James C Knight1, Caitríona Topping1, Michael Mosley1, Veerle Kersemans1, Nadia Falzone1,2, José M Fernández-Varea3, Bart Cornelissen4. 1. CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus Research Building, Off Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7LJ, UK. 2. Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, Surrey, UK. 3. Facultat de Fisica (ECM and ICC), Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 4. CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus Research Building, Off Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7LJ, UK. bart.cornelissen@oncology.ox.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The efficacy of most anticancer treatments, including radiotherapy, depends on an ability to cause DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs). Very early during the DNA damage signalling process, the histone isoform H2AX is phosphorylated to form γH2AX. With the aim of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of DSBs, we synthesized a (89)Zr-labelled anti-γH2AX antibody, modified with the cell-penetrating peptide, TAT, which includes a nuclear localization sequence. METHODS: (89)Zr-anti-γH2AX-TAT was synthesized using EDC/NHS chemistry for TAT peptide linkage. Desferrioxamine conjugation allowed labelling with (89)Zr. Uptake and retention of (89)Zr-anti-γH2AX-TAT was evaluated in the breast adenocarcinoma cell line MDA-MB-468 in vitro or as xenografts in athymic mice. External beam irradiation was used to induce DSBs and expression of γH2AX. Since (89)Zr emits ionizing radiation, detailed radiobiological measurements were included to ensure (89)Zr-anti-γH2AX-TAT itself does not cause any additional DSBs. RESULTS: Uptake of (89)Zr-anti-γH2AX-TAT was similar to previous results using (111)In-anti-γH2AX-TAT. Retention of (89)Zr-anti-γH2AX-TAT was eightfold higher at 1 h post irradiation, in cells expressing γH2AX, compared to non-irradiated cells or to non-specific IgG control. PET imaging of mice showed higher uptake of (89)Zr-anti-γH2AX-TAT in irradiated xenografts, compared to non-irradiated or non-specific controls (12.1 ± 1.6 vs 5.2 ± 1.9 and 5.1 ± 0.8%ID/g, respectively; p < 0.0001). The mean absorbed dose to the nucleus of cells taking up (89)Zr-anti-γH2AX-TAT was twofold lower compared to (111)In-anti-γH2AX-TAT. Additional exposure of neither irradiated nor non-irradiated cells nor tissues to (89)Zr-anti-γH2AX-TAT resulted in any significant changes in the number of observable DNA DSBs, γH2AX foci or clonogenic survival. CONCLUSION: (89)Zr-anti-γH2AX-TAT allows PET imaging of DNA DSBs in a tumour xenograft mouse model.
PURPOSE: The efficacy of most anticancer treatments, including radiotherapy, depends on an ability to cause DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs). Very early during the DNA damage signalling process, the histone isoform H2AX is phosphorylated to form γH2AX. With the aim of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of DSBs, we synthesized a (89)Zr-labelled anti-γH2AX antibody, modified with the cell-penetrating peptide, TAT, which includes a nuclear localization sequence. METHODS: (89)Zr-anti-γH2AX-TAT was synthesized using EDC/NHS chemistry for TAT peptide linkage. Desferrioxamine conjugation allowed labelling with (89)Zr. Uptake and retention of (89)Zr-anti-γH2AX-TAT was evaluated in the breast adenocarcinoma cell line MDA-MB-468 in vitro or as xenografts in athymic mice. External beam irradiation was used to induce DSBs and expression of γH2AX. Since (89)Zr emits ionizing radiation, detailed radiobiological measurements were included to ensure (89)Zr-anti-γH2AX-TAT itself does not cause any additional DSBs. RESULTS: Uptake of (89)Zr-anti-γH2AX-TAT was similar to previous results using (111)In-anti-γH2AX-TAT. Retention of (89)Zr-anti-γH2AX-TAT was eightfold higher at 1 h post irradiation, in cells expressing γH2AX, compared to non-irradiated cells or to non-specific IgG control. PET imaging of mice showed higher uptake of (89)Zr-anti-γH2AX-TAT in irradiated xenografts, compared to non-irradiated or non-specific controls (12.1 ± 1.6 vs 5.2 ± 1.9 and 5.1 ± 0.8%ID/g, respectively; p < 0.0001). The mean absorbed dose to the nucleus of cells taking up (89)Zr-anti-γH2AX-TAT was twofold lower compared to (111)In-anti-γH2AX-TAT. Additional exposure of neither irradiated nor non-irradiated cells nor tissues to (89)Zr-anti-γH2AX-TAT resulted in any significant changes in the number of observable DNA DSBs, γH2AX foci or clonogenic survival. CONCLUSION: (89)Zr-anti-γH2AX-TAT allows PET imaging of DNA DSBs in a tumour xenograft mouse model.
Authors: Maria J W D Vosjan; Lars R Perk; Gerard W M Visser; Marianne Budde; Paul Jurek; Garry E Kiefer; Guus A M S van Dongen Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2010-03-25 Impact factor: 13.491
Authors: Wenrong Li; Fang Li; Qian Huang; Jingping Shen; Frank Wolf; Yujun He; Xinjian Liu; Y Angela Hu; Joel S Bedford; Chuan-Yuan Li Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2011-04-28 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Rachel E Laing; Martin A Walter; Dean O Campbell; Harvey R Herschman; Nagichettiar Satyamurthy; Michael E Phelps; Johannes Czernin; Owen N Witte; Caius G Radu Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-02-05 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Bart Cornelissen; Veerle Kersemans; Sonali Darbar; James Thompson; Ketan Shah; Kate Sleeth; Mark A Hill; Katherine A Vallis Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2011-05-17 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Martin Pool; H Rudolf de Boer; Marjolijn N Lub-de Hooge; Marcel A T M van Vugt; Elisabeth G E de Vries Journal: Theranostics Date: 2017-05-27 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Anna A Rybczynska; Hendrikus H Boersma; Steven de Jong; Jourik A Gietema; Walter Noordzij; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Philip H Elsinga; Aren van Waarde Journal: Med Res Rev Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 12.944
Authors: Nancy M Okuda-Shinagawa; Yulia E Moskalenko; Helena C Junqueira; Maurício S Baptista; Carlos M Marques; M Terêsa Machini Journal: ACS Omega Date: 2017-11-20
Authors: James C Knight; Julia Baguña Torres; Robert Goldin; Michael Mosley; Gemma M Dias; Luisa Contreras Bravo; Veerle Kersemans; P Danny Allen; Somnath Mukherjee; Sean Smart; Bart Cornelissen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-12-20 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Thomas C Wilson; Mary-Ann Xavier; James Knight; Stefan Verhoog; Julia Baguña Torres; Michael Mosley; Samantha L Hopkins; Sheena Wallington; Phillip D Allen; Veerle Kersemans; Rebekka Hueting; Sean Smart; Véronique Gouverneur; Bart Cornelissen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-11-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Sophie Poty; Komal Mandleywala; Edward O'Neill; James C Knight; Bart Cornelissen; Jason S Lewis Journal: Theranostics Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Estel Collado Camps; Sanne A M van Lith; Cathelijne Frielink; Jordi Lankhof; Ingrid Dijkgraaf; Martin Gotthardt; Roland Brock Journal: Pharmaceuticals (Basel) Date: 2021-06-23
Authors: Edward O'Neill; Veerle Kersemans; P Danny Allen; Samantha Y A Terry; Julia Baguña Torres; Michael Mosley; Sean Smart; Boon Quan Lee; Nadia Falzone; Katherine A Vallis; Mark W Konijnenberg; Marion de Jong; Julie Nonnekens; Bart Cornelissen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-11-22 Impact factor: 11.082