PURPOSE: The in vivo binding parameters of the novel imidazopyridine TSPO ligand [(18)F]PBR102 were assessed and compared with those of [(18)F]PBR111 in a rodent model of neuroinflammation. The validity of the key assumptions of the simplified reference tissue model (SRTM) for estimation of binding potential (BP) was determined, with validation against a two-tissue compartment model (2TC). METHODS: Acute neuroinflammation was assessed 7 days after unilateral stereotaxic administration of (R,S)-α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolopropionique (AMPA) in anaesthetized adult Wistar rats. Anaesthetized rats were implanted with a femoral arterial cannula then injected with a low mass of [(18)F]PBR102 or [(18)F]PBR111 and dynamic images were acquired over 60 min using an INVEON PET/CT camera. Another population of rats underwent the same PET protocol after pretreatment with a presaturating mass of the same unlabelled tracer (1 mg/kg) to assess the validity of the reference region for SRTM analysis. Arterial blood was sampled during imaging, allowing pharmacokinetic determination of radiotracer concentrations. Plasma activity concentration-time curves were corrected for unchanged tracer based on metabolic characterization experiments in a separate cohort of Wistar rats. The stability of neuroinflammation in both imaging cohorts was assessed by [(125)I] CLINDE TSPO quantitative autoradiography, OX42/GFAP immunohistochemistry, Fluoro-Jade C histology, and elemental mapping using microparticle-induced x-ray emission spectroscopy. The BP of each ligand were assessed in the two cohorts of lesioned animals using both SRTM and a 2TC with arterial parent compound concentration, coupled with the results from the presaturation cohort for comparison and validation of the SRTM. RESULTS: The BPs of [(18)F]PBR102 [(18)F]PBR111 were equivalent, with improved signal-to-noise ratio and sensitivity compared with [(11)C]PK11195. The presaturation study showed differences in the volume of distribution between the ipsilateral striatum and the striatum contralateral to the injury (0.7) indicating that an assumption of the SRTM was not met. The modelling indicated that the BPs were consistent for both ligands. Between the SRTM and 2TC model, the BPs were highly correlated, but there was a bias in BP. CONCLUSION: [(18)F]PBR102 and [(18)F]PBR111 have equivalent binding properties in vivo, displaying significantly greater BPs with lower signal-to-noise ratio than [(11)C]PK11195. While an assumption of the SRTM was not met, this modelling approach was validated against 2TC modelling for both ligands, facilitating future use in longitudinal PET imaging of neuroinflammation.
PURPOSE: The in vivo binding parameters of the novel imidazopyridineTSPO ligand [(18)F]PBR102 were assessed and compared with those of [(18)F]PBR111 in a rodent model of neuroinflammation. The validity of the key assumptions of the simplified reference tissue model (SRTM) for estimation of binding potential (BP) was determined, with validation against a two-tissue compartment model (2TC). METHODS: Acute neuroinflammation was assessed 7 days after unilateral stereotaxic administration of (R,S)-α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolopropionique (AMPA) in anaesthetized adult Wistar rats. Anaesthetized rats were implanted with a femoral arterial cannula then injected with a low mass of [(18)F]PBR102 or [(18)F]PBR111 and dynamic images were acquired over 60 min using an INVEON PET/CT camera. Another population of rats underwent the same PET protocol after pretreatment with a presaturating mass of the same unlabelled tracer (1 mg/kg) to assess the validity of the reference region for SRTM analysis. Arterial blood was sampled during imaging, allowing pharmacokinetic determination of radiotracer concentrations. Plasma activity concentration-time curves were corrected for unchanged tracer based on metabolic characterization experiments in a separate cohort of Wistar rats. The stability of neuroinflammation in both imaging cohorts was assessed by [(125)I] CLINDE TSPO quantitative autoradiography, OX42/GFAP immunohistochemistry, Fluoro-Jade C histology, and elemental mapping using microparticle-induced x-ray emission spectroscopy. The BP of each ligand were assessed in the two cohorts of lesioned animals using both SRTM and a 2TC with arterial parent compound concentration, coupled with the results from the presaturation cohort for comparison and validation of the SRTM. RESULTS: The BPs of [(18)F]PBR102 [(18)F]PBR111 were equivalent, with improved signal-to-noise ratio and sensitivity compared with [(11)C]PK11195. The presaturation study showed differences in the volume of distribution between the ipsilateral striatum and the striatum contralateral to the injury (0.7) indicating that an assumption of the SRTM was not met. The modelling indicated that the BPs were consistent for both ligands. Between the SRTM and 2TC model, the BPs were highly correlated, but there was a bias in BP. CONCLUSION: [(18)F]PBR102 and [(18)F]PBR111 have equivalent binding properties in vivo, displaying significantly greater BPs with lower signal-to-noise ratio than [(11)C]PK11195. While an assumption of the SRTM was not met, this modelling approach was validated against 2TC modelling for both ligands, facilitating future use in longitudinal PET imaging of neuroinflammation.
Authors: Thomas Bourdier; Tien Q Pham; David Henderson; Timothy Jackson; Peter Lam; Michael Izard; Andrew Katsifis Journal: Appl Radiat Isot Date: 2011-08-05 Impact factor: 1.513
Authors: Alex M Dickens; Susanne Vainio; Päivi Marjamäki; Jarkko Johansson; Paula Lehtiniemi; Johanna Rokka; Juha Rinne; Olof Solin; Merja Haaparanta-Solin; Paul A Jones; William Trigg; Daniel C Anthony; Laura Airas Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Christopher J R Fookes; Tien Q Pham; Filomena Mattner; Ivan Greguric; Christian Loc'h; Xiang Liu; Paula Berghofer; Rachael Shepherd; Marie-Claude Gregoire; Andrew Katsifis Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2008-06-17 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: R M Moresco; T Lavazza; S Belloli; M Lecchi; A Pezzola; S Todde; M Matarrese; A Carpinelli; E Turolla; V Zimarino; P Popoli; A Malgaroli; F Fazio Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-12-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Matthew J Gounis; Kajo van der Marel; Miklos Marosfoi; Mary L Mazzanti; Frédéric Clarençon; Ju-Yu Chueh; Ajit S Puri; Alexei A Bogdanov Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Frederick Bonsack; Catherine A Foss; Ali S Arbab; Cargill H Alleyne; Martin G Pomper; Sangeetha Sukumari-Ramesh Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Nisha K Ramakrishnan; Matthew Hird; Stephen Thompson; David J Williamson; Luxi Qiao; David R Owen; Allen F Brooks; Peter J H Scott; Sergio Bacallado; John T O'Brien; Franklin I Aigbirhio Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Douglas J Hermes; Ian R Jacobs; Megan C Key; Alexis F League; Barkha J Yadav-Samudrala; Changqing Xu; Virginia D McLane; Sara R Nass; Wei Jiang; Rick B Meeker; Bogna M Ignatowska-Jankowska; Aron H Lichtman; Zibo Li; Zhanhong Wu; Hong Yuan; Pamela E Knapp; Kurt F Hauser; Sylvia Fitting Journal: J Neuroinflammation Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 8.322