4.4 Article

Preclinical Comparison of the Amyloid-β Radioligands [11C]Pittsburgh compound B and [18F]florbetaben in Aged APPPS1-21 and BRI1-42 Mouse Models of Cerebral Amyloidosis

Journal

MOLECULAR IMAGING AND BIOLOGY
Volume 17, Issue 5, Pages 688-696

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11307-015-0833-9

Keywords

Alzheimer's; [C-11]PiB; [F-18]FBB; Animal models; Small animal imaging

Funding

  1. Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT)
  2. Antwerp University, Belgium
  3. Antwerp University Hospital, Belgium
  4. Antwerp University [46/FA02006/WP130001]
  5. Janssen Pharmaceutica [46/FA02006/WP130001]
  6. European Union's Seventh Framework Programme [CP-IP 212043-2, 278850]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to compare [C-11]Pittsburgh compound B ([C-11]PiB) and [F-18]florbetaben ([F-18]FBB) for preclinical investigations of amyloid-beta pathology. We investigated two aged animal models of cerebral amyloidosis with contrasting levels of amyloid-beta relating to high (APPPS1-21 n = 6, wild type (WT) n = 7) and low (BRI1-42 n = 6, WT n = 6) target states, respectively. APPPS1-21 mice (high target state) demonstrated extensive fibrillar amyloid-beta deposition that translated to significantly increased retention of [C-11]PiB and [F-18]FBB in comparison to their wild type. The retention pattern of [C-11]PiB and [F-18]FBB in this cohort displayed a significant correlation. However, the relative difference in tracer uptake between diseased and healthy mice was substantially higher for [C-11]PiB than for [F-18]FBB. Although immunohistochemistry confirmed the high plaque load in APPPS1-21 mice, correlation between tracer uptake and ex vivo quantification of amyloid-beta was poor for both tracers. BRI1-42 mice (low target state) did not demonstrate increased tracer uptake. In cases of high fibrillar amyloid-beta burden, both tracers detected significant differences between diseased and healthy mice, with [C-11]PiB showing a larger dynamic range.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available