INTRODUCTION: The development of novel bifunctional chelates for attaching copper-64 to biomolecules has been an active area of research for several years. However, many of these (64)Cu-chelates have poor in vivo stability or harsh radiolabeling conditions. METHODS: In this study, two triazacyclononane analogs; C-NE3TA (4-carboxymethyl-7-[2-(carboxymethyl-amino)-3-(4-nitro-phenyl)-propyl]-[1,4,7]triazo-nan-1-yl-acetic acid) and N-NE3TA (4-carboxymethyl-7-[2-[carboxymethyl-(4-nitro-benzyl)-amino]-ethyl]-[1,4,7]triazonan-1-yl-acetic acid) were evaluated for their labeling efficiency with (64)Cu at room temperature and evaluated in vitro and in vivo. In vitro studies included complexation kinetics with Cu(II) using a spectrophotometric method and rat serum stability, while the in vivo biodistribution was evaluated using SCID mice. RESULTS: C-NE3TA and N-NE3TA were labeled at >95% efficiency up to ~3.4Ci/μmol. Both C-NE3TA and N-NE3TA formed complexes with Cu(II) almost immediately, with the Cu(II) complexation by C-NE3TA being faster than the formation of Cu(II)-N-NE3TA. Both (64)Cu-N-NE3TA and (64)Cu-C-NE3TA were 96.1% and 90.5% intact after 48h incubation in rat serum, respectively. This is compared to (64)Cu complexes of the control chelators, p-NH(2)-Bn-DOTA and p-NH(2)-Bn-NOTA, with 93.9% and 97.9% retention of (64)Cu in the complex, respectively. In vivo evaluation of (64)Cu-N-NE3TA and (64)Cu-C-NE3TA demonstrates good clearance from normal tissues except for the liver, where 59% and 51% of the radioactivity is retained at 24h compared to 1h for (64)Cu-N-NE3TA and (64)Cu-C-NE3TA, respectively. This compares to 78% and 3% retention for (64)Cu-p-NH(2)-Bn-DOTA and (64)Cu-p-NH(2)-Bn-NOTA. CONCLUSIONS: These studies demonstrate that while N-NE3TA and C-NE3TA appear to be superior chelators for (64)Cu than p-NH(2)-Bn-DOTA, they are not better than p-NH(2)-Bn-NOTA. Nevertheless, it may still be interesting to evaluate these chelators after conjugation to biomolecules.
n class="abstract_title">INTRODUCTION:n> The development of novel bifunctional chelates for attaching copper-64 to biomolecules has been an active area of research for several years. However, many of these (64)Cu-chelates have poor in vivo stability or harsh radiolabeling conditions. METHODS: In this study, two triazacyclononane analogs; C-NE3TA (4-carboxymethyl-7-[2-(carboxymethyl-amino)-3-(4-nitro-phenyl)-propyl]-[1,4,7]triazo-nan-1-yl-acetic acid) and N-NE3TA (4-carboxymethyl-7-[2-[carboxymethyl-(4-nitro-benzyl)-amino]-ethyl]-[1,4,7]triazonan-1-yl-acetic acid) were evaluated for their labeling efficiency with (64)Cu at room temperature and evaluated in vitro and in vivo. In vitro studies included complexation kinetics with Cu(II) using a spectrophotometric method and rat serum stability, while the in vivo biodistribution was evaluated using SCIDmice. RESULTS:C-NE3TA and N-NE3TA were labeled at >95% efficiency up to ~3.4Ci/μmol. Both C-NE3TA and N-NE3TA formed complexes with Cu(II) almost immediately, with the Cu(II) complexation by C-NE3TA being faster than the formation of Cu(II)-N-NE3TA. Both (64)Cu-N-NE3TA and (64)Cu-C-NE3TA were 96.1% and 90.5% intact after 48h incubation in rat serum, respectively. This is compared to (64)Cu complexes of the control chelators, p-NH(2)-Bn-DOTA and p-NH(2)-Bn-NOTA, with 93.9% and 97.9% retention of (64)Cu in the complex, respectively. In vivo evaluation of (64)Cu-N-NE3TA and (64)Cu-C-NE3TA demonstrates good clearance from normal tissues except for the liver, where 59% and 51% of the radioactivity is retained at 24h compared to 1h for (64)Cu-N-NE3TA and (64)Cu-C-NE3TA, respectively. This compares to 78% and 3% retention for (64)Cu-p-NH(2)-Bn-DOTA and (64)Cu-p-NH(2)-Bn-NOTA. CONCLUSIONS: These studies demonstrate that while N-NE3TA and C-NE3TA appear to be superior chelators for (64)Cu than p-NH(2)-Bn-DOTA, they are not better than p-NH(2)-Bn-NOTA. Nevertheless, it may still be interesting to evaluate these chelators after conjugation to biomolecules.
Authors: Jeffrey N Bryan; Fang Jia; Huma Mohsin; Geethapriya Sivaguru; William H Miller; Carolyn J Anderson; Carolyn J Henry; Michael R Lewis Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Jennifer E Sprague; Yijie Peng; Xiankai Sun; Gary R Weisman; Edward H Wong; Samuel Achilefu; Carolyn J Anderson Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2004-12-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Hyun-Soon Chong; Kayhan Garmestani; L Henry Bryant; Diane E Milenic; Terrish Overstreet; Noah Birch; Thien Le; Erik D Brady; Martin W Brechbiel Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2006-03-23 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Hyun-Soon Chong; Xiang Ma; Thien Le; Baidoo Kwamena; Diane E Milenic; Erik D Brady; Hyun A Song; Martin W Brechbiel Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2007-12-07 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Hyun-Soon Chong; Sooyoun Lim; Kwamena E Baidoo; Diane E Milenic; Xiang Ma; Fang Jia; Hyun A Song; Martin W Brechbiel; Michael R Lewis Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Lett Date: 2008-09-19 Impact factor: 2.823
Authors: Nerissa Therese Viola-Villegas; Sean D Carlin; Ellen Ackerstaff; Kuntal K Sevak; Vadim Divilov; Inna Serganova; Natalia Kruchevsky; Michael Anderson; Ronald G Blasberg; Oleg A Andreev; Donald M Engelman; Jason A Koutcher; Yana K Reshetnyak; Jason S Lewis Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-05-01 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Nilantha Bandara; Alex Zheleznyak; Kaavya Cherukuri; David A Griffith; Chris Limberakis; David A Tess; Chen Jianqing; Rikki Waterhouse; Suzanne E Lapi Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Marianna Tosato; Marco Verona; Chiara Favaretto; Marco Pometti; Giordano Zanoni; Fabrizio Scopelliti; Francesco Paolo Cammarata; Luca Morselli; Zeynep Talip; Nicholas P van der Meulen; Valerio Di Marco; Mattia Asti Journal: Molecules Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 4.927
Authors: Sadaf Aghevlian; Bo Wu; Marina Nura Raie; Spencer K Tumbale; Aris J Kare; Jai W Seo; Katherine W Ferrara Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 2.947