4.6 Article

Comparative Assessment of Substrates and Activity Based Probes as Tools for Non-Invasive Optical Imaging of Cysteine Protease Activity

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 4, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006374

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [T32 CA009302] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCRR NIH HHS [U54 RR020843] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIBIB NIH HHS [R01 EB005011] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent advances in the field of non-invasive optical imaging have included the development of contrast agents that report on the activity of enzymatic targets associated with disease pathology. In particular, proteases have proven to be ideal targets for development of optical sensors for cancer. Recently developed contrast agents for protease activity include both small peptides and large polymer-based quenched fluorescent substrates as well as fluorescently labeled activity based probes (ABPs). While substrates produce a fluorescent signal as a result of processing by a protease, ABPs are retained at the site of proteolysis due to formation of a permanent covalent bond with the active site catalytic residue. Both methods have potential advantages and disadvantages yet a careful comparison of substrates and ABPs has not been performed. Here we present the results of a direct comparison of commercially available protease substrates with several recently described fluorescent ABPs in a mouse model of cancer. The results demonstrate that fluorescent ABPs show more rapid and selective uptake into tumors as well as overall brighter signals compared to substrate probes. These data suggest that the lack of signal amplification for an ABP is offset by the increased kinetics of tissue uptake and prolonged retention of the probes once bound to a protease target. Furthermore, fluorescent ABPs can be used as imaging reagents with similar or better results as the commercially available protease substrates.

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