4.6 Article

High Relaxivity Magnetic Resonance Imaging Contrast Agents Part 1 Impact of Single Donor Atom Substitution on Relaxivity of Serum Albumin-Bound Gadolinium Complexes

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY
卷 45, 期 10, 页码 600-612

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181ee5a9e

关键词

relaxivity; gadolinium; protein binding; water exchange; NMRD

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01EB009062, R21EB009738]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale and Objectives: The donor atoms that bind to gadolinium in contrast agents influence inner-sphere water exchange and electronic relaxation, both of which determine observed relaxivity. The effect of these molecular parameters on relaxivity is greatest when the contrast agent is protein bound. We sought to determine an optimal donor atom set to yield high relaxivity compounds. Methods: A total of 38 gadolinium-1,4,7,10-tetraazacyclo-dodecane-N, N',N '', N'''-tetraacetato derivatives were prepared and relaxivity was determined in the presence and absence of human serum albumin as a function of temperature and magnetic field. Each compound had a common albumin-binding group and differed only by substitution of different donor groups at one of the macrocycle nitrogens. Oxygen-17 isotope relaxometry at 7.05 T was performed to estimate water exchange rates. Results: Changing a single donor atom resulted in changes in water exchange rates ranging across 3 orders of magnitude. Donor groups increased water exchange rate in the order: phosphonate > phenolate > alpha-substituted acetate > acetate > hydroxamate > sulfonamide > amide > pyridyl > imidazole. Relaxivites at 0.47 and 1.4 T, 37 degrees C, ranged from 12.3 to 55.6 mM(-1)s(-1) and from 8.3 to 32.6 mM(-1)s(-1) respectively. Optimal relaxivities were observed when the donor group was an alpha-substituted acetate. Electronic relaxation was slowest for the acetate derivatives as well. Conclusions: Water exchange dynamics and relaxivity can be predictably tuned by choice of donor atoms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据