PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the potential of [(18)F]flutemetamol as a preclinical PET tracer for imaging β-amyloid (Aβ) deposition by comparing its pharmacokinetics to those of [(11)C]Pittsburgh compound B ([(11)C]PIB) in wild-type Sprague Dawley rats and C57Bl/6N mice. In addition, binding of [(18)F]flutemetamol to Aβ deposits was studied in the Tg2576 transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. METHODS: [(18)F]Flutemetamol biodistribution was evaluated using ex vivo PET methods and in vivo PET imaging in wild-type rats and mice. Metabolism and binding of [(11)C]PIB and [(18)F]flutemetamol to plasma proteins were analysed using thin-layer chromatography and ultrafiltration methods, respectively. Radiation dose estimates were calculated from rat ex vivo biodistribution data. The binding of [(18)F]flutemetamol to Aβ deposits was also studied using ex vivo and in vitro autoradiography. The location of Aβ deposits in the brain was determined with thioflavine S staining and immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics of [(18)F]flutemetamol resembled that of [(11)C]PIB in rats and mice. In vivo studies showed that both tracers readily entered the brain, and were excreted via the hepatobiliary pathway in both rats and mice. The metabolism of [(18)F]flutemetamol into radioactive metabolites was faster than that of [(11)C]PIB. [(18)F]Flutemetamol cleared more slowly from the brain than [(11)C]PIB, particularly from white matter, in line with its higher lipophilicity. Effective dose estimates for [(11)C]PIB and [(18)F]flutemetamol were 2.28 and 6.65 μSv/MBq, respectively. Autoradiographs showed [(18)F]flutemetamol binding to fibrillar Aβ deposits in the brain of Tg2576 mice. CONCLUSION: Based on its pharmacokinetic profile, [(18)F]flutemetamol showed potential as a PET tracer for preclinical imaging. It showed good brain uptake and was bound to Aβ deposits in the brain of Tg2576 mice. However, its high lipophilicity might complicate the analysis of PET data, particularly in small-animal imaging.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the potential of [(18)F]flutemetamol as a preclinical PET tracer for imaging β-amyloid (Aβ) deposition by comparing its pharmacokinetics to those of [(11)C]Pittsburgh compound B ([(11)C]PIB) in wild-type Sprague Dawley rats and C57Bl/6N mice. In addition, binding of [(18)F]flutemetamol to Aβ deposits was studied in the Tg2576 transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. METHODS:[(18)F]Flutemetamol biodistribution was evaluated using ex vivo PET methods and in vivo PET imaging in wild-type rats and mice. Metabolism and binding of [(11)C]PIB and [(18)F]flutemetamol to plasma proteins were analysed using thin-layer chromatography and ultrafiltration methods, respectively. Radiation dose estimates were calculated from rat ex vivo biodistribution data. The binding of [(18)F]flutemetamol to Aβ deposits was also studied using ex vivo and in vitro autoradiography. The location of Aβ deposits in the brain was determined with thioflavine S staining and immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics of [(18)F]flutemetamol resembled that of [(11)C]PIB in rats and mice. In vivo studies showed that both tracers readily entered the brain, and were excreted via the hepatobiliary pathway in both rats and mice. The metabolism of [(18)F]flutemetamol into radioactive metabolites was faster than that of [(11)C]PIB. [(18)F]Flutemetamol cleared more slowly from the brain than [(11)C]PIB, particularly from white matter, in line with its higher lipophilicity. Effective dose estimates for [(11)C]PIB and [(18)F]flutemetamol were 2.28 and 6.65 μSv/MBq, respectively. Autoradiographs showed [(18)F]flutemetamol binding to fibrillar Aβ deposits in the brain of Tg2576mice. CONCLUSION: Based on its pharmacokinetic profile, [(18)F]flutemetamol showed potential as a PET tracer for preclinical imaging. It showed good brain uptake and was bound to Aβ deposits in the brain of Tg2576mice. However, its high lipophilicity might complicate the analysis of PET data, particularly in small-animal imaging.
Authors: Rik Vandenberghe; Koen Van Laere; Adrian Ivanoiu; Eric Salmon; Christine Bastin; Eric Triau; Steen Hasselbalch; Ian Law; Allan Andersen; Alex Korner; Lennart Minthon; Gaëtan Garraux; Natalie Nelissen; Guy Bormans; Chris Buckley; Rikard Owenius; Lennart Thurfjell; Gill Farrar; David J Brooks Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Hiroshi Toyama; Daniel Ye; Masanori Ichise; Jeih-San Liow; Lisheng Cai; David Jacobowitz; John L Musachio; Jinsoo Hong; Mathew Crescenzo; Dnyanesh Tipre; Jian-Qiang Lu; Sami Zoghbi; Douglass C Vines; Jurgen Seidel; Kazuhiro Katada; Michael V Green; Victor W Pike; Robert M Cohen; Robert B Innis Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2005-03-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Kooresh Shoghi-Jadid; Gary W Small; Eric D Agdeppa; Vladimir Kepe; Linda M Ercoli; Prabha Siddarth; Stephen Read; Nagichettiar Satyamurthy; Andrej Petric; Sung-Cheng Huang; Jorge R Barrio Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Natalie Nelissen; Koen Van Laere; Lennart Thurfjell; Rikard Owenius; Mathieu Vandenbulcke; Michel Koole; Guy Bormans; David J Brooks; Rik Vandenberghe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Chester A Mathis; Yanming Wang; Daniel P Holt; Guo-Feng Huang; Manik L Debnath; William E Klunk Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2003-06-19 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Nicolaas P L G Verhoeff; Alan A Wilson; Shinichiro Takeshita; Liat Trop; Doug Hussey; Kernjit Singh; Hank F Kung; Mei-Ping Kung; Sylvain Houle Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2004 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Kristina Herfert; Julia G Mannheim; Laura Kuebler; Sabina Marciano; Mario Amend; Christoph Parl; Hanna Napieczynska; Florian M Maier; Salvador Castaneda Vega; Bernd J Pichler Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Florian C Maier; Hans F Wehrl; Andreas M Schmid; Julia G Mannheim; Stefan Wiehr; Chommanad Lerdkrai; Carsten Calaminus; Anke Stahlschmidt; Lan Ye; Michael Burnet; Detlef Stiller; Osama Sabri; Gerald Reischl; Mathias Staufenbiel; Olga Garaschuk; Mathias Jucker; Bernd J Pichler Journal: Nat Med Date: 2014-11-10 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Damien Cressier; Martine Dhilly; Thang T Cao Pham; Fabien Fillesoye; Fabienne Gourand; Auriane Maïza; André F Martins; Jean-François Morfin; Carlos F G C Geraldes; Éva Tóth; Louisa Barré Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Anniina Snellman; Johanna Rokka; Francisco R López-Picón; Olli Eskola; Mario Salmona; Gianluigi Forloni; Mika Scheinin; Olof Solin; Juha O Rinne; Merja Haaparanta-Solin Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 3.138