4.5 Article

Selective contrast enhancement of individual Alzheimer's disease amyloid plaques using a polyamine and Gd-DOTA conjugated antibody fragment against fibrillar Aβ42 for magnetic resonance molecular imaging

期刊

PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH
卷 25, 期 8, 页码 1861-1872

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s11095-008-9600-9

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; amyloid plaques; antibody fragments; contrast agent; magnetic resonance imaging

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [G12 RR003020] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMHD NIH HHS [P20 MD006738, G12 MD007582] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NINDS NIH HHS [P30 NS057091, NS057091] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. The lack of an in vivo diagnostic test for AD has prompted the targeting of amyloid plaques with diagnostic imaging probes. We describe the development of a contrast agent (CA) for magnetic resonance microimaging that utilizes the F(ab')(2) fragment of a monoclonal antibody raised against fibrillar human A beta 42 Methods. This fragment is polyamine modified to enhance its BBB permeability and its ability to bind to amyloid plaques. It is also conjugated with a chelator and gadolinium for subsequent imaging of individual amyloid plaques Results. Pharmacokinetic studies demonstrated this I-125-CA has higher BBB permeability and lower accumulation in the liver and kidney than F(ab')(2) in WT mice. The CA retains its ability to bind A beta 40/42 monomers/fibrils and also binds to amyloid plaques in sections of AD mouse brain. Intravenous injection of I-125-CA into the AD mouse demonstrates targeting of amyloid plaques throughout the cortex/hippocampus as detected by emulsion autoradiography. Incubation of AD mouse brain slices in vitro with this CA resulted in selective enhancement on T-1-weighted spin-echo images, which co-register with individual plaques observed on spatially matched T-2-weighted spin-echo image Conclusions. Development of such a molecular probe is expected to open new avenues for the diagnosis of AD.

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

4.5
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