James C Knight1, Michael Mosley1, H Tetsuo Uyeda2, Mei Cong2, Frank Fan2, Stephen Faulkner3, Bart Cornelissen1. 1. CR-UK/MRC Gray Institute for Radiation Oncology and Biology, University of Oxford , Oxford OX3 7LJ, United Kingdom. 2. Promega Corporation , Madison, Wisconsin 53711, United States. 3. Chemistry Research Laboratory, University of Oxford , 12 Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3TA, United Kingdom.
Abstract
A novel pretargeted SPECT imaging strategy based on the HaloTag enzyme has been evaluated for the first time in a living system. To determine the efficacy of this approach, two clinically relevant cancer biomarkers, HER2 and TAG-72, were selected to represent models of internalizing and noninternalizing antigens, respectively. In MDA-MB-231/H2N (HER2-expressing) and LS174T (TAG-72-expressing) xenograft tumors in mice, pretargeting experiments were performed in which HaloTag-conjugated derivatives of the antibodies trastuzumab (anti-HER2) or CC49 (anti-TAG-72) were utilized as primary agents, and the small molecule HaloTag ligands 111In-HTL-1, -2, and -3 were evaluated as secondary agents. While this approach was not sufficiently sensitive to detect the internalizing HER2 antigen, pretargeting experiments involving the most optimal secondary agent, 111In-HTL-3, were successful in detecting the noninternalizing antigen TAG-72 and provided high-contrast SPECT images at 4 and 24 h postinjection.
A novel pretargeted SPECT imaging strategy based on the HaloTag enzyme has been evaluated for the first time in a living system. To determine the efficacy of this approach, two clinically relevant cancer biomarkers, HER2 and TAG-72, were selected to represent models of internalizing and noninternalizing antigens, respectively. In MDA-MB-231/H2N (HER2-expressing) and LS174T (TAG-72-expressing) xenograft tumors in mice, pretargeting experiments were performed in which HaloTag-conjugated derivatives of the antibodies trastuzumab (anti-HER2) or CC49 (anti-TAG-72) were utilized as primary agents, and the small molecule HaloTag ligands 111In-HTL-1, -2, and -3 were evaluated as secondary agents. While this approach was not sufficiently sensitive to detect the internalizing HER2 antigen, pretargeting experiments involving the most optimal secondary agent, 111In-HTL-3, were successful in detecting the noninternalizing antigen TAG-72 and provided high-contrast SPECT images at 4 and 24 h postinjection.
Radiolabeled antibodies
are frequently
used in nuclear (PET/SPECT)
imaging procedures for a range of diagnostic applications.[1] The long circulatory residence times of these
high molecular weight (∼150 kDa) constructs results in high
radiation doses to patients and long waiting times before optimal
target-to-blood ratios are obtained. To overcome these obstacles,
there has been a considerable amount of recent effort to develop alternative
two-step imaging strategies, referred to collectively as “pretargeting”.[2] In this approach, an antibody primary agent is
first administered and allowed sufficient time to reach an optimal
tumor-to-blood (T/B) ratio, after which a radiolabeled secondary agent
in the form of a rapidly clearing small molecule is then injected.
Crucially, the primary and secondary agents must be suitably designed
so that they undergo extremely rapid, selective, and, preferably,
irreversible binding at the tumor site. Due to the fast clearance
of the radioactive secondary agent from the circulation, this leads
to a lower radiation burden to the patient and T/B contrast ratios
that are comparable to or higher than those obtained by conventional
radiolabeled antibodies at much earlier time points.Pretargeting
was originally achieved with bispecific antibodies
that have the ability to bind to both a target antigen and a radiolabeled
hapten molecule.[3−5] While this approach has demonstrated some promise
in clinical settings, the suboptimal binding affinities (∼10–10 M) that exist between the antibody and hapten species
and the high production costs of bispecific antibodies have moderated
the success of this approach. To improve upon this method, other pretargeting
strategies have since been developed in which the primary and secondary
agents are modified with complementary reactive groups that include
(i) biotin/(strept)avidin,[6−8] (ii) oligonucleotides (particularly
those based on a morpholino backbone),[9−11] and, most recently,
(iii) bioorthogonal copper-free click chemistry species (particularly trans-cyclooctene/tetrazine).[2,12] The most well-studied
of these is the biotin/(strept)avidin pretargeting strategy; it benefits
from the extremely high binding affinity interaction between the enzyme
and its substrate (Kd = 4 × 10–14 M)[13,14] and has out-performed directly
radiolabeled antibodies in clinical trials.[15] However, this approach has a series of important shortcomings that
impact its overall efficacy and potential for clinical translation.
First, the administration of (strept)avidin-modified antibodies can
potentially stimulate an adverse immunogenic response in patients.
Second, the presence of competing endogenous biotin (10–7–10–8 M) is likely to partially block or
even saturate the biotin binding sites located on the primary agent,
and the presence of endogenous biotinidase would also likely result
in hydrolysis of the biotinylated agent. Lastly, the noncovalent nature
of the interaction may result in the secondary agent gradually leaching
away from the tumor site.The reaction that occurs between the
dehalogenase enzyme HaloTag
(33 kDa) and a chloroalkane HaloTag ligand (HTL; Figure ) is well-suited to pretargeting
applications.[16,17] It proceeds with a second-order
rate constant of 2.7 × 106 M–1 s–1, which is comparable to that of the biotin/(strept)avidin
reaction,[16] and, importantly, it also offers
a number of key advantages. For example, the HaloTag enzyme does not
suffer interference from competing endogenous substrates, rendering
it fully available to the HTL secondary agent. Furthermore, this enzymatic
reaction also leads to the formation of a covalent bond that effectively
anchors the HTL in a precise location and limits the possibility of
detachment.
Figure 1
HaloTag ligand secondary agents used in this work (111In-HTL-1, -2, and -3).
HaloTag ligand secondary agents used in this work (111In-HTL-1, -2, and -3).We and others have recently demonstrated the ability of this
reaction
to proceed selectively in vivo by targeting HaloTag-expressing
xenograft tumors with both fluorescently labeled and radioactive imaging
agents.[18−20] We have also previously demonstrated in a series
of in vitro experiments that HaloTag-mediated pretargeting
is capable of detecting elevated expression of the cancer biomarker
HER2 in a dual-modality (SPECT/optical) approach.[19] Three HTLs were developed (111In-HTL-1, -2,
and -3; Figure ),
and each was applied successfully in these in vitro pretargeting experiments. The lowest molecular weight secondary
agent, 111In-HTL-1, exhibited the highest overall uptake
in these experiments; however, this ligand had the highest proportion
of nonspecific uptake. More promisingly, the PEGylated secondary agents, 111In-HTL-2 and -3, revealed substantially less nonspecific
protein binding and higher specific binding to HER2-expressing cells.
In the present study, we have used these ligands to investigate the
feasibility of using the HaloTag system to enable pretargeted SPECT
imaging of HER2- and TAG-72-expressing xenograft tumors in mice.
Materials
and Methods
General Methods
All reagents were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich
unless otherwise stated and were used without further purification.
Water was deionized using a Barnstead NANOpure purification system
(Thermo Scientific) and had a resistance of >18.2 MΩ cm–1 at 25 °C. Protein concentration measurements
were made on a ND-1000 spectrophotometer (NanoDrop Technologies, Inc.).
pH was determined using pH indicator paper (Merck Millipore). Radioactivity
measurements were made using a CRC-25R dose calibrator (Capintec,
Inc.) and a 2480 WIZARD[2] or 1470 WIZARD
gamma counter (PerkinElmer).
Cell Culture
The HER2-tranfected
human mammary carcinoma
cell line MDA-MB-231/H2N was a gift from Dr. Robert Kerbel (Sunnybrook
Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON).[21] LS174T cells were obtained from American Type Culture Collection
(ATCC). Cell lines were maintained in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s
medium (DMEM, Sigma), supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS),
2 mM l-glutamine, 100 units/mL penicillin, and 0.1 mg/mL
streptomycin. All cell lines were cultured in a 37 °C environment
containing 5% CO2. Cells were harvested and passaged as
required using a trypsin–EDTA solution (Sigma). Cells were
tested and authenticated by the providers. The cumulative length of
culture was less than 6 months following retrieval from liquid nitrogen
storage.
Preparation of Trastuzumab–HTP and CC49–HTP Primary
Agents and HTL Secondary Agents
The primary agents in this
imaging strategy were the antibody–HaloTag (Ab–HTP)
conjugate proteins trastuzumab–HTP and CC49–HTP. On
the basis of the established antigen binding properties of the unmodified
antibodies, these agents were selected to target HER2 and TAG-72 expression,
respectively. Trastuzumab–HTP and CC49–HTP conjugate
proteins were prepared by previously described methods using a Click&Go
protein–protein conjugation kit (Click Chemistry Tools, catalogue
no. 1008).[19] The HTL secondary agents 111In-HTL-1, -2, and -3 were also synthesized and assessed
for radiochemical purity via either radio-thin-layer chromatography
and/or radio-HPLC following previously described methods.[19] The radiochemical purity of these agents routinely
exceeded 95%.
In Vitro Pretargeting Studies
Aliquots
of 2 × 105 LS174T cells were seeded in 24-well plates
in warm cell culture medium (500 μL). The cells were allowed
to adhere overnight, and the old medium was replaced with fresh cell
culture medium (270 μL). Either unmodified HaloTag protein,
unmodified CC49, CC49–HTP, or nonspecific rabbit IgG–HTP
was added to yield a final concentration of 200 nM. The cells were
incubated at 37 °C for 30 min at room temperature. The cell culture
medium was removed, and the cells were washed twice with phosphate
buffered saline (PBS; pH 7.4, 500 μL). Fresh cell culture medium
(400 μL) was added to each well, and the relevant 111In-labeled HTL (25 kBq) in cell culture medium (100 μL) was
then added. The cells were incubated for a further 30 min, 1 h, or
2 h at room temperature. The cell culture medium was removed and combined
with two washes of PBS (pH 7.4, 500 μL). The remaining monolayer
of cells was then lysed with 0.1 M sodium hydroxide for 20 min at
room temperature. The amount of radioactivity contained within the
cell culture medium and the cell lysate fractions was measured using
a gamma counter.
In Vivo Studies
All animal procedures
were performed in accordance with the UK Animals (Scientific Procedures)
Act 1986 and with local ethical committee approval. Xenograft tumors
were established in the right hind flank of female BALB/c nu/nu mice by subcutaneous injection of 5 × 106 MDA-MB-231/H2N cells in a 1:1 mixture of fresh media and
BD Matrigel basement membrane matrix (BD Biosciences) (100 μL)
or 5 × 106 LS174T cells in sterile PBS (100 μL).
Subsequent SPECT/CT imaging and ex vivo biodistribution
experiments were performed when the tumors had reached a volume of
approximately 1 cm3.
Ex Vivo Biodistribution Experiments
Trastuzumab–HTP (100
μg) or CC49–HTP (100 μg)
in sterile PBS (100 μL) was injected into the lateral tail vein
of MDA-MB-231/H2N or LS174T-tumor-bearing mice, respectively. Following
a lag period of 24 h, the relevant 111In-labeled HTL [111In-HTL-1 (3.2 ± 0.1 MBq; 830 MBq/μmol); 111In-HTL-2 (1.7 ± 0.9 MBq; 1,170 MBq/μmol); 111In-HTL-3 (2.0 ± 1.1 MBq; 540 MBq/μmol)] was also
administered via tail vein injection. Mice were then euthanized at
4 or 24 h postinjection (p.i.) of the HTL ligand by cervical dislocation,
and selected organs, tissues, and blood were removed. The samples
were immediately rinsed with water, dried, and transferred into a
preweighed counting tube. After weighing, the amount of radioactivity
in each tube was measured using a gamma counter. Counts per minute
were converted into radioactivity units (MBq) using calibration curves
generated from known standards. These values were decay-corrected
to the time of injection, and the percentage of the injected dose
per gram (% ID/g) of each sample was calculated. The xenograft tissue
was then cryosectioned and analyzed by autoradiography using a Cyclone
Plus phosphor imager (PerkinElmer).
SPECT Imaging Experiments
General
SPECT images were acquired using a four-head
multipinhole nanoSPECT-CT scanner (Bioscan, Washington, USA) that
was calibrated by imaging a phantom with an indium-111 standard solution.
Images were reconstructed using InVivoScope (Bioscan), and analyses
were performed using Inveon Research Workplace software package version
2.2 (Siemens Preclinical Solutions). Mice were kept under anesthesia
by inhalation of 2% isofluorane in air and maintained at 37 °C.
In Vivo Imaging of TAG-72 with Directly Radiolabeled 111In-DTPA-CC49
Mice bearing LS174Txenograft tumors
were administered 111In-DTPA–CC49 (5 MBq, 10 μg),
and SPECT images were acquired at 24, 48, and 72 h p.i.
Pretargeting
Experiments
At 24 h after injection of
either trastuzumab–HTP (100 μg) or CC49–HTP (100
μg) into the lateral tail vein, 111In-HTL-3 (3.3
± 1.5 MBq; 600 MBq/μmol) was also administered via tail
vein injection. SPECT images were acquired at 4 and/or 24 h p.i. of 111In-HTL-3.
Statistical Analyses
All statistical
analyses and nonlinear
regression were performed using GraphPad Prism (GraphPad Software,
San Diego, CA, USA). Data were tested for normality and analyzed either
by the unpaired, two-tailed Student’s t test
where appropriate, with one- or two-way ANOVA for multiple comparisons,
or with Tukey or Bonferroni post-tests, respectively, to calculate
significance of differences between groups. All data were obtained
at least in triplicate, and the results were reported and graphed
as the mean ± standard deviation, unless stated otherwise.
Results
In Vitro Detection of TAG-72 via HaloTag-Mediated
Pretargeting
Both 111In-HTL-2 and -3 enabled specific
detection of TAG-72 expression on LS174T cells that had been previously
incubated with CC49–HTP (Figure ). For each HTL, maximum cell binding was achieved
within an incubation time of 30 min, and no release of either HTL
was observed within the 2 h time frame of this experiment. The total
uptake of 111In-HTL-2 was approximately double that of 111In-HTL-3 (1.20 ± 0.02 and 0.55 ± 0.04%, respectively).
Notably, however, 111In-HTL-3 exhibited considerably less
nonspecific protein binding, so 111In-HTL-3 gave the highest
fold increase compared with background signal (as defined by the mean
average of all negative control experiments) at all time points.
Figure 2
(A) In vitro pretargeting experiments involving
(B) 111In-HTL-2 and (C) 111In-HTL-3 as secondary
agents revealed an ability to detect TAG-72 expression when cells
were pretargeted with CC49–HTP. ***, P <
0.001.
(A) In vitro pretargeting experiments involving
(B) 111In-HTL-2 and (C) 111In-HTL-3 as secondary
agents revealed an ability to detect TAG-72 expression when cells
were pretargeted with CC49–HTP. ***, P <
0.001.
In Vivo Pretargeting of HER2-Expressing Tumors
The results of ex vivo biodistribution experiments
performed at 4 h p.i. of the HTL secondary agents revealed that uptake
of 111In-HTL-1 and -2 was not significantly higher in the
tumors of mice administered trastuzumab–HTP compared with mice
given no primary agent (Tables S1 and S2). Uptake of 111In-HTL-3 was elevated in tumors of mice
given trastuzumab–HTP (2.8 ± 1.0% ID/g) compared with
the nonpretargeted control group (1.2 ± 0.4% ID/g; P < 0.05); however, this did not reach values significantly higher
than those from mice administered a nonspecific IgG–HTP primary
agent (2.1 ± 0.4% ID/g) (Figure A,B and Table S2). SPECT
images acquired at 4 h p.i. of 111In-HTL-3 in mice that
were previously administered trastuzumab–HTP were consistent
with the biodistribution data and revealed tumors that exhibited moderate
contrast against normal tissues (Figure C). At 24 h p.i., most of the unbound 111In-HTL-3 in the blood pool was either eliminated or retained
within the liver; however, uptake of 111In-HTL-3 within
the tumor was still visible.
Figure 3
(A) In vivo pretargeted imaging
strategy for the
detection of breast cancer biomarker HER2. (B) Values obtained from ex vivo biodistribution experiments at 4 h p.i. of 111In-HTL-3 showing overall tumor uptake (left), radioactivity
in blood (middle), and tumor-to-muscle ratios (right). *, P < 0.05. (C) Representative coronal (upper) and transverse
(lower) SPECT images of the same mouse obtained at 4 and 24 h p.i.
of 111In-HTL-3. In this case, the mouse was administered
trastuzumab–HTP (Tz–HTP) 24 h prior to the administration
of 111In-HTL-3. Images intersect the center of the tumor
(white dotted circle). Error bars represent the standard error of
the mean.
(A) In vivo pretargeted imaging
strategy for the
detection of breast cancer biomarker HER2. (B) Values obtained from ex vivo biodistribution experiments at 4 h p.i. of 111In-HTL-3 showing overall tumor uptake (left), radioactivity
in blood (middle), and tumor-to-muscle ratios (right). *, P < 0.05. (C) Representative coronal (upper) and transverse
(lower) SPECT images of the same mouse obtained at 4 and 24 h p.i.
of 111In-HTL-3. In this case, the mouse was administered
trastuzumab–HTP (Tz–HTP) 24 h prior to the administration
of 111In-HTL-3. Images intersect the center of the tumor
(white dotted circle). Error bars represent the standard error of
the mean.
In Vivo Detection of TAG-72 Using Directly
Radiolabeled 111In-DTPA–CC49
SPECT images
and ex vivo biodistribution data revealed that uptake
of 111In-DTPA–CC49 within LS174Ttumors at 24 h
p.i. reached 48.2 ± 16.3% ID/g (Figure A,B and Table S3). At 72 h p.i., total uptake remained unchanged at 47.4 ± 11.2%
ID/g; however, elimination of non-tumor-bound 111In-DTPA–CC49
led to increasing T/B and T/M ratios over this time frame and reached
maximum values of 5.6 ± 2.2 and 74.8 ± 26.4, respectively
(Figure C,D).
Figure 4
(A) Representative
coronal (upper) and transverse (lower) SPECT
images of a BALB/c nu/nu mouse bearing a TAG-72-expressing
LS174T xenograft tumor (white dotted circles) acquired at 24, 48,
and 72 h p.i. of 111In-DTPA–CC49 (5 MBq, 10 μg).
(B) Values from ex vivo biodistribution experiments
performed at 24 and 72 h p.i. (C) Tumor-to-blood ratios (T/B) and
(D) tumor-to-muscle ratios (T/M) obtained from ex vivo biodistribution experiments. Error bars represent the standard error
of the mean.
(A) Representative
coronal (upper) and transverse (lower) SPECT
images of a BALB/c nu/nu mouse bearing a TAG-72-expressing
LS174T xenograft tumor (white dotted circles) acquired at 24, 48,
and 72 h p.i. of 111In-DTPA–CC49 (5 MBq, 10 μg).
(B) Values from ex vivo biodistribution experiments
performed at 24 and 72 h p.i. (C) Tumor-to-blood ratios (T/B) and
(D) tumor-to-muscle ratios (T/M) obtained from ex vivo biodistribution experiments. Error bars represent the standard error
of the mean.
In Vivo Pretargeting of TAG-72-Expressing Tumors
While 111In-HTL-2 revealed higher tumor uptake in mice
that received the CC49–HTP primary agent compared with that
in nonpretargeted control mice at 4 h p.i. (2.3 ± 0.6 and 1.2
± 0.2% ID/g, respectively; P < 0.05), it
did not exceed the values achieved with IgG–HTP (1.9 ±
0.3% ID/g) (Figure A,B and Table S4). Similarly, T/M ratios
followed the same trend, as values were greater in mice that received
the CC49 primary agent versus no primary agent (4.6 ± 0.7 and
2.3 ± 0.4; P < 0.05), but values were not
greater than those from mice administered IgG–HTP (2.7 ±
1.0) (Figure B). Tumor-to-liver
ratios did not differ significantly between pretargeted and nonpretargeted
mice. There was also no increase in the amount of radioactivity within
the blood, suggesting that any reaction product formed had already
been sequestered to the tumor or cleared from the circulation within
this time frame (Figure B). At 24 h p.i. of 111In-HTL-2, no statistical differences
in tumor uptake were measured between any of the experimental groups
(Table S5).
Figure 5
(A) In vivo pretargeted imaging strategy for the
detection of noninternalizing antigen TAG-72. (B) Values obtained
from ex vivo biodistribution experiments at 4 h p.i.
of 111In-HTL-2 (upper) and 111In-HTL-2 (lower)
showing overall tumor uptake (left), radioactivity in blood (middle),
and tumor-to-muscle ratios (right). *, P < 0.05;
**, P < 0.01. (C) Representative coronal (upper)
and transverse (lower) SPECT images of LS174T tumor-bearing mice obtained
at 4 h p.i. of 111In-HTL-3. In this case, the mouse was
administered CC49–HTP (left), no primary agent (middle), or
IgG–HTP (right) at 24 h prior to administration of 111In-HTL-3. Images intersect the center of the tumor (white dotted
circle). (D) Autoradiography images of harvested tumor tissue sections
revealing higher uptake of 111In-HTL-2 and -3 in tumors
of mice pretargeted with CC49–HTP. Error bars represent the
standard error of the mean.
(A) In vivo pretargeted imaging strategy for the
detection of noninternalizing antigen TAG-72. (B) Values obtained
from ex vivo biodistribution experiments at 4 h p.i.
of 111In-HTL-2 (upper) and 111In-HTL-2 (lower)
showing overall tumor uptake (left), radioactivity in blood (middle),
and tumor-to-muscle ratios (right). *, P < 0.05;
**, P < 0.01. (C) Representative coronal (upper)
and transverse (lower) SPECT images of LS174Ttumor-bearing mice obtained
at 4 h p.i. of 111In-HTL-3. In this case, the mouse was
administered CC49–HTP (left), no primary agent (middle), or
IgG–HTP (right) at 24 h prior to administration of 111In-HTL-3. Images intersect the center of the tumor (white dotted
circle). (D) Autoradiography images of harvested tumor tissue sections
revealing higher uptake of 111In-HTL-2 and -3 in tumors
of mice pretargeted with CC49–HTP. Error bars represent the
standard error of the mean.The secondary agent with the lowest nonspecific protein binding, 111In-HTL-3, reached its highest tumor uptake values in mice
that received the CC49–HTP primary agent compared with mice
administered either IgG–HTP or nonpretargeted control mice
at 4 h p.i. [3.2 ± 0.3, 2.1 ± 0.3, and 1.5 ± 0.4% ID/g,
respectively; P < 0.01) (Figure A,B and Table S6). Tumor-to-muscle ratios were greater in mice that received the
CC49 primary agent compared with no primary agent (5.0 ± 1.0
and 2.3 ± 0.3, respectively; P < 0.01), but
these ratios were not greater than those from mice administered IgG–HTP
(3.4 ± 0.7; P = 0.088) (Figure B). The amount of radioactivity within the
blood was higher in the CC49–HTP pretargeted group compared
with the nonpretargeted group (10.2 ± 0.9 and 6.5 ± 2.1%
ID/g, respectively; P < 0.05), which is most likely
due to the formation of the enzymatic reaction product within the
circulation, although this was not confirmed. As expected, the blood
radioactivity levels in mice administered IgG–HTP (8.9 ±
0.8% ID/g) also appeared slightly elevated compared with the nonpretargeted
group, although it did not reach statistical significance. As a result
of the elevated uptake of 111In-HTL-3 in the tumors of
mice administered CC49–HTP, SPECT images were obtained in which
tumors were clearly contrasted against surrounding tissues and organs,
whereas lower tumor uptake was observed in nonpretargeted controls
(Figure C). Autoradiography
images acquired from tumor tissue sections revealed greater uptake
of 111In-HTL-3 in the tumors of mice administered the CC49–HTP
primary agent versus no primary agent (Figure D). At 24 h p.i. of 111In-HTL-3,
the uptake value in mice given the CC49–HTP primary agent (3.3
± 0.1% ID/g; Table S7) was comparable
to that at 4 h p.i. and remained higher than nonspecific controls,
yet owing to the clearance of 111In-HTL-3 from the circulation
in this time frame, the tumor-to-blood contrast ratio increased markedly
from 0.3 to 1.65. The tumor-to-liver ratio was also significantly
higher in mice administered CC49–HTP (0.38 ± 0.05) compared
with no pretargeting vector (0.26 ± 0.02; P <
0.05) and IgG–HTP (0.28 ± 0.05; P <
0.05).
Discussion
We have previously shown
that pretargeting experiments involving
trastuzumab–HTP and 111In-HTL-1, -2, and -3 were
capable of detecting elevated expression levels of HER2 in in vitro experiments.[19] In our
initial efforts to translate HaloTag-mediated pretargeted imaging
of HER2 into a living system, we found no evidence that the smallest
secondary agents, 111In-HTL-1 and -2, reacted with the
trastuzumab–HTP primary agent either within the blood or at
the tumor site. This is most likely either due to the overly rapid
elimination or metabolism of these agents, which in both cases would
limit the possibility of reaction with HTP. More promisingly, 111In-HTL-3 exhibited significantly higher binding to HER2-transfected
tumors pretargeted with trastuzumab–HTP compared to nonpretargeted
control experiments, although these values were not significantly
higher compared with values obtained with a nonspecific IgG–HTP
primary agent. Due to the high molecular weight of these primary agents,
a proportion of their overall uptake in tumors (typically around 4–5%
ID/g for a whole immunoglobulin) will be attributable to the nonspecific
enhanced permeability and retention effect. As a result, modest accumulation
of Ab–HTP in tumor tissue will occur even when it is delivered
with an antibody lacking antigen specificity. As a result, a general
trend can be observed for all of the in vivo pretargeting
experiments in which 111In-HTLs reached higher uptake values
in tumors following injection of the nonspecific IgG–HTP compared
with values obtained when no primary agent is administered. While
the results of the HER2 pretargeting experiments indicate that a reaction
between 111In-HTL-3 and the HaloTag enzyme occurred at
the tumor, the comparable uptake values achieved following administration
of trastuzumab–HTP and IgG–HTP suggest that this approach
was not sufficiently sensitive to allow in vivo detection
of HER2 expression. It should be noted that this model system is particularly
challenging as it is well-established that HER2 undergoes cellular
internalization upon binding trastuzumab. The rate of this internalization
process (t1/2 = 11 h)[22] would render approximately 80% of the primary agent inaccessible
to the HTL secondary agents following a 24 h lag period and would
therefore severely limit HER2-mediated uptake.The efficacy
of the HaloTag pretargeting approach was also examined
using the noninternalizing glycoprotein TAG-72, which is overexpressed
in several malignancies, including breast,[23] colorectal,[24] gastric,[25] lung,[26] ovarian,[27] and pancreatic cancers.[28,29] Its high cell surface persistence renders TAG-72 a more promising
target for pretargeting strategies compared with HER2.[30,31] The colorectal cancer cell line LS174T was selected as the basis
of an in vivo model as this cell line is known to
overexpress TAG-72, and when it is established as subcutaneous xenograft
tumors, the expression levels of this antigen are comparable to those
found in metastatic tumor masses in patients. In vitro pretargeting experiments involving the HaloTag-modified anti-TAG-72
antibody, CC49–HTP, yielded promising results as both 111In-HTL-2 and -3 exhibited significantly higher cell binding
compared with nonspecific experimental controls. While 111In-HTL-3 revealed approximately 50% lower total cell binding compared
with 111In-HTL-2 (potentially as a result of its lower
specific activity formulation), 111In-HTL-3 exhibited much
lower nonspecific protein binding due to its more extensively PEGylated
structure. This general trend is consistent with our previously reported in vitro pretargeting experiments involving HER2.[19]In vivo pretargeting
experiments in mice bearing
TAG-72-expressing LS174Ttumors showed better efficacy compared with
the previous HER2 pretargeting experiments. In this case, 111In-HTL-3 was the best performing secondary agent as at 4 h p.i. it
accumulated to a significantly higher degree in the tumors of mice
administered CC49–HTP compared with those given no primary
agent or IgG–HTP. At 24 h after injection of 111In-HTL-3, no further increase in tumor uptake in mice administered
CC49–HTP was observed, and these values still exceeded nonspecific
experimental controls. Furthermore, as most of the non-tumor-bound 111In-HTL-3 was cleared from the blood pool, this led to a
large (450%) increase in the tumor-to-blood contrast ratio and, thus,
improved image quality (Figure S1). It
should, however, be recognized that, compared with the directly labeled 111In-DTPA–CC49 antibody, this approach has not led
to an improvement of T/B contrast ratios. While chemical possibilities
to increase the efficiency of the HaloTag reaction in vivo appear limited, additional optimization of this pretargeting approach
could feasibly lead to improvements in imaging performance. In common
with other pretargeting strategies, this approach is best suited to
noninternalizing antigens as these provide greater accessibility to
the HTL secondary agents. While we have used TAG-72 as a model system,
the facile attachment of HaloTag to any antibody of interest will
enable easy transposition of this method to other clinically relevant,
noninternalizing cancer biomarkers, such as A33.
Conclusions
In
summary, we have demonstrated for the first time that HaloTag-mediated
pretargeted imaging of cancer biomarkers is possible in living animals.
While this approach was not sufficiently sensitive to detect HER2
expression, it was successful in enabling detection of the noninternalizing
TAG-72 antigen. This novel pretargeting strategy is an important contribution
to contemporary in vivo delivery systems as it represents
a new addition to a very limited collection of chemical reactions
that proceed in vivo. In addition to allowing targeted
delivery of radioisotopes for nuclear imaging applications, the HaloTag
pretargeting strategy could also be readily modified to include therapeutic
radioisotopes and cytotoxic drugs.
Authors: J C Knight; M Mosley; M R L Stratford; H T Uyeda; H A Benink; M Cong; F Fan; S Faulkner; B Cornelissen Journal: Chem Commun (Camb) Date: 2015-03-07 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Guozheng Liu; Shuping Dou; Dengfeng Cheng; Jean Leif; Mary Rusckowski; Philip R Streeter; Leonard D Shultz; Donald J Hnatowich; Dale L Greiner Journal: Mol Pharm Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: David M Goldenberg; Robert M Sharkey; Giovanni Paganelli; Jacques Barbet; Jean-François Chatal Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-12-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Cary D Austin; Ann M De Mazière; Paul I Pisacane; Suzanne M van Dijk; Charles Eigenbrot; Mark X Sliwkowski; Judith Klumperman; Richard H Scheller Journal: Mol Biol Cell Date: 2004-09-22 Impact factor: 4.138
Authors: J L Murray; D J Macey; E J Grant; M G Rosenblum; L P Kasi; H Z Zhang; R L Katz; P T Riger; D LeBherz; V Bhadkamkar Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1995-12-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: David M Goldenberg; Chien-Hsing Chang; Edmund A Rossi; William J; Robert M Sharkey Journal: Theranostics Date: 2012-05-17 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Ruben D Houvast; Mireille Vankemmelbeke; Lindy G Durrant; Manfred Wuhrer; Victor M Baart; Peter J K Kuppen; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; Cornelis F M Sier Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-12-21 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Outi Keinänen; Kimberly Fung; Jacob Pourat; Vilma Jallinoja; Delphine Vivier; NagaVara Kishore Pillarsetty; Anu J Airaksinen; Jason S Lewis; Brian M Zeglis; Mirkka Sarparanta Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2017-12-02 Impact factor: 3.138