Dewei Tang1,2,3,4, Jun Li1,5, Jason R Buck1, Mohamed Noor Tantawy1,2, Yan Xia6,7, Joel M Harp8,9, Michael L Nickels1,2, Jens Meiler6,7,10, H Charles Manning11,12,13,14,15,16,17. 1. Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science (VUIIS), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA. 2. Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200127, China. 4. Shanghai Key Laboratory for Molecular Imaging, Shanghai University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Shanghai, 201318, China. 5. Interdisciplinary Materials Science Program, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 37240, USA. 6. Center for Structural Biology (CSB), Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 37205, USA. 7. Department of Chemistry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 37235, USA. 8. Department of Biochemistry, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA. 9. Department of Biological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 37235, USA. 10. Vanderbilt Institute of Chemical Biology (VICB), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA. 11. Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science (VUIIS), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA. henry.c.manning@vanderbilt.edu. 12. Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA. henry.c.manning@vanderbilt.edu. 13. Department of Chemistry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 37235, USA. henry.c.manning@vanderbilt.edu. 14. Program in Chemical and Physical Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA. henry.c.manning@vanderbilt.edu. 15. Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (VICC), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA. henry.c.manning@vanderbilt.edu. 16. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA. henry.c.manning@vanderbilt.edu. 17. Department of Neurosurgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA. henry.c.manning@vanderbilt.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET) ligands targeting translocator protein (TSPO) are potential imaging diagnostics of cancer. In this study, we report two novel, high-affinity TSPO PET ligands that are 5,7 regioisomers, [18F]VUIIS1009A ([18F]3A) and [18F]VUIIS1009B ([18F]3B), and their initial in vitro and in vivo evaluation in healthy mice and glioma-bearing rats. PROCEDURES: VUIIS1009A/B was synthesized and confirmed by X-ray crystallography. Interactions between TSPO binding pocket and novel ligands were evaluated and compared with contemporary TSPO ligands using 2D 1H-15N heteronuclear single quantum coherence (HSQC) spectroscopy. In vivo biodistribution of [18F]VUIIS1009A and [18F]VUIIS1009B was carried out in healthy mice with and without radioligand displacement. Dynamic PET imaging data were acquired simultaneously with [18F]VUIIS1009A/B injections in glioma-bearing rats, with binding reversibility and specificity evaluated by radioligand displacement. In vivo radiometabolite analysis was performed using radio-TLC, and quantitative analysis of PET data was performed using metabolite-corrected arterial input functions. Imaging was validated with histology and immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Both VUIIS1009A (3A) and VUIIS1009B (3B) were found to exhibit exceptional binding affinity to TSPO, with observed IC50 values against PK11195 approximately 500-fold lower than DPA-714. However, HSQC NMR suggested that VUIIS1009A and VUIIS1009B share a common binding pocket within mammalian TSPO (mTSPO) as DPA-714 and to a lesser extent, PK11195. [18F]VUIIS1009A ([18F]3A) and [18F]VUIIS1009B ([18F]3B) exhibited similar biodistribution in healthy mice. In rats bearing C6 gliomas, both [18F]VUIIS1009A and [18F]VUIIS1009B exhibited greater binding potential (k 3/k 4)in tumor tissue compared to [18F]DPA-714. Interestingly, [18F]VUIIS1009B exhibited significantly greater tumor uptake (V T) than [18F]VUIIS1009A, which was attributed primarily to greater plasma-to-tumor extraction efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: The novel PET ligand [18F]VUIIS1009B exhibits promising characteristics for imaging glioma; its superiority over [18F]VUIIS1009A, a regioisomer, appears to be primarily due to improved plasma extraction efficiency. Continued evaluation of [18F]VUIIS1009B as a high-affinity TSPO PET ligand for precision medicine appears warranted.
PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET) ligands targeting translocator protein (TSPO) are potential imaging diagnostics of cancer. In this study, we report two novel, high-affinity TSPO PET ligands that are 5,7 regioisomers, [18F]VUIIS1009A ([18F]3A) and [18F]VUIIS1009B ([18F]3B), and their initial in vitro and in vivo evaluation in healthy mice and glioma-bearing rats. PROCEDURES: VUIIS1009A/B was synthesized and confirmed by X-ray crystallography. Interactions between TSPO binding pocket and novel ligands were evaluated and compared with contemporary TSPO ligands using 2D 1H-15N heteronuclear single quantum coherence (HSQC) spectroscopy. In vivo biodistribution of [18F]VUIIS1009A and [18F]VUIIS1009B was carried out in healthy mice with and without radioligand displacement. Dynamic PET imaging data were acquired simultaneously with [18F]VUIIS1009A/B injections in glioma-bearing rats, with binding reversibility and specificity evaluated by radioligand displacement. In vivo radiometabolite analysis was performed using radio-TLC, and quantitative analysis of PET data was performed using metabolite-corrected arterial input functions. Imaging was validated with histology and immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Both VUIIS1009A (3A) and VUIIS1009B (3B) were found to exhibit exceptional binding affinity to TSPO, with observed IC50 values against PK11195 approximately 500-fold lower than DPA-714. However, HSQC NMR suggested that VUIIS1009A and VUIIS1009B share a common binding pocket within mammalianTSPO (mTSPO) as DPA-714 and to a lesser extent, PK11195. [18F]VUIIS1009A ([18F]3A) and [18F]VUIIS1009B ([18F]3B) exhibited similar biodistribution in healthy mice. In rats bearing C6 gliomas, both [18F]VUIIS1009A and [18F]VUIIS1009B exhibited greater binding potential (k 3/k 4)in tumor tissue compared to [18F]DPA-714. Interestingly, [18F]VUIIS1009B exhibited significantly greater tumor uptake (V T) than [18F]VUIIS1009A, which was attributed primarily to greater plasma-to-tumor extraction efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: The novel PET ligand [18F]VUIIS1009B exhibits promising characteristics for imaging glioma; its superiority over [18F]VUIIS1009A, a regioisomer, appears to be primarily due to improved plasma extraction efficiency. Continued evaluation of [18F]VUIIS1009B as a high-affinity TSPO PET ligand for precision medicine appears warranted.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer imaging; PET; Precision medicine; TSPO; VUIIS1009A; VUIIS1009B
Authors: Robert B Innis; Vincent J Cunningham; Jacques Delforge; Masahiro Fujita; Albert Gjedde; Roger N Gunn; James Holden; Sylvain Houle; Sung-Cheng Huang; Masanori Ichise; Hidehiro Iida; Hiroshi Ito; Yuichi Kimura; Robert A Koeppe; Gitte M Knudsen; Juhani Knuuti; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Marc Laruelle; Jean Logan; Ralph Paul Maguire; Mark A Mintun; Evan D Morris; Ramin Parsey; Julie C Price; Mark Slifstein; Vesna Sossi; Tetsuya Suhara; John R Votaw; Dean F Wong; Richard E Carson Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2007-05-09 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Vassilios Papadopoulos; Mario Baraldi; Tomás R Guilarte; Thomas B Knudsen; Jean-Jacques Lacapère; Peter Lindemann; Michael D Norenberg; David Nutt; Abraham Weizman; Ming-Rong Zhang; Moshe Gavish Journal: Trends Pharmacol Sci Date: 2006-07-05 Impact factor: 14.819
Authors: Kerstin Maaser; Patricia Grabowski; Andreas P Sutter; Michael Höpfner; Hans-Dieter Foss; Harald Stein; Gerd Berger; Moshe Gavish; Martin Zeitz; Hans Scherübl Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Frederic G Dhermain; Peter Hau; Heinrich Lanfermann; Andreas H Jacobs; Martin J van den Bent Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2010-08-10 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Jason R Buck; Eliot T McKinley; Matthew R Hight; Allie Fu; Dewei Tang; Ralph Adam Smith; Mohammed Noor Tantawy; Todd E Peterson; Daniel Colvin; Mohammed Sib Ansari; Ronald M Baldwin; Ping Zhao; Saffet Guleryuz; H Charles Manning Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-12-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Dewei Tang; Matthew R Hight; Eliot T McKinley; Allie Fu; Jason R Buck; R Adam Smith; Mohammed Noor Tantawy; Todd E Peterson; Daniel C Colvin; M Sib Ansari; Michael Nickels; H Charles Manning Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Yiu-Yin Cheung; Michael L Nickels; Dewei Tang; Jason R Buck; H Charles Manning Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Lett Date: 2014-08-08 Impact factor: 2.823
Authors: I Venturini; M L Zeneroli; L Corsi; C Baraldi; C Ferrarese; N Pecora; M Frigo; H Alho; F Farina; M Baraldi Journal: Regul Pept Date: 1998-04-24
Authors: Yan Xia; Kaitlyn Ledwitch; Georg Kuenze; Amanda Duran; Jun Li; Charles R Sanders; Charles Manning; Jens Meiler Journal: J Biomol NMR Date: 2019-06-26 Impact factor: 2.835
Authors: Neydher Berroterán-Infante; Theresa Balber; Petra Fürlinger; Michael Bergmann; Rupert Lanzenberger; Marcus Hacker; Markus Mitterhauser; Wolfgang Wadsak Journal: ACS Med Chem Lett Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 4.345
Authors: Allison S Cohen; Jun Li; Matthew R Hight; Eliot McKinley; Allie Fu; Adria Payne; Yang Liu; Dawei Zhang; Qing Xie; Mingfeng Bai; Gregory D Ayers; Mohammed Noor Tantawy; Jarrod A Smith; Frank Revetta; M Kay Washington; Chanjuan Shi; Nipun Merchant; H Charles Manning Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Dewei Tang; Jun Li; Michael L Nickels; Gang Huang; Allison S Cohen; H Charles Manning Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 3.488