4.7 Article

Rapid and Simple One-Step F-18 Labeling of Peptides

期刊

BIOCONJUGATE CHEMISTRY
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 422-428

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/bc100437q

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), National Institutes of Health (NIH)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Labeling biomolecules with F-18 is usually done through coupling with prosthetic groups, which requires several time-consuming radiosynthesis steps and therefore in low labeling yield. In this study, we designed a simple one-step F-18-labeling strategy to replace the conventional complex and the long process of multiple-step radiolabeling procedure. Both monomeric and dimeric cyclic RGD peptides were modified to contain 4-NO2-3-CF3 arene as precursors for direct 18F labeling. Binding of the two functionalized peptides to integrin alpha(v)beta(3) was tested in vitro using the MDA-MB-435 human breast cell line. The most promising functionalized peptide, the dimeric cyclic RGD, was further evaluated in vivo in an orthotopic MDA-MB-435 tumor xenograft model. The use of relatively low amount of precursor (similar to 0.5 mu mol) gave reasonable yield, ranging from 7 to 23% (decay corrected, calculated from the start of synthesis) after HPLC purification. Overall reaction time was 40 man, and the specific activity of the labeled peptide was high. Modification of RGD peptides did not significantly change the biological binding affinities of the modified peptides. Small animal PET and biodistribution studies revealed integrin specific tumor uptake and favorable biokinetics. We have developed a novel one-step F-18 radiolabeling strategy for peptides that contain a specific arene group, which shortens reaction time and labor significantly, requires low amount of precursor, and results in specific activity of 79 +/- 13 GBq/mu mol. Successful introduction of 4-fluoro-3-trifluoromethylbenzamide into RGD peptides may be a general strategy applicable to other biologically active peptides and proteins.

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