Nicole Dmochowska1, William Tieu2, Marianne D Keller1,3, Hannah R Wardill1, Chris Mavrangelos1, Melissa A Campaniello1, Prab Takhar2, Patrick A Hughes4. 1. Centre for Nutrition and Gastrointestinal Diseases, Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide and South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia. 2. Molecular Imaging and Therapy Research Unit, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia; and. 3. Preclinical, Imaging, and Research Laboratories, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia. 4. Centre for Nutrition and Gastrointestinal Diseases, Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide and South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia patrick.hughes@adelaide.edu.au.
Abstract
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic relapsing and remitting inflammatory disease of the gastrointestinal tract. The diagnosis and monitoring of IBD are reliant on endoscopy, which is invasive and does not provide information on specific mediators. Symptom flare in IBD is associated with increased activation of innate immune pathways. Immuno-PET approaches have previously demonstrated the ability to detect colitis; however, a direct comparison of antibodies targeted to innate immune mediators and cells has not been done. We aimed to compare immuno-PET of antibodies to IL-1β and CD11b against standard 18F-FDG and MRI approaches to detect colonic inflammation. Methods: Colonic concentrations of IL-1β and myeloperoxidase were determined by ELISA, and colonic infiltration by CD11b-positive CD3-negative innate immune cells was determined by flow cytometry and compared between healthy and dextran sodium sulphate-treated colitic mice. PET of 89Zr-lα-IL-1β, 89Zr-α-CD11b, and 18F-FDG was compared by volume-of-interest analysis and with MRI by region-of-interest analysis. Imaging results were confirmed by ex vivo biodistribution analysis. Results: Colonic inflammation was associated with impaired colonic epithelial barrier permeability, increased colonic IL-1β and myeloperoxidase concentrations, and increased CD11b-positive CD3-negative innate immune cell infiltration into the colon. 89Zr-α-IL-1β and 89Zr-α-CD11b immuno-PET detected colonic inflammation, as did 18F-FDG, and all PET tracers were more sensitive than MRI. Although 18F-FDG volumes of interest correlated with colitis severity and a strong trend was observed with 89Zr-α-IL-1β, no correlation was observed for 89Zr-α-CD11b or MRI. 89Zr-α-IL-1β was distributed mainly to the gastrointestinal tract, whereas 89Zr-α-CD11b was distributed to more tissue types. Conclusion: Immuno-PET using antibodies directed to innate immune markers detected colonic inflammation, with 89Zr-α-IL-1β providing a more tissue-specific signal than 89Zr-α-CD11b. Development of these technologies for human subjects will potentially provide a less invasive approach than endoscopy for diagnosing and monitoring IBD.
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic relapsing and remitting inflammatory disease of the gastrointestinal tract. The diagnosis and monitoring of IBD are reliant on endoscopy, which is invasive and does not provide information on specific mediators. Symptom flare in IBD is associated with increased activation of innate immune pathways. Immuno-PET approaches have previously demonstrated the ability to detect colitis; however, a direct comparison of antibodies targeted to innate immune mediators and cells has not been done. We aimed to compare immuno-PET of antibodies to IL-1β and CD11b against standard 18F-FDG and MRI approaches to detect colonic inflammation. Methods:Colonic concentrations of IL-1β and myeloperoxidase were determined by ELISA, and colonic infiltration by CD11b-positive CD3-negative innate immune cells was determined by flow cytometry and compared between healthy and dextran sodium sulphate-treated colitic mice. PET of 89Zr-lα-IL-1β, 89Zr-α-CD11b, and 18F-FDG was compared by volume-of-interest analysis and with MRI by region-of-interest analysis. Imaging results were confirmed by ex vivo biodistribution analysis. Results:Colonic inflammation was associated with impaired colonic epithelial barrier permeability, increased colonic IL-1β and myeloperoxidase concentrations, and increased CD11b-positive CD3-negative innate immune cell infiltration into the colon. 89Zr-α-IL-1β and 89Zr-α-CD11b immuno-PET detected colonic inflammation, as did 18F-FDG, and all PET tracers were more sensitive than MRI. Although 18F-FDG volumes of interest correlated with colitis severity and a strong trend was observed with 89Zr-α-IL-1β, no correlation was observed for 89Zr-α-CD11b or MRI. 89Zr-α-IL-1β was distributed mainly to the gastrointestinal tract, whereas 89Zr-α-CD11b was distributed to more tissue types. Conclusion: Immuno-PET using antibodies directed to innate immune markers detected colonic inflammation, with 89Zr-α-IL-1β providing a more tissue-specific signal than 89Zr-α-CD11b. Development of these technologies for human subjects will potentially provide a less invasive approach than endoscopy for diagnosing and monitoring IBD.
Authors: Paul A Yushkevich; Joseph Piven; Heather Cody Hazlett; Rachel Gimpel Smith; Sean Ho; James C Gee; Guido Gerig Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Michael A McGuckin; Rajaraman Eri; Lisa A Simms; Timothy H J Florin; Graham Radford-Smith Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Bittoo Kanwar; Dong Wei Gao; Andrew B Hwang; James P Grenert; Simon P Williams; Benjamin Franc; Joseph M McCune Journal: J Immunol Methods Date: 2007-10-16 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Siwen Hu-Lieskovan; Srabani Bhaumik; Kavita Dhodapkar; Jean-Charles J B Grivel; Sumati Gupta; Brent A Hanks; Sylvia Janetzki; Thomas O Kleen; Yoshinobu Koguchi; Amanda W Lund; Cristina Maccalli; Yolanda D Mahnke; Ruslan D Novosiadly; Senthamil R Selvan; Tasha Sims; Yingdong Zhao; Holden T Maecker Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 13.751
Authors: Nerissa T Viola; James E Glassbrook; Jhansi R Kalluri; Justin B Hackett; Madison N Wicker; Joshua Sternberg; Heather M Gibson Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 8.786
Authors: Nicole Dmochowska; William Tieu; Marianne D Keller; Courtney A Hollis; Melissa A Campaniello; Chris Mavrangelos; Prab Takhar; Patrick A Hughes Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Scott Epsley; Samuel Tadros; Alexander Farid; Daniel Kargilis; Sameer Mehta; Chamith S Rajapakse Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Meredith A Jones; William M MacCuaig; Alex N Frickenstein; Seda Camalan; Metin N Gurcan; Jennifer Holter-Chakrabarty; Katherine T Morris; Molly W McNally; Kristina K Booth; Steven Carter; William E Grizzle; Lacey R McNally Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2021-02-04