Chelator-free nanoparticles for intrinsic radiolabeling are highly desirable for whole-body imaging and therapeutic applications. Several reports have successfully demonstrated the principle of intrinsic radiolabeling. However, the work done to date has suffered from much of the same specificity issues as conventional molecular chelators, insofar as there is no singular nanoparticle substrate that has proven effective in binding a wide library of radiosotopes. Here we present amorphous silica nanoparticles as general substrates for chelator-free radiolabeling and demonstrate their ability to bind six medically relevant isotopes of various oxidation states with high radiochemical yield. We provide strong evidence that the stability of the binding correlates with the hardness of the radioisotope, corroborating the proposed operating principle. Intrinsically labeled silica nanoparticles prepared by this approach demonstrate excellent in vivo stability and efficacy in lymph node imaging.
Chelator-free nanoparticles for intrinsic radiolabeling are highly desirable for whole-body imaging and therapeutic applications. Several reports have successfully demonstrated the principle of intrinsic radiolabeling. However, the work done to date has suffered from much of the same specificity issues as conventional molecular chelators, insofar as there is no singular nanoparticle substrate that has proven effective in binding a wide library of radiosotopes. Here we present amorphous silica nanoparticles as general substrates for chelator-free radiolabeling and demonstrate their ability to bind six medically relevant isotopes of various oxidation states with high radiochemical yield. We provide strong evidence that the stability of the binding correlates with the hardness of the radioisotope, corroborating the proposed operating principle. Intrinsically labeled silica nanoparticles prepared by this approach demonstrate excellent in vivo stability and efficacy in lymph node imaging.
Nanoparticles possess several
desirable features for use in disease imaging and therapy.[1−4] They can act as platforms for loading therapeutics and contrast
agents while simultaneously anchoring targeting ligands or stealth
polymer coatings.[5−7] Their size and surface chemistry can be tuned such
that they exhibit attractive biological properties, such as passive
accumulation and retention in cancer, in contrast to the rapid washout
often observed by small molecular imaging agents.[8−10] Among the many
imaging modalities that have adopted nanoparticle-based contrast agents,
positron emission tomography (PET) and single-photon emission computed
tomography (SPECT) have received considerable attention for their
important roles in enabling whole-body imaging and pharmacokinetic
studies.[11−13] Consequently, radiolabeled nanoparticles are of great
interest to the nuclear imaging and nanooncology communities.Radiolabeling of nanoparticles has primarily been achieved via
surface functionalization of small molecular chelating agents that
bind specific radioisotopes.[14] This approach
enables utilization of labeling protocols that have already been established
in molecular chelator research but presents several well-known disadvantages.
Because the coordination chemistry of different isotopes varies greatly,
there is no molecular chelator that can effectively bind many radioisotopes
interchangeably. Thus, for a given radiotracer, selection of, and
particle modification with, the proper chelator may be very difficult
or even impossible.[15] Even when isotopes
are stably chelated during radiolabeling, introduction of the nanoparticle
in vivo presents a new set of challenges. Transchelation by endogenous
proteins or detachment of the surface-bound molecular chelators can
strip the nanoparticles of their radiolabels, yielding images that
do not reflect the true biodistribution.[16]In response to the above-mentioned concerns, several chelator-free
approaches to nanoparticle labeling have emerged and are the subject
of a recent review.[15] These methods largely
fall into three categories: inclusion of a trace amount of radioactive
precursor during a typical nanoparticle synthesis (e.g., including
a small amount of 64Cu during synthesis of CuS nanoparticles),[17] entrapment of radioisotopes into sites capable
of binding specific species (e.g., addition of 18F to NaYF4 nanoparticles, 64Cu into porphysomes, and so forth),[18,19] and cation exchange replacing one (cold) cation present in a nanoparticle
for a different radioactive (hot) cation (e.g., 153Sm replacing
Lu3+ or Y3+ in upconverting nanoparticles).[20] While these approaches eliminate the need for
molecular chelators during nanoparticle radiolabeling, they remain
restricted to specific isotopes, rather than being effective general
platforms for many species.A generalized method for producing nanoparticles that are
capable
of intrinsically binding a wide variety of radioisotopes without additional
selective chelation molecules would be highly desirable. It would
provide a “one stop shop” nanoparticle that can be radiolabeled
for multiple applications without being individually modified with
different chelators each time. To this end, we first identified some
important properties shared between many common isotopes. The majority
of medically relevant isotopes are chelated by electron donors (e.g.,
oxygen, sulfur, or nitrogen atoms) arranged in a symmetry that results
in a stable coordination complex.[21] In
this regard, it is reasonable to hypothesize that a chelator-free
nanoparticle for intrinsic radiolabeling could be constructed by creating
a nanoparticle with oxygen atoms arranged in a variety of symmetries.
A prototypical example of a material meeting these requirements is
amorphous silica, which has the benefits of well-established synthetic
protocols and widespread use in biomedical applications.[22,23] Silica nanoparticles are known to bind heavy metal ions for environmental
remediation.[24,25] Because silica nanoparticles
are inexpensive and “generally recognized as safe” by
the Food and Drug Administration, they make for ideal substrates in
a kitlike protocol for producing intrinsically labeled nanoparticles
(Figure 1).[26]
Figure 1
Scheme for intrinsic
radiolabeling of silica nanoparticles. The
nanoparticles are incubated with free radioisotope at 70 °C for
15 to 60 min depending on the specific radionuclide, then purified
by centrifugation and resuspension.
We investigated the ability of amorphous silica nanoparticles to
bind a variety of medically important radioisotopes with a range of
half-lives and emissions. In particular, we explored the labeling
efficiency of 68Ga, 64Cu, 89Zr, 90Y, 111In, and 177Lu under various temperatures,
pH, and incubation times (Figure 3). 89Zr was further investigated using silica nanoparticles that had been
coated with polyethylene glycol. The 145 nm silica nanoparticles were
synthesized according to a modified Stöber method,[22] washed three times in ethanol and then resuspended
in buffered solutions at either pH = 5.7, 7.3, or 8.8 (see Supporting Information). The silica nanoparticles
maintained a constant size and did not aggregate during this process
(Figure 2). The radiochemical yield was assessed
both by iTLC and centrifugal nanoparticle purification (Figure 3).
Figure 3
Radiolabeling and serum stability of silica nanoparticles. (A)
Instant thin-layer chromatographs of radiolabeled silica nanoparticles.
The red asterisk denotes the origin, where the nanoparticles remain,
and the black asterisk denotes the solvent front, where the free activity
would be located. Controls of buffer-only solutions (no particles)
were ran with each condition with >95% signal at the free activity
peak. (B) Percent radioisotope bound to silica nanoparticles as a
function of time and pH. The blue, red, and green lines indicate radiolabeling
at pH = 5.5, 7.3, and 8.8, respectively. (C) Percent radioisotope
bound to silica nanoparticles as a function of time and temperature.
The blue, red, and green lines indicate radiolabeling at 4, 37, and
70 °C, respectively. (D) Serum stability of silica nanoparticles
radiolabeled at pH = 7.3 and 70 °C, then incubated in 50% FBS
at 37 °C.
Figure 2
Pre- and postradiolabeling nanoparticle characterization. (A) Atomic
force microscopy (AFM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM)
characterization of silica nanoparticles before radiolabeling. (B)
AFM and TEM characterization of silica nanoparticles after radiolabeling
with 68Ga. The size and shape of the nanoparticles remains
unchanged. Scale bars are 100 nm.
Scheme for intrinsic
radiolabeling of silica nanoparticles. The
nanoparticles are incubated with free radioisotope at 70 °C for
15 to 60 min depending on the specific radionuclide, then purified
by centrifugation and resuspension.Pre- and postradiolabeling nanoparticle characterization. (A) Atomic
force microscopy (AFM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM)
characterization of silica nanoparticles before radiolabeling. (B)
AFM and TEM characterization of silica nanoparticles after radiolabeling
with 68Ga. The size and shape of the nanoparticles remains
unchanged. Scale bars are 100 nm.Radiolabeling and serum stability of silica nanoparticles. (A)
Instant thin-layer chromatographs of radiolabeled silica nanoparticles.
The red asterisk denotes the origin, where the nanoparticles remain,
and the black asterisk denotes the solvent front, where the free activity
would be located. Controls of buffer-only solutions (no particles)
were ran with each condition with >95% signal at the free activity
peak. (B) Percent radioisotope bound to silica nanoparticles as a
function of time and pH. The blue, red, and green lines indicate radiolabeling
at pH = 5.5, 7.3, and 8.8, respectively. (C) Percent radioisotope
bound to silica nanoparticles as a function of time and temperature.
The blue, red, and green lines indicate radiolabeling at 4, 37, and
70 °C, respectively. (D) Serum stability of silica nanoparticles
radiolabeled at pH = 7.3 and 70 °C, then incubated in 50% FBS
at 37 °C.When the specific activity
is 100 Ci/μmol, all isotopes tested
demonstrate radiochemical yields of >99% (as measured by centrifugal
nanoparticle purification) at pH = 7.3, 70 °C and incubation
times less than or equal to 1 h. The radiochemical yield improves
as temperature increases from 4 to 70 °C but does not vary significantly
as a function of pH in the range investigated (pH = 5.7–8.8).
Buffer without silica nanoparticles was used as a control for each
condition to exclude the possibility of false-positive signals due
to precipitate formation. Every isotope except 177Lu shows
>95% activity as free in solution, which is in agreement with previous
reports.[27] Because 177Lu exhibits
>10% signal associated with precipitate formation in the buffer
control,
centrifugation and size exclusion filtration is necessary in the analysis
of 177Lu radiolabeling to ensure that false-positive signals
from precipitates do not occur. Separating the particles from the
supernatant shows that all of the radioactivity is associated with
the nanoparticles, independent of temperature. Competitive chelation
studies with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) demonstrate that
only samples incubated at 70 °C robustly retain the various isotopes.
This suggests that the dominant influence of the temperature is in
overcoming the activation energy required for stable radioisotope
binding, rather than enabling delivery of the radioisotopes to binding
sites (i.e., the process is reaction limited, not diffusion limited).
This finding is supported by the observation that the silica nanoparticles
are sufficiently porous to enable diffusion of the radioisotopes into
the nanoparticle interior (Supporting Information Figure S1). While heating the particles to 70 °C precludes
prelabeling attachment of temperature-sensitive targeting ligands
such as antibodies, other targeting ligands that are stable at this
temperature such as smaller peptides and aptamers may be used. Figure S2 demonstrates that PEGylation of the silica
nanoparticles does not preclude 89Zr binding. Therefore,
attachment of moieties incompatible with the reported labeling procedure
can be facilitated by first radiolabeling silica nanoparticles coated
with functionalized polyethylene glycol, then performing straightforward
postradiolabeling reactions. The nanoparticle size and zeta potential
before and after radiolabeling are given in Supporting
Information Table S1.With these established protocols
for achieving chelator-free high
specific activities, the stability of the silica nanoparticles under
physiological conditions was examined. The serum stability of each
isotope was investigated in 50% fetal bovine serum at 37 °C over
time periods appropriate to each isotope’s half-life. All isotopes
were stably retained within the silica nanoparticles except for 64Cu. In the case of copper, 50% of the bound isotope leached
into the serum after 4 h. Because the operating principle of intrinsic
labeling with silica nanoparticles is the affinity each isotope has
for the oxygen-rich matrix, it is unsurprising that copper is most
weakly retained because it is the least oxophilic of the isotopes
tested. In fact, the trend in serum stability of the intrinsically
labeled silica demonstrated excellent correlation with the oxophilicity
(i.e., hardness) of the ions.[28] The marked
decrease in the serum stability of 64Cu can be further
attributed to proteins present in the serum that actively chelate
copper ions, resulting in pronounced transchelation effects.[29]The stability and biodistribution of 68Ga- and 89Zr-labeled silica nanoparticles was
also investigated in
vivo. These isotopes are particularly interesting because of their
increasing clinical importance in PET imaging, disparity in half-life,
and excellent serum stability.[30,31] Because nanoparticles
are known to generally accumulate in the reticuloendothelial system
in amounts well exceeding 90% of the injected dose,[6] short-lived isotopes like 68Ga are attractive
in minimizing the cross-dose to healthy organs while still enabling
whole-body cancer imaging. Alternatively, because some nanoparticle
formulations remain in circulation for extended periods and most nanoparticle
clearance studies extend for weeks or longer, long-lived isotopes
like 89Zr are essential for investigating the biological
response to nanoparticle administration. An additional benefit of
studying these two isotopes is that the biodistribution of free 68Ga and 89Zr is easily distinguished in the biodistribution
of nanoparticles in that they do not preferentially residualize in
the liver and spleen (Figure 4a), which is
in contrast to other isotopes like 64Cu that naturally
accumulate in the liver. Male athymic nude mice (8–10 weeks
old, n = 3) were injected with 250–350 μCi
(9.25–12.95 MBq) of either free 68Ga or 89Zr while another set was injected with 68Ga- or 89Zr-silica nanoparticles (10 nM) in 100 μL of 10 mM pH = 7.3
2-(N-morpholino)ethanesulfonic acid solution via
the lateral tail vein. The nanoparticle-bound isotopes demonstrated
the known biodistribution of silica nanoparticles and remained localized
in the liver and spleen for the entire period investigated (3 h for 68Ga, 24 h for 89Zr, n = 3 for
each) (Figure 4b).[32] The stark contrast between the free and nanoparticle-bound biodistributions
demonstrates that the silica nanoparticles stably retain the isotopes
in vivo (Supporting Information Figure
S3).
Figure 4
In vivo coronal PET maximum intensity projections (MIPs) of free
and silica-bound radiotracers in athymic nude mice, 250–350
μCi (9.25–12.95 MBq) per injection. (A) MIPs of free
(top) and silica-bound (bottom) 68Ga at 1 and 3 h post
injection. (B) MIPs of free (top) and silica-bound (bottom) 89Zr at 4, 12, and 24 h post injection. The intrinsically labeled silica
nanoparticles exhibit contrast in the reticuloendothelial system (liver,
spleen), the known biodistribution of silica nanoparticles, whereas
the free isotopes demonstrate an entirely different biodistribution.
This stark contrast indicates that the silica nanoparticles remain
intrinsically labeled in vivo.
In vivo coronal PET maximum intensity projections (MIPs) of free
and silica-bound radiotracers in athymic nude mice, 250–350
μCi (9.25–12.95 MBq) per injection. (A) MIPs of free
(top) and silica-bound (bottom) 68Ga at 1 and 3 h post
injection. (B) MIPs of free (top) and silica-bound (bottom) 89Zr at 4, 12, and 24 h post injection. The intrinsically labeled silica
nanoparticles exhibit contrast in the reticuloendothelial system (liver,
spleen), the known biodistribution of silica nanoparticles, whereas
the free isotopes demonstrate an entirely different biodistribution.
This stark contrast indicates that the silica nanoparticles remain
intrinsically labeled in vivo.Because silica serves as a robust platform for binding radioisotopes
and retaining them in vivo, the nanoprobes generated by this kitlike
radiolabeling protocol should be immediately useful in the many known
biomedical applications of nanoparticles. As a proof of concept, we
attempted to use these nanoparticles for lymph node imaging, a clinically
important application where nanoparticles demonstrate great promise.[33] We injected either free 89Zr or nanoparticle-bound 89Zr (n = 3 per condition, 3.7–5.5
MBq, 20–30 μL) into the footpad of male athymic nude
mice (see Supporting Information for methods)
and performed whole-body PET-CT scans. In all cases, the nanoparticle-bound
radioisotopes enabled robust detection of local lymph nodes while
the free radioisotope controls did not (Figure 5, Supporting Information Figure S4).
Figure 5
In vivo
PET-CT (left) and PET-only (right) lymph node imaging after
injection in the right rear paw of athymic nude mice. (A) Silica nanoparticles
intrinsically labeled with 89Zr 48 h post injection. (B)
Free 89Zr 48 h post injection. Images at earlier time points
demonstrated the same trend, where the free 89Zr did not
accumulate in lymph nodes, while the intrinsically labeled silica
nanoparticles progressively moved through the lymphatic system.
In vivo
PET-CT (left) and PET-only (right) lymph node imaging after
injection in the right rear paw of athymic nude mice. (A) Silica nanoparticles
intrinsically labeled with 89Zr 48 h post injection. (B)
Free 89Zr 48 h post injection. Images at earlier time points
demonstrated the same trend, where the free 89Zr did not
accumulate in lymph nodes, while the intrinsically labeled silica
nanoparticles progressively moved through the lymphatic system.In summary, this work has established
the ability of amorphous
silica nanoparticles to intrinsically bind a wide variety of radioisotopes
without the need for additional chelators. The in vivo stability demonstrated
herein validates the use of these nanoparticles in well-established
and future biomedical applications,[34,35] and it is
foreseeable that other particles could be coated with silica for facile
and highly efficient radiolabeling.[36] Moreover,
our findings warrant careful evaluation of radiolabeling procedures
for similar nanoparticles that utilize molecular chelators in order
to prevent misinterpretation of labeling mechanisms and efficiency.
Authors: Aoife M Burke; John P Hanrahan; David A Healy; John R Sodeau; Justin D Holmes; Michael A Morris Journal: J Hazard Mater Date: 2008-08-09 Impact factor: 10.588
Authors: Huan Meng; Min Xue; Tian Xia; Zhaoxia Ji; Derrick Y Tarn; Jeffrey I Zink; Andre E Nel Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2011-04-27 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Mukesh G Harisinghani; Jelle Barentsz; Peter F Hahn; Willem M Deserno; Shahin Tabatabaei; Christine Hulsbergen van de Kaa; Jean de la Rosette; Ralph Weissleder Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Feng Chen; Kai Ma; Li Zhang; Brian Madajewski; Pat Zanzonico; Sonia Sequeira; Mithat Gonen; Ulrich Wiesner; Michelle S Bradbury Journal: Chem Mater Date: 2017-09-06 Impact factor: 9.811
Authors: Jos L Campbell; Elliott D SoRelle; Ohad Ilovich; Orly Liba; Michelle L James; Zhen Qiu; Valerie Perez; Carmel T Chan; Adam de la Zerda; Cristina Zavaleta Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2017-04-28 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Liang Cheng; Anyanee Kamkaew; Sida Shen; Hector F Valdovinos; Haiyan Sun; Reinier Hernandez; Shreya Goel; Teng Liu; Cyrus R Thompson; Todd E Barnhart; Zhuang Liu; Weibo Cai Journal: Small Date: 2016-09-04 Impact factor: 13.281
Authors: Travis M Shaffer; Stefan Harmsen; Emaad Khwaja; Moritz F Kircher; Charles Michael Drain; Jan Grimm Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 11.189