4.3 Article

Radiosynthesis and evaluation of 11C-labeled diaryl-substituted imidazole and indole derivatives for mapping cyclooxygenase-2

期刊

BIOLOGICAL & PHARMACEUTICAL BULLETIN
卷 29, 期 10, 页码 2087-2094

出版社

PHARMACEUTICAL SOC JAPAN
DOI: 10.1248/bpb.29.2087

关键词

cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor; carbon-11; radiosynthesis; tissue distribution; P-glycoprotein

向作者/读者索取更多资源

C-11-Labeled analogs of 4-chloro-5-(3-fluoro-4-methoxyphenyl)-l-(4-methylsulfonylphenyl)imidazole ([C-11]1), 4-[4-chloro-5-(3-fluoro-4-methoxyphenyl)imidazol-1-yl]benzenesulfonamide ([C-11]2) and 2-(4-aminosulfonylphenyl)-3-(4-methoxyphenyl)indole ([C-11]3)), which have been shown to have excellent potency and high selectivity for cyclooxygenase isoform 2 (COX-2) inhibiting activity, were prepared and evaluated in rats as potential radiopharmaceuticals for imaging the COX-2 enzyme by positron emission tomography. These C-11-labeled COX 2 inhibitors were synthesized in high radiochemical yields by O-[C-11]methylation of phenolic precursors with [C-11]methyl triflate in acetone containing NaOH as a base. In vivo evaluation in rats bearing AH109A hepatoma showed no specific binding of any tracer to COX-2 in any tissue such as the brain, heart, lung, kidney, and AH109A hepatoma. In ex vivo autoradiography, [C-11]1 showed regionally different distribution in the brain, while [C-11]2 and [C-11]3 were not substantially taken up by the brain. In in vitro monolayer efflux assays, compound 3 was found to be a substrate for the P-glycoprotein (P-gp) efflux pump, but pretreatment of rats with the potent P-gp inhibitor, cyclosporine A, did not have any significant influence on the cerebral uptake of [C-11]3. These results indicate that all three tracers were not suitable for in vivo imaging of COX-2. There seem to be some obstacles to finding a useful candidate for in vivo imaging application of COX-2 selective inhibitors only by standard consideration of in vitro affinity and selectivity, and the lipophilicity of the compound.

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