Bernard-Gauthier Vadim, Bailey Justin J, Liu Zhibo, Wängler Björn, Wängler Carmen, Jurkschat Klaus, Perrin David M, Schirrmacher Ralf
Division of Oncological Imaging, Department of Oncology, University of Alberta , 11560 University Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 1Z2, Canada.
Laboratory of Molecular Imaging and Nanomedicine, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health , 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, United States.
Bioconjug Chem. 2016 Feb 17;27(2):267-79. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.5b00560. Epub 2015 Nov 25.
Unorthodox (18)F-labeling strategies not employing the formation of a carbon-(18)F bond are seldom found in radiochemistry. Historically, the formation of a boron- or silicon-(18)F bond has been introduced very early on into the repertoire of labeling chemistries, but is without translation into any clinical radiotracer besides inorganic B[(18)F]F4(-) for brain tumor diagnosis. For many decades these labeling methodologies were forgotten and have just recently been revived by a handful of researchers thinking outside the box. When breaking with established paradigms such as the inability to obtain labeled compounds of high specific activity via isotopic exchange or performing radiofluorination in aqueous media, the research community often reacts skeptically. In 2005 and 2006, two novel labeling methodologies were introduced into radiochemistry for positron emission tomography (PET) tracer development: RBF3(-) labeling reported by Perrin et al. and the SiFA methodology by Schirrmacher, Jurkschat, and Waengler et al. which is based on isotopic exchange (IE). Both labeling methodologies have been complemented by other noncanonical strategies to introduce (18)F into biomolecules of diagnostic importance, thus profoundly enriching the landscape of (18)F radiolabeling. B- and Si-based labeling strategies finally revealed that IE is a viable alternative to established and traditional radiochemistry with the advantage of simplifying both the labeling effort as well as the necessary purification of the radiotracer. Hence IE will be the focus of this contribution over other noncanonical labeling methods. Peptides for tumor imaging especially lend themselves favorably toward one-step labeling via IE, but small molecules have been described as well, taking advantage of these new approaches, and have been used successfully for brain imaging. This Review gives an account of both radiochemistries centered on boron and silicon, describing the very beginnings of their basic research, the path that led to optimization of their chemistries, and the first encouraging preclinical results paving the way to their clinical use. This side by side approach will give the reader the opportunity to follow the development of a new basic discovery into a clinically applicable radiotracer including all the hurdles that have had to be overcome.
在放射化学中,不采用碳 - (18)F键形成的非传统(18)F标记策略很少见。从历史上看,硼 - 或硅 - (18)F键的形成很早就被引入到标记化学方法中,但除了用于脑肿瘤诊断的无机B[(18)F]F4(-)外,没有转化为任何临床放射性示踪剂。几十年来,这些标记方法被遗忘,直到最近才有少数不拘常规的研究人员使其重新兴起。当打破诸如无法通过同位素交换获得高比活度标记化合物或在水性介质中进行放射性氟化等既定范式时,科学界往往持怀疑态度。2005年和2006年,两种新的标记方法被引入放射化学用于正电子发射断层扫描(PET)示踪剂开发:Perrin等人报道的RBF3(-)标记以及Schirrmacher、Jurkschat和Waengler等人基于同位素交换(IE)的SiFA方法。这两种标记方法都得到了其他非传统策略的补充,以将(18)F引入具有诊断重要性的生物分子中,从而极大地丰富了(18)F放射性标记的方法。基于硼和硅的标记策略最终表明,同位素交换是既定传统放射化学的一种可行替代方法,其优点是简化了标记工作以及放射性示踪剂的必要纯化过程。因此,与其他非传统标记方法相比,同位素交换将是本论文的重点。用于肿瘤成像的肽特别适合通过同位素交换进行一步标记,但也有小分子利用这些新方法进行了描述,并已成功用于脑成像。本综述介绍了以硼和硅为中心的两种放射化学,描述了它们基础研究的开端、化学方法优化的过程以及通向临床应用的首个令人鼓舞的临床前结果。这种并行的方法将使读者有机会了解一种新的基础发现如何发展成为临床适用的放射性示踪剂,包括所有必须克服的障碍。