OBJECTIVES: Radiolabeled somatostatin analogs have become important agents for molecular imaging and targeted radiotherapy of somatostatin receptor-positive tumors. Here we determine the effect of the tumor suppressor protein, p53, on trafficking (64)Cu to tumor cell nuclei from DOTA vs. CB-TE2A-conjugated agonist Y3-TATE and the antagonist (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-sst2-ANT in cell lines that are positive or negative for p53. METHODS: Receptor binding, internalization, cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) and nuclear localization studies were performed with the somatostatin receptor subtype 2 (SSTr2) agonists, (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-Y3-TATE and (64)Cu-DOTA-Y3-TATE vs. antagonist, (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-sst2-ANT, in SSTr2-transfected p53 +/+ and -/- HCT116 colorectal carcinoma cells. RESULTS: The antagonist, (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-sst2-ANT, bound 8-9-fold more SSTr2 binding sites than did the (64)Cu-labeled agonists. (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-Y3-TATE was more efficiently internalized than (64)Cu-DOTA-Y3-TATE, while (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-sst2-ANT showed lower yet significant levels of internalization. CB-TE2A-Y3-TATE acted as a full agonist, inhibiting cAMP production, whereas CB-TE2A-sst2-ANT showed no inhibition of cAMP production. The (64)Cu from agonists (64)Cu-DOTA-Y3-TATE and (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-Y3-TATE showed greater nuclear localization at 24 h in p53 +/+ vs. -/- cells; however, there was no difference in the levels of (64)Cu from the antagonist based on p53 status. Surprisingly, the DOTA and CB-TE2A-conjugated agonists showed similar nuclear localization in the p53 +/+ and -/- cells, suggesting no difference in (64)Cu release from these chelators in the HCT116 cell lines. CONCLUSION: Based on these in vitro data, the agonist (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-Y3-TATE demonstrates the most promise as an agent for targeted radiotherapy in p53 positive, SSTr2-positive tumors.
OBJECTIVES: Radiolabeled somatostatin analogs have become important agents for molecular imaging and targeted radiotherapy of somatostatin receptor-positive tumors. Here we determine the effect of the tumor suppressor protein, p53, on trafficking (64)Cu to tumor cell nuclei from DOTA vs. CB-TE2A-conjugated agonist Y3-TATE and the antagonist (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-sst2-ANT in cell lines that are positive or negative for p53. METHODS: Receptor binding, internalization, cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) and nuclear localization studies were performed with the somatostatin receptor subtype 2 (SSTr2) agonists, (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-Y3-TATE and (64)Cu-DOTA-Y3-TATE vs. antagonist, (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-sst2-ANT, in SSTr2-transfected p53 +/+ and -/- HCT116colorectal carcinoma cells. RESULTS: The antagonist, (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-sst2-ANT, bound 8-9-fold more SSTr2 binding sites than did the (64)Cu-labeled agonists. (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-Y3-TATE was more efficiently internalized than (64)Cu-DOTA-Y3-TATE, while (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-sst2-ANT showed lower yet significant levels of internalization. CB-TE2A-Y3-TATE acted as a full agonist, inhibiting cAMP production, whereas CB-TE2A-sst2-ANT showed no inhibition of cAMP production. The (64)Cu from agonists (64)Cu-DOTA-Y3-TATE and (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-Y3-TATE showed greater nuclear localization at 24 h in p53 +/+ vs. -/- cells; however, there was no difference in the levels of (64)Cu from the antagonist based on p53 status. Surprisingly, the DOTA and CB-TE2A-conjugated agonists showed similar nuclear localization in the p53 +/+ and -/- cells, suggesting no difference in (64)Cu release from these chelators in the HCT116 cell lines. CONCLUSION: Based on these in vitro data, the agonist (64)Cu-CB-TE2A-Y3-TATE demonstrates the most promise as an agent for targeted radiotherapy in p53 positive, SSTr2-positive tumors.
Authors: F Bunz; A Dutriaux; C Lengauer; T Waldman; S Zhou; J P Brown; J M Sedivy; K W Kinzler; B Vogelstein Journal: Science Date: 1998-11-20 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: M de Jong; W A Breeman; W H Bakker; P P Kooij; B F Bernard; L J Hofland; T J Visser; A Srinivasan; M A Schmidt; J L Erion; J E Bugaj; H R Mäcke; E P Krenning Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1998-02-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: D W McCarthy; R E Shefer; R E Klinkowstein; L A Bass; W H Margeneau; C S Cutler; C J Anderson; M J Welch Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 1997-01 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Jessie R Nedrow; Alexander G White; Jalpa Modi; Kim Nguyen; Albert J Chang; Carolyn J Anderson Journal: Mol Imaging Date: 2014 Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: Xuejuan Wang; Melpomeni Fani; Stefan Schulz; Jean Rivier; Jean Claude Reubi; Helmut R Maecke Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-08-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Gwendolyn A Bailey; Eric W Price; Brian M Zeglis; Cara L Ferreira; Eszter Boros; Michael J Lacasse; Brian O Patrick; Jason S Lewis; Michael J Adam; Chris Orvig Journal: Inorg Chem Date: 2012-10-29 Impact factor: 5.165
Authors: Zhengxin Cai; Qin Ouyang; Dexing Zeng; Kim N Nguyen; Jalpa Modi; Lirong Wang; Alexander G White; Buck E Rogers; Xiang-Qun Xie; Carolyn J Anderson Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2014-07-11 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Keelara Abiraj; Samer Ursillo; Maria Luisa Tamma; Svetlana N Rylova; Beatrice Waser; Edwin C Constable; Melpomeni Fani; Guillaume P Nicolas; Jean Claude Reubi; Helmut R Maecke Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 3.138