Ann-Marie Waldron1, Jeroen Verhaeghe1, Leonie wyffels1,2, Mark Schmidt3, Xavier Langlois3, Annemie Van Der Linden4, Sigrid Stroobants2, Steven Staelens5. 1. Molecular Imaging Center Antwerp, University of Antwerp, Campus Drie Eiken - UC, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610, Wilrijk, Antwerp, Belgium. 2. Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. 3. Department of Neuroscience, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Beerse, Belgium. 4. Bio-Imaging Lab, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. 5. Molecular Imaging Center Antwerp, University of Antwerp, Campus Drie Eiken - UC, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610, Wilrijk, Antwerp, Belgium. steven.staelens@uantwerpen.be.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare [(11)C]Pittsburgh compound B ([(11)C]PiB) and [(18)F]florbetaben ([(18)F]FBB) for preclinical investigations of amyloid-β pathology. PROCEDURES: We investigated two aged animal models of cerebral amyloidosis with contrasting levels of amyloid-β relating to "high" (APPPS1-21 n = 6, wild type (WT) n = 7) and "low" (BRI1-42 n = 6, WT n = 6) target states, respectively. RESULTS: APPPS1-21 mice (high target state) demonstrated extensive fibrillar amyloid-β deposition that translated to significantly increased retention of [(11)C]PiB and [(18)F]FBB in comparison to their wild type. The retention pattern of [(11)C]PiB and [(18)F]FBB in this cohort displayed a significant correlation. However, the relative difference in tracer uptake between diseased and healthy mice was substantially higher for [(11)C]PiB than for [(18)F]FBB. Although immunohistochemistry confirmed the high plaque load in APPPS1-21 mice, correlation between tracer uptake and ex vivo quantification of amyloid-β was poor for both tracers. BRI1-42 mice (low target state) did not demonstrate increased tracer uptake. CONCLUSIONS: In cases of high fibrillar amyloid-β burden, both tracers detected significant differences between diseased and healthy mice, with [(11)C]PiB showing a larger dynamic range.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare [(11)C]Pittsburgh compound B ([(11)C]PiB) and [(18)F]florbetaben ([(18)F]FBB) for preclinical investigations of amyloid-β pathology. PROCEDURES: We investigated two aged animal models of cerebral amyloidosis with contrasting levels of amyloid-β relating to "high" (APPPS1-21 n = 6, wild type (WT) n = 7) and "low" (BRI1-42 n = 6, WT n = 6) target states, respectively. RESULTS: APPPS1-21 mice (high target state) demonstrated extensive fibrillar amyloid-β deposition that translated to significantly increased retention of [(11)C]PiB and [(18)F]FBB in comparison to their wild type. The retention pattern of [(11)C]PiB and [(18)F]FBB in this cohort displayed a significant correlation. However, the relative difference in tracer uptake between diseased and healthy mice was substantially higher for [(11)C]PiB than for [(18)F]FBB. Although immunohistochemistry confirmed the high plaque load in APPPS1-21 mice, correlation between tracer uptake and ex vivo quantification of amyloid-β was poor for both tracers. BRI1-42 mice (low target state) did not demonstrate increased tracer uptake. CONCLUSIONS: In cases of high fibrillar amyloid-β burden, both tracers detected significant differences between diseased and healthy mice, with [(11)C]PiB showing a larger dynamic range.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alzheimer’s; Animal models; Small animal imaging; [11C]PiB; [18F]FBB
Authors: M A Mintun; G N Larossa; Y I Sheline; C S Dence; S Y Lee; R H Mach; W E Klunk; C A Mathis; S T DeKosky; J C Morris Journal: Neurology Date: 2006-08-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Susan M Landau; Christopher Breault; Abhinay D Joshi; Michael Pontecorvo; Chester A Mathis; William J Jagust; Mark A Mintun Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Anniina Snellman; Johanna Rokka; Francisco R Lopez-Picon; Olli Eskola; Ian Wilson; Gill Farrar; Mika Scheinin; Olof Solin; Juha O Rinne; Merja Haaparanta-Solin Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-07-17 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Victor L Villemagne; Rachel S Mulligan; Svetlana Pejoska; Kevin Ong; Gareth Jones; Graeme O'Keefe; J Gordon Chan; Kenneth Young; Henri Tochon-Danguy; Colin L Masters; Christopher C Rowe Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Martine M Mirrione; Wynne K Schiffer; Joanna S Fowler; Dave L Alexoff; Stephen L Dewey; Stella E Tsirka Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2007-07-18 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Hye Joo Son; Young Jin Jeong; Hyun Jin Yoon; Sang Yoon Lee; Go-Eun Choi; Ji-Ae Park; Min Hwan Kim; Kyo Chul Lee; Yong Jin Lee; Mun Ki Kim; Kook Cho; Do-Young Kang Journal: BMC Neurosci Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 3.288
Authors: Ann-Marie Waldron; Cindy Wintmolders; Astrid Bottelbergs; Jonathan B Kelley; Mark E Schmidt; Sigrid Stroobants; Xavier Langlois; Steven Staelens Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2015-12-15 Impact factor: 6.982