4.7 Article

Synthesis, F-18 radiolabeling, and microPET evaluation of 3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-N-alkyl-N-fluoroalkyl-2,5-dimethylpyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidin-7-amines as ligands of the corticotropin-releasing factor type-1 (CRF1) receptor

期刊

BIOORGANIC & MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 23, 期 15, 页码 4286-4302

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bmc.2015.06.036

关键词

Corticotropin-releasing factor; CRF-1 receptor; PET imaging; F-18; Fluorine-18

资金

  1. NIH/NIMH [2U19 MH069056]
  2. NIH
  3. NSF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A series of 3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-N-alkyl-N-fluoroalkyl-2,5-dimethylpyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidin-7-amines were synthesized and evaluated as potential positron emission tomography (PET) tracers for the corticotropin-releasing factor type-1 (CRF1) receptor. Compounds 27, 28, 29, and 30 all displayed high binding affinity (<= 1.2 nM) to the CRF1 receptor when assessed by in vitro competition binding assays at 23 degrees C, whereas a decrease in affinity (>= 10-fold) was observed with compound 26. The logP(7.4) values of [F-18]26-[F-18] 29 were in the range of similar to 2.2-2.8 and microPET evaluation of [F-18]26-[F-18] 29 in an anesthetized male cynomolgus monkey demonstrated brain penetrance, but specific binding was not sufficient enough to differentiate regions of high CRF1 receptor density from regions of low CRF1 receptor density. Radioactivity uptake in the skull, and sphenoid bone and/or sphenoid sinus during studies with [F-18]28, [F-18]28-d(8), and [F-18]29 was attributed to a combination of [F-18]fluoride generated by metabolic defluorination of the radiotracer and binding of intact radiotracer to CRF1 receptors expressed on mast cells in the bone marrow. Uptake of [F-18]26 and [F-18]27 in the skull and sphenoid region was rapid but then steadily washed out which suggests that this behavior was the result of binding to CRF1 receptors expressed on mast cells in the bone marrow with no contribution from [F-18]fluoride. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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