4.7 Article

Synthesis of syn- and anti-1-amino-3-[18F]fluoromethyl-cyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid (FMACBC), potential PET ligands for tumor detection

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 45, 期 11, 页码 2250-2259

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jm010242p

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

syn- and anti-1-Amino-3-[F-18]fluoromethyl-cyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid (FMACBC, 16 and 17), analogues of anti-1-amino-3-[F-18]fluorocyclobutyl-1-carboxylic acid (FACBC), were prepared to evaluate the contributions of C-3 substitution and configuration on the uptake of these radiolabeled amino acids in a rodent model of brain tumors. Radiofluorinated targets [F-18]16 and [18F]17 were prepared by no-carrier-added radiofluorination from their corresponding methanesulfonyl esters 12 and 13, respectively, with decay-corrected radiochemical yields of 30% for [F-18]16 and 20% for [F-18]17. In amino acid transport assays performed in vitro using 9L gliosarcoma cells, both [F-18]16 and [F-18]17 were substrates for L type amino acid transport, while [F-18]17 but not [F-18]16 was a substrate for A type transport. Biodistribution studies in normal Fischer rats with [F-18]16 and [F-18]17 showed high uptake of radioactivity (>2.0% dose/g) in the pancreas while other tissues studied, including liver, heart, lung, kidney, blood, muscle, and testis, showed relatively low uptake of radioactivity (<1.0% dose/g). In rats implanted intracranially with 9L gliosarcoma cells, the retention of radioactivity in tumor tissue was high at 5, 60, and 120 min after intravenous injection of [F-18]16 and [F-18]17 while the uptake of radioactivity in brain tissue contralateral to the tumor remained low (<0.3% dose/g). Ratios of tumor uptake to normal brain uptake for [F-18]16 were 7.5:1, 7:1, and 5:1 at 5, 60, and 120 min, respectively, while for [18F]17 the ratios were 7.5:1, 9:1, and 9:1 at the same time points. This work demonstrates that like anti-[F-18]FACBC, [F-18]16 and [F-18]17 are excellent candidates for imaging brain tumors.

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