Fig. 1 Comparative in vitro evaluation of tumor targeting potential of 177Lu labeled conjugates 06, 07, 08 and 09 with PC-3 cells. Values and
standard deviations are the result of two independent experiments with triplicates in each experiment. (a) Rate of internalization; (b) cellular
retention.
increase in the tumor cell uptake. This is either due to bivalent
binding resulting in receptor dimers leading to an increased rate
of internalization or it may also be explained assuming mono-
valent binding and increased probability of rebinding after
dissociation. Both mechanisms may eventually result in in-
creased internalization rates.
3. (a) D. J. Kwekkeboom, J. J. Teunissen, W. H. Bakker, P. P. Kooij,
W. W. de Herder, R. A. Feelders, C. H. van Eijck, J. Esser,
B. L. Kam and E. P. Krenning, J. Clin. Oncol., 2005, 23, 2754;
(b) C. Waldherr, M. Pless, H. R. Maecke, A. Haldemann and
J. Mueller-Brand, Ann. Oncol., 2001, 12, 941.
4. (a) R. E. Weiner and M. L. Thakur, BioDrugs, 2005, 19, 145;
(b) C. J. Smith, W. A. Volkert and T. J. Hoffman, Nucl. Med.
Biol., 2005, 32, 733; (c) M. Behe and T. M. Behr, Biopolymers,
´ ´
2002, 66, 399.
For cellular retention studies, the radiopeptides were al-
lowed to internalize for 2 h; cells were then washed twice with
PBS and the receptor-bound ligands were removed by washing
with glycine buffer, pH 2.8. Cells were then incubated by
adding fresh medium and the radioactivity retained in the cell
after 10, 20, 30, 60, 120, and 240 min was measured. Fig. 1b
illustrates the cellular retention of these compounds over time,
expressed as the percentage of radioactivity left in the cell from
the total amount internalized. Within 4 h, 49% of 177Lu-06
and 56% of 177Lu-07 were externalized from the cell. Com-
paratively, divalent conjugates exhibit better cellular retention
(77% of 177Lu-08 and 72% of 177Lu-09 retained after 4 h).
In conclusion, the work demonstrates the synthesis of a new
DOTA-based prochelator for the facile divalent conjugation
of targeting biomolecules such as peptides. The improved
tumor targeting capabilities and enhanced relaxivities exhib-
ited by divalent bombesin analogues are highly promising for
the development of these divalent conjugates as potential
targeting probes, which could be employed as both targeted
MRI contrast agents and radiopharmaceuticals.
5. (a) B. A. Nock, A. Nikolopoulou, A. Galanis, P. Cordopatis,
B. Waser, J. C. Reubi and T. Maina, J. Med. Chem., 2005, 48, 100;
(b) H. Zhang, J. Chen, C. Waldherr, K. Hinni, B. Waser,
J. C. Reubi and H. R. Maecke, Cancer Res., 2004, 64, 6707.
6. (a) L. L. Kiessling, J. E. Gestwicki and L. E. Strong, Angew.
Chem., Int. Ed., 2006, 45, 2348; (b) J. Rao, J. Lahiri, L. Isaacs,
R. M. Weis and G. M. Whitesides, Science, 1998, 280, 708.
7. S. Liu, Mol. Pharm., 2006, 3, 472 and references therein.
8. (a) Z. Li, W. Cai, Q. Cao, K. Chen, Z. Wu, L. He and X. Chen,
J. Nucl. Med., 2007, 48, 1162; (b) I. Dijkgraaf, J. A. W. Kruijtzer,
S. Liu, A. C. Soede, W. J. G. Oyen, F. H. M. Corstens, R. M.
J. Liskamp and O. C. Boerman, Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging,
2007, 34, 267; (c) G. Thumshirn, U. Hersel, S. L. Goodman and
H. Kessler, Chem.–Eur. J., 2003, 9, 2717.
9. (a) R. Delgado, V. Fe
Trans., 2007, 2734; (b) L. M. De Leo
Bioconjugate Chem., 2008, 19, 391.
´
lix, L. M. P. Lima and D. W. Price, Dalton
´
n-Rodrıguez and Z. Kovacs,
´
10. (a) P. Caravan, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2006, 35, 512; (b) S. Aime,
C. Cabella, S. Colombatto, S. G. Crich, E. Gianolio and
F. Maggioni, J. Magn. Reson. Imaging, 2002, 16, 394; (c) The
Chemistry of Contrast Agents in Medical Magnetic Resonance
Imaging, ed. A. E. Merbach and E Toth, Wiley, New York, 2001.
11. H. R. Maecke, M. Hofmann and U. Haberkorn, J. Nucl. Med.,
2005, 46, 172S.
12. S. Pandya, J. Yu and D. Parker, Dalton Trans., 2006, 2757.
13. K. P. Eisenwiener, P. Powell and H. R. Maecke, Bioorg. Med.
Chem. Lett., 2000, 10, 2133.
14. Formation of six different stereoisomers were observed when
cyclen was functionalized tetravalently with racemic glutaric acid
derivative; M. Woods, S. Aime, M. Botta, J. A. K. Howard,
J. M. Moloney, M. Navet, D. Parker, M. Port and O. Rousseaux,
J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2000, 122, 9781.
KA thanks Prof. W. Steinbrich and the State Secretariat for
Education and Research (Nr. C07.0039) for research fellow-
ship. This work was performed within the Network of Ex-
cellence (EMIL) and the COST Action D38. HJ thanks the
Swiss National Science Foundation for financial support. The
analytical support provided by Novartis Pharma (Dieter Staab
and Kayhan G. Akyel) is also gratefully acknowledged.
15. P. G. Katsoyannis, D. T. Gish, G. P. Hess and V. D. Vigne, J. Am.
Chem. Soc., 1971, 80, 2558.
16. (a) D. A. Fulton, M. O. Halloran, D. Parker, K. Senanayake,
M. Botto and S. Aime, Chem. Commun., 2005, 474;
(b) D. A. Fulton, E. M. Elemento, S. Aime, L. Chaabane,
M. Botta and D. Parker, Chem. Commun., 2006, 1064.
17. M. Rohrer, H. Bauer, J. Mintorovitch, M. Requardt and
H. Weinmann, Invest. Radiol., 2005, 40, 715.
Notes and references
1. J. C. Reubi, Endocr. Rev., 2003, 24, 389.
2. (a) J. C. Reubi, H. R. Maecke and E. P. Krenning, J. Nucl. Med.,
2005, 46(Suppl 1), 67S; (b) A. Heppeler, S. Froidevaux, A. Eberle
and H. R. Maecke, Curr. Med. Chem., 2000, 7, 971.
ꢀc
This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2008
3250 | Chem. Commun., 2008, 3248–3250