4.5 Article

Effect of a second nitroimidazole redox centre on the accumulation of a hypoxia marker: Synthesis and in vitro evaluation of 99mTc-labeled bisnitroimidazole propylene amine oxime complexes

期刊

BIOORGANIC & MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY LETTERS
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 172-177

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2011.11.042

关键词

Bisnitroimidazole; Technetium-99m; Hypoxia; Cellular accumulation; PnAO

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [20771011, 21071010]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2006CB705700]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Up to now, most of the hypoxia markers contain only one nitroimidazole redox centre, such as Oxo[[3,3,9,9-tetramethyl-1-(2-nitro-1H-imidazol-1-yl)-4,8-diazaundecane-2,10-dione dioximato] (3-)-N, N', N '', N''']technetium (Tc-99m-1, BMS181321). Introducing a second nitroimidazole redox centre may enhance the hypoxic accumulation of the markers. In the present work, four Tc-99m-1 (BMS181321, containing one 2-nitroimidazole) analogues, that is, Tc-99m-2 (containing two 2-nitroimidazoles), Tc-99m-3 (containing one 4-nitroimidazole), Tc-99m-4 (containing two 4-nitroimidazoles) and Tc-99m-5 (containing both a 2-nitroimidazole and a 4-nitroimidazole) were synthesized, and the hypoxic accumulation was evaluated in vitro using murine sarcoma S180 cells. Tc-99m-3 and Tc-99m-4 displayed no significant anoxic/normoxic differentials, whereas Tc-99m-1 (BMS181321), Tc-99m-2 and Tc-99m-5 showed high anoxic cellular uptakes. The anoxic uptake of Tc-99m-2 reached up to 59.0 +/- 0.9% at 4 h, which was 2.4 times as that of Tc-99m-1. Tc-99m-2 displayed high hypoxic accumulation, indicating that introducing a second nitroimidazole redox centre, that is, 2-nitroimidazole, affected the hypoxic accumulation. Consequently, Tc-99m-2 may serve as a viable candidate for hypoxia marker. This finding may eventually lead to the development of compounds containing multi-redox centres as hypoxia markers. (C) 2011 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

4.5
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