4.6 Article

Quantitative analysis of [C-11]AZ10419369 binding to 5-HT1B receptors in human brain

期刊

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/jcbfm.2010.55

关键词

brain imaging; 5-HT; kinetic modeling; positron emission tomography; receptor imaging

资金

  1. AstraZeneca
  2. Swedish Science Council (VR) [09114]
  3. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel radioligand for positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of serotonin 5-HT1B receptors, [C-11]AZ10419369, has been recently described. In this study, the potential for quantitative analysis of [C-11]AZ10419369 binding to central 5-HT1B receptors was evaluated in human subjects. PET measurements were performed after injection of [C-11]AZ10419369 in 10 subjects. Data were analyzed with kinetic modeling and linear graphical analysis using the arterial plasma as input function, and with reference tissue models using cerebellar cortex as the reference region. Binding of [C-11]AZ10419369 was highest in pallidum, ventral striatum, and occipital cortex and lowest in cerebellum. The percentage of unchanged radioligand in plasma was 97% to 99%, indicating that no significant amounts of radioactive metabolites were formed during the time of analysis. Time-activity curves of [C-11]AZ10419369 could be described with both one-tissue compartment (1-TC) and two-tissue compartment (2-TC) models in the majority of subjects. The 2-TC model failed to deliver reasonable estimates of the kinetic parameters. However, stable estimates of binding potential (BPND) were obtained by constraining K-1/k(2) to the distribution volume obtained with the 1-TC model in the cerebellar cortex. BPND values estimated with reference tissue models were correlated with the corresponding values obtained with kinetic modeling. The findings support the use of reference tissue models in applied clinical studies with [C-11]AZ10419369. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism (2011) 31, 113-123; doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2010.55; published online 28 April 2010

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