Onderzoeksoutput per jaar
Onderzoeksoutput per jaar
Lara García-Varela, Wejdan M Arif, David Vállez García, Takeharu Kakiuchi, Hiroyuki Ohba, Norihiro Harada, Tetsuro Tago, Philip H Elsinga, Hideo Tsukada, Nicola Antonio Colabufo, Rudi A J O Dierckx, Aren van Waarde, Jun Toyohara, Ronald Boellaard, Gert Luurtsema*
Onderzoeksoutput › Academic › peer review
[18F]MC225 has been developed as a weak substrate of P-glycoprotein (P-gp) aimed to measure changes in the P-gp function at the blood-brain barrier with positron emission tomography. This study evaluates [18F]MC225 kinetics in non-human primates and investigates the effect of both scan duration and P-gp inhibition. Three rhesus monkeys underwent two 91-min dynamic scans with blood sampling at baseline and after P-gp inhibition (8 mg/kg tariquidar). Data were analyzed using the 1-tissue compartment model (1-TCM) and 2-tissue compartment model (2-TCM) fits using metabolite-corrected plasma as the input function and for various scan durations (10, 20, 30, 60, and 91 min). The preferred model was chosen according to the Akaike information criterion and the standard errors (%) of the estimated parameters. For the 91-min scan duration, the influx constant K1 increased by 40.7% and the volume of distribution (VT) by 30.4% after P-gp inhibition, while the efflux constant k2 did not change significantly. Similar changes were found for all evaluated scan durations. K1 did not depend on scan duration (10 min - K1 = 0.2191 vs 91 min - K1 = 0.2258), while VT and k2 did. A scan duration of 10 min seems sufficient to properly evaluate the P-gp function using K1 obtained with 1-TCM. For the 91-min scan, VT and K1 can be estimated with a 2-TCM, and both parameters can be used to assess P-gp function.
Originele taal-2 | English |
---|---|
Pagina's (van-tot) | 3477-3486 |
Aantal pagina's | 10 |
Tijdschrift | Molecular pharmaceutics |
Volume | 17 |
Nummer van het tijdschrift | 9 |
Vroegere onlinedatum | 5-aug.-2020 |
DOI's | |
Status | Published - 8-sep.-2020 |
Onderzoeksoutput › Academic › peer review