PURPOSE: [(18)F]MK-9470 is an inverse agonist for the type 1 cannabinoid (CB1) receptor allowing its use in PET imaging. We characterized the kinetics of [(18)F]MK-9470 and evaluated its ability to quantify CB1 receptor availability in the rat brain. METHODS: Dynamic small-animal PET scans with [(18)F]MK-9470 were performed in Wistar rats on a FOCUS-220 system for up to 10 h. Both plasma and perfused brain homogenates were analysed using HPLC to quantify radiometabolites. Displacement and blocking experiments were done using cold MK-9470 and another inverse agonist, SR141716A. The distribution volume (V(T)) of [(18)F]MK-9470 was used as a quantitative measure and compared to the use of brain uptake, expressed as SUV, a simplified method of quantification. RESULTS: The percentage of intact [(18)F]MK-9470 in arterial plasma samples was 80 ± 23 % at 10 min, 38 ± 30 % at 40 min and 13 ± 14 % at 210 min. A polar radiometabolite fraction was detected in plasma and brain tissue. The brain radiometabolite concentration was uniform across the whole brain. Displacement and pretreatment studies showed that 56 % of the tracer binding was specific and reversible. V (T) values obtained with a one-tissue compartment model plus constrained radiometabolite input had good identifiability (≤10 %). Ignoring the radiometabolite contribution using a one-tissue compartment model alone, i.e. without constrained radiometabolite input, overestimated the [(18)F]MK-9470 V(T), but was correlated. A correlation between [(18)F]MK-9470 V(T) and SUV in the brain was also found (R(2) = 0.26-0.33; p ≤ 0.03). CONCLUSION: While the presence of a brain-penetrating radiometabolite fraction complicates the quantification of [(18)F]MK-9470 in the rat brain, its tracer kinetics can be modelled using a one-tissue compartment model with and without constrained radiometabolite input.
PURPOSE: [(18)F]MK-9470 is an inverse agonist for the type 1 cannabinoid (CB1) receptor allowing its use in PET imaging. We characterized the kinetics of [(18)F]MK-9470 and evaluated its ability to quantify CB1 receptor availability in the rat brain. METHODS: Dynamic small-animal PET scans with [(18)F]MK-9470 were performed in Wistar rats on a FOCUS-220 system for up to 10 h. Both plasma and perfused brain homogenates were analysed using HPLC to quantify radiometabolites. Displacement and blocking experiments were done using cold MK-9470 and another inverse agonist, SR141716A. The distribution volume (V(T)) of [(18)F]MK-9470 was used as a quantitative measure and compared to the use of brain uptake, expressed as SUV, a simplified method of quantification. RESULTS: The percentage of intact [(18)F]MK-9470 in arterial plasma samples was 80 ± 23 % at 10 min, 38 ± 30 % at 40 min and 13 ± 14 % at 210 min. A polar radiometabolite fraction was detected in plasma and brain tissue. The brain radiometabolite concentration was uniform across the whole brain. Displacement and pretreatment studies showed that 56 % of the tracer binding was specific and reversible. V (T) values obtained with a one-tissue compartment model plus constrained radiometabolite input had good identifiability (≤10 %). Ignoring the radiometabolite contribution using a one-tissue compartment model alone, i.e. without constrained radiometabolite input, overestimated the [(18)F]MK-9470 V(T), but was correlated. A correlation between [(18)F]MK-9470 V(T) and SUV in the brain was also found (R(2) = 0.26-0.33; p ≤ 0.03). CONCLUSION: While the presence of a brain-penetrating radiometabolite fraction complicates the quantification of [(18)F]MK-9470 in the rat brain, its tracer kinetics can be modelled using a one-tissue compartment model with and without constrained radiometabolite input.
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: Sandra Marina Sanabria-Bohórquez; Terence G Hamill; Karolien Goffin; Inge De Lepeleire; Guy Bormans; H Donald Burns; Koen Van Laere Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-12-24 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Andrew G Horti; Hong Fan; Hiroto Kuwabara; John Hilton; Hayden T Ravert; Daniel P Holt; Mohab Alexander; Anil Kumar; Arman Rahmim; Ursula Scheffel; Dean F Wong; Robert F Dannals Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Cindy Casteels; Peter Vermaelen; Johan Nuyts; Annemie Van Der Linden; Veerle Baekelandt; Luc Mortelmans; Guy Bormans; Koen Van Laere Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: M Herkenham; A B Lynn; M D Little; M R Johnson; L S Melvin; B R de Costa; K C Rice Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1990-03 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: I Miederer; S Maus; I Zwiener; G Podoprygorina; D Meshcheryakov; B Lutz; M Schreckenberger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-07-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Caroline Vandeputte; Cindy Casteels; Tom Struys; Michel Koole; Daisy van Veghel; Nele Evens; Anneleen Gerits; Tom Dresselaers; Ivo Lambrichts; Uwe Himmelreich; Guy Bormans; Koen Van Laere Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Domokos Máthé; Ildikó Horváth; Krisztián Szigeti; Sean R Donohue; Victor W Pike; Zisheng Jia; Catherine Ledent; Miklós Palkovits; Tamás F Freund; Christer Halldin; Balázs Gulyás Journal: Brain Res Bull Date: 2013-01-11 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Kimy M Emonds; Michel Koole; Cindy Casteels; Laura Van den Bergh; Guy M Bormans; Filip Claus; Liesbeth De Wever; Evelyne Lerut; Hendrik Van Poppel; Steven Joniau; Herlinde Dumez; Karin Haustermans; Luc Mortelmans; Karolien Goffin; Koen Van Laere; Christophe M Deroose; Felix M Mottaghy Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2013-08-02 Impact factor: 3.138