PURPOSE: To develop and compare three copper 64 ((64)Cu)-labeled antibody fragments derived from a CA6-targeting antibody (huDS6) as immuno-positron emission tomography (immuno-PET)-based companion diagnostic agents for an antibody-drug conjugate by using huDS6. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three antibody fragments derived from huDS6 were produced, purified, conjugated to 1,4,7,10-tetraazacyclododecane-1,4,7,10-tetraacetic acid (DOTA), and evaluated in the following ways: (a) the affinity of the fragments and the DOTA conjugates was measured via flow cytometry, (b) the stability of the labeled fragments was determined ex vivo in human serum over 24 hours, and (c) comparison of the in vivo imaging potential of the fragments was evaluated in mice bearing subcutaneous CA6-positive and CA6-negative xenografts by using serial PET imaging and biodistribution. Isotype controls with antilysozyme and anti-DM4 B-Fabs and blocking experiments with an excess of either B-Fab or huDS6 were used to determine the extent of the antibody fragment (64)Cu-DOTA-B-Fab binding specificity. Immunoreactivity and tracer kinetics were evaluated by using cellular uptake and 48-hour imaging experiments, respectively. Statistical analyses were performed by using t tests, one-way analysis of variance, and Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: The antibody fragment (64)Cu-DOTA-B-Fab was more than 95% stable after 24 hours in human serum, had an immunoreactivity of more than 70%, and allowed differentiation between CA6-positive and CA6-negative tumors in vivo as early as 6 hours after injection, with a 1.7-fold uptake ratio between tumors. Isotype and blocking studies experiments showed tracer-specific uptake in antigen-positive tumors, despite some nonspecific uptake in both tumor models. CONCLUSION: Three antibody fragments were produced and examined as potential companion diagnostic agents. (64)Cu-DOTA-B-Fab is a stable and effective immuno-PET tracer for CA6 imaging in vivo.
PURPOSE: To develop and compare three copper 64 ((64)Cu)-labeled antibody fragments derived from a CA6-targeting antibody (huDS6) as immuno-positron emission tomography (immuno-PET)-based companion diagnostic agents for an antibody-drug conjugate by using huDS6. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three antibody fragments derived from huDS6 were produced, purified, conjugated to 1,4,7,10-tetraazacyclododecane-1,4,7,10-tetraacetic acid (DOTA), and evaluated in the following ways: (a) the affinity of the fragments and the DOTA conjugates was measured via flow cytometry, (b) the stability of the labeled fragments was determined ex vivo in human serum over 24 hours, and (c) comparison of the in vivo imaging potential of the fragments was evaluated in mice bearing subcutaneous CA6-positive and CA6-negative xenografts by using serial PET imaging and biodistribution. Isotype controls with antilysozyme and anti-DM4 B-Fabs and blocking experiments with an excess of either B-Fab or huDS6 were used to determine the extent of the antibody fragment (64)Cu-DOTA-B-Fab binding specificity. Immunoreactivity and tracer kinetics were evaluated by using cellular uptake and 48-hour imaging experiments, respectively. Statistical analyses were performed by using t tests, one-way analysis of variance, and Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: The antibody fragment (64)Cu-DOTA-B-Fab was more than 95% stable after 24 hours in human serum, had an immunoreactivity of more than 70%, and allowed differentiation between CA6-positive and CA6-negative tumors in vivo as early as 6 hours after injection, with a 1.7-fold uptake ratio between tumors. Isotype and blocking studies experiments showed tracer-specific uptake in antigen-positive tumors, despite some nonspecific uptake in both tumor models. CONCLUSION: Three antibody fragments were produced and examined as potential companion diagnostic agents. (64)Cu-DOTA-B-Fab is a stable and effective immuno-PET tracer for CA6 imaging in vivo.
Authors: K P Kearse; N L Smith; D A Semer; L Eagles; J L Finley; S Kazmierczak; C J Kovacs; A A Rodriguez; A E Kellogg-Wennerberg Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2000-12-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Maggie S Cooper; Michelle T Ma; Kavitha Sunassee; Karen P Shaw; Jennifer D Williams; Rowena L Paul; Paul S Donnelly; Philip J Blower Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: E C Dijkers; T H Oude Munnink; J G Kosterink; A H Brouwers; P L Jager; J R de Jong; G A van Dongen; C P Schröder; M N Lub-de Hooge; E G de Vries Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2010-03-31 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Manu Lopus; Emin Oroudjev; Leslie Wilson; Sharon Wilhelm; Wayne Widdison; Ravi Chari; Mary Ann Jordan Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Tove Olafsen; Chia-Wei Cheung; Paul J Yazaki; Lin Li; Gobalakrishnan Sundaresan; Sanjiv S Gambhir; Mark A Sherman; Lawrence E Williams; John E Shively; Andrew A Raubitschek; Anna M Wu Journal: Protein Eng Des Sel Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 1.650
Authors: Brian W Pogue; Keith D Paulsen; Kimberley S Samkoe; Jonathan T Elliott; Tayyaba Hasan; Theresa V Strong; Daniel R Draney; Joachim Feldwisch Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Joseph M Castellano; Kira I Mosher; Rachelle J Abbey; Alisha A McBride; Michelle L James; Daniela Berdnik; Jadon C Shen; Bende Zou; Xinmin S Xie; Martha Tingle; Izumi V Hinkson; Martin S Angst; Tony Wyss-Coray Journal: Nature Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Ingrid J G Burvenich; Sagun Parakh; Adam C Parslow; Sze Ting Lee; Hui K Gan; Andrew M Scott Journal: AAPS J Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 4.009
Authors: Haley L Wissler; Emily B Ehlerding; Zhigang Lyu; Yue Zhao; Si Zhang; Anisa Eshraghi; Zakey Yusuf Buuh; Jeffrey C McGuth; Yifu Guan; Jonathan W Engle; Sarah J Bartlett; Vincent A Voelz; Weibo Cai; Rongsheng E Wang Journal: Mol Pharm Date: 2019-03-25 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Andrew C Yang; Marc Y Stevens; Michelle B Chen; Davis P Lee; Daniel Stähli; David Gate; Kévin Contrepois; Winnie Chen; Tal Iram; Lichao Zhang; Ryan T Vest; Aisling Chaney; Benoit Lehallier; Niclas Olsson; Haley du Bois; Ryan Hsieh; Haley C Cropper; Daniela Berdnik; Lulin Li; Elizabeth Y Wang; Gavin M Traber; Carolyn R Bertozzi; Jian Luo; Michael P Snyder; Joshua E Elias; Stephen R Quake; Michelle L James; Tony Wyss-Coray Journal: Nature Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 69.504
Authors: Marc Y Stevens; Haley C Cropper; Katherine L Lucot; Aisling M Chaney; Kendra J Lechtenberg; Isaac M Jackson; Marion S Buckwalter; Michelle L James Journal: J Neuroinflammation Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 8.322
Authors: Arutselvan Natarajan; Shyam M Srinivas; Carmen Azevedo; Lacey Greene; Anne-Laure Bauchet; Erwan Jouannot; Anne-Sophie Lacoste-Bourgeacq; Isabelle Guizon; Patrick Cohen; Anne-Laure Naneix; Ohad Ilovich; Jordan Cisneros; Krithika Rupanarayan; Frederick T Chin; Andrei Iagaru; Frederick M Dirbas; Amer Karam; Sanjiv S Gambhir Journal: Mol Imaging Date: 2020 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 4.488