UNLABELLED: The basis for the use of nucleoside tracers in PET is that activity of the cell-growth-dependent enzyme thymidine kinase 1 is the rate-limiting factor driving tracer retention in tumors. Recent publications suggest that nucleoside transporters might influence uptake and thereby affect the tracer signal in vivo. Understanding transport mechanisms for different nucleoside PET tracers is important for evaluating clinical results. This study examined the relative role of different nucleoside transport mechanisms in uptake and retention of [methyl-(3)H]-3'-deoxy-3'-fluorothymidine ((3)H-FLT), [methyl-(3)H]-thymidine ((3)H-thymidine), and (3)H-1-(2-deoxy-2-fluoro-beta-D-arabinofuranosyl)-5-methyluracil ((3)H-FMAU). METHODS: Transport of (3)H-FLT, (3)H-thymidine, and (3)H-FMAU was examined in a single human adenocarcinoma cell line, A549, under both nongrowth and exponential-growth conditions. RESULTS: (3)H-Thymidine transport was dominated by human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (hENT1) under both growth conditions. (3)H-FLT was also transported by hENT1, but passive diffusion dominated its transport. (3)H-FMAU transport was dominated by human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 2. Cell membrane levels of hENT1 increased in cells under exponential growth, and this increase was associated with a more rapid rate of uptake for both (3)H-thymidine and (3)H-FLT. (3)H-FMAU transport was not affected by changes in growth conditions. All 3 tracers concentrated in the plateau phase, nonproliferating cells at levels many-fold greater than their concentration in buffer, in part because of low levels of nucleoside metabolism, which inhibited tracer efflux. CONCLUSION: Transport mechanisms are not the same for (3)H-thymidine, (3)H-FLT, and (3)H-FMAU. Levels of hENT1, an important transporter of (3)H-FLT and (3)H-thymidine, increase as proliferating cells enter the cell cycle.
UNLABELLED: The basis for the use of nucleoside tracers in PET is that activity of the cell-growth-dependent enzyme thymidine kinase 1 is the rate-limiting factor driving tracer retention in tumors. Recent publications suggest that nucleoside transporters might influence uptake and thereby affect the tracer signal in vivo. Understanding transport mechanisms for different nucleoside PET tracers is important for evaluating clinical results. This study examined the relative role of different nucleoside transport mechanisms in uptake and retention of [methyl-(3)H]-3'-deoxy-3'-fluorothymidine ((3)H-FLT), [methyl-(3)H]-thymidine ((3)H-thymidine), and (3)H-1-(2-deoxy-2-fluoro-beta-D-arabinofuranosyl)-5-methyluracil ((3)H-FMAU). METHODS: Transport of (3)H-FLT, (3)H-thymidine, and (3)H-FMAU was examined in a single humanadenocarcinoma cell line, A549, under both nongrowth and exponential-growth conditions. RESULTS: (3)H-Thymidine transport was dominated by humanequilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (hENT1) under both growth conditions. (3)H-FLT was also transported by hENT1, but passive diffusion dominated its transport. (3)H-FMAU transport was dominated by humanequilibrative nucleoside transporter 2. Cell membrane levels of hENT1 increased in cells under exponential growth, and this increase was associated with a more rapid rate of uptake for both (3)H-thymidine and (3)H-FLT. (3)H-FMAU transport was not affected by changes in growth conditions. All 3 tracers concentrated in the plateau phase, nonproliferating cells at levels many-fold greater than their concentration in buffer, in part because of low levels of nucleoside metabolism, which inhibited tracer efflux. CONCLUSION: Transport mechanisms are not the same for (3)H-thymidine, (3)H-FLT, and (3)H-FMAU. Levels of hENT1, an important transporter of (3)H-FLT and (3)H-thymidine, increase as proliferating cells enter the cell cycle.
Authors: X B Kong; Q Y Zhu; P M Vidal; K A Watanabe; B Polsky; D Armstrong; M Ostrander; S A Lang; E Muchmore; T C Chou Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 1992-04 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: David A Plotnik; Lena J McLaughlin; Jenny Chan; Joshua N Redmayne-Titley; Jeffrey L Schwartz Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2011-06-22 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: M Peck; H A Pollack; A Friesen; M Muzi; S C Shoner; E G Shankland; J R Fink; J O Armstrong; J M Link; K A Krohn Journal: Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 2.346
Authors: Matthias R Benz; Johannes Czernin; Martin S Allen-Auerbach; Sarah M Dry; Piriya Sutthiruangwong; Claudio Spick; Caius Radu; Wolfgang A Weber; William D Tap; Fritz C Eilber Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-10-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Antonio A W L Wong; Jerome Lozada; Mathieu L Lepage; Chengcheng Zhang; Helen Merkens; Jutta Zeisler; Kuo-Shyan Lin; François Bénard; David M Perrin Journal: RSC Med Chem Date: 2020-04-23
Authors: Laura L Boles Ponto; Susan Walsh; Jiangeng Huang; Christine Mundt; Katherine Thede-Reynolds; G Leonard Watkins; John Sunderland; Michael Acevedo; Maureen Donovan Journal: AAPS J Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 4.009
Authors: David A Plotnik; Camille Asher; Stephanie K Chu; Robert S Miyaoka; Gregory G Garwin; Brian W Johnson; Tiffany Li; Kenneth A Krohn; Jeffrey L Schwartz Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2012-09-15 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Woosuk Kim; Thuc M Le; Liu Wei; Soumya Poddar; Jimmy Bazzy; Xuemeng Wang; Nhu T Uong; Evan R Abt; Joseph R Capri; Wayne R Austin; Juno S Van Valkenburgh; Dalton Steele; Raymond M Gipson; Roger Slavik; Anthony E Cabebe; Thotsophon Taechariyakul; Shahriar S Yaghoubi; Jason T Lee; Saman Sadeghi; Arnon Lavie; Kym F Faull; Owen N Witte; Timothy R Donahue; Michael E Phelps; Harvey R Herschman; Ken Herrmann; Johannes Czernin; Caius G Radu Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-03-28 Impact factor: 11.205