4.3 Article

PET imaging detection of macrophages with a formyl peptide receptor antagonist

期刊

NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
卷 42, 期 4, 页码 381-386

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2014.12.001

关键词

PET imaging; Type 2 diabetes; Inflammation; Macrophage

资金

  1. NIH [DK097120]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Macrophages are a major inflammatory cell type involved in the development and progression of many important chronic inflammatory diseases. We previously found that apolipoprotein E-deficient (Apoe(-/-)) mice with the C57BL/6 (B6) background develop type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and accelerated atherosclerosis when fed a Western diet and that there are increased macrophage infiltrations in pancreatic islets and aorta. The formyl peptide receptor 1 (FPR1) is abundantly expressed on the surface of macrophages. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the applicability of cinnamoyl-F-(D)L-F-(D)L-F (cFLFLF), a natural FPR1 antagonist, to detection of macrophages in the pancreatic islets and aorta. Cu-64 labeled cFLFLF and F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) were administered to mice with or without T2DM. Diabetic mice showed an increased (18)FDG uptake in the subcutaneous fat compared with control mice, but pancreatic uptake was minimal for either group. In contrast, diabetic mice exhibited visually noticeable more cFLFLF-Cu-64 retention in pancreas and liver than control mice. The heart and pancreas isolated from diabetic mice contained more macrophages and showed stronger PET signals than those of control mice. Flow cytometry analysis revealed the presence of macrophages but not neutrophils in pancreatic islets. Real-time PCR analysis revealed much higher FPR1 expression in pancreatic islets of diabetic over control mice. Autoradiography and immunohistochemical analysis confirmed abundant FPR1 expression in atherosclerotic lesions. Thus, Cu-64-labeled cFLFLF peptide is a more effective PET agent for detecting macrophages compared to FDG. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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