| Literature DB >> 30034761 |
Yao Sun1,2, Chunrong Qu1, Hao Chen2, Maomao He1, Chu Tang2, Kangquan Shou2, Suhyun Hong2, Meng Yang3, Yuxin Jiang3, Bingbing Ding1, Yuling Xiao1, Lei Xing2, Xuechuan Hong1, Zhen Cheng2.
Abstract
Optical imaging of diseases represents a highly dynamic and multidisciplinary research area, and second near-infrared window (NIR-II, 1000-1700 nm) imaging is at the forefront of the research on optical imaging techniques. Small-molecule based NIR-II (1000-1700 nm) dyes are highly promising candidates for in vivo molecular imaging because of their high biocompatibility, fast excretion, and high clinical translation ability. However, research reports on small-molecule based NIR-II dyes and probes are rare. Herein, we designed a series of fluorescent compounds (Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4) and investigated the relationships between their structures and absorption/fluorescence properties. Q4 (maximum emission at 1100 nm) stood out as the dye with the best physical properties and thus was selected as a scaffold for the facile construction of two types of water-soluble and biocompatible NIR-II probes (Q4NPs and SCH1100). Highly specific gastrin-releasing peptide receptor (GRPR) targeted NIR-II imaging of prostate cancer in living mice was achieved using the small-molecule probe SCH1100, which represents the first small peptide based NIR-II probe for targeted cancer imaging. The attractive imaging properties of Q4-based NIR-II probes open up many opportunities for molecular imaging and clinical translation in the unique NIR-II window.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 30034761 PMCID: PMC6024204 DOI: 10.1039/c6sc01561a
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chem Sci ISSN: 2041-6520 Impact factor: 9.825
Fig. 1(a) Design of NIR-II dyes based on the D–A–D scaffold and the chemical structures of Q1–Q4, TBS = Si(Me)2Bu, TMS = SiMe3; (b) UV absorbance of Q1–Q4; (c) NIR-II fluorescence emission of Q1 and Q4 with peaks at ∼1000 nm and ∼1100 nm under 808 nm excitation (exposure time: 10 ms); the emission of Q2 and Q3 is in the NIR-I region (Fig. S2,† data not shown here). (d) NIR-II signals of Q1 and Q4 with various long-pass (LP) filters (900–1400 nm).
Comparison of HOMO and LUMO orbital surfaces of CH1055, Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 using DFT B3LYP/6-31G(d) scrf = (cpcm, solvent = dichloromethane) method. To reduce the computational cost, R substituent groups were replaced by methyl, Egap = ELUMO – EHOMO
| Compound | HOMO | Energy (eV) | LUMO | Energy (eV) |
|
|
|
| –4.75 |
| –3.26 | 1.49 |
|
|
| –4.37 |
| –3.28 | 1.09 |
|
|
| –4.97 |
| –3.07 | 1.90 |
|
|
| –5.03 |
| –3.06 | 1.97 |
|
|
| –4.58 |
| –3.46 | 1.12 |
Fig. 2(a) A schematic design of Q4NPs showing Q4 molecules loaded in the DSPE-mPEG NPs. (b) The TEM image of the Q4NPs. (c) Fluorescence emission of Q4NPs under 808 nm excitation. (d) Photostability of Q4NPs in different media including water, PBS and serum under continuous 808 nm excitation for 1 h. (e) Cellular toxicity of Q4NPs in U87MG and NIH-3T3 cell lines.
Fig. 3(a) The NIR-II images of the blood vessels of the U87MG tumour (n = 3) at different time points after a tail vein injection of Q4NPs under 808 nm excitation (1000 LP and 100 ms); white arrows indicate the tumor. (b) The ex-biodistribution of Q4NPs in the liver, spleen, kidney and tumor after 96 h under 808 nm excitation (1000 LP and 200 ms).
Fig. 4(a) Conjugation of Q4-1 with NH2-PEG8-RM26 peptide to prepare a GRPR targeted probe, SCH1100; (b) fluorescence emission of SCH1100 under 808 nm excitation; (c) photostability curves of SCH1100 in water, PBS and serum under 808 nm laser illumination for 1 h.
Fig. 5The NIR-II images of PC3 tumor mice (n = 3) at different time points (2, 4, 8, 12, 36 h) after tail vein injection of SCH1100 with or without blocking agent RM26 (400 μg) under 808 nm excitation (1000 LP and 500 ms); white arrows indicate the tumor.