Advertisement

Molecular Imaging and Biology

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 25–34 | Cite as

The Value of In Vitro Binding as Predictor of In Vivo Results: A Case for [18F]FDDNP PET

  • Graham B. Cole
  • Nagichettiar Satyamurthy
  • Jie Liu
  • Koon-Pong Wong
  • Gary W. Small
  • Sung-Cheng Huang
  • Janez Košmrlj
  • Jorge R. BarrioEmail author
  • Andrej PetričEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Purpose

Caution is warranted when in vitro results of biomarkers labeled with tritium were perfunctorily used to criticize in vivo data and conclusions derived with the same tracers labeled with positron emitters and positron emission tomography (PET). This concept is illustrated herein with the PET utilization of [18F]FDDNP, a biomarker used for in vivo visualization of β-amyloid and tau protein neuroaggregates in humans, later contradicted by in vitro data reported with [3H]FDDNP. In this investigation, we analyze the multiple factors involved in the experimental design of the [3H]FDDNP in vitro study that led to the erroneous interpretation of results.

Procedure

The present work describes full details on the synthesis, characterization, purity, and kinetics of radiolytic stability of [3H]FDDNP. The optimal in vitro conditions for detecting tau and β-amyloid protein aggregates using macroscopic and microscopic autoradiography with both [18F]FDDNP and [3H]FDDNP are also presented. Macroscopic autoradiography determinations were performed with [3H]FDDNP of verified purity using established methods described previously in the literature.

Results

The autoradiographic results using phosphate buffered saline (PBS) with less than 1 % EtOH and pure, freshly prepared [3H]FDDNP compared with the earlier reported data using [3H]FDDNP of undetermined purity and PBS in 10 % EtOH demonstrate the critical importance of rigorous experimental design for meaningful in vitro determinations. [18F]FDDNP binding to both amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles was confirmed by amyloid and tau immunohistochemical stains of adjacent tissues.

Conclusions

This work illustrates the sensitivity of in vitro techniques to various experimental conditions and underscores that conclusions obtained from translational in vitro to in vivo determinations must always be performed with extreme care to avoid wrong interpretations that can be perpetuated and assumed without further analysis.

Key words

[3H]FDDNP [18F]FDDNP [3H]FENE Kinetics Autoradiolysis Autoradiography 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to the excellent reviewers and the editor (RG) for constructive comments and valuable advice, which have been incorporated into the manuscript. This work was supported by grants from the Slovenian Research Agency (Research Core Funding Grant P1-0230 and project J1-8147) and by grants P01-AG025831, AG13308, P50 AG 16570, MH/AG58156, MH52453, and AG10123 from the National Institutes of Health; contract DE-FC03-87-ER60615 from the Department of Energy. J.R.B. gratefully acknowledges the Elizabeth and Thomas Plott Endowment in Gerontology. This work was also partially supported within the infrastructures of the EN-FIST Centre of Excellence, Trg Osvobodilne fronte 13, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, and the Centre for Research Infrastructure at the Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Technology of the University of Ljubljana. The NMR analysis at UCLA Department of Chemistry was supported by the National Science Foundation equipment grant no. CHE-1048804.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The University of California, Los Angeles, owns a U.S. patent (6,274,119) entitled “Methods for Labeling β-Amyloid Plaques and Neurofibrillary Tangles,” which has been licensed to TauMark, LLC. N.S., G.W.S., S.-C.H., A.P., and J.R.B. are among the inventors. N.S., S.-C.H., G.W.S., and J.R.B. have equity interest in TauMark, LLC. All other authors report no financial conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

11307_2018_1210_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (471 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 471 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Chronback LJ, Meehl PE (1955) Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull 52:281–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cole GB, Keum G, Liu J, Small GW, Satyamurthy N, Kepe V, Barrio JR (2010) Specific estrogen sulfotransferase (SULT1E1) substrates and molecular imaging probe candidates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:6222–6227CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thompson PW, Ye L, Morgenstern JL, Sue L, Beach TG, Judd DJ, Shipley NJ, Libri V, Lockhart A (2009) Interaction of the amyloid imaging tracer FDDNP with hallmark Alzheimer’s disease pathologies. J Neurochem 109:623–630CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lockhart A, Lamb JR, Osredkar T et al (2007) PIB is a non-specific imaging marker of amyloid-beta (Aβ) peptide-related cerebral amyloidosis. Brain 1(30):2607–2615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ye L, Morgenstern JL, Gee AD, Hong G, Brown J, Lockhart A (2005) Delineation of positron emission tomography imaging agent binding sites on β-amyloid peptide fibrils. J Biol Chem 280:23599–23604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Agdeppa ED, Kepe V, Liu J, Flores-Torres S, Satyamurthy N, Petric A, Cole GM, Small GW, Huang SC, Barrio JR (2001) Binding characteristics of radiofluorinated 6-dialkylamino-2-naphthylethylidene derivatives as positron emission tomography imaging probes for β-amyloid plaques in Alzheimer’s disease. J Neurosci 21:RC189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Agdeppa ED, Kepe V, Petric A et al (2003) In vivo detection of (S)-naproxen and ibuprofen binding to plaques in the Alzheimer’s brain using the positron emission tomography molecular imaging probe 2-(1-{6-[(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)(methyl)amino]-2-naphthyl}ethylidene)malononitrile. Neuroscience 117:723–730CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bancroft JD, Stevens A (eds) (1990) Theory and practice of histological techniques, 3rd edn. Churchill Livingstone, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Small GW, Kepe V, Ercoli LM, Siddarth P, Bookheimer SY, Miller KJ, Lavretsky H, Burggren AC, Cole GM, Vinters HV, Thompson PM, Huang SC, Satyamurthy N, Phelps ME, Barrio JR (2006) PET of brain amyloid and tau in mild cognitive impairment. N Engl J Med 355:2652–2663CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kepe V, Bordelon Y, Boxer A, Huang SC, Liu J, Thiede FC, Mazziotta JC, Mendez MF, Donoghue N, Small GW, Barrio JR (2013) PET imaging of neuropathology in tauopathies: progressive supranuclear palsy. J Alzheimers Dis 36:145–153CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smid LM, Kepe V, Vinters HV, Bresjanac M, Toyokuni T, Satyamurthy N, Wong KP, Huang SC, Silverman DH, Miller K, Small GW, Barrio JR (2013) Postmortem 3-D brain hemisphere cortical tau and amyloid-β pathology mapping and quantification as a validation method of neuropathology imaging. J Alzheimers Dis 36:261–274CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barrio JR, Small GW, Wong KP, Huang SC, Liu J, Merrill DA, Giza CC, Fitzsimmons RP, Omalu B, Bailes J, Kepe V (2015) In vivo characterization of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) using [F-18]FDDNP-PET brain imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:E2039–E2047CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klunk WE, Engler H, Nordberg A, Wang Y, Blomqvist G, Holt DP, Bergström M, Savitcheva I, Huang GF, Estrada S, Ausén B, Debnath ML, Barletta J, Price JC, Sandell J, Lopresti BJ, Wall A, Koivisto P, Antoni G, Mathis CA, Långström B (2004) Imaging brain amyloid in Alzheimer’s disease with Pittsburgh compound-B. Ann Neurol 55:306–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Verhoeff NPLG, Wilson AA, Takeshita S, Trop L, Hussey D, Singh K, Kung HF, Kung MP, Houle S (2004) In-vivo imaging of Alzheimer’s disease β-amyloid with [11C]SB-13 PET. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 12:584–595PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bayly RJ, Evans EA (1966) Stability and storage of compounds labelled with radioisotopes. J Label Compd 2:1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu J, Kepe V, Žabjek A, Petrič A, Padgett HC, Satyamurthy N, Barrio JR (2007) High-yield, automated radiosynthesis of 2-(1-{6-[(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)(methyl)amino]-2-naphthyl}ethylidene)malononitrile ([18F]FDDNP) ready for animal or human administration. Mol Imaging Biol 9:6–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Amaral DG (1999) Introduction: what is where in the medial temporal lobe? Hippocampus 9:1–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Voges R, Heys JR, Moenius T (2009) Preparation of compounds labeled with tritium and Carbon-14. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tkachenko SE, Karpov NA, Fedoseev VM (2000) Autoradiolysis of labeled organic compounds. Radiochemistry 42:211–227Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Waterfield WR, Spanner JA, Stanford FG (1968) Tritium exchange from compounds in dilute aqueous solutions. Nature 218:472–473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jacobson A, Petrič A, Hogenkamp D et al (1996) 1,1-Dicyano-2-[6-(dimethylamino)naphthalene-2-yl]propene (DDNP): a solvent polarity and viscosity sensitive fluorophore for fluorescence microscopy. J Am Chem Soc 118:5572–5579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Petric A, Johnson SA, Pham HV, Li Y, Ceh S, Golobic A, Agdeppa ED, Timbol G, Liu J, Keum G, Satyamurthy N, Kepe V, Houk KN, Barrio JR (2012) Dicyanovinylnaphthalenes for neuroimaging of amyloids and relationships of electronic structures and geometries to binding affinities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:16492–16497CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kung MP, Hou C, Zhuang ZP, Skovronsky D, Kung HF (2004) Binding of two potential imaging agents targeting amyloid plaques in postmortem brain tissues of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Brain Res 1025:98–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Price JC, Klunk WE, Lopresti BJ, Lu X, Hoge JA, Ziolko SK, Holt DP, Meltzer CC, DeKosky ST, Mathis CA (2005) Kinetic modeling of amyloid binding in humans using PET imaging and Pittsburgh compound-B. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 25:1528–1547CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Logan J, Fowler JS, Volkow ND, Wang GJ, Ding YS, Alexoff DL (1996) Distribution volume ratios without blood sampling from graphical analysis of PET data. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 16:834–840CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Logan J (2000) Graphical analysis of PET data applied to reversible and irreversible tracers. Nucl Med Biol 27:661–670CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shogi-Jadid K, Barrio JR, Kepe V et al (2005) Imaging β-amyloid fibrils in Alzheimer’s disease: a critical analysis through simulation of amyloid fibril polymerization. Nucl Med Biol 32:337–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shogi-Jadid K, Barrio JR, Kepe V et al (2006) Exploring a mathematical model for the kinetics of β-amyloid molecular imaging probes through a critical analysis of plaque pathology. Mol Imaging Biol 8:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xia CF, Arteaga J, Chen G, Gangadharmath U, Gomez LF, Kasi D, Lam C, Liang Q, Liu C, Mocharla VP, Mu F, Sinha A, Su H, Szardenings AK, Walsh JC, Wang E, Yu C, Zhang W, Zhao T, Kolb HC (2013) [18F]T807, a novel tau positron emission tomography imaging agent for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 9:666–676CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vermeiren C, Mercier J, Viot D, Mairet-Coello G, Hannestad J, Courade JP, Citron M, Gillard M (2015) T807, a reported selective tau tracer, binds with nanomolar affinity to monoamine oxidase a. Alzheimer’s Dement Suppl 11:P283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mitsis EM, Riggio S, Kostakoglu L, Dickstein DL, Machac J, Delman B, Goldstein M, Jennings D, D’Antonio E, Martin J, Naidich TP, Aloysi A, Fernandez C, Seibyl J, DeKosky ST, Elder GA, Marek K, Gordon W, Hof PR, Sano M, Gandy S (2014) Tauopathy PET and amyloid PET in the diagnosis of chronic traumatic encephalopathies: studies of a retired NFL player and of a man with FTD and a severe head injury. Transl Psychiatry 4:e441CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gandy S, DeKosky ST (2014) [18F]-T807 tauopathy PET imaging in chronic traumatic encephalopathy. F1000 Res 3:229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Barrio JR (2018) The irony of PET tau probe specificity. J Nucl Med 59:115–116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Frey KA, Albin RL (1997) Neuroanatomical methods receptor binding techniques. Current protocols in neuroscience. Wiley, New York, pp 1.4.1–1.4.14Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Barrio JR (2004) The molecular basis of disease. In: Phelps ME (ed) PET—molecular imaging and its biological applications. Springer, New York, pp 270–320Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hallberg O, Johansson O (2009) Sleep on the right side—get cancer on the left? Pathophysiology 17:157–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hallberg O, Johansson O (2002) Cancer trends during the 20th century. ACNEM 21:1–6Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Quinn GE, Shin CH, Maguire MG, Stone RA (1999) Myopia and ambient lighting at night. Nature 399:113–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A et al (1998) Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 351:637–641 Retracted in 2010CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Agdeppa ED, Kepe V, Shoghi-Jadid K et al (2003) 2-Dialkylamino-6-acylmalononitrile substituted naphthalenes (DDNP analogs): novel diagnostic and therapeutic tools in Alzheimer’s disease. Mol Imaging Biol 5:407–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Molecular Imaging Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Molecular and Medical PharmacologyDavid Geffen School of Medicine at UCLALos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, UCLA Longevity CenterDavid Geffen School of Medicine at the University of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical TechnologyUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations