Genevieve C Van de Bittner1, Emily L Ricq, Jacob M Hooker. 1. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Charlestown, Massachusetts 02129, United States.
Abstract
Decades after its discovery, positron emission tomography (PET) remains the premier tool for imaging neurochemistry in living humans. Technological improvements in radiolabeling methods, camera design, and image analysis have kept PET in the forefront. In addition, the use of PET imaging has expanded because researchers have developed new radiotracers that visualize receptors, transporters, enzymes, and other molecular targets within the human brain. However, of the thousands of proteins in the central nervous system (CNS), researchers have successfully imaged fewer than 40 human proteins. To address the critical need for new radiotracers, this Account expounds on the decisions, strategies, and pitfalls of CNS radiotracer development based on our current experience in this area. We discuss the five key components of radiotracer development for human imaging: choosing a biomedical question, selection of a biological target, design of the radiotracer chemical structure, evaluation of candidate radiotracers, and analysis of preclinical imaging. It is particularly important to analyze the market of scientists or companies who might use a new radiotracer and carefully select a relevant biomedical question(s) for that audience. In the selection of a specific biological target, we emphasize how target localization and identity can constrain this process and discuss the optimal target density and affinity ratios needed for binding-based radiotracers. In addition, we discuss various PET test-retest variability requirements for monitoring changes in density, occupancy, or functionality for new radiotracers. In the synthesis of new radiotracer structures, high-throughput, modular syntheses have proved valuable, and these processes provide compounds with sites for late-stage radioisotope installation. As a result, researchers can manage the time constraints associated with the limited half-lives of isotopes. In order to evaluate brain uptake, a number of methods are available to predict bioavailability, blood-brain barrier (BBB) permeability, and the associated issues of nonspecific binding and metabolic stability. To evaluate the synthesized chemical library, researchers need to consider high-throughput affinity assays, the analysis of specific binding, and the importance of fast binding kinetics. Finally, we describe how we initially assess preclinical radiotracer imaging, using brain uptake, specific binding, and preliminary kinetic analysis to identify promising radiotracers that may be useful for human brain imaging. Although we discuss these five design components separately and linearly in this Account, in practice we develop new PET-based radiotracers using these design components nonlinearly and iteratively to develop new compounds in the most efficient way possible.
Decades after its discovery, positron emission tomography (PET) remains the premier tool for imaging neurochemistry in living humans. Technological improvements in radiolabeling methods, camera design, and image analysis have kept PET in the forefront. In addition, the use of PET imaging has expanded because researchers have developed new radiotracers that visualize receptors, transporters, enzymes, and other molecular targets within the human brain. However, of the thousands of proteins in the central nervous system (CNS), researchers have successfully imaged fewer than 40 human proteins. To address the critical need for new radiotracers, this Account expounds on the decisions, strategies, and pitfalls of CNS radiotracer development based on our current experience in this area. We discuss the five key components of radiotracer development for human imaging: choosing a biomedical question, selection of a biological target, design of the radiotracer chemical structure, evaluation of candidate radiotracers, and analysis of preclinical imaging. It is particularly important to analyze the market of scientists or companies who might use a new radiotracer and carefully select a relevant biomedical question(s) for that audience. In the selection of a specific biological target, we emphasize how target localization and identity can constrain this process and discuss the optimal target density and affinity ratios needed for binding-based radiotracers. In addition, we discuss various PET test-retest variability requirements for monitoring changes in density, occupancy, or functionality for new radiotracers. In the synthesis of new radiotracer structures, high-throughput, modular syntheses have proved valuable, and these processes provide compounds with sites for late-stage radioisotope installation. As a result, researchers can manage the time constraints associated with the limited half-lives of isotopes. In order to evaluate brain uptake, a number of methods are available to predict bioavailability, blood-brain barrier (BBB) permeability, and the associated issues of nonspecific binding and metabolic stability. To evaluate the synthesized chemical library, researchers need to consider high-throughput affinity assays, the analysis of specific binding, and the importance of fast binding kinetics. Finally, we describe how we initially assess preclinical radiotracer imaging, using brain uptake, specific binding, and preliminary kinetic analysis to identify promising radiotracers that may be useful for human brain imaging. Although we discuss these five design components separately and linearly in this Account, in practice we develop new PET-based radiotracers using these design components nonlinearly and iteratively to develop new compounds in the most efficient way possible.
PET radiotracers are small molecules containing
a single positron
emitting isotope (e.g., 11C, half-life of 20.38 min, or 18F, half-life of 109.8 min) and are detected in vivo by the measurement of highly tissue-penetrant and coincident γ
rays produced upon positron annihilation. Molecular imaging with PET
radiotracers can afford a sensitive and relatively noninvasive[1,2] quantitation of biochemical parameters within a living human, including
within the CNS. These characteristics provide PET imaging with immense
potential to fill the void of techniques for assessment of neurophysiological
biomarkers of healthy and diseased states in living human subjects
and patients.[3,4] Applications of CNS PET imaging
include establishing proof-of-mechanism and optimal dosing for novel
therapeutic agents, allowing for accelerated decision-making in clinical
trials. Despite this potential, only 38 central nervous system targets
are currently addressed by PET in humans,[5] while thousands of brain proteins have yet to be explored.[6] This limited availability of CNS PET radiotracers
is partly due to the wide range of demanding criteria that must be
fulfilled, especially for novel, higher-risk targets, and the empirical
nature of radiotracer development.[7]In this Account, we present a framework of chemical and biological
considerations to optimize radiotracer development, with special attention
given to radiotracers for novel CNS targets. Figure 1 showcases the components of the development process, which
are represented by individual pools of a fountain. Except for well-studied
targets previously vetted during drug discovery, the traditional pipeline
approach of lead discovery and optimization may not be strategic for
radiotracer development. Instead, the entry point into radiotracer
development will vary significantly depending on existing knowledge
of the biological target. Data collected from each development component
will critically inform decision-making in other components, leading
to progressive movement between the different tracer development pools.
The streams of water connecting each pool represent one example of
the cross-component approach we have found to be maximally efficient
for PET radiotracer development.
Figure 1
Artistic representation of the radiotracer
development process.
Blue streams highlight one of many potential pathways for initial
radiotracer development, which branches into two pathways after chemical
design. Purple streams indicate radiotracer development pathways in
which previously explored components are revisited for radiotracer
optimization. Drawing used with permission of Aaron Keefe.
Artistic representation of the radiotracer
development process.
Blue streams highlight one of many potential pathways for initial
radiotracer development, which branches into two pathways after chemical
design. Purple streams indicate radiotracer development pathways in
which previously explored components are revisited for radiotracer
optimization. Drawing used with permission of Aaron Keefe.
PET Radiotracer
Construction
Preface: Biomedical Question Selection
The end goal
for CNS radiotracer development is to address a biomedical question
by reporting on the neurochemistry of the living human brain. This
biomedical question often arises from an unmet clinical need for which
PET imaging can improve treatment paradigms or aid diagnosis in patients.
However, the potential of PET imaging for CNS-disease diagnosis, while
much touted, is currently low. The other main focus of CNS radiotracer
development is clinical brain research. In this arena, basic biomedical
research beckons for the development of new PET radiotracers for emerging
targets or pathways implicated in human disease, wherein radiotracers
are used to discover or validate human neurobiological concepts or
as a drug development companion.[8−10]Due to the expensive and
time-consuming nature of radiotracer development and the low commercial
potential for most radiotracers, we must carefully select our biomedical
questions. To identify biomedical questions related to unmet medical
needs, recent literature can provide a focus, but it is also crucial
to complete “market research”. Specifically, insight
from physicians who can comment on medical needs in their practice
or in clinical research is invaluable. If imaging with a radiotracer
for an unmet clinical need would not be “prescribed”,
then there may be no need to develop the radiotracer, particularly
diagnostic radiotracers. The real power of PET imaging may always
lie in the area of basic biomedical research, since only four CNS
radiotracers (fludeoxyglucose, florbetapir, flutemetamol, and florbetaben)
have been approved by the FDA for diagnostic use and companies vacillate
on the value proposition of diagnostic radiotracers. When one considers
basic biomedical research, the utility of a radiotracer may be harder
to determine a priori but can be gauged by polling
colleagues, preclinical scientists, or experts at pharmaceutical companies
to determine the human translational potential of a novel radiotracer.
Thus, our approach for CNS radiotracer development most often starts
with unmet medical needs and uses preclinical imaging to support human
translation or to set an expectation in human disease imaging.
Biological
Target Selection
For any unmet clinical
imaging need there may be numerous implicated biological targets and
choosing among them is one of the more difficult challenges in PET
radiotracer development. Unlike target selection for therapeutic development,
a radiotracer target needs only to demonstrate altered expression,
occupancy levels, or function in the disease state, making it a secondary,
as opposed to primary, marker for the disease. As a result, there
is a variety of potential biological targets for PET imaging whose
measurement can be applied to broad medical and biological questions,
such as differentiating among psychiatric diseases or imaging neurogenesis.[8]Two key selection parameters for a biological
target are its biochemical function and localization, which alter
the strategy for identifying candidate radiotracers and influence
the information obtained from the radiotracer–target interaction.
Nearly all CNS radiotracers are small-molecules that interact with
protein targets (Figure 2). A small subset
of radiotracers are substrates for enzymes, including the preeminent
CNS PET radiotracer 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoroglucose. In addition,
radiotracers may bind to and potently inhibit the enzymes they target
but without affecting the process being measured due to the small
mass being administered.[11] Within the intracellular
subset of targets exists the smaller group of nuclear targets, which
require penetration of the nucleus by the radiotracer. These targets
include enzymes involved in epigenetic modulation, such as histone
deacetylases (HDACs), which have been a large focus of our lab, as
well as the greater imaging community.[9,12−15] Protein aggregates that are primarily extracellular have also been
targeted for CNS PET imaging, most notably for imaging amyloid and
tau deposition.[16] These biomolecules are
simpler to target due to their extracellular localization; however,
the designed radiotracers must penetrate the BBB.
Figure 2
Candidate biological targets for radiotracer
development have diverse
biochemical function and cellular localization. Established radiotracer
targets include enzymes (red), receptors (blue), transporters (orange),
and many other intracellular (green) and extracellular (purple) proteins.
Mirroring
the development of CNS therapeutic agents, the vast majority
of CNS PET radiotracers are targeted toward the intercellular domains
of transmembrane proteins, including G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs),
transporters, and ion channels.[17] Radiotracers
designed to bind a transmembrane protein may compete with a native
ligand or be occluded by allosteric regulation. While this interaction
may provide useful information on receptor occupancy, variation in
the endogenous ligand concentration will confound measurement of receptor
density in vivo and set requirements for the radiotracer Kd. In addition, many transmembrane receptors
utilize homo- or heteropolymerization and internalization as regulatory
mechanisms;[18] these altered states are
difficult to recapitulate in vitro and may result
in drastically different radiotracer binding affinities. New combined
MR-PET approaches for relating function to ligand–receptor
interactions may elucidate these mechanisms in vivo,[19] adding depth to the PET-based interrogation
of the rich biology of the synapse.Candidate biological targets for radiotracer
development have diverse
biochemical function and cellular localization. Established radiotracer
targets include enzymes (red), receptors (blue), transporters (orange),
and many other intracellular (green) and extracellular (purple) proteins.An essential property that we
optimize when developing binding-based
radiotracers is the binding potential (BP). The BP provides a measurement
of the in vivo radiotracer–target interaction
and is comprised of the total biological target density (Bmax) and the binding affinity, represented as the radiotracer
dissociation constant (Kd). Collective
expertise in the field suggests a BP, or ratio of Bmax to Kd, of at least 5 is
suitable for quantitative comparisons with PET imaging, especially
in clinical research settings, but there may be scenarios where this
“rule” can be violated. Radiotracers used in nonresearch
clinical settings typically have a BP greater than 10.[20] When the targeted radiotracer is yet to be developed,
the dissociation constant will not be known; however, we use the Bmax to estimate the ideal Kd. If the Bmax is unknown,
it can be measured using autoradiography or estimated through semiquantitative
immunochemical methods.[21] For radiotracers
that compete with endogenous ligands in vivo, the
effective target density available for radiotracer binding (Bavailable) is Bmax scaled to the fraction of targets unoccupied by the native ligand.The percent change in expression or occupancy of the biological
target is also of utmost importance and must exceed the error of the
technique. The typical intrasubject test–retest variability
for CNS PET radiotracers is 5–15%;[22,23] therefore, single-subject, longitudinal changes in target density
or receptor occupancy of greater than 15% can be imaged. For population
comparisons, there may be high intersubject variability, which will
necessarily reduce the chance of detecting these small changes.[24] For clinical evaluation of patients, even larger
changes in target density or occupancy are ideal as clinicians prefer
binary “yes or no” images for ease of diagnosis and
treatment monitoring.The most pragmatic factor in target selection
is the existence
of high-affinity small-molecule ligands with established structure–affinity
relationships, typically resulting from drug development efforts.
For highly novel targets without known ligands, compound library screening
will be necessary. Due to the time and cost-intensive nature of de novo ligand discovery, this endeavor is best suited for
targets that clearly meet the fundamental requirements for a suitable
CNS PET target: high Bmax with a large
percent change in density or occupancy that correlates strongly with
the biomedical question to be addressed.
Radiotracer Chemical Design
Our initial ensemble of
candidate radiotracers typically consists of derivatives of a known
ligand of the target of interest or the hits from a high-throughput
screening campaign. While radiolabeling of known ligands or even an
existing therapeutic agent may seem to be the most efficient method
for radiotracer development, many examples from our own lab demonstrate
that this strategy often results in subpar CNS PET radiotracers due
to three main factors: (1) the low mass dose used for radiotracer
administration, which requires a high brain/plasma ratio for CNS imaging,[15] (2) high nonspecific binding of many therapeutic
or inhibitor-adapted radiotracers in brain tissue,[14,25−27] and (3) washout kinetics that are too slow for PET
imaging.[28] Importantly, the last two factors
are positive selection traits during therapeutic development because
they increase and maintain target-engagement following a single administration,
but these properties afford undesirable radiotracers. Efficient prioritization
of candidate radiotracers based on synthetic, physiological, and biochemical
constraints is required to quickly move forward to validation and
preclinical imaging.[29]For de novo synthesis of CNS radiotracers, the likelihood of
discovering high-affinity, brain-penetrant molecules can be increased
by concurrently synthesizing compounds with several different chemical
scaffolds, as we did during HDAC radiotracer development. Additionally,
scaffolds that offer several sites that can be easily substituted
with various functional groups should be targeted to increase the
synthetic throughput. This emphasis on high-throughput, modular syntheses
is critical: in our group’s experience over 150 compounds were
synthesized and over 20 were radiolabeled for non-human primate imaging
during the development of a single HDAC CNS radiotracer.[15,30] When one develops a compound library, it is also important to synthesize
molecules with relatively small changes in chemical structure, since
our own studies have shown that addition of a single methyl group
can dramatically affect the pharmacokinetics and distribution of a
molecule (Figure 3).
Figure 3
Three structurally
related molecules with altered brain uptake
and pharmacokinetics. (A) Chemical structure of the three molecules
(1–3) that differ in the presence
of methyl and phenyl groups; the ∗ indicates the 11C labeling site. (B) Transverse PET images for compounds 1–3 in baboon. (C) Time–activity curves
for compounds 1–3. Adapted from ref (15).
While an emphasis
on high-throughput synthesis is essential, the
chief synthetic constraint is the necessity of a facile, late-stage
labeling site that can be applied to numerous derivatives.[31] By maintenance the same labeling site for many
derivatives, little change in radiolabeling method is necessary between
molecules, as demonstrated by the modular, peptide-based strategy
for radiotracer development for predominantly peripheral targets.[32,33] We often select 11C methylation as the labeling method
to increase throughput, due to its facile and straightforward nature
and its tolerability for the presence of many functional groups.[34] Application of 18F chemistry to a
single, well-vetted 11C radiotracer can be achieved during
the clinical transition to provide patients access to radiotracers
in the absence of an in-house cyclotron.[31,35] In some cases, high-throughput 18F fluoralkylations can
be applied to a radiotracer library,[36,37] but these
fluoroalkyl groups are typically not found in CNS radiotracer scaffolds.
Thus, there remain chemical limitations for 18F installation,
and a continued chemical methodology effort is needed to increase
the number of reliable transformations.[38−42]Significant physiological constraints are imposed
on the chemical
structures of candidate CNS radiotracers.[29] To maintain radiotracer plasma levels following intravenous administration,
the compounds must be bioavailable, often meeting Lipinski’s
rule of five.[43] The presence of the BBB
also generally limits CNS PET radiotracers to molecules that enter
the brain via passive diffusion. In addition, candidate radiotracers
must exhibit low nonspecific binding or binding that is nonsaturable
and for which the molecular details are unclear. One common analogy
for considering the impact of nonspecific binding is as follows: although
the stars (specific binding) are always in the sky, we can only discern
them at night because daylight (nonspecific binding) overwhelms their
signal. Several physiochemical properties such as log P, log D, molecular weight, and pKa are somewhat correlated with but not necessarily
predictive of the candidate radiotracer’s in vivo behavior. Computational methods to assess the physiochemical
properties of potential radiotracers have been developed;[17] however, these methods do not show good agreement
with a number of radiotracers our lab has developed. In the case of
one chemical scaffold, the BBB penetration of the molecules was highly
dependent on only two physiochemical properties, presence of a single
cation and tPSA.[15] Thus, computational
tools may prove useful for deciding which compound of a series to
radiolabel first, but as compounds in the series are radiolabeled
and tested in vivo, valuable trends often develop
that can be more predictive of future success.Another consideration
for structural modification is metabolite
identity, since all PET radiotracers are extensively metabolized.[29] Alterations in radiolabeled metabolite structure
can result from changes in radiolabeling site, and this can impact
the number of metabolites contributing to the brain signal.[29] Likewise, demethylation of 11C-methylated
heteroatoms in the periphery can liberate 11C-formaldehyde, 11C-formate, or 11CO2, and defluorination
can result in fluoride ion accumulation in the bone of the skull,
with the resulting signal "spilling" into the brain.[44] The PET detector “sees” the radiotracer
and
all radiometabolites equally, so the onus is on the investigator to
determine the radiochemical species producing the signal. Finally,
metabolism is also species-dependent, with compounds typically metabolized
more quickly in lower organisms. The differences between species extends
to gross anatomy; for example, rats lack a gall bladder. Thus, there
is limited validity in ruling out potential radiotracers because they
failed in rodent preclinical imaging, and efforts should be made to
proceed to non-human primate imaging as rapidly as possible to obtain
distribution and kinetic data that is more predictive of radiotracer
performance in humans.
Assessment of Radiotracer Library
With molecules in
hand, the next challenge in radiotracer development is to narrow the
selection of lead compounds to be radiolabeled and tested by preclinical
imaging. The initial assessment of candidate radiotracers shares many
similarities to the development of any small-molecule probe: affinity,
selectivity, and binding kinetics are all major considerations. However,
poor in vivo pharmacokinetics and high nonspecific
binding are largely responsible for the high attrition rate of candidate
radiotracers in the first round of preclinical imaging experiments,
and these measures are not readily predictable. Therefore, we strategically
assess candidate radiotracers iteratively, returning to in
vitro experiments as dictated by preliminary imaging data.
A comparison of data obtained from in vitro and in vivo characterization can be found in Table 1 and is discussed in detail in the following sections.
Table 1
Assessment of Key Attributes during
Imaging and Nonimaging Components of Radiotracer Development
vary preincubation and washing steps in in vitro assays, autoradiography
qualitative
TAC analysis
quantitative kinetic modeling
BBB penetration
mass
spectrometry of unlabeled tracer
%ID/cc
in brain
in silico prediction
specific binding
“no
wash” autoradiography
homologous blocking
in silico prediction
knockout animals
selective
binding
autoradiography
heterologous blocking
systematic screening (PDSP)
knockout
animals
In cases
where we rank molecules prior to radiolabeling, we measure
and compare binding affinities, which often must be subnanomolar to
nanomolar, depending on the biological target density.[29,45] The nature of this measurement will be highly dependent on the target’s
biochemical function and may include displacement of a known ligand,
disruption of a protein–protein interaction, formation of a
covalent adduct, or inhibition of enzyme catalysis. To maximize efficiency,
we optimize binding affinity assays using a known positive control
concomitant with the synthesis of the radiotracer library. Once developed,
the assay may be modified to measure the association or dissociation
rates of the candidate molecules, which need to be relatively fast
for radiotracers with short half-lives. For example, we found the
kinetics of the hydroxamate class of HDAC inhibitors better suited
for PET imaging than the slow-binding benzamides, despite the increased
efficacy of benzamides in disease models.[21,30] As with all in vitro biochemical assays, test–retest
variation may be significant, and the protein preparation may not
reflect the in vivo properties of the target. In
addition, the precise ranking of the binding affinities of the potential
radiotracers is less important than their general clustering.Candidate radiotracers may also bind to off-target protein(s) that
are structurally or functionally similar to the imaging target. This nonselective binding to proteins other than the target of
interest is not to be confused with nonspecific binding,
discussed previously. The selectivity required for a suitable radiotracer
is not fixed and depends on the relative densities of the desired
versus off-target proteins, as well as the relative rate of binding
of the radiotracer. Furthermore, selectivity may not be problematic
if the regional distribution of the off-target proteins has little
anatomical overlap with the imaging target. In addition to nonselective
binding based on protein homology, potential radiotracers may also
have high affinities for other targets that are not easily predictable.
These off-targets are best identified by systematic screening, such
as the NIMH psychoactive drug screening program.[46] While off-target binding should usually be avoided, compounds
that exhibit off-target binding can still show in vivo target selectivity when the target protein Bmax is high relative to off-target proteins or when the regional
distribution of the target and off-target proteins is nonoverlapping.[47]Biochemical analysis of brain tissue bridges
the gap between in vitro assays and preclinical imaging.
Autoradiography
methods allow for facile measurement of tracer association or dissociation
rates, and “no-wash” protocols are predictive of in vivo nonspecific binding.[48] However, these experiments require radiolabeling and are thus not
suitable for prospective screening. If the candidate radiotracers
are commercially available, it is advisable to obtain classic pharmacokinetic
data prior investing in synthesis and radiolabeling. Newer mass spectrometry
methods can provide information about differential distribution of
unlabeled compounds throughout the brain for comparison to target
protein expression levels and allow for analysis of specific and nonspecific
binding across brain regions.[49] However,
use of unlabeled compounds precludes measurement of the uptake and
binding of compound metabolites and a large effort is required to
obtain data for full pharmacokinetic analysis, because each animal
can only provide information for a single time-point. This contrasts
with preclinical PET imaging, wherein metabolite radioactivity can
be tracked with blood analysis and full kinetic data is obtained for
each injection.
Radiotracer Analysis via Preclinical Imaging
We have
found that the most time-efficient assessment of new CNS radiotracers
may be to bypass biochemical assessment and move directly to radiolabeling
and preclinical imaging, which allows analysis and comparison of radiotracer
pharmacokinetics and in vivo target engagement. Direct
preclinical imaging also circumvents the disparities often found between in vitro radiotracer assessment and in vivo performance, which can cause researchers to overlook good radiotracers
due to a lower binding affinity or lower selectivity between target
subtypes.[33]When analyzing preclinical
imaging data, our first step is verification of radiotracer uptake
in the brain. This is accomplished through plotting a time–activity
curve (TAC) of the percent injected dose of radiotracer (%ID) per
volume (cc) in the total brain or target-rich brain region as a function
of time (Figure 3). As a guiding rule in our lab, PET radiotracers with a %ID/cc above
0.1% in rat or 0.01% in non-human primate within 5 min of injection
have suitable BBB penetration for CNS PET imaging studies.Three structurally
related molecules with altered brain uptake
and pharmacokinetics. (A) Chemical structure of the three molecules
(1–3) that differ in the presence
of methyl and phenyl groups; the ∗ indicates the 11C labeling site. (B) Transverse PET images for compounds 1–3 in baboon. (C) Time–activity curves
for compounds 1–3. Adapted from ref (15).If the PET radiotracer exhibits good brain uptake, the TAC
can
be analyzed further to determine the degree and length of radiotracer
retention within in the brain. When brain retention of a radiotracer
is low following a high initial brain uptake (Figure 3, compound 1), the radiotracer is potentially
being actively effluxed.[50] To verify an
active efflux mechanism, inhibitors of active efflux proteins, such
as cyclosporin A and rifampicin, can be injected prior to the radiotracer
to determine whether they increase brain retention.[50] Importantly, interspecies differences in active efflux
mechanisms have been documented,[51] such
that a radiotracer that fails in rodents may be suitable for non-human
primate or human imaging.When a candidate radiotracer demonstrates
high brain retention,
we measure the specificity of binding within the brain via homologous
blocking studies, where animals are pretreated with the 12C or 19F (unlabeled) version of the radiotracer prior
to radiotracer injection. If the unlabeled compound competes for binding
with the radiotracer, the radiotracer signal will be reduced, indicating
specific binding. Data analysis for this test requires careful attention,
because blockade of binding sites by the unlabeled compound throughout
the body may increase the amount of free radiotracer in plasma, resulting
in increased total uptake of the radiotracer in the brain relative
to untreated control animals (Figure 4a). This
effect can be accounted for through normalization of radiotracer uptake
to metabolite-corrected plasma radiotracer levels (Figure 4b,c), a quick assessment prior to an investment
in more rigorous kinetic modeling quantification.
Figure 4
Impact of normalization
of brain radiotracer signal to plasma radiotracer
level. (A) Non-normalized baseline (blue) and self-blocked (yellow)
brain signals for martinostat. (B) Integrated martinostat radioactivity
in plasma during baseline (red) and self-blocked (gray) PET scans.
(C) Plasma-normalized baseline (blue) and self-blocked (yellow) brain
signals for martinostat. Adapted from ref (30).
Impact of normalization
of brain radiotracer signal to plasma radiotracer
level. (A) Non-normalized baseline (blue) and self-blocked (yellow)
brain signals for martinostat. (B) Integrated martinostat radioactivity
in plasma during baseline (red) and self-blocked (gray) PET scans.
(C) Plasma-normalized baseline (blue) and self-blocked (yellow) brain
signals for martinostat. Adapted from ref (30).Following verification of specific binding in the brain,
we assess
the presence of on-target specific binding, because some radiotracers
or their metabolites may specifically bind off-target proteins. On-target
specific binding analysis is typically accomplished through heterologous
blocking studies in which animals are pretreated with a panel of compounds
that are chemically distinct from the radiotracer and that are known
to bind the biological target of interest.[10] Application of the radiotracer to knockout animal models or autoradiography[30] can be used to further verify on-target, specific
binding. Autoradiography can additionally be used to correlate the
regional distribution of radiotracer binding to the known regional
density of the biological target.[21]In addition to analyzing the TACs for specific binding, qualitative
kinetic analysis can be performed to determine whether the radiotracer
is suitable for human imaging. While kinetic properties vary between
species, kinetics suitable for robust quantitative analysis can typically
be spotted through comparison of TAC slopes at time points after the
peak signal. A relatively steeper curve (faster radiotracer washout)
following treatment with the nonradioactive radiotracer analog indicates
a measurable decrease in BP, even without accounting for changes in
plasma radiotracer activity (Figure 4a). A
slope near zero may be indicative of a radiotracer with irreversible
binding or too-slow kinetics. To interrogate these radiotracers, we
complete a bolus or bolus-plus-infusion experiment with injection
of a homologous or heterologous blocking agent midscan. A decrease
in slope after blocking agent administration indicates a BP decrease,
and therefore measurable, reversible binding. The quantitative kinetic
analysis of radiotracer binding is the topic of several comprehensive
reviews.[45,52,53]When
moving to preclinical imaging, we have found many instances
in which a new radiolabeled compound either did not penetrate the
BBB or did not show specific, on-target binding, which required a
return to radiotracer design. At times, validation of a new biological
target is necessary, for example, when several molecular scaffolds
for the initial target have failed to show brain uptake or specific
binding. However, with persistence and preclinical assessment of many
radiotracers, CNS PET radiotracers with high brain uptake, specific
on-target binding, and a suitable kinetic profile can be discovered.
Conclusion and Guiding Principles
Novel radiotracer development
is a challenging endeavor, requiring
knowledge of disease-related biological targets, chemical synthesis
and radiolabeling, in vitro assay development, and
image analysis. Biomedical questions should be applicable to human
clinical studies and more feasible to answer with PET imaging versus
other, possibly less resource-intensive, tools. When the need for
a novel radiotracer is established, we make use of the following principles
to guide our development program:
Know Your Biology
In-house analysis
of tissue slices, cell cultures, and protein preparations is paramount
to determine the density and regional brain distribution of the target,
the change in target density or occupancy, and the binding affinities
of lead candidate radiotracers. By doing these assays in the environment
of radiotracer discovery, you will gain insight into peculiarities
of the biological target and candidate radiotracers that may be valuable
during in vivo assessment.
Throughput
Matters
The structural design
of candidate radiotracers must be amenable to late-stage diversification
and facile radiolabeling, because many iterations of a chemical series
may be needed before a suitable tracer is identified. Biochemical
assays of binding affinity can be developed into a high-throughput
screen.
Aim for Studies in Humans
Low brain
penetration, high nonspecific binding, and a poor metabolic profile
are the primary factors that eliminate candidate radiotracers in the
preclinical imaging stage, but these measures are highly species-dependent.
When possible, radiotracers should be assessed in non-human primates,
with the goal of moving to human imaging as soon as possible.Finally, one should remain optimistic. As depicted in Figure 1, the process of PET radiotracer development is
often iterative and circuitous, requiring the designer to frequently
step back and assess the current best path forward. After the initial
biomedical question is posed, the succeeding components (pools) of
target selection, chemical design, library assessment, and preclinical
imaging may be revisited many times and in variant orders (streams)
before a suitable radiotracer (central water burst) is developed that
is poised to provide an answer.
Authors: Jacob M Hooker; Sung Won Kim; Achim T Reibel; David Alexoff; Youwen Xu; Colleen Shea Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Date: 2010-04-20 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Lei Zhang; Anabella Villalobos; Elizabeth M Beck; Thomas Bocan; Thomas A Chappie; Laigao Chen; Sarah Grimwood; Steven D Heck; Christopher J Helal; Xinjun Hou; John M Humphrey; Jiemin Lu; Marc B Skaddan; Timothy J McCarthy; Patrick R Verhoest; Travis T Wager; Kenneth Zasadny Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Changning Wang; Colin M Wilson; Christian K Moseley; Stephen M Carlin; Shirley Hsu; Grae Arabasz; Frederick A Schroeder; Christin Y Sander; Jacob M Hooker Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Benjamin H Rotstein; Steven H Liang; Michael S Placzek; Jacob M Hooker; Antony D Gee; Frédéric Dollé; Alan A Wilson; Neil Vasdev Journal: Chem Soc Rev Date: 2016-08-22 Impact factor: 54.564
Authors: Min Guo; Abolghasem Bakhoda; Zhan-Guo Gao; Joseph M Ramsey; Yang Li; Kelly A O'Conor; Andrew C Kelleher; Seth M Eisenberg; Yeona Kang; Xuefeng Yan; Cameron Javdan; Joanna S Fowler; Kenner C Rice; Jacob M Hooker; Kenneth A Jacobson; Sung Won Kim; Nora D Volkow Journal: ACS Chem Neurosci Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 5.780
Authors: Alexandra R Sowa; Allen F Brooks; Xia Shao; Bradford D Henderson; Philip Sherman; Janna Arteaga; Jenelle Stauff; Adam C Lee; Robert A Koeppe; Peter J H Scott; Michael R Kilbourn Journal: ACS Chem Neurosci Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 4.418
Authors: Martin G Strebl; Changning Wang; Frederick A Schroeder; Michael S Placzek; Hsiao-Ying Wey; Genevieve C Van de Bittner; Ramesh Neelamegam; Jacob M Hooker Journal: ACS Chem Neurosci Date: 2015-12-21 Impact factor: 4.418
Authors: Christian B M Poulie; Anders A Jensen; Adam L Halberstadt; Jesper L Kristensen Journal: ACS Chem Neurosci Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 5.780