PURPOSE: Translocator protein (TSPO) is a promising biomarker for neuroinflammation. We developed two new PET ligands, (18)F-PBR06 and (11)C-PBR28, to image TSPOs. Although our prior studies suggest that either of the two ligands could be used to quantify TSPOs in human brain, the studies were done in different sets of subjects. In this study, we directly compared (18)F-PBR06 and (11)C-PBR28 in eight human subjects to determine (1) whether either ligand provides more precise measurements of TSPOs and (2) whether the higher in vitro affinity of PBR06 compared to PBR28 led to higher in vivo binding of (18)F-PBR06 compared to (11)C-PBR28. METHODS: In vivo binding was calculated as total distribution volume (V(T)), using an unconstrained two-tissue compartment model. V(T) was corrected for plasma free fraction (f (P)) to measure ligand binding based on free ligand concentration in brain. RESULTS: Both ligands measured V(T) with similar precision, as evidenced by similarly good identifiability. However, V(T) for both radioligands increased with increasing lengths of data acquisition, consistent with the accumulation of radiometabolites in brain. Despite its higher lipophilicity and higher in vitro affinity, V(T)/f(P) of (18)F-PBR06 was similar to that of (11)C-PBR28. CONCLUSION: Both (18)F-PBR06 and (11)C-PBR28 are similar in terms of precision, sensitivity to accumulation of radiometabolites, and magnitude of in vivo binding. Thus, selection between the two radioligands will be primarily determined by the logistical impact of the different half-lives of the two radionuclides (110 vs 20 min).
PURPOSE:Translocator protein (TSPO) is a promising biomarker for neuroinflammation. We developed two new PET ligands, (18)F-PBR06 and (11)C-PBR28, to image TSPOs. Although our prior studies suggest that either of the two ligands could be used to quantify TSPOs in human brain, the studies were done in different sets of subjects. In this study, we directly compared (18)F-PBR06 and (11)C-PBR28 in eight human subjects to determine (1) whether either ligand provides more precise measurements of TSPOs and (2) whether the higher in vitro affinity of PBR06 compared to PBR28 led to higher in vivo binding of (18)F-PBR06 compared to (11)C-PBR28. METHODS: In vivo binding was calculated as total distribution volume (V(T)), using an unconstrained two-tissue compartment model. V(T) was corrected for plasma free fraction (f (P)) to measure ligand binding based on free ligand concentration in brain. RESULTS: Both ligands measured V(T) with similar precision, as evidenced by similarly good identifiability. However, V(T) for both radioligands increased with increasing lengths of data acquisition, consistent with the accumulation of radiometabolites in brain. Despite its higher lipophilicity and higher in vitro affinity, V(T)/f(P) of (18)F-PBR06 was similar to that of (11)C-PBR28. CONCLUSION: Both (18)F-PBR06 and (11)C-PBR28 are similar in terms of precision, sensitivity to accumulation of radiometabolites, and magnitude of in vivo binding. Thus, selection between the two radioligands will be primarily determined by the logistical impact of the different half-lives of the two radionuclides (110 vs 20 min).
Authors: Robert B Innis; Vincent J Cunningham; Jacques Delforge; Masahiro Fujita; Albert Gjedde; Roger N Gunn; James Holden; Sylvain Houle; Sung-Cheng Huang; Masanori Ichise; Hidehiro Iida; Hiroshi Ito; Yuichi Kimura; Robert A Koeppe; Gitte M Knudsen; Juhani Knuuti; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Marc Laruelle; Jean Logan; Ralph Paul Maguire; Mark A Mintun; Evan D Morris; Ramin Parsey; Julie C Price; Mark Slifstein; Vesna Sossi; Tetsuya Suhara; John R Votaw; Dean F Wong; Richard E Carson Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2007-05-09 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Vassilios Papadopoulos; Mario Baraldi; Tomás R Guilarte; Thomas B Knudsen; Jean-Jacques Lacapère; Peter Lindemann; Michael D Norenberg; David Nutt; Abraham Weizman; Ming-Rong Zhang; Moshe Gavish Journal: Trends Pharmacol Sci Date: 2006-07-05 Impact factor: 14.819
Authors: N A Lassen; P A Bartenstein; A A Lammertsma; M C Prevett; D R Turton; S K Luthra; S Osman; P M Bloomfield; T Jones; P N Patsalos Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 1995-01 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: David R Owen; Owain W Howell; Sac-Pham Tang; Lisa A Wells; Idriss Bennacef; Mats Bergstrom; Roger N Gunn; Eugenii A Rabiner; Martin R Wilkins; Richard Reynolds; Paul M Matthews; Christine A Parker Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2010-04-28 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Yota Fujimura; Yasuyuki Kimura; Fabrice G Siméon; Leah P Dickstein; Victor W Pike; Robert B Innis; Masahiro Fujita Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-12-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Amira K Brown; Masahiro Fujita; Yota Fujimura; Jeih-San Liow; Michael Stabin; Yong H Ryu; Masao Imaizumi; Jinsoo Hong; Victor W Pike; Robert B Innis Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Emmanuelle Briard; Sami S Zoghbi; Masao Imaizumi; Jonathan P Gourley; H Umesha Shetty; Jinsoo Hong; Vanessa Cropley; Masahiro Fujita; Robert B Innis; Victor W Pike Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2007-12-08 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Emmanuelle Briard; Sami S Zoghbi; Fabrice G Siméon; Masao Imaizumi; Jonathan P Gourley; H Umesha Shetty; Shuiyu Lu; Masahiro Fujita; Robert B Innis; Victor W Pike Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2009-02-12 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Yota Fujimura; Sami S Zoghbi; Fabrice G Simèon; Andrew Taku; Victor W Pike; Robert B Innis; Masahiro Fujita Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-06-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Paolo Zanotti-Fregonara; Mattia Veronese; Belen Pascual; Robert C Rostomily; Federico Turkheimer; Joseph C Masdeu Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christina S Hines; Masahiro Fujita; Sami S Zoghbi; Jin Su Kim; Zenaide Quezado; Peter Herscovitch; Ning Miao; Maria D Ferraris Araneta; Cheryl Morse; Victor W Pike; Julia Labovsky; Robert B Innis Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-11-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Chad Brouwer; Kimberly J Jenko; Sami S Zoghbi; Cheryl L Morse; Robert B Innis; Victor W Pike Journal: Eur J Med Chem Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 6.514
Authors: Qi Guo; David R Owen; Eugenii A Rabiner; Federico E Turkheimer; Roger N Gunn Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2014-04-16 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Karmen K Yoder; Kwangsik Nho; Shannon L Risacher; Sungeun Kim; Li Shen; Andrew J Saykin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 10.057