nicholas Rotile; Francesco Blasi; Helen Day; Reza Latifi; Peter Caravan Journal: Mol Pharm Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 4.939