Molecular Imaging and Biology

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 180–190 | Cite as

Low-Dose Molecular Ultrasound Imaging with E-Selectin-Targeted PBCA Microbubbles

  • Igor Spivak
  • Anne Rix
  • Georg Schmitz
  • Stanley Fokong
  • Olga Iranzo
  • Wiltrud Lederle
  • Fabian Kiessling
Research Article

Abstract

Purpose

Our objective was to determine the lowest diagnostically effective dose for E-selectin-targeted poly n-butyl cyanoacrylate (PBCA)-shelled microbubbles and to apply it to monitor antiangiogenic therapy effects.

Procedures

PBCA-shelled microbubbles (MBs) coupled to an E-selectin-specific peptide were applied in mice carrying MLS or A431 carcinoma xenografts scaling down the MB dosage to the lowest level where binding could be examined with a 18-MHz small animal ultrasound transducer. Differences in E-selectin expression in the two carcinoma xenografts were confirmed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). In addition, MLS tumor-bearing mice under antiangiogenic therapy were monitored using E-selectin-targeted MBs at the lowest applicable dose. Therapy effects on tumor vascularization were verified by immunohistological analyses.

Results

The minimally required dosage was 7 × 107 MBs/kg body weight. This dosage was sufficient to enable E-selectin detection in high E-selectin-expressing MLS tumors, while low E-selectin-expressing A431 tumors required almost 2.5-fold higher doses. At the dose of 7 × 107 MBs/kg body weight, a decrease in E-selectin MB binding under antiangiogenic therapy could be assessed (being significant after 3 days of treatment; p < 0.0001), which was in line with the significant drop in E-selectin-positive area fractions that was found histologically (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Molecular ultrasound imaging with our E-selectin-targeted MB and therapy monitoring was possible down to a dose of 7 × 107 MBs/kg body weight (equates to 66 μg PBCA/kg and 4.6 mg PBCA/70 kg). Improvements in choice of targets, MB composition, and other MB detection methods may improve sensitivity and lead to reliable detection results of clinically transferrable MBs at even lower dosage levels.

Key words

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound Molecular imaging Angiogenesis Microbubble PBCA 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG), grant numbers KI 1072/5-1, KI1072/11-1, and SCHM1171/3-1, the DAAD project PHC Procope 31017PH, “Development of multimodal imaging probes for intravascular molecular imaging of tumors and inflammation,” and the Portuguese Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), grant number PTDC/QEQ-MED/2656/2012.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

11307_2015_894_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (822 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 1Images showing single PBCA MBs in a gelatin matrix. B-mode (a) and contrast-mode-specific (b) ultrasound images were recorded shortly before (pre) and after (post) a destructive pulse (ultrasound imaging protocol correspondent to the experimental setup mentioned in the “Material and Methods” section). Through dilution of the MB suspension up to 2,750 MBs/ml, the calculated average amount of MBs in the ultrasound section was 6.25. The B-mode image shows signal from six similar particles before the destructive pulse, while the captured image after the pulse shows sole background signal. Hence, it is very likely that the Vevo 2100 with 18 MHz can detect single PBCA MBs in B-mode, while imaging with amplitude modulation showed no signal from MBs in the matrix at this level of dilution (PDF 821 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Klibanov AL (2005) Ligand-carrying gas-filled microbubbles: ultrasound contrast agents for targeted molecular imaging. Bioconjug Chem 16:9–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kiessling F, Fokong S, Bzyl J et al (2014) Recent advances in molecular, multimodal and theranostic ultrasound imaging. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 72:15–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deshpande N, Needles A, Willmann JK (2010) Molecular ultrasound imaging: current status and future directions. Clin Radiol 65:567–581CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kiessling F, Bzyl J, Fokong S et al (2012) Targeted ultrasound imaging of cancer: an emerging technology on its way to clinics. Curr Pharm Des 18:2184–2199CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaufmann BA, Sanders JM, Davis C et al (2007) Molecular imaging of inflammation in atherosclerosis with targeted ultrasound detection of vascular cell adhesion molecule-1. Circulation 116:276–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Villanueva FS, Lu E, Bowry S et al (2007) Myocardial ischemic memory imaging with molecular echocardiography. Circulation 115:345–352CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wu Z, Curaj A, Fokong S et al (2013) Rhodamine-loaded intercellular adhesion molecule-1-targeted microbubbles for dual-modality imaging under controlled shear stresses. Circulation 6:974–981PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang H, Felt SA, Machtaler S, et al. (2015) Ultrasound imaging of inflammation in a porcine acute terminal ileitis model with a molecularly targeted contrast agent. RadiologyGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang B, Zang WJ, Wang M et al (2006) Prolonging the ultrasound signal enhancement from thrombi using targeted microbubbles based on sulfur-hexafluoride-filled gas. Acad Radiol 13:428–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nakatsuka MA, Mattrey RF, Esener SC et al (2012) Aptamer-crosslinked microbubbles: smart contrast agents for thrombin-activated ultrasound imaging. Adv Mater 24:6010–6016CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meyer DL, Schultz J, Lin Y et al (2001) Reduced antibody response to streptavidin through site-directed mutagenesis. Protein Sci 10:491–503CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paganelli G, Chinol M, Maggiolo M et al (1997) The three-step pretargeting approach reduces the human anti-mouse antibody response in patients submitted to radioimmunoscintigraphy and radioimmunotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med 24:350–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pochon S, Tardy I, Bussat P et al (2010) BR55: a lipopeptide-based VEGFR2-targeted ultrasound contrast agent for molecular imaging of angiogenesis. Investig Radiol 45:89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kiessling F, Fokong S, Koczera P et al (2012) Ultrasound microbubbles for molecular diagnosis, therapy, and theranostics. J Nucl Med 53:345–348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anderson CR, Rychak JJ, Backer M et al (2010) scVEGF microbubble ultrasound contrast agents: a novel probe for ultrasound molecular imaging of tumor angiogenesis. Investig Radiol 45:579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    John R, Nguyen FT, Kolbeck KJ et al (2012) Targeted multifunctional multimodal protein-shell microspheres as cancer imaging contrast agents. Mol Imaging Biol 14:17–24CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anderson CR, Hu X, Tlaxca J et al (2011) Ultrasound molecular imaging of tumor angiogenesis with an integrin targeted microbubble contrast agent. Investig Radiol 46:215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fokong S, Fragoso A, Rix A et al (2013) Ultrasound molecular imaging of E-selectin in tumor vessels using poly n-butyl cyanoacrylate microbubbles covalently coupled to a short targeting peptide. Investig Radiol 48:843–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Biancone L, Araki M, Araki K et al (1996) Redirection of tumor metastasis by expression of E-selectin in vivo. J Exp Med 183:581–587CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Wamel A, Celebi M, Hossack JA et al. (2007) AL 11A-4 molecular imaging with targeted contrast agents and high frequency ultrasound. Proc IEEE Ultrason Symp. 961–64Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fukuda MN, Ohyama C, Lowitz K et al (2000) A peptide mimic of E-selectin ligand inhibits sialyl Lewis X-dependent lung colonization of tumor cells. Cancer Res 60:450–456PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bzyl J, Palmowski M, Rix A et al (2013) The high angiogenic activity in very early breast cancer enables reliable imaging with VEGFR2-targeted microbubbles (BR55). Eur Radiol 23:468–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Blomley M, Claudon M, Cosgrove D (2007) WFUMB safety symposium on ultrasound contrast agents: clinical applications and safety concerns. Ultrasound Med Biol 33:180–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bzyl J, Lederle W, Rix A et al (2011) Molecular and functional ultrasound imaging in differently aggressive breast cancer xenografts using two novel ultrasound contrast agents (BR55 and BR38). Eur Radiol 21:1988–1995CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pysz MA, Foygel K, Rosenberg J et al (2010) Antiangiogenic cancer therapy: monitoring with molecular US and a clinically translatable contrast agent (BR55). Radiology 256:519–527CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bettinger T, Bussat P, Tardy I et al (2012) Ultrasound molecular imaging contrast agent binding to both E- and P-selectin in different species. Investig Radiol 47:516–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kaufmann BA, Lewis C, Xie A et al (2007) Detection of recent myocardial ischaemia by molecular imaging of P-selectin with targeted contrast echocardiography. Eur Heart J 28:2011–2017CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang H, Machtaler S, Bettinger T et al (2013) Molecular imaging of inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease with a clinically translatable dual-selectin-targeted US contrast agent: comparison with FDG PET/CT in a mouse model. Radiology 267:818–829CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rix A, Lederle W, Siepmann M et al (2012) Evaluation of high frequency ultrasound methods and contrast agents for characterising tumor response to anti-angiogenic treatment. Eur J Radiol 81:2710–2716CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Klibanov AL (2007) Ultrasound molecular imaging with targeted microbubble contrast agents. J Nucl Cardiol 14:876–884CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moghimi SM, Hamad I (2008) Liposome-mediated triggering of complement cascade. J Liposome Res 18:195–209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chonn AP, Cullis PR, Devine DV (1991) The role of surface charge in the activation of the classical and alternative pathways of complement by liposomes. J Immunol 146:4234–4241PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moore KL, Eaton SF, Lyons DE et al (1994) The P-selectin glycoprotein ligand from human neutrophils displays sialylated, fucosylated, O-linked poly-N-acetyllactosamine. J Biol Chem 269:23318–23327PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Luboldt W, Zöphel K, Wunderlich G et al (2010) Visualization of somatostatin receptors in prostate cancer and its bone metastases with Ga-68–DOTATOC PET/CT. Mol Imaging Biol 12:78–84CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kiessling F, Huppert J, Palmowski M (2009) Functional and molecular ultrasound imaging: concepts and contrast agents. Curr Med Chem 16:627–642CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Willmann JRK, Cheng Z, Davis C et al (2008) Targeted microbubbles for imaging tumor angiogenesis: assessment of whole-body biodistribution with dynamic micro-PET in mice 1. Radiology 249:212–219CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rychak JJ, Klibanov AL, Ley KF, Hossack JA (2007) Enhanced targeting of ultrasound contrast agents using acoustic radiation force. Ultrasound Med Biol 33:1132–1139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gessner RC, Streeter JE, Kothadia R et al (2012) An in vivo validation of the application of acoustic radiation force to enhance the diagnostic utility of molecular imaging using 3-D ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 38:651–660CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Frinking PJ, Tardy I, Théraulaz M et al (2012) Effects of acoustic radiation force on the binding efficiency of BR55, a VEGFR2-specific ultrasound contrast agent. Ultrasound Med Biol 38:1460–1469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ackermann D, Schmitz G (2013) Reconstruction of flow velocity inside vessels by tracking single microbubbles with an MCMC data association algorithm. Proc IEEE Ultrason Symp 627–630Google Scholar

Copyright information

© World Molecular Imaging Society 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Igor Spivak
    • 1
  • Anne Rix
    • 1
  • Georg Schmitz
    • 2
  • Stanley Fokong
    • 1
  • Olga Iranzo
    • 3
    • 4
  • Wiltrud Lederle
    • 1
  • Fabian Kiessling
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Experimental Molecular Imaging, Medical FacultyRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Medical EngineeringRuhr-University BochumBochumGermany
  3. 3.Instituto de Tecnologia Química e Biológica António XavierUniversidade Nova de LisboaOeirasPortugal
  4. 4.Aix Marseille Université, Centrale Marseille, CNRS, iSm2 UMR 7313MarseilleFrance
  5. 5.Institute for Experimental Molecular ImagingRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations